Editor’s note: This academic paper by Peter Althouse, whom Jurgen Moltmann described in his autobiography as one of “the younger theologians of the Pentecostal movement,” investigates the roots of the Keswick movement and its influence on Pentecostalism.

1. Introduction

The first Keswick Convention convened in June 1875, when a few hundred men and women gathered in the Northwestern British town of Keswick for a series of Bible studies, addresses and prayer meetings designed to promote “practical holiness.”¹ This convention was directly influenced by Robert Pearsall Smith, a Quaker glass maker with Holiness leanings who, with his wife Hannah Whithall Smith and Presbyterian friend W.E. Boardman, conducted a series of meetings in 1873 in an effort to foster a “higher Christian life” for both clergy and lay-persons. In August 1874, R.P. Smith, Theodore Monod, Otto Stockmayer, Evan Hopkins, Asa Mahan and W.E. Boardman conducted a conference at Oxford, one which had significant influence on the later Keswick conference. Finally, just a month prior to the Keswick conference Smith, Hopkins, Mahan and Monod conducted a meeting in Brighton with the same goals in mind. T.D. Harford-Battersby and Robert Wilson then invited the Smiths to Keswick to conduct a “Union Meeting for the Promotion of Practical Holiness,” but just before the conference Smith withdrew from the meeting for reasons shrouded in mystery. The leadership of the first Keswick Convention consequently fell to Battersby.²

The Keswick Convention was evangelical in its orientation,³ but unlike the American revivalism which influenced it, Keswick would more accurately be defined as a renewal movement. Keswick, while meeting annually to this day, had not formed an “official” theology, had not schismed into a new denomination and, like its first meeting, consisted of an interdenominational constituency with its own organizational structures.⁴ Yet the Keswick movement was an important development in the history of British Christianity, particularly in its validation of a Christian life of holiness for those who were uneasy with Wesleyan perfectionism. It had significant influence as well, specifically in its impact upon the development and tensions within American Pentecostalism as Keswick theology was reintroduced into North America.

More generally, the Keswick movement was impacted by two streams of theology: the “new light” and New School Calvinism of American revivalism, particularly in the figures of Charles G. Finney and Asa Mahan of the Oberlin school and Wesleyan perfectionism particularly in the Holiness movements. Yet, in the interplay of Wesleyan and Calvinist theological streams, tensions existed, particularly in the doctrine of sanctification. J. Robertson McQuilkin, a Keswick scholar, has pointed out that Keswick was accused by Presbyterian minister B.B, Warfield of teaching perfectionism of the Wesleyan kind⁵ and from the other side, H.A. Baldwin, a Free Methodist minister, objected to Keswick holiness when he commented “‘Keswickism’ is described as ‘one of the most dangerous enemies of the experience of holiness…for they give us to understand that such a thing as the entire eradication of the carnal nature from the soul is an impossibility in this world.”⁶ This friction was due, in part, to the diversity of leadership. While the leadership of the Keswick conferences was dominated by evangelical Anglicans and American revivalists, there were some Wesleyans in the group. However, modern scholarship generally agrees that the Keswick view of sanctification had more of a Reformed view.

This paper will argue that the Keswick understanding of sin and sanctification did in fact adopt a “New School” Calvinist view distinct from the Wesleyan perfectionist view, even though there was a definite interplay of Wesleyan perfectionism in both New School and Keswick thought. Furthermore, this understanding had a direct and divisive impact on the formation and development of American Pentecostalism. This position will be argued by first examining the theological environment of Wesleyan Holiness and American Revivalism’s understanding of sin and sanctification as a prolegomena to the Keswick Conferences. Second, the Keswick view will be examined with its distinctiveness from its forbearers. Finally, the implications that the Keswick view had on the formation and development of American Pentecostalism will be examined, particularly in the sanctification controversy of 1910 centred around the theological distinctions of William Durham. At the same time, it will be argued that the very seeds of the controversy were in place at the very onset of the Pentecostal movement in 1900/1908 and that this was part of the reason for the formation of the movement.

