Zu Artikeldetails zurückkehren Sociohistorical Recommendations for the Reclassification of Pentecostalism in the Dewey Decimal Classification System
Sociohistorical Recommendations for the Reclassification of Pentecostalism

Sociohistorical Recommendations for the Reclassification of Pentecostalism in the Dewey Decimal Classification System1

Adam Stewart, Crandall University (Canada)

Zusammenfassung:

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird zum einen erläutert, wie die Pfingstbewegung in den neun gedruckten Ausgaben der Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation, die diesen Begriff im Register aufführen, jeweils behandelt wird – beginnend mit der 15. Auflage von 1951 bis zur jüngsten, der 23. Auflage von 2011. Es werden Probleme mit der Charakterisierung der Pfingstbewegung herausgearbeitet – insbesondere, dass sie als ein Amerika-zentriertes und rassisch homogenes Phänomen dargestellt wird. Dies verhindert eine soziohistorisch akkurate Repräsentation der Pfingstbewegung als einer geografisch und rassisch vielfältigen religiösen Tradition innerhalb von Bibliotheksbeständen, die nach der weltweit am meisten verbreiteten Klassifikation organisiert sind. Zum anderen werden Empfehlungen zur Reklassifikation der Pfingstbewegung in der Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation gegeben, die zu einer korrekteren soziohistorischen Repräsentation beitragen und dadurch auch den Zugang zur großen Bandbreite von Literatur über diese globale und diverse religiöse Tradition verbessern würden.

Summary:

The paper first explains the different ways that Pentecostalism is treated in the nine printed editions of the Dewey Decimal Classification system – from the fifteenth edition published in 1951 until the most recent twenty-third edition published in 2011 – that mention Pentecostalism in the index. The problems with the way that Pentecostalism is characterised are described – namely, as an Americentric and racially homogenous phenomenon. This prevents the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism as a geographically and racially diverse religious tradition within library collections organized according to what is the most widely used library classification system in the world. Secondly, recommendations are provided for the Dewey Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee regarding the reclassification of Pentecostalism that would contribute to a more accurate sociohistorical representation, and, ultimately, enhance access to the full range of materials published on this global and diverse religious tradition.

Citable Link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2019H1S42-59

Author identification: Stewart, Adam: ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2422-8689

Schlagwörter: Charismatische Bewegung; Klassifikation; Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation; Pfingstbewegung; Religiöse Diversität; Religion und Ethnizität

Keywords: Charismatic movement; Classification; Dewey Decimal Classification; Pentecostalism; Religious Diversity; Religion and Ethnicity

1. Introduction

Melvil Dewey published the first edition of his classification system in 1876 titled, A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloguing and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library (1876). This classification system – now known as Dewey Decimal Classification (hereafter, DDC) – has been continuously updated and expanded through twenty-three main printed editions – the most recent twenty-third edition having been published in 2011 – in addition to changes made to the online version of DDC known as WebDewey used by professional library cataloguers.2

DDC is the most widely used library classification system in the world, which means that it exerts considerable influence on the organization of library materials, and, by extension, the way in which library users in many different nations and languages learn about a wide variety of subjects. Contrary to popular belief, library collections are not objectively organized storehouses of knowledge, but, rather, socially constructed arrangements of materials that reflect cultural and social biases. By setting the parameters around what library materials are included and excluded on the shelves or in electronic databases under various subjects, DDC determines the range of materials that library users have access to, thereby significantly shaping their knowledge and opinions about these subjects.

In what follows, I do two things. First, I explain the different ways that Pentecostalism is treated in the nine editions of DDC – from the fifteenth edition published in 1951 until the most recent twenty-third edition published in 2011 – that mention some variant of the terms “Pentecostalism” or “Charismatic movement” in the index. I describe a number of problems with the way that Pentecostalism is characterised – namely, as an Americentric and racially homogenous phenomena – that, I argue, prevent the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism as a both geographically and racially diverse religious tradition within library collections that are organized according to DDC. Second, I provide recommendations intended for the Dewey Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee regarding the reclassification of Pentecostalism that, I believe, would contribute to the more accurate sociohistorical representation of Pentecostalism, and, ultimately, enhance access to the full range of materials published on this global and diverse religious tradition.

2. The Treatment of Pentecostalism in DDC

2.1. Pentecostalism in DDC 15: Ahistorical, Racially Homogenous, and Institutional Representations of Pentecostalism

The word “Pentecostal” first appeared in a DDC index in DDC 15, published in 1951, as part of the term “Pentecostal Assemblies” (DDC 15, p. 597).3 This is not surprising from a historical perspective, since Pentecostalism in both Canada and the United States began a protracted period of institu­tionalization following the Second World War that significantly increased general awareness about this religious tradition in both countries.4 The index entry for “Pentecostal Assemblies” directs cataloguers to the classification number 289.9. In this and all subsequent editions of DDC, the number “200” is used to classify materials on religion, the number “280” is used to further designate materials on specific denominations or sects5 within Christianity, the number “289” serves as a sort of catch-all for materials on “other” denominations that DDC editors do not believe deserve their own numbers at the 280 level alongside religious traditions such as Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other major Protestant denominations, and, finally, “289.9” is reserved for materials on the subject of a twice-othered subcategory of “other” denominations that DDC editors do not believe warrant their own numbers even at the 289 level alongside religious traditions such as, in DDC 15, for instance, Universalism, Mormonism, Swedenborgianism, Christian Science, Quakers, Anabaptists, and various Brethren traditions (DDC 15, p. 60). These divisions may be visualized this way:

200 for religion

280 for denominations

289 for other denominations

289.9 for other-other denominations.

If this sounds confusing, it is because it is confusing, even to a former professional cataloguer such as myself. Those denominations such as Pentecostalism that are classified at the 289.9 level since their first mention in DDC 15 published in 1951 all the way through to their most recent treatment in DDC 23 published in 2011, are the most marginalized religious traditions mentioned in DDC, so much so, that the editors believe that they need to be even further differentiated from those religious traditions already designated as “other.”

