Glen Menzies, Commentary on Romans

First, my brother has produced an exceptional commentary on Romans (of course, I’m entirely objective here). This book is a member of the “Pentecostal Commentary Series” and I am confident that it will serve the church well by stimulating reflection and discussion on a host of important theological themes.

To order, click on this link: https://amzn.to/4mmOP20

Publisher’s page: https://wipfandstock.com/9781532610240/a-pentecostal-commentary-on-romans/

Timothy Dresselhaus, The Crimson Thread

Second, Dr. Timothy Dresselhaus, a gifted medical doctor (Professor Emeritus at the UCSD School of Medicine) and a dedicated teaching elder of the church, has produced a wonderful resource for Christians at every stage of their spiritual development. This book, The Crimson Thread: Tracing the Story of Jesus from Genesis to Revelation, offers a sweeping overview of the biblical narrative.

To order, click on this link: https://amzn.to/4of4u5a

Robert Menzies and Craig Keener, Commentary on Acts

Finally, the commentary on Acts that Craig Keener and I have written for Baker’s “Word and Spirit” NT Commentary Series is now available! This commentary uniquely highlights Luke’s missiological purpose, his understanding of the church as a community of prophets called to be “a light for the nations” (Isa 49:6), and his invitation for every disciple of Jesus to minister in the power of the Spirit (Luke 11:13; Acts 1:8).

To order, click on this link: https://amzn.to/3HcvWjk

Publisher’s page: https://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/acts/417270

Bob with the Acts commentary he and Craig Keener have produced.

In 2009 the University of Southern California established the Pentecostal and Charismatic Research Initiative (PCRI) with a $6.9 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation. In a news release dated February 24, 2009, PCRI spokesperson Donald Miller states, “We are interested in why Pentecostalism is growing so rapidly, what impact it is having on society, and how it is different in various cultural settings.”¹²⁵ The initiative will “foster innovative social science research in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the former Soviet Union, by providing up to $3.5 million in grants.”¹²⁶ While I applaud this worthy project and wish all of the researchers associated with it well, I must admit that in my less charitable moments I wonder how valuable and helpful the information gleaned from this research will be in answering the central question: Why are Pentecostal churches growing? My skepticism is rooted in the fact that this initiative appears to intentionally ignore or, at best, minimize the theological dimension of the Pentecostal movement and seeks to answer this important question largely in sociological terms. This sort of reductionistic approach seems destined to provide, at best, limited, and possibly even distorted, results. It is akin to studying why birds can fly, without considering their feathers.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me say that I do believe that the PCRI will provide interesting, and in many cases valuable, data. It will undoubtedly illuminate some of the cultural trends that have facilitated the rise of the Pentecostal movement around the world. However, if the central question really focuses on why Pentecostal churches are growing, then I would suggest that the PCRI should have spent a good portion of their money inquiring into the biblical ethos and theological values that shape the Pentecostal movement. Now, I am not so bold as to suggest that my own attempt to answer this question in the following pages will yield results as comprehensive and nuanced as the combined wisdom of the sociological research; however, I would note that my wisdom on this matter comes at a fraction of the cost. In fact, I do believe that I might have something unique to offer. The reason for this bold claim is simple: sociology can help us describe the “what,” but it struggles to help us understand the “why.” I believe this is particularly true of the rise of the modern Pentecostal movement, which points beyond human horizons to a God who delights to work in and through us.

This recognition of the interconnectedness of our beliefs, experience, and behavior leads me to insist that Pentecostal convictions are an essential part of Pentecostal experience and praxis. We cannot speak of one as if it were totally independent of the others. For this reason, I believe that the question of why Pentecostal churches are growing is at its heart a theological question. Indeed, I am convinced that there are five theologically-oriented reasons for the unique and rapid growth of the modern Pentecostal movement. Without taking into account these core convictions, which are shared by Pentecostals around the world, one cannot provide an adequate answer to our central question. Let us examine, then, the five characteristics and related convictions that drive this influential and growing movement forward.

