An appreciation for the role that A. B. Simpson (1843–1919), founder of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, played in the shaping of late nineteenth-century trans-Atlantic evangelicalism has been growing in recent years. While the impact that he had on the denomination that he founded is obvious, the impression that he left on early Pentecostalism seems now beyond academic dispute. Only more recently has Simpson’s contribution to a wider Evangelicalism been considered. Michael Yount’s A. B. Simpson: His Message and Impact on the Third Great Awakening will certainly contribute to that growing understanding and appreciation.

At the heart of Yount’s work is the assertion that Simpson played a significant role in shaping the Third Great Awakening, a movement of God that brought new life to the Church and emerged from, among other influences, the Layman’s Prayer Revival of 1857 and Phoebe Palmer’s Tuesday Meetings for the Promotion of Holiness. After providing a very helpful chapter that surveys the religious landscape that led to and marked this Awakening and after providing a chapter laying out an insightful biography of Simpson’s life, Yount moves on to describe those areas, both theological and practical, where Simpson’s contributions may be seen most clearly. These are 1) evangelism, 2) the Holiness Movement, 3) the Healing Movement, 4) the Premillennial Movement, and 5) Urban and Worldwide Evangelization. These, of course, align with Simpson’s “Fourfold Gospel” and his emphasis on mission. Each of these chapters is clearly laid out, starting with an examination of the theological and historical context of the topic at hand and then moving on to describe and analyze Simpson’s particular views and contribution in that field.

This collection of essays presented in 2006-07 to the students and faculty of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary is part of the on-going work of The Forum for Evangelical Theology. D. Stephen Long and George Kalantzis, both the book’s editors and the convenors of the forum, invited a number of scholars from a wide range of Christian theological perspectives—many but not all would identify themselves as evangelicals—to present their views on questions surrounding the idea of the nature of God. In particular, these essays focused on the nature of what it means for God to be sovereign and, more particularly, on the nature of his relationship with creation, especially with humanity. Each author presented their perspective on whether or not God may be affected by the happenings of creation—known theologically as the question of divine impassibility—and, if so, the nature of that affect.

In the opening chapter, Jimmy Cooper introduces the question of divine impassibility, providing for the reader a short history of the debate and an introduction of the authors that follow. From there George Kalantzis, through an examination of a debate between two early church leaders, Cyril and Nestorius, shows that while the question of divine impassibility is important for orthodoxy it is not sufficient; one may hold to God’s impassibility and still be heretical (e. g. Nestorius). D. Stephen Long, on his chapter on the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas, defends Aquinas and his theology from contemporary accusations of being too influenced by a pagan philosophical system. Instead, Long asserts that Aquinas’ theology is biblically grounded. He notes that, instead, it is the conclusions of many contemporary theologies that result in significant theological and practical problems. These problems are the consequences of, on the one hand, a diminished view of God (where is he too dependent upon his creation) and, on the other hand, having an exaggerated view of evil. John Calvin is famous for the prominence that God’s sovereignty has in his theology. Vincent Bacote, rather than appealing to the many theological traditions that look to Calvin as their founder, unpacks the theology of the Reformer himself. In regard to those passages that are often understood to assert the changeability or even the suffering of God, Bacote asserts that Calvin understood these as “divine accommodations”—instances where God represents himself not as he actually is (which is beyond our understanding) but in a way that allows us to understand him. The first contemporary theology represented in this text is presented by Michael Lodahl who asserts that the issue of God’s sovereignty is best dealt with by Process Theology with a little bit of John Wesley thrown in to compensate for the former’s limitations. The author begins by challenging the church’s historic understanding of Christ which, he asserts, sounds more like Caesar than Jesus. Process Theology asserts that given that all things exist in relationship, including God, and therefore He cannot be wholly disconnected from his creation but is, instead, “a fellow sufferer” and that rather than meticulously predetermining the actions of all other beings, God’s power is seen in his ability to persuade. A former student of noted German theologian Jürgen Moltmann provides insights from his theology to address the question of God’s sovereignty. Nancy Elizabeth Bedford notes that Moltmann’s response to this question revolves around his “theology of the Cross.” Consequently, God’s sovereignty must be seen in his ability to limit and humble himself. While God suffers, it must be understood as a consequence of the intensity of the love that he has for humanity. John Sanders presents the view of what is commonly called “Openness Theology;” the theological understanding that re-opened the debate on the nature of the sovereignty of God about twenty years ago. Sanders argues that God seeks to be in true relationship with humanity and that real relationship requires that humanity be able to exercise real freedom (especially in its response to love God or not) and that God truly respond to human action as opposed to meticulously predetermining the actions of all involved. Sanders asserts that Scripture portrays a God who actually takes risks. The final chapter, by Thomas G. Weinandy, places great emphasis on the historic Creator/creature distinction, noting that Scripture affirms both God’s nearness but also, and at least equally, his wholly-otherness from it. He notes that God’s unchangingness does not make God unfeeling or distant; it actually empowers him to be all that the creation needs him to be, including perfectly loving. The book concludes with a series of shorter chapters where each author is given space to respond to the contributions of the others.