The instructions provided under 289.9 in DDC 15 read “Other Christian Sects” followed by “Includes Churches of God, Churches of Christ, Pentecostal Assemblies, Salvation Army, Spiritualists” (DDC 15, p. 60). In 1951, there existed a number of large Pentecostal denominations and their affiliated congregations that used the terms “Pentecostal” and/or “Assemblies” or “Assembly” (e.g., Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, Assemblies of God) as well as the terms “Church of God” or “Churches of God” (e.g., Church of God in Christ, Church of God [Cleveland, Tennessee]) in their names. Those library users interested in learning about these denominations, then, might reasonably expect materials relating to these denominations to be organized together. The same could not be said about the terms “Churches of Christ,” “Salvation Army,” and “Spiritualists,” which, at best, are most commonly used to refer to non-Pentecostal Christian denominations or, at worst, are too vague to meaningfully operationalize in a classification system.

I see four main problems preventing the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism in DDC 15. The first problem is caused by the decision to unevenly apply historical and quasi-sociological criteria to organize the various Christian denominations classified from numbers 281 to 289, which is not simply confusing, but also historically and sociologically inaccurate. When, for instance, one examines the organization of denominations classified under numbers 281 to 288, a clear historical structure is revealed. The number 281 is used for Orthodox and what are called other “Primitive” churches, 282 for Roman Catholicism, 283 for Anglicanism, 284 for mostly continental European and Scandinavian Protestantism, 285 for Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and other Reformed denominations, 286 for Baptists, 287 for Methodism, and 288 for Unitarianism (DDC 15, p. 57-59). The number 289, however, includes a wide variety of denominations (e.g., Universalism in 289.1, Mormonism in 289.3, Swedenborgianism in 289.4, Christian Science in 289.5, Quakers in 289.6, Anabaptists in 289.7, Shakers in 289.8, Churches of God, Churches of Christ, Pentecostal Assemblies, Salvation Army, and Spiritualists in 289.9, and various Brethren traditions in 289.92 and 289.93) that possess historical pedigrees as old or older than many of the other groups organized at the rest of the 280 level (DDC 15, p. 60). At the 289 level generally, and the 289.9 level specifically (which will be explained in more detail below), the historical rationale that is used to organize materials from numbers 281 to 288 is abandoned in favour of a more subjective, quasi-sociological rationale that, it could be argued, groups together less respected denominations, many of which are neither – from an historical point of view – any more recent, or – from a sociological point of view – any more sectarian, than many of the denominations classified in numbers 281 through 288. This calls into question the historical and sociological accuracy, as well as overall utility, of the 289 and 289.9 classification numbers in DDC 15.

The second problem preventing the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism in DDC 15 is caused by the lack of definitional clarity regarding precisely what denominations the editors of DDC 15 intended the terms “Churches of God,” “Churches of Christ,” “Pentecostal Assemblies,” “Salvation Army,” and “Spiritualists” to refer to. As was previously noted, the terms “Church of God” and “Churches of God” can refer to several large Pentecostal denominations and their affiliated congregations. However, these terms have also been used by dozens of Adventist, Anabaptist, Baptist, Black Hebrew, Brethren, Holiness, and Mormon traditions since the nineteenth century, which makes the use of the term “Churches of God” problematic to accurately capture materials relating to Pentecostal denominations using some variant of the terms “Church of God” or “Churches or God” in their names.6 It is entirely possible that the editors of DDC 15 did not intend the term “Churches of God” to refer to Pentecostal denominations such as the Church of God in Christ and the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), but, rather, to one of the other denominations known by this term, for instance, the non-Pentecostal Holiness denomination Church of God (Anderson, Indiana).7 The problem, however, is that – from DDC 15 until the most recent DDC 23 – cataloguers are given absolutely no indication about what denomination or denominations the term “Churches of God” is intended to apply to, which means that intermingled in 289.9 could be a rather wide variety of materials on the subjects of several both Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal denominations that use this term in their names.

The term “Church of Christ” is also problematic because of its general nomenclature, and is most frequently used by scholars of religion to refer to some variant of the non-Pentecostal Stone-Campbell tradition founded by Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell in Appalachia in the early 1800s.8 Interestingly, DDC 15 includes a discrete location in 286.6 in which to classify materials relating to the “Disciples of Christ,” “Cambellites,” and “Christians” (presumably referring to a group known as the Christian Churches or Churches of Christ), each terms used to describe different denominations within the broader Stone-Campbell tradition (DDC 15, p. 59). It seems, then, that it would have been more appropriate to have included the term “Church of Christ” in 286.6 rather than in 289.9.

The term “Pentecostal Assemblies” was most likely intended to refer to denominations such as the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and the Assemblies of God and their affiliated congregations. This term would very likely function well for capturing materials relating to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, but it might not be sufficient to signal to a cataloguer that materials on the “Assemblies of God” that do not somewhere also prominently feature the term “Pentecostal,” should be classified in 289.9. It is also unclear whether or not denominations containing a clear reference to the terms “Assemblies” or “Assembly” are the only ones to which this term was intended to refer, or if other Pentecostal denominations that do not use the terms “Assemblies” or “Assembly” to identify themselves are also intended to be captured here.

The term “Salvation Army” refers to a non-Pentecostal denomination founded by William and Catherine Booth in London’s East End in 1865, which similarly shares no more in common with the other four religious traditions included under this heading than it does with the dozens of other Protestant Christian denominations described elsewhere in DDC 15, except for the obvious fact that, like Pentecostalism, the editors did not believe that it deserved its own classification number at either the 280 or 289 levels.9

Finally, the term “Spiritualists” is not commonly used by scholars of religion to refer to a specific denomination, and so it is difficult to know exactly what denomination the editors of DDC 15 had in mind when choosing this term. One possibility might have been practitioners of African-American slave religion who utilized a genre of music known as “spirituals,”10 but it is clear that this is not the case since spirituals have their own number in DDC 15 in 784.756 (DDC 15, p. 387). Another possibility might have been practitioners of the Anglo-American new religious movement known as “spiritualism” involving communication with the dead that emerged around the mid-nineteenth century11, but, once again, DDC 15 gives this religious tradition its own number in 133.9 making this unlikely (DDC 15, p. 23). The editors of DDC 15, however, provide us with some insight regarding how they understood the imagined Christian denomination of “Spiritualists” as subordinated under the index term “Spiritualism” are found the terms “Occultism” directing cataloguers to 133.9 as one would expect, as well as “Christian sect” pointing to 289.9 (DDC 15, p. 635). This, perhaps, suggests that the editors of DDC 15 understood the term “Spiritualists” to refer to a Christian denomination containing what they thought to be beliefs or practices similar to those of Spiritualism, such as communication with spirits, whether they be human or divine in origin. Since, however, the term “Spiritualists” was not a term commonly used by either the practitioners or scholars of any known Christian denomination at the time, the inclusion of the term in the instructions for 289.9 in DDC 15 is more confusing than it is helpful.