1. Missional DNA

Pentecostal experience and praxis are shaped, in large measure, by the stories contained in the book of Acts. The central texts that Pentecostals around the world memorize and feature are Acts 1:8, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth,” and Acts 2:4, “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” These texts and the related stories of bold missionary endeavor that follow in the book of Acts provide the templates for our understanding of baptism in the Spirit. They shape Pentecostal experience and give direction to our mission. Within the larger Christian family this emphasis is unique and it gives the Pentecostal movement a profoundly missional ethos. This is, in my opinion, one of the key reasons why Pentecostal churches are growing. It is certainly a central reason why scores of missionaries, most with meager financial backing, left the Azusa Street Revival and traveled to diverse points of the globe to proclaim the “apostolic” faith. I would suggest it is also why Pentecostals today constantly share their faith with others. Bold witness for Jesus is recognized as our primary calling and the central purpose of our experience of the Spirit’s power. Missions is woven into the fabric of our DNA.

This Pauline emphasis has, to a large extent, shaped the Evangelical movement. Elsewhere I have outlined how Evangelicals, in a knee-jerk reaction to liberal scholarship that challenged the historical reliability of Luke’s writings, rejected the notion that Luke was a theologian.¹²⁷ Evangelicals maintained that Luke and the other Gospel writers were not theologians; they were historians. In Evangelical circles any discussion of the theological purpose of Luke and his narrative was muted. The Gospels and Acts were viewed as historical records, not accounts reflecting self-conscious theological concerns. Of course this approach essentially created a canon within the cannon and, by giving Paul pride of place as the “theologian” of the New Testament, had a significant Paulinizing effect on Evangelical theology. Evangelicals are just now beginning to come to terms with the theological significance of the biblical narratives.

Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Image: Pedro Lima

Certainly Evangelicals have, in their own way, highlighted the missionary call. Generally this has come by way of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18–20. This text has perhaps been more acceptable to Evangelicals than the commissioning material in Acts, since here Jesus is the One who has “all authority” and there is no overt commission for His disciples to work “signs and wonders.” Yet, even here, tensions persist. Is this commission valid for everyone in the church? And how does Jesus’ authority relate to the disciples He sends out? Here the Pentecostal reading of Acts provides clear and ready answers. On the basis of their reading of Acts, Pentecostals affirm that every disciple is called and empowered and every disciple is encouraged to expect that “signs and wonders” will accompany his or her witness. Evangelicals tend to be, at best, less clear on these matters.

More recently, Third Wave Evangelicals have highlighted the role of spiritual gifts in evangelism.¹²⁸ But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, this perspective, rooted as it is in Paul’s gift language, fails to offer a solid rationale for a high sense of expectancy with respect to divine enabling.¹²⁹ When it comes to spiritual gifts, the attitude of many is quite passive. Perhaps verbal witness is not our gift. What is lacking here is a clear promise of empowering that extends to every believer. Pentecostals find this in the narrative of Acts (Acts 1:8; 2:19). Furthermore, Luke highlights more than simply “signs and wonders.” His narrative is also filled with examples of bold, Spirit-inspired witness in the face of opposition and persecution (e.g., Luke 12:11–12; Acts 4:31). This staying power is an undisputable focus in Luke’s narrative, and it has been central to Pentecostal missions as well. Here again we need to hear Luke’s unique contribution.

I do not wish to minimize in any way the significance of the great doctrinal truths of Paul’s writings. I merely point out that since Paul was, for the most part, addressing specific needs in various churches, his writings tend to feature the inner life of the Christian community. His writings, with some significant exceptions, do not focus on the mission of the church to the world. So, for example, Paul has much to say about spiritual gifts and how they should be exercised in corporate worship (1 Cor. 12–14); however, he is relatively silent when it comes to the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit. It is probably fair to say that while Paul features the “interior” work of the Spirit (e.g., the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22–23); Luke features His “expressive” work (Acts 1:8). Thus, by appropriating in a unique way the significant contributions of Luke-Acts, Pentecostals have developed a piety with a uniquely outward or missiological thrust.

This Lukan and missiological emphasis, transmitted largely through the stories in the book of Acts, also points to a significant difference that distinguishes the Pentecostal movement from the Charismatic movement. Whereas the Pentecostal movement from the beginning has been a missionary movement, the Charismatic movement has largely been a movement of spiritual renewal within existing, mainline churches. Here, the names are instructive. The term Pentecostal points us to Pentecost and the missionary call and power that is given to the church (Acts 1–2). The term Charismatic, by way of contrast, points to the spiritual gifts that serve to edify the church, particularly as it gathers together for corporate worship (1 Cor. 12–14). Both movements have blessed the wider church and brought fresh insights and much-needed spiritual energy. However, the missiological legacy of the Pentecostal movement is conspicuous. The same cannot be said for the Charismatic movement.

