Pentecostalism vs Assemblies of God: What’s the Difference?

What are the main beliefs shared by Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God?

Both Pentecostals and the AG affirm the doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit as a distinct experience subsequent to salvation. This baptism is seen as an empowerment for Christian service and witness, often accompanied by spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues(Mcgee, 2003, pp. 289–300). This shared belief in Spirit baptism creates a heightened expectation for divine intervention and supernatural manifestations in worship and daily life.

Another central tenet for both groups is the belief in divine healing. There is a strong emphasis on praying for the sick and expecting God to supernaturally heal in response to faith(Udok, 2022). This belief is not just theological but deeply experiential, shaping how adherents approach health, suffering, and medical care.

Both Pentecostals and the AG also share a fervent commitment to evangelism and world missions. The experience of Spirit baptism is seen as equipping believers for more effective witness, leading to a strong focus on spreading the gospel(Mcgee, 1988, pp. 427–437). This missiological emphasis has contributed to the rapid global growth of both movements.

In terms of soteriology, both groups generally hold to a Wesleyan-Arminian understanding of salvation, emphasizing human free will and the possibility of losing one’s salvation. This contrasts with the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security held by some other evangelical groups(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95).

Eschatologically, Pentecostals and the AG typically embrace a premillennial, often dispensationalist, view of the end times. This includes belief in the rapture of the church and a literal millennial reign of Christ(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95). This eschatological outlook often creates a sense of urgency in evangelism and holy living.

Both movements also share a high view of Scripture, affirming the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. While they may differ in some interpretations, there is a common commitment to biblical authority and literalism(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95).

From a psychological perspective, these shared beliefs create a cognitive framework that shapes the religious experience of adherents. The expectation of divine intervention and supernatural gifts can lead to heightened emotional states in worship and a greater openness to ecstatic experiences. The emphasis on personal holiness and the possibility of losing salvation may create both motivation for righteous living and potential anxiety about one’s spiritual state.

How did the Assemblies of God emerge from the broader Pentecostal movement?

The Pentecostal movement traces its roots to the Azusa Street Revival of 1906 in Los Angeles, led by William J. Seymour(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95). This revival was characterized by ecstatic spiritual experiences, particularly speaking in tongues (glossolalia), which was seen as evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The revival quickly spread, giving birth to various independent Pentecostal congregations and ministries across the United States and beyond.

In the early years, the Pentecostal movement was largely decentralized and diverse, with no formal denominational structures. But as the movement grew, there arose a need for greater organization, doctrinal clarity, and cooperation among Pentecostal ministers and churches(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95). It was in this context that the Assemblies of God was born.

In April 1914, about 300 Pentecostal ministers and laymen gathered in Hot Springs, Arkansas, for a general council. Their primary goals were to promote unity and doctrinal stability, establish legal standing for ministers, and coordinate missionary efforts(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95). This meeting led to the formal organization of the General Council of the Assemblies of God.

From a psychological perspective, this move towards organization can be seen as a response to the cognitive dissonance created by the tension between the spontaneous, Spirit-led ethos of early Pentecostalism and the practical needs of a growing movement. The formation of the AG represented an attempt to balance charismatic experience with institutional structure.

One of the key factors that distinguished the AG from some other Pentecostal groups was its stance on sanctification. While many early Pentecostals held to a Wesleyan view of entire sanctification as a distinct second work of grace, the AG adopted a more Reformed view, seeing sanctification as a progressive work(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95). This theological distinction helped shape the AG’s identity within the broader Pentecostal landscape.

Another crucial development in the early years of the AG was the adoption of the doctrine of initial physical evidence in 1918. This doctrine stated that speaking in tongues was the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit(Mcgee, 2003, pp. 289–300). While this belief was common among Pentecostals, its formal adoption as official doctrine helped solidify the AG’s Pentecostal identity.