II. The Perfectionism of Wesleyan Methodism and the Holiness Movement

John Wesley’s theology of salvation, as it related to his understanding of sin and sanctification, has had significant impact upon Protestant Christianity (including the Keswick movement) for the past two centuries. Unlike subsequent Wesleyan and Pentecostal movements which understood elements of salvation as stages of Christian experience, i.e. conversion, perfection as the “second blessing and/or baptism of the Holy Spirit, Wesley understood salvation as moments or dimensions of faith. Thus conviction of sin, repentance, justification and sanctification were dimensions of salvation which spanned across the life of the Christian.⁷ Wesley preached that

This book assesses the crisis of the Western church and proposes strategies for recovering the missional character of the church. According to Robinson and Smith, the mission of the church in the apostolic period was spurred by its conviction in the Lord’s imminent return and the urgency of spreading the gospel. The people of God as a whole were engaged in mission. However, with the new social status gained in Constantine’s conversion, mission shifted from being the essential nature of the church, to being one of its many functions. Mission was now seen as preserving the institution through the new class of professional priests and tied to the agenda of the church. The institution began to define its mission, rather than God’s mission defining the church (p. 46). The crisis in the Western church today is once again rooted in its misplaced focus on declining numbers and its frantic quest to reverse this trend. Robinson and Smith call the church back to its core purpose and calling—mission.

The underlying conviction is that the church’s mission is sharing in God’s mission to the world, in giving the only begotten Son to the world for the sake of the world. Divine mission must be reflected in the church. The life and witness of the church is rooted in God’s mission, in which the church becomes the love of God manifested in the world.

Crucial to the church’s mission is Christian formation, argue Robinson and Smith. When the church defines itself according to its institutional priorities the focus becomes church growth and success, but when the church is shaped by mission priority is given to sustained personal transformation, relationship and intimacy with God and fellow human beings. The authors suggest that personal transformation takes place in the mentoring process of small group structures. In the small group, all the people of God are engaged in the church’s mission and witness. Unfortunately, however, lively worship acts as a substitute for personal transformation, creating a dependency in a consumer approach to worship (111). Also detrimental to mission is the culture of domineering leadership. “The abnormality of the ‘man at the top’ syndrome…is a cancer eating at the health of all human organization. It is this concern, extending through the expectations of younger leaders and reinforced by training institutions, that has created our present realities (p. 126). Robinson and Smith propose a missional style of leadership that empowers people to engage the cultures of this world for the sake of the kingdom. “Dynamic leadership does not think first of how to retain control but how to give away as much as possible (p. 153).” True New Testament leadership is always shared; dissension and opposition is viewed as Trinitarian diversity, not as a threat to a dominant leader.

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 291 pages.

Post-modernism is a philosophical perspective many Christians are now embracing in order to overcome the debilitating effects of modernity on the Christian church. What is refreshing about James Smith’s book is that he questions whether this approach is as helpful for Christian theology as it first appears. In fact, Smith proposes that post-modernism is in reality a continuation of the modernist project. This book offers an overview of the place of radical orthodoxy (RO) within the context of a post-secular/post-modern theological landscape. His aim is to draw together the thematic strands of RO in order to appraise its contributions to the theological enterprise and critique the misaligned assurance in the supposed neutrality of the modernist and post-modernist paradigms.

The book is divided into two sections. The first provides a map for understanding RO within the context of current theological trends. Smith suggests that four theological schools of thought have come to prominence. (1) The correlationist project emerged out of Tübingen (Germany) and made its way into the US through Union Theological Seminary (NY), The University of Chicago Divinity School (Chicago) and even ironically the fundamentalist school Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas). This approach tries to correlate revelation with cultural, political and economic systems, and assumes the neutrality and universally accessible methods of the so-called “secular” sciences. (2) The Revelationist school is Barthian at root and has made its way from Basel (Switzerland) to Yale Divinity School (New Haven), Princeton (NJ) and Duke University (Durham, NC). This school highlights the antithesis between the gospel and culture, and therefore subverts all secular frameworks. The tendency in the Revelationist approach, though, is to jettison the secular sciences as irrelevant and focus exclusively on revelation claims. (3) The Neo-Calvinist school emerged in Amsterdam and has made its way into Calvin College (Grand Rapids) and the Institute for Christian Studies (Toronto). This approach represents an early post-secular critique, which is deeply suspicious of secular methods for arriving at knowledge and calls into questions the “sacred” tenets of modernity. (4) Finally, the Cambridge phenomenon of RO likewise emphasizes the antithesis between revelation and culture, but unlike the Barthian project’s abandonment of the secular, RO maintains there is no secular because even these methods presuppose faith commitments. For radical orthodoxy, all nature and culture is graced, but in need of redemptive transformation. RO is therefore critical of post-modernism because it is in reality a continuation of modernity.

