The Blessings and Burdens of Revival: George Jeffreys: A Revivalist, a Movement and a Crisis

From Pneuma Review Fall 2012

For British Pentecostals, the desire for revival and the unending search for its first signs are activities that have formed their prayers and shaped their activities during most of their twentieth century existence. Looking back and reconstructing historical events into potential future paradigms of revival, they have lived hoping for God to repeat his activities in Ulster in 1859, Wales in 1904 and the Hebrides in 1948. When these events have felt too distant chronologically, they have turned their attention overseas, Korea, Argentina, Colombia, wherever God seems to be doing more than he is in their own land. The ongoing search has led them to work harder, pray more fervently, support every religious endeavour and yet has ultimately led them to disappointment and, in some cases, disillusionment. However, history suggests that, at least on some occasions, when revival is encountered the consequences are not as glorious as one might have expected.

There was nothing new in the 1930s when there was talk of impending revival. The Sunday Chronicle under a banner headline, ‘Religion is reviving’,¹ reported that, ‘The greatest religious revival for many years is sweeping Britain and preparations are now being made to tend the thousands of converts who are expected to fill the Church during the autumn and winter’. For Pentecostals, they felt that this justified their yearnings for revival. In the Elim Pentecostal Churches, people pointed to the figure of George Jeffreys, their creator and figurehead, as proof of the vindication of their hopes. Revival had come amongst them and the future was clear. The church would enjoy the fruits of the revival before Christ would return for his bride.

This paper will examine the case of George Jeffreys as a revivalist, his development and self-understanding and the result of having a revivalist as a denominational leader. In 1940, George Jeffreys (1889-1962), the founder of the British Elim Pentecostal Churches, resigned after policy decisions he had desired to introduce into the Movement were rejected by the ministers within the denomination. He then instituted a rival denomination. George Jeffreys had been the supreme charismatic leader within Elim for 25 years.

George Jeffreys: His development and evangelistic success

George Jeffreys was born in 1889 in Maesteg, Wales and converted, aged 15 years, in November 1904, the year that the Welsh Revival began. His whole life and ministry would reflect the impact made on him by the Welsh Revival.

After supporting his brother, Stephen Jeffreys, in evangelistic campaigns in Swansea, he attracted the attention of Alexander Boddy, who had been at the centre of British Pentecostalism since 1908 and the publication of the magazine, Confidence. In 1913, Boddy went to Wales to visit the two brothers.² It was during this visit that he invited George to speak at the Sunderland Convention. It was Jeffreys’ task to preach the gospel each evening, after the other main speakers had delivered their addresses. Jeffreys had been catapulted into the midst of leaders who were older and vastly more experienced in ministry. This opportunity to take a major part in the meetings, which was a focal point for Pentecostalism, sealed his future. Firstly, it gave him a platform to attract the attention of Pentecostals who had gathered from all over Europe. Secondly, it placed him amongst the older leaders of the new Pentecostal Movement; it was obvious that his role would become more significant as the older generation continued to age. For Jeffreys, the fact that he, a young man from a poor family in South Wales, had been given the platform to speak to leaders from Europe was seen to be God’s commendation of his life and ministry. Thirdly, it was here that William Gillespie, an Irish Pentecostal, heard him preach and invited him to Ireland. As a result the Elim Evangelistic Band was launched, with the aim of evangelistic meetings being conducted and churches planted.