Their unique appropriation of Luke-Acts not only distinguishes Pentecostals from their Evangelical and Charismatic brothers and sisters, it also highlights a significant difference that separates them from the liberal wing of the Protestant church. It should be noted that many liberals, unlike their Evangelical counterparts, have given more attention to the Gospels, and particularly to Jesus, than to Paul. In fact, some liberals go so far as to claim that Paul distorted or obscured the “pure” teachings of Jesus. It would appear, at least with this emphasis on the gospel narratives, that liberals and Pentecostals might find some common ground. But here again we encounter a major difference. Whereas liberals seek to understand Jesus in the light of a critical scholarship that discounts the possibility of the miraculous, Pentecostals, without hesitation, embrace the miracle-working Jesus of the New Testament who is both fully human and fully divine. The difference is profound. One has an apostolic faith to proclaim. The other is left with little but pious platitudes. Again, it is not difficult to see why one is a missionary movement and the other is not.

2. A Clear Message

The clarity of the Pentecostal message flows from the simple, straightforward manner in which we read the Bible. As I have noted, Pentecostals love the stories of the Bible. We identify with the stories that fill the pages of the Gospels and Acts, and the lessons gleaned from these stories are easily grasped and applied in our lives. For Pentecostals, the New Testament presents models that are to be emulated and guidelines that are to be followed.

Image: Adrianna Geo

It should be noted that our approach to doing theology is not dependent on mastering a particular set of writings, say, the works of Luther; or coming to terms with a highly complex theological system. Pentecostals also do not worry much about cultural distance or theological diversity within the canon. We do not lose sleep over how we should understand the miracle stories of the Bible or how we might resolve apparent contradictions in the Bible. Our commitment to the Bible as the Word of God enables us to face these questions with a sense of confidence. Furthermore, our experience of God’s presence serves as a constant reminder that calls us back to the basic purpose of our reading in the first place: to know God and His will for our lives more clearly. Finally, our sense of connection with the apostolic church and its mission, encouraged by the similarities between our experiences and those described in the biblical text, call us to focus on the challenge before us. Though we know that Jesus is the victor, the battle still rages. We have been called to serve as Jesus’ end-time prophets. So we read with purpose. Their stories are our stories.

In a world still populated by a huge number of illiterate or semi-literate people, the simplicity of the Pentecostal approach, rooted as it is in the biblical narrative, is often appreciated. The stories of the Bible and the stories of personal testimony often play an important role in Pentecostal worship and instruction. These stories make the communication of the message much easier, especially when cultural barriers need to be hurdled. This is particularly so when the stories connect with the felt needs of the hearers, as is generally the case with stories of spiritual deliverance, physical healing, and moral transformation. Most of the people who inhabit our world believe in God (or at least gods) and spiritual power. They simply do not know Him. They usually do, however, have a clear sense of their needs. In our world, a narrative approach that takes seriously the spiritual needs of people and the miraculous power of God is destined to win a hearing.

I would also add that, in accordance with the record of apostolic ministry contained in the book of Acts, Pentecostals have focused their attention on proclaiming the gospel and not on political or social action. This is not to say that Pentecostals have not had a significant social impact. On the contrary, Pentecostals around the world are the church of the poor and their virtues of “betterment, self-discipline, aspiration, and hard work,” nurtured by the life-transforming power of the Spirit experienced in the community of believers, enable this often marginalized group to survive and prosper. As David Martin aptly notes, “Pentecostals belong to groups which liberals cast in the role of victim, and in every way they refuse to play that role.”¹³¹ Although it often goes unrecognized, Pentecostals around the globe are having a dramatic social impact. But they are doing so precisely because they are focused on a clear biblical message of repentance, forgiveness, and transformation. This message builds worshipping communities that embody and foster virtues that build families, empower women, nurture children, and enable the poor to prosper.¹³²

The people who talk the most about helping the poor are generally not the poor. They also frequently lack the spiritual resources necessary to deal with the fundamental issues that confront the poor. In the contest between the home and the street, more is needed than helpful instruction and handouts. Nothing less than the transforming power of God’s presence is needed to foster the individual discipline and build the caring community required to win this battle. This is exactly what Pentecostals feature. Their approach is not the result of detailed sociological analysis or demographic studies. It does not flow from the pages of numerous case studies or the reports of well-heeled relief agencies. Rather, their approach flows from the book of Acts. By and large, Pentecostals do what Graham Twelftree suggests was the practice of the early church: they preach and demonstrate with signs and wonders the gospel to those outside the church; and they apply social justice within the church.¹³³

