F.F. Bosworth (1877-1958)

F.F. Bosworth (1877-1958) was a central figure in the Pentecostal movement of the early 20th century and the Post-World War II healing revival. His impact as a famous healing evangelist was unmistakable, and his book, Christ the Healer, remains a popular text on divine healing. Pentecostal church history would be incomplete without his story. One of the most prominent evangelists to serve as his protege was Tommy Lee “T.L.” Osborn (1923-2013), who became a world-renowned missionary evangelist and the famous author of the classic, Healing the Sick.

T.L. Osborn (1923-2013)

As I sought to learn more about Bosworth and his relationship with Osborn, I reached out to the one person who would know more about their time together than any other source. That person was Osborn’s daughter, Dr. LaDonna Osborn, who graciously took time out of her busy schedule to answer my questions about her father. The interview was conducted by email in February 2016. It presents questions and answers about the influence of Bosworth on the life and ministry of T.L. Osborn. Other topics include Osborn’s views on Spirit baptism and tongues as the initial evidence of the Spirit baptism.

Dr. LaDonna Oborn is a well-regarded Christian leader. She currently serves as president and CEO of Osborn Ministries International, the world missionary organization founded by her parents in 1949.  As noted on her webpage, “She is founder and overseer of the International Gospel Fellowship (of churches and ministries), which includes more than 60 ministries, over 1,000 churches in more than 50 nations globally.” For more information on her work, visit her official website: https://osborn.org/about/ladonna-osborn

Roscoe Barnes III, Ph.D.

ROSCOE BARNES III: Your father has been quoted as saying: “Old F. F. Bosworth used to share a lot of secrets with us.”  What are some of the secrets that Bosworth shared with him?

Dr. LaDonna Oborn

LADONNA OSBORN: My father did not go into great detail concerning what exactly F.F. Bosworth shared with he and my mother. From various general comments and reflections, I believe that Brother Bosworth was a great encouragement in the areas of faith and praying for the sick in mass. During many of the events that were organized by Gordon Lindsay, where various healing evangelists were present to preach and pray for the sick, he had Brother Bosworth teach in the mornings. This strategy was significant in helping people to understand the biblical validity of divine healing. This was especially true when Brother William Branham prayed for the sick. Because of his unique gift and style, G. Lindsay felt that people needed teaching so that their faith would be in the Word of God, rather than in a person. As I look back on this, I thank God for this wisdom. Brother Lindsay did much to facilitate the healing revival that was spreading across the States during the late 1940’s and 1950’s.

BARNES: In his book, Healing the Sick, your dad wrote that someone gave him a copy of Two Kinds of Faith by E. W. Kenyon. Who was the person that gave him this book and introduced him to Kenyon?

OSBORN: I do not remember my father ever saying who gave him the first Kenyon book.

BARNES: Did your father and mother ever speak in tongues in the way that is taught by classical Pentecostals? In other words, did either of them have the experience where they spoke in tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

OSBORN: My father was saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit in a Pentecostal revival meeting near his farm home in Oklahoma. He later traveled with a Pentecostal Church of God evangelist for three years (age 15-18). My mother was saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit in an Assembly of God church where she attended as a young girl. Both of my parents were saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit at the age of 12. Although we were out of the country most months of each year, we always had a home church in Tulsa. It was an Assembly of God church. Yes, both of my parents’ early spiritual experiences were in the classic Pentecostal context. Yes, they spoke in tongues, as was usual in the Pentecostal tradition.

BARNES: If they did speak in tongues, did they continue to do so or did they stop at a certain point?

OSBORN: Yes, my parents always spoke in tongues. My brother and I were raised in the classic Pentecostal tradition and I am proud to identify with those who understood the power of the Holy Spirit and the emphasis on witnessing of Christ with effectiveness.

BARNES: Is there a written record of their Spirit baptism? If not, can you provide a time frame for their experience?

OSBORN: I remember both of my parents telling the stories of their Spirit baptisms, but I’m not recalling if these details were included in their publications. Actually, I don’t remember additional details of their conversion either. Of course, within our family, we grew up hearing the stories of the dramatic changes that took place in their lives when they were born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit. I do recall that their Spirit baptisms were not on the same day as their conversions, but rather a few days after. So both would have been baptized in the Holy Spirit at the age go 12.