The years of 1914-34 were the years of Jeffreys’ remarkable success, where, almost without exception, every town and city he visited saw him conducting huge meetings. However, in 1934 he took the controversial step of ceasing to hold revival services with the intention of opening new churches around the country, preferring to revisit the churches he had previously established. This decision had a number of consequences. One was that he became more focussed on the organisational side of church life. He believed that the movement he had birthed had been shaped by his lieutenant, E.J. Phillips, into a system whereby the Spirit had been muzzled by clerical control. With the containing of the Spirit had come a loss of freedom. This concern for a loss of freedom coincided with an increasingly public row provoked by his support for British Israelism. The previously private debates developed into total estrangement between the charismatic leader and his administrative officer. By 1939, Elim’s Ministerial Conference had witnessed the undignified scenes of their leaders attempting to publicly demolish each other’s ministries and characters. By the following year, the estrangement was complete. The movement he had created voted against his ongoing leadership, leaving Jeffreys to publicly fulminate against that which he had brought into existence. He spent his last 22 years attacking the Elim movement for what he saw as their ‘Babylonish control’. The post-war years proved difficult for all evangelists, but the days of Jeffreys’ success had long gone.

However, the years 1924 through 1934 had seen him at the height of his success. The crowds who attended did not merely listen to Jeffreys, but responded to his message and the call to conversion. In 1928, the Daily News, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and Daily Herald all contained reports of the 1000 people baptised at the service held at the Royal Albert Hall on Easter Monday³. These baptisms reflected some of those who had come to faith during the provinces during the previous year. Churches were encouraged to wait for the Easter services for their converts to be baptised. The scale of the meetings attracted the national press, whose stories were syndicated to many of the provincial papers. For example, the 1928 baptismal service was reported in the Daily Herald, amongst other national papers, but appeared in at least 53 local papers, in addition to the Indian National Herald.

In 1929, 600 people professed conversion in the evangelistic campaign held in Brixton; of these, nearly 300 were baptised at the Elim Bible College, with 3,000 in attendance.⁴ The highlight of the following year was Jeffreys preaching in the Bingley Hall, Birmingham. This evangelistic campaign had begun in the 1200-seater Ebenezer Chapel, but out of necessity had moved to the 3,000-seater Town Hall. The services then moved to the Skating Rink, seating 8,000, until on Whit Monday the 15,000 capacity Bingley Hall was booked and filled.⁵ This was arguably the pinnacle of his British preaching career in terms of popularity. The number of reported converts from the 90 meetings held in Birmingham was in excess of 10,000.⁶ Brooks reported that in 1934-1935, 1400 people responded in York, 1500 in Brighton, 1500 in Dundee, 1200 in Nottingham, 2000 in Leeds, 3000 in Cardiff and 12,000 in a series of meetings held in Switzerland.⁷ This resulted in the number of Elim churches increasing from 15 in 1920 to 233 in 1937.

It is significant to put these figures into a context. Pentecostals were living at a time when they had high expectations of themselves and of God. There is an interesting comparison with another Elim minister, John Dyke, who was evangelising around that time. After a campaign in Merthyr, he sent the following statistics to Elim’s headquarters: 78 Commitment Cards had been received. Of these, 24 people were saved or attending regularly; 20 were definitely not saved; 11 had returned to other churches; 3 had moved away; 6 old people had found the distance too great; 1 had joined the Dowlais church; 9 were attending another church, they were ‘runabouts’; 4 were not traced. Dyke summed up the experience, ‘I think that this experience has been the most humiliating of my Christian life.’⁸ Hathaway agreed, ‘it is most unsatisfactory’.⁹ These figures would be expected, and even welcomed, in contemporary church missions. The expectations of the Pentecostals at that time were very high.

What did Jeffreys believe concerning revival?

Jeffreys’ views concerning revival were not the result of abstract theologising, but had been gained as a result of his own experiences as a young Christian. Having experienced the revival in Wales, Jeffreys longed to see Pentecostalism achieve similar results. Brooks wrote that it was apparent to everyone who heard him speak whether in private or in public, that Jeffreys was ‘indebted to the Welsh Revival not merely for his conversion but also for his dominating vision and passion for religious revival’.¹⁰