The AG’s emergence was also influenced by racial dynamics within early Pentecostalism. While the Azusa Street Revival had been racially integrated, the formation of the AG was largely driven by white ministers(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95). This unfortunate racial division reflected broader societal issues and led to the development of separate African American Pentecostal denominations.

From its inception, the AG placed a strong emphasis on missions, reflecting the evangelistic fervor of the broader Pentecostal movement. This missiological focus contributed significantly to the rapid global expansion of the AG in the decades following its formation(Mcgee, 1988, pp. 427–437).

As the AG developed, it had to navigate the tension between maintaining its Pentecostal distinctives and engaging with the broader evangelical world. This led to ongoing debates about identity, as reflected in discussions about whether the AG should be considered “more than evangelical”(Mcgee, 2003, pp. 289–300).

The emergence of the Assemblies of God from the broader Pentecostal movement was a complex process shaped by theological, organizational, and sociocultural factors. It represented an attempt to institutionalize the Pentecostal experience while maintaining the movement’s emphasis on spiritual empowerment and evangelistic zeal. This process of emergence continues to shape the AG’s identity and practices to this day.

What are the key differences in worship styles between Pentecostal churches and the Assemblies of God?

When examining the worship styles of Pentecostal churches and the Assemblies of God (AG), there is major overlap, as the AG is part of the broader Pentecostal movement. But there are some nuanced differences that have developed over time, influenced by theological emphases, cultural factors, and organizational structures.

Both Pentecostal churches and the AG are known for their expressive, Spirit-led worship styles. This typically includes elements such as spontaneous prayer, raising of hands, dancing, and other physical expressions of worship(Udok, 2022). The emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit creates an expectation for divine manifestations during worship services.

One key feature of both Pentecostal and AG worship is the prominence of speaking in tongues (glossolalia). But there may be slight differences in how this practice is incorporated into corporate worship. In some independent Pentecostal churches, there might be a greater emphasis on corporate glossolalia, with extended periods of the congregation speaking in tongues together. The AG, while fully embracing the practice, may have a more structured approach, often emphasizing the need for interpretation of tongues in public settings, as per Pauline instructions in 1 Corinthians 14(Mbamalu, 2015, p. 9).

Music plays a central role in both Pentecostal and AG worship. Traditionally, both have been known for lively, participatory music with a focus on congregational singing. But in recent years, there has been a trend in many AG churches towards a more contemporary worship style, often adopting practices from the broader evangelical worship movement(Udok, 2022). This might include the use of professional-quality bands, sophisticated audio-visual technology, and a mix of contemporary worship songs and traditional hymns.

In terms of liturgical structure, both Pentecostal and AG services tend to be less formal than traditional liturgical churches. But AG churches may have a slightly more structured order of service compared to some independent Pentecostal churches. This could include designated times for different elements of worship, such as praise and worship, prayer, offering, and preaching(Mbamalu, 2015, p. 9).

The role of spiritual gifts in worship is another area where there might be subtle differences. While both Pentecostal and AG churches believe in the operation of spiritual gifts, AG churches may have a more systematized approach to their expression in corporate worship. This could include designated times for the exercise of gifts like prophecy or having established protocols for how gifts are to be used in the service(Mbamalu, 2015, p. 9).

Preaching styles can vary widely in both Pentecostal and AG churches, but there may be some general trends. Pentecostal preaching often emphasizes personal experience, testimony, and emotional appeal. While AG preaching may include these elements, there might be a greater emphasis on systematic biblical exposition, reflecting the denomination’s commitment to sound doctrine and ministerial training(Mogoane et al., 2023).

The observance of sacraments or ordinances is another area where there might be slight differences. Both Pentecostal and AG churches practice water baptism and communion, but AG churches may have more standardized practices across the denomination. For example, the AG officially practices open communion, while practices may vary more widely among independent Pentecostal churches(Mbamalu, 2015, p. 9).