BARNES: In your father’s book, The Purpose of Pentecost, he did not advocate evidential tongues as is taught by classical Pentecostals. What exactly was his position on this topic?

OSBORN: My father wrote The Purpose of Pentecost during a time in which the issue of tongues was causing great division within the Body of Christ. The focus had shifted from the role of the Spirit-filled believer to witness of Christ, to a rather Pharisaical attitude of boasting of speaking in tongues while doing nothing with that divine equipping to fulfill the mission of Christ on the earth. My father wrote the book to re-focus believers on the priority of evangelism for every Spirit-filled believer. If you read this book again in the historical context in which it was written, you will see this clearly. When the need for that emphasis ended, we discontinued publishing that book.

BARNES: Who or what influenced his views on the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues? Was he in anyway influenced by F.F. Bosworth or E.W. Kenyon?

OSBORN: The views of my father and mother (and myself) on the Holy Spirit were influenced by the Pentecostal environments in which we were saved and also from the Scripture. It is normative for the New Testament Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to witness of Christ. I do not remember anything being said about Bosworth or Kenyon’s attitude regarding tongues. The influence of Bosworth was on the biblical foundation for divine healing; the influence of Kenyon was the redemptive work of Christ at the Cross. These redemptive truths were not understood so clearly prior to E.W. Kenyon’s teachings. Again, he made a great contribution to the Body of Christ at critical time.

BARNES: Many evangelists during your father’s time wrote about Bible prophecy, gifts of the Spirit, and other topics. However, it seems that your father focused on topics related only to salvation, healing, evangelism, and prosperity. Is this a true assessment of his writings? If so, why do you think he avoided other topics?

OSBORN: My father was an evangelist. Everything that he wrote and did was to bring people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. He did the work of an evangelist always in cooperation with the local churches, and he made it clear that it was their responsibility to teach new believers additional truths after their conversion. He never preached on the Holy Spirit, Bible prophecy, the gifts of the Spirit, or such other things that are important to the believer. He recognized that the gift of the evangelist is a gift to the Church. The gift of the pastor and teacher are also gifts to the Church. He was an evangelist and he fulfilled his part in bringing people to Jesus and directing them into local churches to receive guidance and further biblical instruction. Of course, he had personal views on every biblical topic. But his public ministry was evangelism.

I would say that a true assessment of his writings is that his life focus was to help people to see Jesus and to recognize that Jesus wanted to live in each of them in order to continue His work through them. That, in essence, was my father’s passion and all of his messages and writings reflect that. I would not say that he avoided any topic, but rather he was totally focused on the person, the work and the continuing ministry of Jesus Christ.

BARNES: How would you describe the level of influence that Bosworth had on your father’s ministry?

OSBORN: Brother Bosworth was on the scene during a very critical time, in the early healing movement in the United States. No doubt, he influenced all of the young healing evangelists and kept them focused on the Word of God as the final authority concerning God’s will to heal. His book, Christ the Healer, was likely the primer on the topic. There is no way to estimate the extent of his influence through his teachings, his example, and his encouragement of a new generation.

BARNES: William Branham once said that he introduced your father to Bosworth. He mentioned this in his sermon, “Faith,” which is posted here: http://www.williambranham.com/faith-56-0427/. Have you heard this story?

OSBORN: While I don’t remember this exactly, I do know that under Brother Lindsay’s influence, my father, Brother Branham, and Brother Bosworth were all involved in the same conventions.

BARNES: A friend of mine, Rev. Ryan Miller, shared a letter from your father in which he seems to suggest Bosworth encouraged him to write books. Do you know if your father offered such encouragement?

OSBORN: Yes, Bosworth encouraged my father to write. It was another man who edited my father’s first manuscripts and taught him how to write properly and also to read editing symbols. Of course, as you know, writing and publishing has long been a central passion of this ministry.

BARNES: Did your father attend Bosworth’s funeral in 1958?

OSBORN: I do not believe my father attended Bosworth’s funeral. During 1958, we were overseas in some of our historic crusades in East Africa.