Although the Welsh Revival had begun to wane by 1906, Jeffreys joined his brother Stephen in attending midweek meetings led by William Hill at the home of Mr and Mrs Bedford, Bridgend Road, Cwmfelin. Hill, previously a Welsh Baptist pastor, had left the ministry after having been baptised in the Spirit.¹¹ There were many such groups that developed during this time. They called themselves ‘Children of the Revival’; they were people, deeply affected by the Revival, who longed for God to continue the work that they had witnessed in the previous years. Because some had been ostracised from their churches and chapels, they met to worship in homes.¹² Barratt designated these groups as the recipients of ‘the fresh glorious flow of Revival grace and power’ that the ‘older Christian communities … [had]…shut out’.¹³ Their meetings were flexible, free of traditional ecclesiastical organisation, and the believers were expectant, fervent and desirous of more of God’s blessing in their lives.¹⁴ These house meetings, in which the Jeffreys’ brothers were participants, became the natural loci for the later Pentecostal outpourings to find acceptance. Therefore, Jeffreys’ initial experience of church life was the extraordinary fervour of the Welsh Revival and its aftermath. This influenced his expectation of normal church life. His experience of revival was that it had spectacular effects upon all who encountered it; his experience of church life was dominated by a stress on organised spontaneity and a lack of clerical control.

Revival is a present reality rather than a future hope

Having been formed as the Elim Evangelistic Band by Jeffreys in the aftermath of the Welsh Revival, much of Elim’s early existence and aspiration revolved around revival.¹⁵ Jeffreys’ team that ministered with him was termed the ‘Revival Party’. Jeffreys believed that revival, having been inaugurated at Pentecost, should be experienced constantly by every Christian and church. He wrote, ‘The revival which the Church needs has arrived, and there will be no other.’¹⁶ He pointed to the ongoing life of the churches as evidence for this view; when holiness was taught, the fruit and the gifts of the Spirit manifested, obedience shown to Christ’s commands by individuals and prayers answered, these were evidences of revival. He argued, ‘We see no other pattern for revival in the New Testament, and the church or leader who rejects this is rejecting the answer to their own prayers for revival.’¹⁷

Jeffreys did not go into detail to expound his meaning. However, the significant point is that he believed he was the harbinger of revival and that the churches with which he was involved were experiencing revival. There was no need to pray for revival to come, it was present, evidenced by unexpectedly successful evangelistic endeavours. According to this understanding, Jeffreys could legitimately refer to his own large meetings as revivals. In reporting his evangelistic success, he was eager to indicate that this was not simply the work of a successful evangelist, it was revival. In an article in Confidence in 1913, Boddy quoted from a letter that Jeffreys sent him concerning services he was holding in South Wales. Jeffreys assured him that the scenes he was witnessing were those of ‘a real Apostolic Revival’.¹⁸

However, it became clear that all the pastors within Elim did not readily accept Jeffreys’ view of the immediacy of revival. Most did not see the same results in their evangelistic endeavour as Jeffreys did. Few had been as affected by the Welsh Revival and so, Jeffreys’ view notwithstanding, there were numerous articles written in the denomination’s official magazine, the Elim Evangel, discussing the cause and nature of revival, although few direct answers for its apparent absence were offered. So whilst Jeffreys was declaring that revival was present, many of his own constituency were attempting to define the concept of revival and explain the necessary pre-conditions in which revival would take place. One of the reasons for this difference in expectation resulted from Jeffreys’ understanding of the relationship between revival and successful evangelistic endeavour. He believed that when evangelistic meetings attracted large crowds with people professing conversion this was evidence of revival. This contrasted with the prevailing expectation that revival would be something greater and more embracing than regular evangelistic services. Lancaster, a significant figure in the denomination in the post-war period, explained this differentiation between successful evangelistic campaigns and revival.¹⁹ Revival was ‘a spontaneous movement of the Spirit of God, which transcends organised events and embraces whole communities, even nations, with an overwhelming sense of the presence of God, leading to deep conviction of sin and widespread conversions.’²⁰