From a psychological perspective, these worship styles are designed to create an immersive, emotionally engaging experience that reinforces religious beliefs and fosters a sense of divine encounter. The expressive nature of the worship can serve as a form of catharsis, allowing for the release of emotional tension. The emphasis on supernatural manifestations can create a heightened state of expectancy, potentially leading to experiences that reinforce faith.

These differences are not absolute, and there can be major variation within both Pentecostal and AG churches. Factors such as church size, cultural context, and leadership style can all influence worship practices. as the Pentecostal movement continues to evolve and engage with broader evangelical culture, worship styles in both Pentecostal and AG churches are continually adapting and changing.

While there are many similarities in worship styles between Pentecostal churches and the Assemblies of God, subtle differences may exist in the structure of services, the expression of spiritual gifts, preaching styles, and the incorporation of contemporary worship elements. These differences reflect the ongoing negotiation between maintaining Pentecostal distinctives and adapting to changing cultural contexts.

How do Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God view speaking in tongues?

Speaking in tongues, or glossolalia, is a central and defining feature of both Pentecostal and Assemblies of God (AG) theology and practice. But there are some nuanced differences in how these two groups view and emphasize this phenomenon.

For Pentecostals in general, speaking in tongues is seen as a vital sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This belief is rooted in the account of Pentecost in Acts 2, where the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other tongues(Musoni, 2014). Many Pentecostals view tongues as the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism, meaning that it is expected to accompany this experience(Mcgee, 2003, pp. 289–300).

The Assemblies of God, as a denomination within the broader Pentecostal movement, has formalized this belief in its official doctrine. In 1918, the AG adopted the doctrine of initial physical evidence, which states that speaking in tongues is the initial physical sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit(Mcgee, 2003, pp. 289–300). This doctrinal position has become a distinctive feature of AG theology and practice.

But not all Pentecostals hold to this strict view. Some Pentecostal groups, while emphasizing the importance of tongues, do not insist that it must accompany Spirit baptism in every case. For example, T.B. Barratt, an influential figure in European Pentecostalism, allowed for the possibility of Spirit baptism without glossolalia(Tongues & Obeng, 2014).

Both Pentecostals and the AG view speaking in tongues as having multiple functions. it is seen as a form of prayer and personal edification. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 about praying in the spirit is often cited to support this view(Mbamalu, 2015, p. 9). Second, tongues are viewed as a potential means of communication from God to the church when accompanied by interpretation. Third, in some cases, tongues are believed to be actual human languages unknown to the speaker, which could potentially be used in evangelism (although this is less commonly reported)(Musoni, 2014).

The AG, in particular, has developed a more systematic theology around the practice of tongues. They distinguish between the initial experience of tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism and the ongoing gift of tongues as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The former is expected of all Spirit-baptized believers, while the latter is seen as a spiritual gift that not all may possess(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95).

From a psychological perspective, the practice of speaking in tongues can be understood as a form of ecstatic religious experience. It often involves a state of altered consciousness and can produce feelings of euphoria, release, and divine connection. The belief in tongues as a sign of Spirit baptism can create a strong motivation for seekers to have this experience, potentially influencing the psychological and physiological conditions that facilitate glossolalia.

The emphasis on tongues has been a source of both unity and division within Pentecostalism. While it has been a unifying feature of Pentecostal identity, disagreements over its necessity and practice have also led to splits and the formation of new denominations(Senapatiratne, 2011, pp. 91–95).

In recent years, there has been some discussion within both Pentecostal circles and the AG about the role of tongues in contemporary church life. Some have questioned whether the strong emphasis on tongues as initial evidence might be a barrier to growth or acceptance in some contexts. This has led to ongoing theological reflection on how to maintain this distinctive belief while engaging with the broader Christian world(Mcgee, 2003, pp. 289–300).

It’s also important to recognize that the practice and emphasis on tongues can vary significantly between different cultural contexts. In some regions, particularly in the Global South where Pentecostalism has seen explosive growth, the practice of tongues remains a vibrant and central feature of church life. In other contexts, particularly in more secularized Western societies, there may be a tendency to downplay or reinterpret the role of tongues(Bargár, 2014, pp. 48–67).