PR

Kevin Williams responds to questions about the language used in the Second Temple and the role of the Bishop outside of the New Testament. This is part of a conversation that started with Henry Harbuck’s article, “What Bible Did Jesus Use?” and continued with “What Yeshua Quoted” by Kevin Williams. More recently, Henry Harbuck requested clarification in his letter, “Bishops, Aramaic, and the LXX.”

Brother Harbuck writes, “I must be wrong to have assumed for many years that the high priests spoke Aramaic.”

It is certainly difficult to glean what may or may not have been going on in the temple when Jesus and the disciples walked the earth. Most of what we have recorded by the Israelites came well after the temple was destroyed, and what language was used was so common and widespread they did not consider it important enough to record.

What I am about to suggest may not be a popular approach and not very academic, but let’s make an assumption based on what we actually do know. If today’s synagogue service is intended to be a mirror of the temple service, and it is, then I can tell you that the rituals are indeed conducted in Hebrew while the conversation and instruction would likely be in a local language. As a basis for my conclusion, there are two preeminent approaches to modern synagogue life: Ashkenazi and Sephardic, the first being more central and eastern European (German) based while the latter found its roots in Spain and Portugal. Both are considered authoritative in modern Judaism and while distinctly Jewish/Rabbinic they also share commonalities to the nations in which they are rooted. Their services are conducted in Hebrew though their conversations are in the commonly accepted tongue.

Interior of the Esnoga (Spanish and Portuguese synagogue) in Amsterdam. In the foreground is the bema, the reader’s platform (also known as the tebáh). In the background is the Torah ark (hekhál). Image: Joaotg by way of Wikimedia Commons.

A quick story: years ago in a Messianic Synagogue in Toledo, Ohio, we were holding regular Friday night services. The liturgy was in Hebrew based on the Ashkenazi tradition and many of the praise songs we sang were in both Hebrew and/or English. The discussions, as you might guess, were about Yeshua and were in English. On one particular evening we had a small group of visitors, Russian Jewish immigrants. They spoke no English. We spoke no Russian. It was interesting to say the least! But we could share the Hebrew liturgy, which they understood, and we discovered that we had one other shared tongue with one individual—Italian. So we went from Hebrew to English to Italian to Russian and back again. Without intending to, we upheld a long-standing synagogue tradition.

So we have established what we know about today. Looking ahead, I refer you to the Temple Institute in Jerusalem. They routinely practice and prepare for the next temple doing all that they can to reestablish the observances just as they were carried out 2,000 years ago. For them, biblical Hebrew is a sacred tongue and the role of the priesthood is to make clear distinctions between the sacred and the secular. I can guarantee you that they will not be speaking Greek. More than likely they will speak modern Hebrew rather than biblical Hebrew when not conducting liturgy.

The Church of God 73rd International General Assembly met in Orlando, Florida July 27-30, 2010. This biennial meeting is a significant event on the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) calendar. Among other things, during this time denominational leadership is nominated and elected and contemporary issues facing the organization are discussed, debated, and decided, first by recommendations from the General Council of Bishops (all male), then by ratification of the General Assembly proper (all registered delegates, clergy and laity, male and female, over sixteen years of age). During this assembly the issue of women in ministry was prominent – and discussion was passionate.

Tony Richie at the 2014 Society for Pentecostal Studies convention held in Springfield, Missouri.

Acts 2:17-18 clearly indicates that Spirit-filled women have an important place alongside Spirit-filled men in the ministry of a Pentecostal church. Unlike many other Evangelical groups, the Church of God, one of the oldest of the classical Pentecostal denominations, ardently affirms the place of women in ministry; but the Church of God has often struggled to define the specifics of that place, particularly in leadership functions. This ambiguity contributes to partial affirmations combined with partial reservations. Soon after the General Overseer (aka Presiding Bishop), Dr. Raymond Culpepper, made moving remarks about uniting and implementing the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) and the Great Commandment (Matt 22:37-40) and led the gathering in a significant time of concert prayer, the General Council session quickly moved into passionate and spirited debate on the agenda item, Women in Ministry, particularly on ordination of women as bishops. In the Church of God, bishops comprise the General Council with rights to debate and vote in session. Also, only bishops are eligible to serve in almost all elected or appointed positions. Presently, the Church of God ordains women as ministers with full rights to preach, to perform weddings and the sacraments, and to pastor churches but it does not allow women to be bishops.