He pointed out that the Welsh Revival remained a primary model for Elim’s expectations of what could happen in the future. The significant difference between Jeffreys and the other ministers in Elim was that Jeffreys saw no need to extend one’s hopes into the future, he believed he was seeing the same events in his ministry that had been witnessed during the Welsh Revival. Whilst Jeffreys continued to evangelise, declaring revival to be present, churches were acknowledging that they could not produce a revival in their own strength. Their emphasis centred on the preparations that could be made in prayer, so that the church would be ‘right with God’. Prayer was a key factor; that more churches had not seen revival was often assumed to be because of a lack of prayer.²¹

However, if revival did not happen after prayer had been offered and evangelism undertaken, church members could become discontented. It was thought that there must be a reason for the delay in revival. The options for this delay were limited. Since the presupposition was that God wanted the church to be in a state of revival, either the church was not what it should be or the pastor was somehow inadequate in his ministry. Whatever the reason for the delay, there was always a possibility that the people could become discouraged. Canty suggested that this failure to see revival materialise ultimately encouraged ministers to concentrate on their pastoral ministry, as opposed to an evangelistic one. The search for revival was too elusive, whereas, in comparison, the ongoing work of the pastorate was clearly defined.²²

This was a radical departure from Jeffreys’ own understanding that a church that was essentially healthy was already in a state of revival. For the majority of Elim pastors, however, revival had become a technical phrase, and something that, although longed for, was seen to be almost unattainable. Although this difference in the understanding of revival was a comparatively minor issue, it is significant that Jeffreys’ specific background had led him to certain expectations of church life, which were not replicated in the majority of churches.

Revival was not to equated with spiritual emotionalism

One of the eye-witnesses to the Welsh Revival wrote, ‘Three-fourths of the meeting consists of singing. No one uses a hymn book. No one gives out a hymn. The last person to control the meeting in any way is Mr. Evan Roberts. People pray and sing, give testimony; exhort as the Spirit moves them.’²³ This style of worship continued after the initial social impact of the Revival had waned. Indeed, impressions of Jeffreys’ early evangelistic services emphasised a similar spontaneity. An eyewitness account of services led by Jeffreys in 1913 stated, ‘The meetings are left perfectly free and open, and the Holy Spirit just seems to bear us along – prayers, singing and speaking all interspersed. No-one is asked to speak or sing. We all do as we are moved and yet there is no confusion, no extravagance.’²⁴

It was this abandonment of ecclesiastical organisation and liturgy that led some of the traditional denominations to set themselves against the new Pentecostal teaching.²⁵ However, discomfort at the excesses of early Pentecostal spirituality was not confined to those from traditional churches. Although George Jeffreys’ early services had appeared to be spontaneous and free from any control, he reacted against the form of spirituality that stressed spontaneity at the expense of order. In particular, early Elim reports of Jeffreys’ conducting of services sought to establish the credibility of Elim by stressing his emphasis on solemnity and orderliness. The Elim Evangel masthead eventually included the words, ‘It [Elim] condemns extravagance and fanaticism in every shape and form. It promulgates the old-time Gospel in old-time power.’²⁶

Jeffreys was clear-sighted in his understanding of the work of the Spirit, and was willing to stand against any emotional excesses. He recognised that the emphasis on emotionalism would not ensure successful evangelism and he became renowned for his commitment to order and dignity. McWhirter, one of Jeffreys’ early co-workers, wrote an article praising Jeffreys’ willingness to confront excesses. He contrasted Jeffreys’ policy in Elim with groups that concentrated on ‘power’, but actually ‘seldom got further than “a good time”’.²⁷ He claimed that Jeffreys demonstrated that ‘sound reason was not incompatible with the exposition of the Full Gospel, nor decency and order with the procedure of services. In fact he rescued the (Pentecostal) Movement from fanaticism’. As a result the Elim Movement had become widely known for its ‘sanity, solidity and service’. He concluded his laudatory piece by suggesting that Elim would be acknowledged ‘as the part of the Pentecostal Movement that led the way in sobering by doctrine and balancing by practice the greatest evangelising factor of the age’. The extent to which any of these statements may be accurate is not as important as the fact that this was the image that Elim had of themselves and wished to portray to others at this time.