This book is well worth investigation as it provides an excellent resource to those interested in investigating and comparing the varied views on the closely related questions of God’s sovereignty and immutability. Each author has done an admirable job of addressing the issue from their perspective. Novices, be warned! This text may prove daunting or , perhaps, out of reach. Much of the language and many of the concepts that are used assume a level of theological familiarity and sophistication. This is understandable, of course, given the audience to which the presentations were originally made.

Reviewed by Bernie A. Van De Walle

Publisher’s Page: wipfandstock.com/store/The_Sovereignty_of_God_Debate

When I was first offered the opportunity to review Diogenes Allen’s new book, Theology for a Troubled Believer, I immediately welcomed the opportunity. While in graduate school, I had the great pleasure of having Dr. Allen as a Sunday School teacher and, consequently, eagerly looked forward to the opportunity to interact with him again. His teaching was, at the same time, profound, understandable, and practical. The mastery of a subject necessary to accomplish all three is not common. Dr. Allen, though currently retired, had a long and prestigious career as the Stuart Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Princeton Theological Seminary. In addition, he holds the rare distinction of being ordained in both the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

While he engages most of the classical topics in systematic theology in this book, his approach is, to a degree, novel. This book is Allen’s extended response to questions posed to him by a thoughtful and intelligent man; a friend seeking to make sense of the world and, particularly, of the Christian faith in light of both the significant suffering that exists in the world and the fact that we live “in a world very different than the one inhabited by the biblical writers.” Allen’s goal is to aid his readers in gaining the skills necessary to put the various pieces of life’s puzzle together in a coherent fashion, to help them make more sense of the world through a Christian perspective, and to move them beyond simply a “notional” understanding of the faith to something more “real.”

With the idea of human suffering as his central theme, Allen addresses the major topics of classical Christian systematic theology. Not surprisingly, however, his somewhat unique purpose leads him to present these categories with varying amounts of emphasis and, to a degree, in an order outside of the ordinary. He starts with an investigation into the nature of God, challenging the philosophical ideas of how God must be, including some ideas that have been adopted by classic Christian theology. Allen gives significant attention to the holiness of God, focussing on the idea of God’s “transcendence,” which he calls “the essential quality of the Deity.” (The two chapters that Allen dedicates to this topic alone, in my opinion, is worth the price of the book!) It is a thoughtful, engaging, and masterful treatment of the Christian doctrine of holiness; both in the sense of that which is essential to God Himself and in the sense of how humanity, created in His image, is to manifest this holiness through the pursuit and establishment of justice. From there, Allen, who has received significant and numerous accolades for his work on the relation of faith and science, discusses what it means for God to be the Creator and the inherent limits of science to investigate Him. In this chapter, Allen, dismantles the commonly held “God-of-the-gaps” thesis that asserts that the concept of the divine is simply an historic, and now unnecessary, approach to explaining the heretofore mysterious.