Smith then outlines the theological contours of RO, which includes an ecumenism that transcends confessional boundaries, a retrieval of pre-modern sources and a hermeneutical disposition that seeks to be unapologetically confessional. Moreover RO is critical of modernity as a flawed system, because it reduces truth to a single system based on a notion of universal reason; RO is post-secular in the sense that it identifies secular reason as myth; as a theological movement it emphasizes participation and materiality, meaning that creation has to be understood as participating in and suspended from transcendence. This position fights against modernist and post-modernist notions that the world is self-contained and therefore without the need for the divine. In other words, nihilism (e.g. lack of transcendence) is questioned because it assumes that the universe is isolated and self-supporting. RO also emphasizes the sacramental, liturgical and aesthetic modes of worship as a consequence of the incarnation and participation in the divine. Finally, RO offers a cultural critique of the world in the hope for its redemptive transformation in all areas of language, history and cultural. Throughout the discussion, Smith draws upon the Dutch Reformed tradition to voice his agreements and disagreements with RO, arguing that the two disciples would benefit from fruitful dialogue.

David Martin, Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002), 197+xviii pages, ISBN 9780631231219.

How is Pentecostalism shaping the world? David Martin’s thesis is the sociological argument that Pentecostalism functions to advance modernism through the process of secularization. Secularization does not mean a loss of faith, but a reconfiguration of faith in non-traditional ways. Martin’s work is a sweeping survey of the place of Pentecostalism in a global context.

Pentecostalism is a diverse and complex global phenomenon. As a movement, it advocates pluralism in Latin America. In Africa, it encourages a volunteerism that represents a form of secularization that separates church from state, gives priority to territory over community, while rejecting traditional hierarchies and legitimizations. Nevertheless, Pentecostalism does not promote the moral values of modernity.

Martin is selective in his examination of global Pentecostalism. He pays homage to Pentecostalism in North America, the spiritual roots of the movement, and then quickly shifts to Europe. Pentecostalism replicates Methodism, insists Martin, especially in its entrepreneurship and adaptability, lay participation and enthusiasm, but also in its splintering and schisms. Still, it offered more equality to blacks and women, despite later racist and patriarchal attitudes. Curiously, Pentecostalism was more successful in North America than Britain, possibly because class distinctions were more fixed in England.

The African context is different than Latin America, argues Martin, in that both Catholicism and anti-clericalism were imported from France while the British colonial powers ruled indirectly. In this context Pentecostalism is viewed as subverting traditional power structures by allowing Africans to share in the benefits of modernity as seen through the lens of spirituality. In contrast to the African independent churches, which blend African and Christian spirituality, Pentecostalism renounces adapting African religious symbols into Christian spirituality, but pursues social mobility, freedom and advancement. Pentecostal conversion, claims Martin, contrasts helplessness with empowerment, in which people without material wealth gain equality and worth. Like Latin America, women are encouraged to participate in leadership and are encouraged to take pride in their achievements. Church offers a place to find stable husbands who are peaceable and respectful. Pentecostals are encouraged to become individuals, thereby loosening traditional family ties.

Brian C. Stiller, Jesus and Caesar: Christians in the Public Square (Oakville, Ontario: Castle Quay Books, 2003), 187 pages, ISBN 9781897213193.

All too often the church vacillates between secularization and sectarianism, between a diminished belief in God in the world and the withdrawal of the church from culture to protect the faithful. Brian Stiller wants to rehabilitate the role of public engagement, Jesus and Caesar argues that Christians need to steer a middle course between secularization and sectarianism if the church is to be a spiritual light to the world.