To summarize, then, DDC 15 did not sufficiently delimit or operationalize the five terms “Churches of God,” “Churches of Christ,” “Pentecostal Assemblies,” “Salvation Army,” and “Spiritualists” to allow for the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism in 289.9, a location in DDC 15 that clearly functioned as somewhere to classify the least respectable religious traditions that were minimally important enough to identify in some way, but not important enough to identify accurately or precisely.

The third problem preventing the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism in DDC 15 is caused by the unequal treatment of the terms “Pentecostal Assemblies” and “Churches of God.” I have already briefly noted some of the inherent problems associated with primarily using these two terms to classify materials related to the broad array of Pentecostal denominations, but let us limit our purview for a moment to only those materials that contain unambiguous references to the terms “Pentecostal Assemblies” or “Churches of God” in order to consider how they might be treated differently in DDC 15.

Since DDC 15 includes the term “Pentecostal Assemblies” in its index and also introduces no other synonymous uses of this term, I think that it is reasonable to expect that all materials relating to Pentecostal denominations that contained the words “Pentecostal” and “Assemblies” or “Assembly” would be appropriately classified in 289.9. Since, however, DDC 15 does not include the term “Churches of God” in its index where it might redirect cataloguers to 289.9 where materials on other Pentecostal denominations are classed, and also includes the synonymous terms “Church of God” in 286.7, “Church of God in Christ” in 289.7, and “Church of God” in 289.92 to refer, respectively, to Adventist, Anabaptist, and Brethren denominations sharing similar names, it does not seem as likely that all (or even most) materials relating to Pentecostal denominations relating to the term “Churches of God” would be accurately classed in 289.9 (DDC 15, p. 503). In other words, unless materials relating to one of the Pentecostal denominations that used some version of the terms “Church of God” or “Churches of God” also contained a clear reference to the term “Pentecostal,” it could, at best, be classified in 286.7, 289.7, or 289.92 as relating, respectively, to an Adventist, Anabaptist, or Brethren denomination, or, at worst, be classified somewhere entirely differently since the index provides absolutely no mention of the term “Churches of God” – in either case rendering these materials inaccessible to library users wishing to access information on Pentecostalism.

The social implications of DDC 15’s unequal treatment of the terms “Pentecostal Assemblies” and “Churches of God” likely meant that those materials that corresponded to the mostly white adherents of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and the Assemblies of God – predominant in Canada and the American North and Midwest, respectively – were the most likely to be classified as relating to Pentecostalism in 289.9 and, therefore, accessed by library users. Conversely, those materials that corresponded to the mostly African-American adherents of the Church of God in Christ and mostly white adherents of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) – both predominant in the American South – were the least likely to be classified as relating to Pentecostalism in 289.9 and accessed by library users as such. For users of library collections classified according to DDC 15, then, Pentecostalism would have appeared to be a much more white and northern religious tradition than it otherwise was in reality, potentially marginalizing the African-American and southern expressions of Pentecostalism.

The final problem that I see preventing the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism in DDC 15 is caused by the fact that the only metric offered to cataloguers in DDC 15 through which to capture materials relating to Pentecostalism is that, not simply of denominations or congregations, but of largely North American denominations or congregations. DDC 15 provides absolutely no guidance for how cataloguers might classify materials relating to Pentecostalism that have nothing to do with an institutional manifestation of Pentecostalism, especially those lacking a discrete mention of the term “Pentecostal Assemblies.” Equally as problematic is the fact that DDC 15 limits its lens of what constitutes a Pentecostal denomination or congregation to those referencing some variation of the terms “Pentecostal Assemblies” or (possibly) “Churches of God,” which would exclude massive segments of Pentecostalism outside of North America.12 Presumably, the only time that Pentecostal materials not referencing a denomination or congregation that also makes mention of the terms “Pentecostal Assemblies” or “Churches of God” would be classified in 289.9, would be in the very rare circumstance when a cataloguer happened to possess the degree of knowledge regarding Pentecostalism required to make this determination on their own. What this most likely meant was that by instructing cataloguers to delimit materials relating to Pentecostalism by using the metric of the terms “Pentecostal Assemblies” and (again, possibly) “Churches of God,” DDC 15 would have excluded a great number of materials originating from outside of Canada and the United States, further contributing to the whitewashing of Pentecostalism for library users.

2.2. Pentecostalism in DDC 16, 17, and 18: Expanded Suggestions for Classification and Continued Biases

DDC 16, published in 1958, added the descriptor “Christian church” after the index term “Pentecostal Assemblies” and continued to exclude the term “Churches of God” from its index (DDC 16, vol. 2, p. 2074, 1583). DDC 16 also removed any mention of the five terms “Churches of God,” “Churches of Christ,” “Pentecostal Assemblies,” “Salvation Army” and “Spiritualists” previously included in the instructions under 289.9 in DDC 15. The new instructions read, rather curiously, “Sects not otherwise provided for” followed by “Including New Thought [formerly †131.324, *131.32]” and “Arrange alphabetically by denomination or sect” (DDC 16, vol. 1, p. 205). The reason that this is interesting, is due to the fact that DDC 16 – like DDC 15 before it – reserved the number 289.2 for any denominations that had not otherwise been assigned their own number, now making 289.9 redundant. Without additional information, it is difficult to know for certain the rationale that informed the decision to remove more specific instructions in 289.9, however, it is clear that the editors of DDC 16 were not exactly sure what Pentecostalism was, except – perhaps due to its emphasis on ecstatic religious experiences such as divine healing – that it shared something in common with Phineas Quimby’s mid-nineteenth century, non-theistic New Thought movement, which taught that human thought was capable of healing the human body.13 The decision to remove the term “Churches of God” from the instructions under 289.9 would have made it even more likely than was the case in DDC 15 that library collections arranged according to DDC 16 would have been biased in favour of the more white, Canadian and northern American Pentecostal denominations than their African-American and southern counterparts.