While both Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God place a high value on speaking in tongues, the AG has taken a more formal doctrinal stance on its role as initial evidence of Spirit baptism. This phenomenon continues to be a defining feature of Pentecostal spirituality, shaping both individual religious experience and corporate worship practices. But its interpretation and emphasis continue to evolve as these movements engage with changing cultural contexts and theological challenges.

What are the differences in church structure and governance?

The church structure and governance of Pentecostal churches and the Assemblies of God (AG) share some similarities due to their common roots, but there are also major differences that reflect their distinct historical developments and theological emphases.

Pentecostal churches, broadly speaking, exhibit a wide range of governance structures. This diversity is partly due to the movement’s historical emphasis on the leading of the Holy Spirit and its initial resistance to formal denominational structures. Many independent Pentecostal churches operate with a congregational or semi-congregational model, where individual churches have a high degree of autonomy(Chitando & KudzaiBiri, 2013, pp. 34–50). In these cases, the local congregation often has major say in decision-making, including the selection of pastors and leaders.

Some Pentecostal churches, particularly those that have grown into larger networks or denominations, may have adopted more hierarchical structures. These can range from loose fellowships to more formalized episcopal systems. For example, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), while Pentecostal in theology, has a more centralized structure with bishops overseeing regions(Vaughan, 2015).

The Assemblies of God, on the other hand, has developed a more standardized governance structure across its global fellowship. The AG operates with a hybrid model that combines elements of congregational and presbyterian governance(Carew, 2009). At the local level, AG churches maintain a major degree of autonomy. They own their own properties, call their own pastors, and manage their own affairs. But they are also part of a larger organizational structure that provides support, accountability, and doctrinal oversight.

How do their approaches to evangelism and missions compare?

Both Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God share a deep commitment to evangelism and missions, seeing these as central to their calling as followers of Christ. But there are some nuances in their approaches.

Pentecostals broadly emphasize the power of the Holy Spirit in evangelism, often focusing on signs and wonders as a means of drawing people to faith. They believe strongly in the gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues, prophecy, and divine healing, as tools for spreading the Gospel. This charismatic approach to evangelism can be very dynamic and experiential.

The Assemblies of God, while also Pentecostal in nature, tends to have a more structured approach to missions and evangelism. They have developed extensive missionary networks and training programs. For instance, the Assemblies of God World Missions (AGWM) is a highly organized body that coordinates missionary efforts globally(Mcgee, 1986, pp. 166–170, 1988, pp. 427–437).

Both groups emphasize the importance of indigenous leadership and church planting. The Assemblies of God, in particular, has been noted for its application of indigenous church principles, believing this results in the planting of New Testament-style churches(Mcgee, 1988, pp. 427–437). This approach has contributed significantly to their growth in various parts of the world.

Another key aspect of both Pentecostal and Assemblies of God missions is the emphasis on holistic ministry. While proclaiming the Gospel remains central, there is often a strong focus on meeting practical needs through education, healthcare, and community development(Kachim, 2024, pp. 3–30; Onwuka, 2021).

In terms of evangelistic methods, both groups have embraced modern technologies and media. But the Assemblies of God, with its more centralized structure, has often been able to implement large-scale media strategies more systematically.

Both Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God share a passionate belief in the urgency of evangelism, driven by their eschatological beliefs about the imminent return of Christ. This sense of urgency fuels their missionary zeal and shapes their approaches to spreading the Gospel.

What are the differences in their teachings on prosperity and healing?

Broadly speaking, Pentecostalism has been associated with what is often called the “prosperity gospel” or “health and wealth” teachings. This perspective suggests that God desires for believers to be physically healthy and financially prosperous, and that these blessings can be accessed through faith(Butler, 2014). Some Pentecostal preachers emphasize that faithfulness to God ensures health and wealth in this lifetime(Butler, 2014).