After investigating the reasons for the decline of Christian witness in the world, Stiller explores the biblical approach to public engagement. In the Old Testament, creation established the principles of shared resources, work, growth and accountability. Since the Fall, however, greed and envy led to the abuse of creation and use of economic resources for personal gain. In the New Testament, Jesus was a political force, a witness to people regardless of political or social location. Although he did not participate in political rule or contest government rulership, Jesus effected social change. He upset the status quo by challenging its “self serving assumptions and values” (p. 62). He inaugurated the kingdom reign by cutting to the center of human self-interest, power and ego. Yet hope for the ultimate fulfillment of the kingdom still lay in the future, pushing the Christian community forward to celebrate life in the midst of turmoil. Christ’s kingdom message sowed the seeds for life-giving transformation. For Stiller, the Christian must embrace the earth (and cosmos) as part of God’s grandeur reality, not to be annihilated but to be transformed into the new heaven and new earth. Thus the state has legitimate status in the order of creation and kingdom expectation, so that Christians have an obligation to influence the state for the gospel.

Brian C. Stiller

Four models of church-state engagement are suggested by Stiller. The “Christendom model,” developed under Constantine, combined the church’s message with the state’s concern for exercising power. However, the church’s lack of distance created an inability to critique society. The “Luther model” challenged papal authority and its link to social power to emphasize personal faith. Luther’s two kingdom doctrine severed the spheres of church and state: The former was concerned with spiritual growth, the latter with the restraint and punishment of evildoers. Ironically, Luther ended up calling on the state to fight against the “tyranny of Rome,” Anabaptism and the peasant’s revolt. The “Calvin model” asserted that the state receives its authority directly from God (not the church), but this authority is limited. The church is called to renew creation and exert influence on the whole social order as the gospel makes its way into the world to oppose ungodliness. The “Otherworldly model” argues for Christian separation from the world; the church is the locale of the redeemed, the world under demonic rule. In this model, obedience to the state is conditional and subsequent to obedience to God. For Stiller, the church is called to serve Christ whereas the state is to serve all peoples, faiths and cultures.

Ronald A. N. Kydd, Healing through the Centuries: Models for Understanding (Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusetts: 1998), xxxi+235 pages.

Although the doctrine of healing has a long history in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, it has rarely been investigated from a sympathetic perspective. Ron Kydd’s work is refreshing, because he explores different healing movements within Christianity without dismissing their importance. Divine healing is defined as the direct intervention of God to restore personal health and Kydd develops six models for understanding how healing both functions in and is interpreted by the various healing groups.

Before discussing the models, however, Kydd addresses a number of misunderstandings regarding healing. First, divine healing is not limited to any one group, but has a robust history throughout Christianity. Secondly, without trying to be deceptive, healers and their supporters tend to overstate the manifestations of healing. This tendency is mostly due to the excitement of experiencing of God presence in their midst. Thirdly, there is no stereotypical healer; healers are a diverse lot. Fourthly, healing flows out of the mystery of God, and cannot be reduced to a simple formula. And fifthly, healing cannot be used as proof of doctrinal correctness. In fact, different healing ministries have opposing and sometimes confrontational doctrines, but these groups still experience the grace of God’s healing power.

Kydd develops six models of healing based on his observations in the field: the confrontational, intercessory, reliquarial, incubational, revelational, and soteriological. The confrontational model focuses on the confrontation, victory and liberty of Jesus Christ over sin to heal, in order to plant his kingdom. It includes many early church Fathers, German Pietist Johann Blumhardt and Vineyard leader John Wimber. The intercessory model looks for divine healing through the intervention of saints who have led an exemplary life, and is characteristic of Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. The reliquarial model (meaning “relic”) focuses on the relics of the saints (bodies, objects or tombs) as the vehicle through which healing occurs. Examples include Roman Catholic belief in late antiquity and Middle Ages, and an eighteenth-century group in Paris, which centered on the tomb of François de Pâris. The incubational model insists that divine healing does not come swiftly, but over a period of time in a prayerful, nurturing and hospitable environment. The healing centers in Männedorf, Switzerland and the Morija (also in Switzerland) are representive, but certain healing centers in the Wesleyan Holiness movement could be included as well. In the revelational model, healers are given special, divine knowledge of the need for healing, so that the healer can act accordingly. William Branham and Kathryn Kuhlman are representative of this model. The soteriological model is theologically supported by the notion that miraculous healing is possible through the atoning work of Christ. It has a prominent history in nineteenth-century American religion, culminating in the Pentecostal movement. Healing in this model oscillates between the certainty and the sovereignty of God in healing. Like salvation, healing is certain because it is offered in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, but sovereign in that God may say “no” or “not now” to a person’s healing. Oral Roberts is selected as the quintessential Pentecostal.