DDC 17, published in 1965, removed the index term “Pentecostal Assemblies” as an independent term altogether, instead redirecting cataloguers to the broader term “Recent Christian sects” and the number 289.9, but, for the first time, included the term “Churches of God” in its index where it similarly pointed to the term “Recent Christian sects” (DDC 17, vol. 2, p. 1931, 1627). The instructions provided in DDC 17 under 289.9 revert to the basic format followed in DDC 15 by reinserting specific examples of denominations including “Assemblies of God,” “Churches of God,” “Church of the Nazarene,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” “Pentecostal Assemblies,” “New Thought,” “United Brethren,” and “Unity School of Christianity,” with a note explaining, “For Salvation Army, see 267.15” (DDC 17, vol. 1, p. 245). The Salvation Army had, apparently, achieved the requisite degree of respectability among the editors of DDC 17 to be removed from the collection of twice-othered religious traditions classed in 289.9. When compared with DDC 15, the instructions given under 289.9 in DDC 17 removed “Churches of Christ,” “Salvation Army,” and “Spiritualists,” and added “Assemblies of God,” “Church of the Nazarene,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” “New Thought,” “United Brethren,” and “Unity School of Christianity.”

As was previously noted regarding the problems associated with the imprecision of the terminology used in DDC 15 to describe denominations in the instructions for 289.9, the continuation of this practice in DDC 17 similarly did not contribute to a sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism. It was not always clear, for instance, which specific denominations were being referred to by the use of these terms, and those few denominations that were easily identified did not share very much in common with one another except that – with the exception of New Thought and possibly Jehovah’s Witnesses – they referred to Christian Protestant denominations. Furthermore, while adding the term “Assemblies of God” allowed materials relating to this specific denomination to be more accurately classified in 289.9, it, nonetheless, would have exacerbated the overrepresentation of materials relating to white, Canadian and northern American Pentecostal denominations since no equivalently specific terms were added to also represent African-American and southern Pentecostal denominations such as the Church of God in Christ and the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee).

Despite these continuing problems that limited access to the full range of available materials on Pentecostalism, DDC 17 did, however, begin a trend of increasing the number of available classification numbers under which materials relating to those denominations identified in 289.9 could be classed. Under the index entry for “Recent Christian sects,” for instance, DDC 17 directs cataloguers to also see the index term “Church buildings,” where they are given the option to further delimit materials relating to any one of the eight denominations listed in 289.9 under the classification numbers for architecture, construction, housekeeping, and interior decoration (DDC 17, vol. 2, p. 1989, 1627, 2012; vol. 1, p. 210). In total, then, DDC 17 permitted cataloguers to classify materials relating to Pentecostalism – although imprecisely and intermingled with materials relating to several other denominations – under five different classification numbers.

DDC 18, published in 1971, like DDC 17, does not provide “Pentecostal Assemblies” with its own index term, but instead redirects cataloguers – like it does for the index entry for “Churches of God” – to the term “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” and number 289.9 (DDC 18, vol. 3, p. 2306, 1805). The instructions given under 289.9 also remain largely unchanged from DDC 17 except for the decision to separate the more general term “United Brethren” into two more specific denominations, the “Evangelical United Brethren Church” and “United Brethren in Christ” (DDC 18, vol. 2, p. 584). DDC 18 also expanded the number of available subjects – from four in DDC 17 to twenty-eight in DDC 18 – where cataloguers could class materials relating to those denominations listed in the instructions for “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” in 289.9, thereby increasing the total number of locations where these materials could be classed in DDC 18 to twenty-nine (DDC 18, vol. 2, p. 2211).

2.3. Pentecostalism in DDC 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23: Improvements and Continuing Challenges

The treatment of Pentecostalism in DDC 19, published in 1979, makes a significant departure from the way that it was treated in DDC 15, 16, 17, and 18. Instead of only a single entry for “Pentecostal Assemblies” in DDC 15 and 16 – a term which redirected cataloguers to the terms “Recent Christian sects” in DDC 17 and “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” in DDC 18 – DDC 19’s index provided cataloguers with seven recommendations for classifying Pentecostal materials. In DDC 19, “Pentecostal Assemblies” were given their own distinct number in 289.94 where, for the first time in DDC, Pentecostal materials could be classified separately from those relating to the twice-othered religious denominations lumped into the amorphous and unstable list in 289.9. Specific Pentecostal denominations could also continue to be classified in 289.9 as “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” where the instructions provided the following five examples, “Assemblies of God,” “Churches of God,” “Church of the Nazarene,” “Evangelical United Brethren Church,” and “United Brethren in Christ” (DDC 19, vol. 3, p. 792; vol. 2, p. 171).

Also for the first time, DDC 19 provided an index entry for the term “Pentecostalism” under which are found five suggestions for classification. Cataloguers are directed to classify materials on Pentecostal theology under “Christian theology” in either 230.9 as relating to “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” or in 230.94 as relating to “Pentecostal Assemblies,” materials on Pentecostalism as a movement within the broader history of Christianity under “20th century, 1900-” in 270.82, materials on “spiritual renewal” in 269.4, and materials on “Gifts of the Holy Spirit” in 234.12, which, in its instructions, explicitly mentions Pentecostalism’s single most distinguishing theological and ritual feature, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” (DDC 19, vol. 3, p. 792; vol. 2, p. 112-113, 154-155, 118).

The number of available subjects where cataloguers could class materials relating to “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” was reduced from twenty-eight to twenty-seven in DDC 19, however, the addition of six recommendations under the index terms “Pentecostal Assemblies” and “Pentecostalism” meant that cataloguers now had access to thirty-three – rather than twenty-nine in DDC 18 – numbers in total under which to class Pentecostal materials (DDC 19, vol. 3, p. 679).

It is also important to note that, for the first time, DDC 19 included index entries for the terms “Charismatic gifts” and “Charismatic movement,” directing cataloguers to 234.12-234.13 and 270.82, respectively (DDC 19, vol. 3, p. 183). This meant that materials containing some reference to the Charismatic movement could – from DDC 19 until the current DDC 23 – be organized together with those relating more explicitly to Pentecostalism as a movement within twentieth century Christian history.