In particular, a consistently cautious line in Elim was taken against evangelists deemed to be particularly controversial. For example, Elim was unhappy about some of the methods Smith Wigglesworth, a prominent Pentecostal evangelist and healer, employed in his services and for a time would not allow him to minister in the Elim churches because of this. In 1926, Boulton expressed his dismay that Wigglesworth had been invited to the Clapham church. He saw this as a ‘breach of the spirit of comradeship which should exist amongst us a band of workers’.²⁸ The concerns seem to have revolved around Wigglesworth’s style of ministry. At times, he required the minister of the church to repeat things he said. One minister called this practice, ‘absolutely tommyrot’.²⁹ They were also suspicious of his practice of ‘wholesale healing’, whereby all the sick were asked to stand and lay hands on themselves. When he prayed for the sick, he could be very rough; Gee observed, ‘very often he made people run up and down aisles, and even out into the street to “act” faith. His violent laying on of hands would almost send the seekers flying.’³⁰ For acceptance in Elim, all these methods had to be toned down. Henderson wrote, ‘We had a real good time but I believe if he is not properly warned (as I did) he would have carried on and frightened the people’.³¹

Being a Revivalist was a specific ministry

Throughout the period of the 1920s-1930s, George Jeffreys was the public face of Elim. He was the person that people came to hear, and, for most of this time, was the unifying factor behind the growth of the Movement. However, this meant that the Movement’s success was solely dependent on Jeffreys. From the earliest days Jeffreys encouraged this. In 1925, when some pastors suggested that they should be involved in healing campaigns, Jeffreys expressed concern about any multiplication of healing ministries. He explained that he was concerned lest the emphasis on healing that numerous healing evangelists would encourage would become detrimental to the work as a whole.³²

Theologically, Jeffreys defended his reluctance to allow others to be in a similar ministry to his own by differentiating sharply between the ministry of the evangelist and the pastor. He believed that healing was a sign that validated the evangelistic message and was a fulfilment of Mark 16:15-20, open to all, regardless of belief or moral standing. However, when the evangelist moved on and the ministry of the church began, as distinct from the evangelistic campaign, there were certain conditions applicable to those seeking healing: these included baptism, taking communion and being obedient to the Lord. If these conditions were not complied with, any benefits of healing would be lost.³³ Therefore, a logical conclusion of this position was that the pastor could not simply undertake the ministry of the evangelist. They had different gifts, different spheres of operation and subsequently different expectations of results. This may have stood behind his refusal to allow others to be involved in the itinerant healing ministry.

However, the more likely possibility is that Jeffreys was anxious lest his own opportunities were damaged by too many Elim evangelists and so his theological understanding of his gifts bolstered his belief in his unique position within the Movement.

The leaders in Elim had supported Jeffreys’ own desire for his prominent position within Elim since this had suited their desire for a cautious approach to be taken in regards to the use of spiritual gifts. However, when the arguments concerning his demands for changes in church government became prominent, the fact that he had received sole publicity within Elim resulted in the leaders’ suspicion that he would use his influence with the people to sway them to support his own views on British Israelism.

The effects of a successful revivalist on his denomination

The first and most obvious effect he had on the developing denomination was that his ministry proved to be the catalyst for the growth of many new churches. When the churches were growing and Jeffreys was in the flush of his success, this was good news for all the Pentecostals that were pleased to be associated with him. Ministers who followed him into the churches were pleased to be able to rely on Jeffreys’ ability to keep on drawing crowds to the churches. If a minister was struggling to maintain the growth of a church a few years after the initial evangelistic campaign, they knew that by calling on Jeffreys they would be able to restore the church numerically.

This association between church growth and Jeffreys was so strong that it came to be believed that he achieved this single-handedly. This became such a problem that when he left the denomination there was an attempt to reassess his contribution. The leaders recognised that if this did not happen they would be consigned to live with his abiding memory.