The Moderator repeatedly found it necessary to remind the Council to be sensitive of the Council’s tone, decorum, and demeanor and to carefully weigh all remarks. Opinions on this issue were polarizing. It seemed everyone passionately desired to correctly interpret, apply, and embrace the truth found in Scripture. Those “against” ordaining women as bishops adamantly argued that a literal interpretation of Scripture allowed no room for any other view. They appear to fear compromise of biblical beliefs thereby undermining commitment to biblical inspiration and authority. However, speeches made by those “for” ordaining women as bishops included several leading biblical scholars and theologians as well as church historians. These seem convinced that careful exegesis of Scripture and awareness of Church of God history and the Pentecostal heritage provide a firm foundation for full partnership in ministry. In fact, some argued that the struggle about the role of women in the Church of God is itself indicative of doctrinal transition or departure from the denomination’s Holiness Pentecostal roots toward a more Baptistic theology and polity. On the one hand, opponents to the motion were apparently concerned that a “liberalizing” trend beginning with ordaining women bishops might lead to similar steps in the future regarding ordaining homosexuals and lesbians. Proponents of the motion emphatically denied any such perceived connections. On the other hand, proponents of the motion to ordain women as bishops repeatedly compared antagonists to 19th century Christian slaveholders in the southern United States prior to the Civil War – a connection that was also emphatically denied by their opponents. Though much of this discussion was about nomenclature, culture and context, the process required a simple “yes” or “no” response. The motion failed with a “no vote” of 62.52%. A bold attempt to reconsider the subject in the General Assembly session failed as well.

Otis L. Fisher, The Role of the Spirit in the World and Life: How God is Immanent in His Creation (Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2004), 159 pages.

Otis L. Fisher, associate pastor in Churchville, VA and graduate of Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, writing to a broad Christian audience has undertaken a greatly needed task—establishing a foundation for the role of the Holy Spirit in all of life. The book can be roughly divided into two parts. Chapters one through five focus on the role of the Spirit in areas other than the life of the Christian believer or the Church in general. Chapter three expresses this well as it develops a holistic understanding of creation and the material world in such a way that the Spirit is explained as centrally connected to the physical world. Fisher says, “The Spirit then is left as the energizing component by which all things come into existence” (p. 50). Chapter four, employing the natural sciences and physics, concludes with the assertion that the Spirit is “fundamental to the basis of the universe” (p. 63). In chapter five, “The Spirit in Animate and Human Life” elaborates on the concept of breath in conjunction with the Greek word pneuma and the Hebrew word ruach to develop the foundation for one’s utter dependence on the Spirit for the continuance of daily existence.

The second half of the book becomes problematic as issues more personal are addressed, i.e. the role of the Spirit in church life, salvation, sanctification, and the future. While the author demonstrates a strong grasp of the Scriptures throughout his book, he does not recognize the personal nature of the Spirit as a living, relational, and dynamic reality in the life of the believer and the Church as regularly seen in Acts and the Pauline epistles. A consistent explanation of the Spirit’s role by Fisher is, “It is through the Spirit that we know and experience God” (p. 117). While this sounds like a personal description of the Spirit’s activity, the author consistently applies such understanding in impersonal ways: a field force (p. 145), a process of spiritual growth (p. 119), vitality, courage, strength, and hope (p. 121). Even chapters eight and nine on sanctification continue to address the role of the Spirit in a fundamentally impersonal manner.

The Spirit’s activity is primarily described as a spiritual growth force or process that occurs in relation to one’s reading of and meditation on the Bible. Such linkage results in a rigidly static understanding of a Spirit-led life (i.e. the Spirit’s activity is primarily limited to times of reading and meditating on the Bible). However, the Scriptures are full of dynamic implications of Spirit-filled living for the Christian and the corporate Church. Some examples of dynamic Spirit-filled living can be seen through a Spirit-empowered prayer life either with or without tongues (Eph. 6:18), through a prophetic anointing where one hears the voice of the Lord via a quickening of the Spirit (Acts 15:28), or through a daily sense of comfort, encouragement, and counsel as Jesus described the role of the Spirit He was to send (John 14, 16).