It is possible that the substantial changes made to the representation of Pentecostalism in DDC 19 – particularly the creation of an independent classification number in 289.94, the creation of an index entry for “Charismatic movement,” and the expansion of suggestions for classification not subordinated under the index term “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” – were due to the fact that, by the 1970s, Pentecostalism had – through both the substantial growth experienced within traditional Pentecostal denominations and the growth of the Charismatic movement – become an important, and less stigmatized, feature of the North American religious landscape.14

These improvements notwithstanding, the representation of Pentecostalism in DDC 19 continued to contain a number of sociohistorical problems that diminished access to some Pentecostal materials. The ambiguity, for instance, regarding what differentiated “Pentecostal Assemblies” in 289.94 from the Pentecostal denomination “Assemblies of God” and those Pentecostal denominations that might be designated as “Churches of God” identified in 289.9, is unclear. Does the term “Pentecostal Assemblies” refer to individual Pentecostal congregations regardless of their nomenclature, or, alternatively, to denominations and congregations explicitly containing the term “Pentecostal Assemblies” in their names? Are materials that only relate specifically to the Assemblies of God and Churches of God as denominations to be classified in 289.9 and materials relating to congregations affiliated with these denominations to be classified in 289.94? Also, just exactly what denominations did the editors of DDC 19 intend to refer to by the use of the ambiguous term “Churches of God?” As in previous editions of DDC, these types of questions are left entirely unresolved for cataloguers, which would have certainly resulted in inconsistent classification practices across different library collections.

As previously noted, DDC 19 permits, for the first time, materials relating to Pentecostalism as a movement within the broader history of Christianity to be classed in 270.82. The instructions in 270.82 read “Class here ecumenical, pentecostal, charismatic movements” (DDC 19, vol. 2, p. 155). This is interesting for at least two reasons. First, and on a positive note, the editors of DDC 19 appear to have conceptualized Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement positively rather than negatively – which was not always the case in Canada and the United States at that time – evidenced by their decision to group Pentecostalism with the more positively viewed Ecumenical movement. Second, and more problematically, DDC 19 limits the origins of Pentecostalism to the year 1900, given that the temporal purview of all materials classed in 270.82 are strictly confined to the twentieth century. This may seem like a relatively minor detail. However, attempts to isolate the origins of Pentecostalism sometime between 1900 and 1906 have been used by some, largely American, both adherents and scholars of Pentecostalism, to argue for the monogenetic, Americentric origins of Pentecostalism. This practice has had the effect of marginalizing the experiences of Pentecostal adherents, as well as the contributions of scholars of Pentecostalism, originating from outside of the United States where a strictly twentieth century and American origination narrative is highly contested.15

Adam Stewart elaborates on this in more detail: “Although many scholars and adherents of Pentecostalism, particularly in the United States, purport that Pentecostalism originated in the United States usually somewhere between 1900 and 1906, this view is strongly contested by both scholars and adherents of Pentecostalism outside of the United States who recognize multiple points of origination – or at least foundational antecedents – both within and without the United States, several of which predate 1900. Forcing works on Pentecostalism to be classified according to this historical scheme is not only ahistorical, but also serves to perpetuate an Americentric bias within the field sharing close associations with early twentieth century American racism and imperialism that serves to margin­alize the experiences of the vast majority of Pentecostals that reside outside of the United States.”16

To summarize, DDC 19 makes some substantial improvements to the number of available options for classifying Pentecostal materials. At the same time, DDC 19 continues to perpetuate some of the problems contained in DDC 15 to 18, such as demonstrating a lack of definitional precision in the use of terms selected to describe Pentecostalism and a preference for materials relating to white, Canadian and northern American Pentecostal denominations and institutional norms. DDC 19 also introduces the new problem of restricting Pentecostal origins to no earlier than 1900, which would marginalize materials not conforming to this strict timeline as well as some of those focusing on Pentecostalism outside of the United States. These shortcomings continued to pose a challenge for the sociohistorically accurate representation of Pentecostalism, and, by extension, the provision of access to the full range of materials relating to this diverse religious tradition.

DDC 20, published in 1989, makes a few significant changes in its treatment of Pentecostalism when compared with DDC 19. First, the index contains only four – compared with seven in DDC 19 – primary suggestions and fifteen – rather than twenty-seven in DDC 19 – secondary suggestions under the index term “Christian denominations” in 280, for classifying Pentecostal materials (DDC 20, vol. 4, p. 484, 120-121). The four primary index terms used to describe Pentecostalism are “Pentecostal churches” in 289.94, “Pentecostalism” in 270.82 which continued the problematic limitation of Pentecostal origins to no earlier than 1900, “spiritual renewal” in 269.4, and “biography” in 289.940 92 where materials concerning Pentecostal individuals could be classed (DDC 20, vol. 4, p. 484).

Second, DDC 20 added an index term for “Charismatic spiritual renewal” following the index entries for “Charismatic gifts” and “Charismatic movement” directing cataloguers to 269, but does not explain what the differences might be between the “Charismatic movement” and “Charismatic spiritual renewal,” which could possibly have resulted in some partitioning of materials on the Charismatic movement into two separate locations (DDC 20, vol. 4, p. 112).

Third, the editors of DDC 20 made the decision to drop the use of the problematic term “Pentecostal Assemblies” in favour of the term “Pentecostal churches” in the instructions under 289.94, where they provide “Assemblies of God” and “United Pentecostal Church” as examples of denominations belonging under this heading (DDC 20, vol. 4, p. 484; vol. 2, p. 205). While the term “Pentecostal churches” is not entirely free of ambiguity due to the fact that it could be interpreted to refer to either individual Pentecostal congregations or Pentecostal denominations more generally, it is definitely an improvement from the term “Pentecostal Assemblies” which, sharing these same ambiguities, carries the additional burden of potentially being interpreted by cataloguers as referring exclusively to only those Pentecostal denominations that contain the term “Assemblies” in their names. The decision to only provide two examples of largely white Pentecostal denominations in the instructions for 289.94 – the Assemblies of God and the United Pentecostal Church – is unfortunate, as this may have worsened the whitewashing of Pentecostal materials in 289.94.