The next major section, “The Divine Sacrifices,” contains Allen’s thoughts on a number of classic theological categories, including creation (which Allen asserts is the prototype of true human behaviour), human lostness, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Temptation of Christ, and the Cross. Throughout this section, Allen ably and effectively weaves together insights from various thinkers and authors across the expanse of the last 2,000 years. Following that, in the section titled, “The New Life in God,” the author unpacks his understanding of salvation, which he asserts is not only grounded in the resurrection of Jesus but brings, consequently, not just life but a new kind of life not only filled with but the product of the life of God Himself. God’s purpose and priority in the work of salvation is to share His divine life with humanity. While traditional evangelical systematic theology tends to introduce the definition of faith early on in system, Allen saves that topic until much later. When he finally does introduce it, he asserts that, contrary to popular opinion, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Instead, both are necessary aspects of Christian belief. The question is not, then, “Which one is the true Christian practice?” but “How do the two relate and contribute to Christian discipleship?”

In the days of Pasteur and Lister, was the Divine Healing movement out of touch with what American society believed about medicine?

Introduction

The late nineteenth century was a time of monumental change. It witnessed a cyclone of transformation and progress rivaling, at least, that of any preceding era. Not surprisingly, it was a time of key advances in medical science. This era was home to Pasteur, Röntgen, Lister, and a number of lesser known, but still significant, medical pioneers. These inventors and their discoveries radically reshaped and significantly advanced the practice of medicine. New advances seemed to be dawning with every new day. At the end of the nineteenth century, the promise of medical science seemed unlimited.

At the same time, the late nineteenth century also saw religious change. There was the emergence of the Divine Healing movement, a loosely associated group of religious teachers and practitioners who sought to promote and practice the healing power of the indwelling and resurrected Christ over that of natural means. This movement gained tens of thousands of adherents in a significantly short span of time. Key figures in this group included people from a wide-variety of denominations, men and women, ministers and physicians. Furthermore, this movement played an essential role in the birth of Pentecostalism,¹ the greatest religious movement of the twentieth century.

Therefore, there rose simultaneously on the American landscape at least two significant approaches to health and healing in the late nineteenth century, each with its own biased and ardent champions and devotees. Yet, the opinion of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing teachers did not, as one might expect, thoroughly dispense with the value and goodness of physicians, their diagnoses, and medical treatment. While they did not completely dismiss the advances, usefulness, and propriety of medical science, they did assert that it was, at best, a deficient approach to the gravity, complexity, and depth of human disease. While they believed that physicians and their medical treatments may be gifts from God, they were convinced that medical science was fundamentally unable to bring to humanity the kind of health and life intended for them by God and found solely in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ.

This chapter will explore those common and key responses—both the affirmations and the denials—of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing proponents to the growing popularity and use of medicine, remedies, and physicians.

Divine Healing Affirmations of Medical Science

Almost to a person, Divine Healing advocates readily granted that doctors and many of their treatments exist by the providence of God. A. B. Simpson, founder of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, noted that physicians and their medical treatments are “among God’s good gifts” to humanity.² Charles Cullis, the renowned Boston homeopath and father of the Divine Healing movement in the United States noted the “valuable” role that doctors and their treatments may play and continued his own homeopathic medical practice in harmony with his ministry of Divine Healing.³ Carrie Judd Montgomery, one of the Divine Healing movement’s more celebrated authors, speakers, and founder of the “Home of Peace” in Oakland, California, granted the skill of those physicians that worked with her during her own infirmity.⁴ One lesser-known figure, Kenneth McKenzie, a member of Simpson’s Christian and Missionary Alliance and author of no fewer than two significant texts on the theology and practice of Divine Healing, noted that only those with an immature theology of Divine Healing and “extremists” would deny that there is good in doctors and medicine.⁵ Furthermore, the fact that most Divine Healing proponents continued to refer to physicians as “Dr.” shows that only by caricature could one assert that Divine Healing movement saw absolutely no good or use in consulting with physicians and implementing their prescriptions.⁶

These affirmations of physicians and medical treatment by Divine Healing proponents, however, were not blanket endorsements. Rather, as we will see, they were limited to particular and specific arenas. What is particularly interesting is the seeming unanimity of the Divine Healing proponents in regard to those particular areas that they affirmed in regard to medical science. Almost universally, the Divine Healing teachers affirmed three separate but related aspects of the goodness of physicians and medical science: 1) the recent and substantial advances in medical science, 2) the physicians’ ability to diagnose the physical cause of disease, and 3) the physicians’ occasional ability to alleviate symptoms of disease.