This approach has the advantage of featuring a message that clearly centers on the Word of God and thus serves to unite the community of faith. The farther afield the church moves into the realm of political or social action, the less it is able to speak with clarity about its suggested course of action. Should Christians support a welfare state as a compassionate choice for the poor? Or should they encourage less government intervention so that individuals and churches have more freedom and resources to minister to them? These are the kind of questions that individual Christians often consider. However, because these questions are not directly dealt with in the Scriptures, they normally generate conflicting responses. Pentecostals have, for the most part, avoided theological reflection and philosophical speculation that takes the church away from its apostolic foundations and its central truths. They show little interest in political theology or interfaith dialogue. Some may see this as a weakness, but I think history has shown that it is a great strength.

3. Signs and Wonders

Pentecostals routinely pray for the sick and take seriously the commission of Jesus to preach the good news and heal the sick. Again, the record of Acts is crucial, for the signs and wonders of the apostolic church form models for our contemporary practice. The impact of this approach is hard to miss.

One recent study of a Pentecostal group in Brazil, cited by Martin, found that almost half of the female converts and roughly a quarter of the male converts came to conversion through illness. “Pentecostals seek out those in need where they are, and the need is often signaled by illness.” The study noted how the locals faced “all the maladies of poverty from worms and parasites to dehydration and undernourishment, from snakebite to ovarian cancer.” In this context, prayer for healing takes on special significance. Martin eloquently describes the typical Pentecostal convert as “someone who has restored the home, holds the Bible fiercely in hand, and finds in the Holy Spirit the ecstatic lover of the soul and healer of body. For those whose words are discounted in the wider world He gives the Word as well as the tongue to express it.”¹³⁴

My own experience also confirms the important role that prayer for the sick plays in the growth of the Pentecostal church. On one occasion I attended a meeting of a house church in a large Chinese city. I traveled to the meeting with an American Christian who described himself as a “mild cessationist.” We arrived at the designated apartment early and noted that a group of five or six ladies had already arrived. My friend was curious about their stories and asked me, “How did these ladies become Christians?” So I said, “Let’s ask them.” I proceeded to translate the ladies’ responses to our question. Each one of the ladies referred to a miracle of healing, either in their own lives or in the life of a family member, as they described their journey to faith in Christ. In China this is by no means unusual, but rather, the norm.

The significance of this Pentecostal emphasis on prayer for the sick should not be minimized. Historically, Christianity has often expressed ambiguous and, at times, sub-biblical attitudes toward the body. The Gnostic tendency to view the body as evil and a prison of the soul has too often influenced the church. The result has been an emphasis on “the saving of souls” with little concern for the body and the concrete, physical needs of people here and now. Yet Pentecostals declare a different message. While Pentecostals are careful not to downplay humanity’s desperate need for forgiveness and moral transformation through the Spirit, they also boldly proclaim that Jesus is the Healer.

It is important to realize that Cho did not develop his teaching on success and prosperity from the context of the affluent West and the North American “health and wealth” preachers . . . it was in the context of the slums of Seoul among people recovering from the horrors of the Japanese occupation and the Korean War when Cho began to preach that poverty was a curse.¹³⁶

Additionally, it should be noted that Cho’s message is solidly Christocentric, centering on Jesus and His redemptive work.¹³⁷ This focus on Jesus and living in order to glorify Him brings balance to Cho’s message. “We must remember,” admonishes Cho, “that whatever we do, God is measuring the work we do for Him in a qualitative, not quantitative way. … Only the work which is done by the power of the Holy Spirit can be acceptable in the Kingdom of God.”¹³⁸ Indeed, for Cho, material blessing is inseparably related to mission. Cho declares, “We are in God’s business. We are in business to make a profit, not in money, but in souls.”¹³⁹ This outward, service-oriented focus separates Cho’s discussion about prosperity from a self-centered hedonism. And, while Cho highlights God’s desire to bless his people, he also speaks of the necessity of persevering through suffering and hardship: “Many people think that when you have faith, everything will flow easily, with few problems encountered. But it is important to remember that this is not so.”¹⁴⁰ In fact, Cho sees suffering as the pathway to spiritual growth. He writes, “The deeper our faith becomes, the more we have experiences that challenge us to allow God to break us, but the more we experience brokenness, the deeper our faith becomes.”¹⁴¹