Finally, DDC 20 removed the term “Assemblies of God” from the group of religious traditions listed in the instructions in 289.9 (DDC 20, vol. 2, p. 209). This marks a significant improvement from DDC 19, which allowed Pentecostal materials to be classed as “Miscellaneous Christian denominations” in 289.9 when they were interpreted to relate to the term “Assemblies of God” as well as in 289.94 when they were judged to relate to the closely related term “Pentecostal Assemblies.” In DDC 20, for the first time, it is possible for all materials, and only those materials, relating to Pentecostalism as a denomination to be classed together in a single location in 289.94. This does, however, raise the question of why the editors of DDC 20 decided to leave the term “Churches of God” as an example in 289.9 instead of including it in 289.94. This suggests that they intended this term to refer to those non-Pentecostal denominations that used some variation of the term “Churches of God” in their names. Nonetheless, without any further clarification regarding how this term should be interpreted, it is possible that materials could be segregated in such a way that those relating to the mostly white, Canadian and northern American denominations either listed as examples in the instructions under 289.94 or that contain the term “Pentecostal” in their names would be classed in 289.94, while those relating to the mostly African-American and southern American denominations that contained the terms “Church of God” or “Churches of God” in their names would be classed in 289.9.

DDC 21, published in 1996, provides five primary suggestions for classifying materials on the subject of Pentecostalism that remained largely unchanged from DDC 21 to 23. It recommended that: materials relating to “Pentecostal churches” where, in the instructions under 289.94, the “Assemblies of God” and the “United Pentecostal Church” are provided as examples, in addition to what are called “pentecostal churches that are independent denominations” should both be classed in 289.94; materials relating to Pentecostalism as an aspect of the broader, and strictly twentieth-century, history of Christianity be classed in 270.82; materials on the same subject as those in 270.82 except pertaining to the twenty-first century be classed in 270.83; materials specifically addressing Pentecostalism as an aspect of the broader Protestant tradition be classed in 280.4 (although it is not explained how these might be different from materials on the Charismatic movement); and, finally, biographies of Pentecostal individuals be classed in 289.94092 (DDC 21, vol. 4, p. 597; vol. 2, p. 230, 253; DDC 22, vol. 4, p. 618, vol. 2, p. 237, 260; DDC 23, vol. 4, p. 643; vol. 2, p. 248, 272). Compared with the recommendations provided in DDC 20, DDC 21 to 23 removed the index term “spiritual renewal” previously subordinated under the index term “Pentecostalism” and pointing to 269.4, added a classification number in 270.83 to allow for materials relating to the twenty-first century, and directed cataloguers to 280.4 for materials on Pentecostalism as an aspect of Protestantism.

There are only two minor ways in which the suggestions given for classifying materials on Pentecostalism differed in any substantive way between DDC 21 to 23. First, subordinated under the index term “Pentecostal churches,” DDC 21 and 22 directed cataloguers to also see the index term “Christian denominations” where, respectively, seventeen and sixteen additional unique classification numbers were provided where materials could be classed as relating to Pentecostalism, while, in DCC 23, this reference to also see “Christian denominations” is removed entirely, leaving only five primary suggestions for classifying Pentecostal materials (DDC 21, vol. 4, p. 597, 145; DDC 22, vol. 4, p. 618, 149-150; DDC 23, vol. 4, p. 643). Second, DDC 22 and 23 include an index entry for “Protestantism” subordinated under the index term “Charismatic movement” that directs cataloguers to 280.4, while DDC 21 does not (DDC 22, vol. 4, p. 139; DDC 23, vol. 4, p. 145). This is confusing because no explanation is given regarding what criteria should be used to determine when materials relating to the Charismatic movement should be classed in either 270.82-270.83, 280.4, or 269, which, again, forced individual cataloguers to make this determination independently, resulting in potentially different locations for these materials from library to library.

The instructions provided under 270.82 for materials specifically relating to Pentecostalism in the twentieth century (now also applying to similar materials pertaining to the twenty-first century) in DDC 21 to 23 differ significantly from how they were presented in DDC 19 and 20. Rather than being instructed to “Class here ecumenical, pentecostal, and charismatic movements” (DDC 19, vol. 2, p. 155; DDC 20, vol. 2, p. 188), cataloguers are told to class “comprehensive works on evangelicalism, fundamentalism, pentecostalism, charismatic movement” (DDC 21, vol. 2, p. 230; DDC 22, vol. 2, p. 237; DDC 23, vol. 2, p. 248). Interestingly, the Ecumenical movement is removed from 270.82 while Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are added. Many scholars of religion in Canada and the United States would not likely consider grouping materials relating to Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and the Charismatic movement as aspects of twentieth-century Christian history together in the same location to be problematic. Both the definition and the relationship between some of these religious traditions or movements, however, is not as clear or widely agreed in other parts of the world, which, again, shows the potential for biasing those materials classed in 270.82 and 270.83 against those originating from outside of Canada and the United States.17

Also worth mentioning is the note included in the instructions provided under 270.82 in DDC 21 to 23 directing cataloguers to class materials relating to “pentecostal churches that are independent denominations” with those relating to “Pentecostal churches” – such as the “Assemblies of God” and the “United Pentecostal Church” – in 289.94 (DDC 21, vol. 2, p. 230; DDC 22, vol. 2, p. 237; DDC 23, vol. 2, p. 248).

Stewart elaborates: “This note is confusing on multiple levels. Is it referring to individual Pentecostal congregations that are formally constituted as their own denominations (that is, a single congregation that is simultaneously organized as a denomination), or groups of Pentecostal churches (in other words, denominations) that are independent from one another? If DDC 23 intends the first meaning, this is problematic since, by definition, a denomination requires more than one congregation in order to exist. If it intends the second meaning, it is equally as problematic since the term ‘independent denomination’ carries no meaning; all denominations are, by definition, independent of one another.”18

Since DDC 21 to 23 already clearly implemented the term “churches” in 289.94 to refer to what sociologists of religion would identify as “denominations” as opposed to “congregations,” the decision to provide an additional layer of instructions regarding “pentecostal churches that are independent denominations” that obviously do not include the “Assemblies of God” and the “United Pentecostal Church,” is very confusing. This either suggests that the editors of DDC 21 to 23 did not understand large, well-established Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God and the United Pentecostal Church to qualify as denominations, or, more likely, that they did not understand basic terminology used within the academic study of religion.19

3. Sociohistorical Recommendations for the Dewey Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee Regarding the Reclassification of Pentecostalism

The sociohistorical representation of Pentecostalism in DDC has improved significantly from the time it was first mentioned in DDC 15 published in 1951 until the most recent DDC 23 published sixty years later in 2011. Despite these improvements, a few problems continue to exist with the way that DDC characterizes Pentecostalism, as noted above, that might diminish access to Pentecostal materials, particularly those originating from outside of Canada and the United States. Below I provide a few brief recommendations intended for the consideration of the Dewey Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee regarding the reclassification of Pentecostalism that, I believe, might help to amel­iorate these problems and enhance access to the full range of materials published on the subject of this both geographically and racially diverse religious tradition. This is not intended to be a complete list of recommendations. Other scholars of Pentecostalism – especially those from outside of Canada and the United States – would very likely be able to expand on this list as well as potentially critique some of my own biases and oversights, based on their own frustrating experiences of attempting to access Pentecostal materials in library collections arranged according to DDC.