But not all Pentecostals embrace this theology. There is major diversity within Pentecostalism, and many Pentecostal leaders and scholars have critiqued prosperity teachings as potentially distorting the Gospel message.

The Assemblies of God, while Pentecostal in its roots, has generally taken a more moderate stance on prosperity and healing. They affirm the reality of divine healing and God’s desire to bless His people, but they are typically more cautious about promising material prosperity or guaranteed physical healing(Poloma & Pendleton, 1989, p. 415).

The Assemblies of God’s official position acknowledges divine healing as part of the atonement, meaning that healing is available because of Christ’s work on the cross. But they also recognize that healing may not always occur in this life and that suffering can have redemptive purposes(Poloma & Pendleton, 1989, p. 415).

Regarding prosperity, the Assemblies of God tends to emphasize good stewardship and generosity rather than promises of wealth. They encourage believers to trust God for provision but also stress the importance of wise financial management and sacrificial giving.

Both Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God place a strong emphasis on faith and the power of prayer in relation to healing and provision. But the Assemblies of God generally seeks to balance this with a recognition of God’s sovereignty and the reality of ongoing suffering in the world.

How do Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God differ in their social and political engagement?

Traditionally, many Pentecostal groups, including the early Assemblies of God, were characterized as “apolitical” or focused primarily on spiritual matters rather than social and political issues(Muir, 2018, pp. 165–182). This stance was often rooted in eschatological beliefs about the imminent return of Christ and a desire to focus on evangelism and personal holiness.

But over time, both Pentecostals broadly and the Assemblies of God specifically have become more engaged in social and political spheres, albeit in different ways and to varying degrees.

Pentecostalism, being a diverse movement, shows a wide range of political engagement. In some contexts, particularly in the Global South, Pentecostal churches have become major social and political actors. For example, in many African countries, Pentecostal leaders have taken on prominent roles in addressing social issues and even in formal politics(Burgess, 2009, pp. 255–273; Daswani, 2019, pp. 323–340).

The Assemblies of God, as a more structured denomination, has developed a more formal approach to social and political engagement. They have official positions on various social issues and engage in advocacy efforts. But they generally maintain a stance of political neutrality as an organization, encouraging individual members to be engaged citizens while not endorsing specific parties or candidates(Muir, 2018, pp. 165–182).

One area where both Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God have been increasingly active is in social services and community development. Many churches run programs addressing poverty, education, healthcare, and other social needs(Musoni, 2013; Onwuka, 2021). This reflects a growing understanding of the holistic nature of the Gospel and the church’s role in society.

In terms of specific political stances, there is diversity within both Pentecostalism and the Assemblies of God. In the United States, for instance, many Pentecostals and Assemblies of God members have aligned with conservative political positions on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. But this is not universal, and there are also Pentecostal voices advocating for more progressive social policies(Espinosa, 2014).

Interestingly, the Assemblies of God has historically emphasized themes of racial reconciliation and internationalism, which have shaped their approach to social issues(Muir, 2018, pp. 165–182). This has sometimes led to positions that don’t neatly align with typical conservative or liberal political categories.

What did the early Church Fathers teach about the gifts of the Spirit that relate to Pentecostal and Assemblies of God beliefs?

The teachings of the early Church Fathers on the gifts of the Spirit provide an important historical context for understanding contemporary Pentecostal and Assemblies of God beliefs.

Many of the early Church Fathers affirmed the ongoing presence and operation of spiritual gifts in the life of the Church. For instance, Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) wrote about prophecy and healing as continuing realities in Christian communities. Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) also spoke of various charismatic gifts, including prophecy, healing, and even raising the dead, as active in the Church of his time.

But it’s crucial to understand that these early writers often interpreted spiritual gifts in ways that differ from modern Pentecostal perspectives. For example, while they affirmed the reality of speaking in tongues, they didn’t necessarily see it as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism, a doctrine important in classical Pentecostalism and the Assemblies of God.