In 1942, one of Elim’s senior leaders, Hathaway, began to question the claims that Jeffreys had made for himself, and therefore, began to dismantle the mystique that had arisen around him. He wrote to Phillips enclosing a list of churches that Jeffreys had not opened.³⁴ These were churches others had opened or which had already been in existence before his campaigns. Phillips, from this information, estimated that only one in three churches had been founded by Jeffreys and suggested that Hathaway include this in the next Ministerial Circular.³⁵ That Phillips suggested this is interesting since it could indicate that Hathaway’s investigation had not been undertaken for general dissemination, but for his own interest. This would support the view that even even Jeffreys’ closest workers were undertaking a general reassessment. Hathaway demonstrated the perceived significance attached to this when he replied, ‘Pastor Brewster and I had quite a thrill when from memory I named well over 100 that I could think were not founded by George Jeffreys’.³⁶ This revision of history, and attempt to put Jeffreys’ influence in perspective, was necessary if Elim were to survive without him.

The consequences of a Revivalist becoming a Reformer

Jeffreys believed that he had been given a divine mandate for the reformation of the Movement in 1937, when he received the command to ‘set your house in order’. In his own mind, therefore, Jeffreys believed that he had to be obedient to all that God had told him, whatever the cost. Since he believed that headquarters was embroiled in ‘Babylonish control’ of churches, he was not able to rest from his fight for the freedom that he envisaged for the churches. For many, including those who had been the closest to Jeffreys, it was assumed that he was simply deluded in his assumption that God had spoken at all. McWhirter, a member of Jeffreys’ Revival Party, pointed out that his major success had been as an evangelist, and that this was the area in which God had particularly gifted him. It was when he directed his efforts to work as a Reformer that problems arose. He wrote, ‘When the Revivalist became a reformer of church order he lost his extraordinary power’.³⁷ Earlier, he pointed to the results of Jeffreys’ reformation as evidence of the fact that he had been mistaken, writing, ‘The bad fruits of his reformism is the evidence that he was not motivated by the Holy Spirit. What he called a vision was only an illusion. His delusion was embodied in Noel Brookes’ (sic) [book] “Fighting (sic) for the Faith and Freedom”.’³⁸ This view from one of the members of the Revival Party, emphasising the results of Jeffreys’ attempts at reformation was echoed in 1993 by J.T. Bradley. Reflecting on the split he wrote, ‘I have seen a Movement brought to the brink of destruction and only saved therefrom by men who adhered to the Word of God. Alas, when men and women get what they feel is a word from the Lord it seems impossible to convince them that they are mistaken.’³⁹

Conclusion

The narrative of Jeffreys’ relationship with Elim leads one to the conclusion that when the answer to people’s hopes and prayers for revival are found in an individual’s ministry, the outcome is far from that which was expected. No individual can carry the weight of their expectations, hopes and desires. The negative effects of Jeffreys’ role in Elim continued long after the positive ministry had ceased. Sometimes the awful truth is that we get what we pray for.

 

What can we learn from George Jeffreys?

What can church leaders from around the world learn as they look at the ministry of George Jeffreys?

The ministry of George Jeffreys is of real encouragement to church leaders on a number of levels:

• God takes people from inauspicious places and uses them for his purposes. Growing up in Maesteg, no one would have expected that Jeffreys would be noticed by crowds in Britain and continental Europe, and that thousands would give their lives to Christ through his ministry.
•  It is not enough to be engaged in evangelism. You have to ensure that converts can become part of churches that will nurture their new found faith. To do otherwise is to be short-sighted.
•  God uses flawed people. Jeffreys was not perfect. He could be unreasonable, insecure and confrontational. But he was still used to great effect.
•  God gifts flawed people but that doesn’t mean that their flaws do not matter. Jeffreys’ flaws limited his ministry and his effectiveness. Had he been more at ease with his own limitations he could have achieved so much more.
•  There is no one perfect church governmental system. It’s pointless trying to look for one.
•  Each of us have particular ministries. Try hard not to judge others on the basis of what God has called them to do.