  • Rename the title of 289.94 and the related index entry from “Pentecostal churches” to “Pentecostalism”
    Since the instructions provided in DDC 23 for 289.94 clearly demonstrate that the editors intended materials that relate to Pentecostal denominations rather than congregations to be classed here, the title “Pentecostal churches” should be removed so as not to potentially mislead cataloguers that only materials strictly relating to Pentecostal congregations belong in 289.94. Also, since using either the title “Pentecostal churches” or “Pentecostal denominations” unnecessarily delimits materials included in 289.94 to those that relate to decreasingly insignificant institutional forms of Pentecostalism – especially outside of Canada and the United States – the alternative title of “Pentecostalism” would allow for a greater range of Pentecostal phenomena to be classed in 289.94.20
  • Rename the index entry “Pentecostalism” to “Pentecostal history”
    Renaming the index entry “Pentecostalism” to “Pentecostal history” would assist cataloguers to more clearly determine that historical materials should be classed in 270.81, 270.82, and 270.83, while more general materials should be classed in 289.94.
  • Permit materials on Pentecostalism to be classed in 270.81
    Allowing cataloguers to class Pentecostal materials in 270.81 in addition to 270.82 and 270.83 would more accurately reflect the scholarly consensus that Pentecostal origins cannot be limited to the twentieth century.
  • Remove the index entry for “independent denominations” subordinated under the index entry for “Pentecostalism” and update the instructions in 270.82 also referring to “independent denominations”
    Changing the title of 289.94 and its related index entry from “Pentecostal churches” to “Pentecostalism” should adequately indicate to cataloguers that materials relating to Pentecostal denominations should be classed in 289.94, making an index entry for “independent denominations” redundant. Also, for consistency, the instructions provided under 270.82 directing cataloguers to “class pentecostal churches that are independent denominations in 289.94,” should be changed to wording such as “class pentecostal denominations in 289.94.”
  • Remove the index entries “Protestantism” subordinated under the index entries for “Pentecostalism” and “Charismatic movement” and the instructions referring to Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement in 280.4
    Since Pentecostalism is widely considered to be a Protestant form of Christianity, the suggestion made in DDC 23 that there exists a form of “Protestant Pentecostalism” in 280.4 that is somehow different from either Pentecostalism in 289.94 or the “Charismatic movement” in 270.81, 270.82, and 270.83, is nonsensical. For this reason, both the index entries for, and instructions in 280.4 regarding, a distinctly Protestant form of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement should be removed.
  • Clearly define the term “Churches of God” in 289.9 or remove it as an example
    Since the largest and most well-known denominations that use the terms “Church of God” or “Churches of God” in their names are Pentecostal, it is very misleading to use the term “Churches of God” as an example alongside the other non-Pentecostal denominations listed in the instructions in 289.9 without clearly defining what denomination this term refers to. If the editors desire to use this term to refer to a non-Pentecostal denomination, then more clearly identifying the specific denomination that they intend to be classed here would help to prevent materials relating to Pentecostal denominations such as the Church of God in Christ or the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) to be inaccurately classed in 289.9 instead of 289.94 where they belong. If, however, the editors do intend the term “Churches of God” in 289.9 to refer to Pentecostal denominations, then it should be removed as an example in 289.9, so as not to cause the unhelpful segregation of Pentecostal materials in 289.9 and 289.94.
  • Include more geographically and racially diverse examples of denominations in the instructions in 289.94
    Only using the mostly white, Canadian and northern American denominations “Assemblies of God” and “United Pentecostal Church” as examples in the instructions in 289.94 significantly marginalizes the vast majority of Pentecostals who do not originate from Canada and the nor­thern United States, are not white, or both. This could be ameliorated by including examples of denominations such as the African-American Church of God in Christ and the southern American Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), as well as a selection of denominations from outside of Canada and the United States, such as, but not limited to, the Full Gospel Church of God in Guatemala, the Redeemed Christian Church of God in Nigeria, or the Jesus is Lord Church Worldwide in the Philippines. The characterization of Pentecostalism in DDC as a mostly Americentric and racially homogenous religious tradition could significantly diminish access to Pentecostal materials that originate from outside of Canada and the United States, contributing to misinformed knowledge and opinions regarding what is one of the world’s largest and most geographically and racially diverse religious traditions.

References

- Ammerman, Nancy T.: Congregations. Local, Social, and Religious, in: Clarke, Peter B. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, New York 2009, p. 562-580.

- Anderson, Allan Heaton: An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Global Charismatic Christi­anity, Cambridge 20142.

- Balmer, Randall: Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism. Waco 20042.

- Blumhofer, Edith: Restoring the Faith. The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture, Champaign, 1993.

- Christerson, Brad; Flory, Richard: The Rise of Network Christianity. How Independent Leaders Are Changing the Religious Landscape, New York 2017.

- Dawson, Lorne L.: Church – Sect – Cult. Constructing Typologies of Religious Groups, in: Clarke, Peter B. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, New York 2009, p. 525-544.

- Dewey, Melvil: A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloguing and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library, Amherst, MA 1876.

- Dewey, Melvil: Decimal Classification, Lake Placid 195115.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, 2 vols., Lake Placid 195816.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, 2 vols., Lake Placid 196517.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, 3 vols., Lake Placid 197118.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, ed. by Benjamin A. Custer, 3 vols., Albany 197919.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, ed. by John P. Comaromi, Julianne Beall, Winton E. Matthews, Jr. et al., 4 vols., Albany 198920.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, ed. by Joan S. Mitchell, Julianne Beall, Winton E. Matthews, Jr. et al., 4 vols., Albany 199621.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, ed. by Joan S. Mitchell, Julianne Beall, Giles Martin et al., 4 vols., Dublin, OH 200322.

- Dewey, Melvil: Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, ed. by Joan S. Mitchell, Julianne Beall, Rebecca Green et al., 4 vols. Dublin, OH 201123.