The early Church Fathers generally saw spiritual gifts as tools for building up the Church and bearing witness to the Gospel, rather than primarily for personal edification. This aligns with the Assemblies of God’s emphasis on using spiritual gifts for ministry and mission(Mcgee, 1986, pp. 166–170, 1988, pp. 427–437).

Regarding healing, many early Church Fathers wrote about miraculous healings occurring in their communities. But they often emphasized these as signs of God’s power and mercy, rather than as guaranteed results of faith, which aligns more closely with the Assemblies of God’s balanced approach to divine healing(Poloma & Pendleton, 1989, p. 415).

As the Church became more institutionalized in the 3rd and 4th centuries, some Church Fathers began to view certain spiritual gifts, particularly those associated with prophecy and direct revelation, with more caution. This was partly in response to heretical movements that claimed special revelations.

The early Church Fathers’ teachings on the Holy Spirit’s role in empowering believers for witness and service resonate strongly with both Pentecostal and Assemblies of God beliefs. The emphasis on the Spirit’s work in sanctification and spiritual growth is another point of connection.

How do Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God differ in their training of ministers and leaders?

The approaches to training ministers and leaders in Pentecostal circles and the Assemblies of God reflect both shared values and distinct emphases, shaped by their respective histories and theological perspectives.

Pentecostalism, being a diverse movement, shows considerable variation in its approaches to ministerial training. Historically, many Pentecostal groups emphasized the importance of spiritual calling and gifting over formal education. This reflected a belief in the direct empowerment of the Holy Spirit and a desire to avoid what was sometimes seen as the “deadening” effect of academic theology(Resane, 2018, p. 11).

But over time, many Pentecostal denominations have developed more formal training programs. These often combine biblical and theological education with practical ministry skills and an emphasis on spiritual formation. The exact nature of these programs can vary widely, from short-term Bible institutes to accredited seminaries.

The Assemblies of God, while rooted in Pentecostal tradition, has generally placed a stronger emphasis on formal ministerial training from its early days. They recognized the need for well-equipped leaders who could effectively pastor churches and engage with theological and social issues(Resane, 2018, p. 11).

The Assemblies of God has developed a network of Bible colleges and seminaries to train their ministers. These institutions typically offer programs that combine academic study of the Bible, theology, and ministry practices with spiritual formation and practical experience. The curriculum often includes courses on Pentecostal history and theology, reflecting the denomination’s distinct identity(Masenya & Booyse, 2016, pp. 1–9).

One key difference is that the Assemblies of God has established more standardized requirements for ministerial credentials. While they still value spiritual calling and gifting, they also require specific educational qualifications for different levels of ministry credentials. This reflects a desire to ensure a consistent level of preparation among their ministers(Adamson, 2019).

Both Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God emphasize the importance of ongoing spiritual growth and practical ministry experience alongside formal education. Many training programs include mentoring components and opportunities for hands-on ministry.

In recent years, both groups have been grappling with how to adapt their training models to changing cultural contexts. This includes addressing issues like cultural diversity, social justice, and the challenges of ministry in a post-Christian society. The Assemblies of God, in particular, has been working to develop more community-responsive training models(Masenya & Booyse, 2016, pp. 1–9).

Another area of development has been in providing training for lay leaders and volunteers, recognizing that effective ministry involves equipping the whole church, not just professional clergy.

Approaches to ministerial training can vary significantly in different cultural contexts. In many parts of the Global South, where Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches are growing rapidly, there’s often a need to balance the demand for trained leaders with limited resources for formal education.

As we reflect on these approaches to ministerial training, let us remember that the ultimate goal is to equip God’s people for works of service, building up the body of Christ. May our training programs, whatever form they take, always seek to form leaders who are deeply rooted in Scripture, sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and prepared to serve God’s people with wisdom and compassion.