PR

Notes

¹ “Religion is reviving”, Sunday Chronicle, 28 April 1931.

² The account of their first meeting was reported in Confidence, March 1913 (A.A. Boddy, “The Welsh Revivalists Revisited”, 47-49).

³ E.J. Phillips, ‘Coming of Age’ Address given at the Royal Albert Hall, Unpub. Notes, Donald Gee Centre, Mattersey, England.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ E. Coates, ‘The Nineteenth Century of Pentecost’, Elim Evangel, 23 May, 1930, 321f

⁶ D. Cartwright, The Great Evangelists, (Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering, 1986), 105.

⁷ N. Brooks, Fight for the Faith and Freedom, (London: Pattern Bookroom, n.d.), 28-32.

⁸ Letter, J.Dyke to W.G. Hathaway, 2 February 1937

⁹ Letter, W.G. Hathaway to J. Dyke, 5 February 1937

¹⁰ Brooke, 22.

¹¹ Cartwright, 6.

¹² W.G. Hathaway, Sound from Heaven, (London: Victory Press, 1947), 5-6.

¹³ T.B. Barratt in E.Evans, The Welsh Revival, (London: Evangelical Press, 1969), 196.

¹⁴ Hathaway (1947, 6) described the ‘Children of the Revival’ as being ‘unfettered by conventional customs’.

¹⁵ For a retrospective view see Editorial, “Revival”, Elim Evangel 1 July 1938, 410.

¹⁶ G. Jeffreys, Pentecostal Rays, (London: Elim Publishing Co., 1933), 227.

¹⁷ Ibid., 228

¹⁸ A.A. Boddy, “An Apostolic Welsh Revival”, Confidence, February 1913, 28.

¹⁹ Letter, J.Lancaster to author, 18 January 1994.

²⁰ George Canty, another veteran Pentecostal minister confirmed this view, ‘Now the idea of revival was not simply getting a lot of souls saved but the way it was done, that is to say that the power of God would descend, preaching would hardly be necessary and a whole area would be moved and people would be convicted.’ The model was the spontaneous revivals of the past and the dominant prayer of people was, ‘Lord, do it again’. (Interview with author, 24 May 1993).

²¹ J.F. Hardman, “Can we expect a revival in these days?” Elim Evangel, 6 January 1941, 8-9,12.

²² G. Canty, Interview

²³ W.T. Stead reported in D.M. Phillips, Evan Roberts: The Great Evangelist and His Work (London: Marshall Bros, 1906), 303.

²⁴ Boddy, 28.

²⁵ D Gee, Wind and Flame, (Croydon: Heath Press, 1967), 45, 53, 72-75

²⁶ “Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance”, Elim Evangel, 25 December, 1929, 547

²⁷ J. McWhirter, “Pentecost”, Elim Evangel, 2 March 1934, 136.

²⁸ Letter, E.C.W. Boulton to E.J. Phillips, 16 February 1926.

²⁹ Letter, W. Henderson to E.J. Phillips, 26 December 1928.

³⁰ D. Gee, These Men I Knew (Nottingham: Assemblies of God Publishing House, 1980), 90-91.

³¹ Letter, W. Henderson to E.J. Phillips, 6 December 1928.

³² Letter, G. Jeffreys to W. Henderson, 7 March 1925.

³³ Jeffreys, 1933, 233-234.

³⁴ Letter, W.G. Hathaway to E.J. Phillips, 30 December 1942.

³⁵ Letter, E.J. Phillips to W.G. Hathaway, 2 January 1943.

³⁶ Letter, W.G. Hathaway to E.J. Phillips, 5 January 1943.

³⁷ J. McWhirter, Every Barrier Swept Away, (Cardiff: Megiddo Press, 1983), 85.

³⁸ Letter, J. McWhirter to J. Du Plessis, 9 December 1975.

³⁹ Letter, J.T. Bradley to author, 12 May 1993.