- Hunt, Stephen: Charismatic Movement, in: Stewart, Adam (ed.): Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, DeKalb 2012, p. 56-60.

- McMullin, Stan: Anatomy of a Séance. A History of Spirit Communication in Central Canada, Montreal; Kingston 2004.

- OCLC: Dewey Services, <https://www.oclc.org/en/dewey.html>, last accessed 28 February 2019.

- Raboteau, Albert J.: Slave Religion. The “Invisible Institution” in the Antebellum South, New York 20042.

- Reed, David A.: Denominational Charismatics – Where Have They All Gone? A Canadian Anglican Case Study, in: Wilkinson, Michael (ed.): Canadian Pentecostalism. Transition and Transformation, Montreal; Kingston 2009, p. 197-213.

- Satter, Beryl: Each Mind a Kingdom. American Women, Sexual Purity, and the New Thought Movement, 1875-1920, Berkeley 1999.

- Stewart, Adam: A Canadian Azusa? The Implications of the Hebden Mission for Pentecostal Historiography, in: Wilkinson, Michael; Althouse, Peter (eds.): Canadian Contributions to the Pentecostal Movement, Leiden 2010, p. 17-37.

- Stewart, Adam: A Subject Analysis of Pentecostalism in the Dewey Decimal Classification System, in: Biblioteka 21, 2017, p. 243-250.

- Stewart, Adam: Azusa Street Mission and Revival, in: Stewart, Adam (ed.): Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, DeKalb 2012, p. 43-48.

- Stewart, Adam: From Monogenesis to Polygenesis in Pentecostal Origins. An Examination of the Evidence from the Azusa Street, Hebden, and Mukti Missions, in: PentecoStudies 13 (2), 2014, p. 151-172.

- Stewart, Adam: The New Canadian Pentecostals, Waterloo, ON 2015.

- Synan, Vinson: The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition. Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, Grand Rapids 19972.

- Williams, D. Newell; Foster, Douglas A.; Blowers, Paul M. (eds.): The Stone-Campbell Movement. A Global History, St. Louis 2013.

- Winston, Diane: Red-Hot and Righteous. The Urban Religion of the Salvation Army, Cambridge, MA 2000.

1 I would like to thank Crandall University for the generous funding that it granted me through the Stephen and Ella Steeves Research Scholarship, which provided the resources required to conduct the research that informs this article as well as present the findings of this research at the European Conference on Data Analysis held in Paderborn, Germany, from July 4-6, 2018. I would also like to thank Jason Ellsworth in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and Steve Patterson and Maneja Joian in the Faculty of Information and Media Studies at Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, who provided inval­uable research assistance on this project.

2 OCLC: Dewey Services, <https://www.oclc.org/en/dewey.html>, last accessed 28 February 2019.

3 All references from the DDC are given in brackets, with the number of the edition, the volume where required, and the page(s). Full bibliographical information for the DDC editions can be found in the reference section.

4 Blumhofer, Edith: Restoring the Faith. The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Champaign, 1993, p. 180-263; Reed, David A.: Denominational Charismatics – Where Have They All Gone? A Canadian Anglican Case Study, in: Wilkinson, Michael (ed.): Canadian Pentecostalism. Transition and Transformation, Montreal; Kingston 2009, p. 197-198.

5 Due to the fact that the editors of DDC 15 to 23 do not make a clear distinction between what constitutes a church, denomination, or sect, often grouping together religious traditions that sociologists of religion would typically consider to belong to different organizational categories without any apparent rationale, I hereafter refer to all religious traditions discussed in DDC as denominations for the sake of simplicity. For a discussion of the ideal-types used by sociologists of religion to refer to different types of religious organizations, see Dawson, Lorne L.: Church – Sect – Cult. Constructing Typologies of Religious Groups, in: Clarke, Peter B. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, New York 2009, p. 525-544.

6 Synan, Vinson: The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition. Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, Grand Rapids 19972, p. 68-83.

7 Balmer, Randall: Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism. Waco 20042, p. 168.

8 Williams, D. Newell; Foster, Douglas A.; Blowers, Paul M. (eds.): The Stone-Campbell Movement. A Global History, St. Louis 2013.

9 Winston, Diane: Red-Hot and Righteous. The Urban Religion of the Salvation Army, Cambridge, MA 2000.

10 Raboteau, Albert J.: Slave Religion. The “Invisible Institution” in the Antebellum South, New York 20042, p. 251-265.

11 McMullin, Stan: Anatomy of a Séance. A History of Spirit Communication in Central Canada, Montreal; Kingston 2004.

12 Anderson, Allan Heaton: An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Global Charismatic Christianity, Cambridge 20142, p. 71-175.

13 Satter, Beryl: Each Mind a Kingdom. American Women, Sexual Purity, and the New Thought Movement, 1875-1920, Berkeley 1999, p. 9.

14 Blumhofer: Restoring the Faith, 1993, p. 242-263; Hunt, Stephen: Charismatic Movement, in: Stewart, Adam (ed.): Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, DeKalb 2012, p. 56-60.

15 Stewart, Adam: A Canadian Azusa? The Implications of the Hebden Mission for Pentecostal Historiography, in: Wilkinson, Michael; Althouse, Peter (eds.): Canadian Contributions to the Pentecostal Movement, Leiden 2010, p. 17-37; Stewart, Adam: Azusa Street Mission and Revival, in: Stewart, Adam (ed.): Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, DeKalb 2012, p. 43-48; Stewart, Adam: From Monogenesis to Polygenesis in Pentecostal Origins. An Examination of the Evidence from the Azusa Street, Hebden, and Mukti Missions, in: PentecoStudies 13 (2), 2014, p. 151-172.

16 Stewart, Adam: A Subject Analysis of Pentecostalism in the Dewey Decimal Classification System, in: Biblioteka 21, 2017, p. 243-250.

17 Stewart: A Subject Analysis of Pentecostalism in the Dewey Decimal Classification System, 2017, p. 247.

18 Ibid., p. 245.

19 Ammerman, Nancy T.: Congregations. Local, Social, and Religious, in: Clarke, Peter B. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, New York 2009, p. 562; Dawson: Church – Sect – Cult, 2009, p. 526-530.

20 Christerson, Brad; Flory, Richard: The Rise of Network Christianity. How Independent Leaders Are Changing the Religious Landscape, New York 2017, p. 7-12.