The Pentecostal message, then, centers on the all-embracing salvation found in Jesus. It is designed to encourage faith and bring hope to people living in the midst of hopelessness and despair. And Pentecostals do not hesitate to relate the gospel to the whole spectrum of human need, whether it be spiritual, physical, or material. This holistic approach is a refreshing correction to traditional theologies that ignore the body and its needs. Ulrich Luz’s perceptive comments concerning Paul’s “theology of glory” might be aptly applied to the holistic theology of Pentecostalism as well. Luz notes that “the fear and panic at ‘enthusiasm’ and any theologia gloriae which marks out many Protestant theologians is unknown to Paul, for it is not a question of his own glory, but Christ’s.”¹⁴²

4. Limited Church Structure

Pentecostal churches tend to be congregational in polity and they do not have established or strict academic prerequisites for church leadership. This means that leaders in the church are recognized and selected by the members of the congregation largely due to the quality of their spiritual life and their pastoral gifting. Pentecostals place great importance on one’s sense of a call, spiritual gifting, and ministerial practice. They resist bureaucratic control, fearing that it will limit Spirit-inspired vision. New churches are often birthed spontaneously, planted by believers with little formal training who sense the Spirit leading them to “step out in faith.” These spiritual entrepreneurs frequently work through family relationships or friendship networks, moved by a sense of calling and spiritual vision. They are encouraged to develop vision and take risks through their participation in the life of the church. There is a strong egalitarian sense in the Pentecostal community, with every one encouraged to contribute. This is, of course, facilitated by an emphasis on gifts of the Spirit and symbolized in speaking in tongues, which can be viewed as a sacrament that is not limited to or controlled by the clergy.

A prospective minister must, above all, study at a TSPM seminary. This is tremendously limiting since educational levels in the countryside are often too low for admission, the prospective student must have recommendations from a TSPM pastor and thus prior experience in a TSPM church, and the number of students admitted into TSPM seminaries each year is ridiculously low due to government restrictions. After graduation, the young believer often serves an apprenticeship in a designated church under designated leadership. Given the mixed character of the TSPM, this can be a most challenging experience for earnest young believers. Finally, the ministerial candidate must be viewed as acceptable by both church and government leaders in order to be ordained.

With these factors in mind, we can understand why so many gifted young believers gravitate to house church settings. Here is an environment where they can exercise leadership gifts without going through a rigorous process that in most cases is not open to them anyway. Many opportunities to explore and develop their sense of calling are available in small group settings. And, while underground training opportunities are increasingly available to house church Christians, strong emphasis is placed on practical ministry. This tends to foster and strengthen the development of spiritual gifts. In the house church, anyone may emerge as a leader. The only qualifications are spiritual in nature.

Image: Ismael Paramo

It is important to note that TSPM churches tend to be dominated by the clergy. They do not feature participation or ministry on the part of the laity. If possible, the Sunday worship services are always led by professional clergy. Furthermore, small group meetings where lay leadership might be encouraged and developed are often not tolerated. Meetings must take place at designated places, at designated times, and with designated leadership. This limitation seriously impacts the life of the church, for these are precisely the contexts where gifts of the Spirit might be exercised and the body built up.

Of course the house churches are extremely different. Virtually everyone participates and anyone may contribute a song, a testimony, or a prayer. When I attend TSPM churches I am always encouraged, but generally I know that I will not be an active participant in terms of edifying the larger group. When I attend a house church service, I always go with a sense of expectancy, knowing that I will have many opportunities to share, to pray, and to encourage others.

These contrasts are not unique to the churches of China. Many traditional and state churches around the world insist that their ministers go through a rigid path of professional training. They also emphasize a clear path of hierarchical authority that features accountability. This kind of institutional approach may foster stability, but it also encourages conformity and stifles flexibility, creativity, and risk-taking. Fundamentally, the ministry is often viewed differently: it is seen as a profession to pursue rather than a calling to follow.

The ethos of Pentecostal churches is noticeably different. We may sum up by saying that Pentecostals are the “free market capitalists” in the economy of church life. Rigid control from a central bureaucracy is rarely tolerated; rather, the calling, gifting, and vision of every believer is affirmed and encouraged. Churches are thus planted with little or no encouragement or financial support from denominational leaders, often by surprising people —it matters not if they are young, unschooled, or female—with a strong sense that God has called and empowered them for the task at hand. Little wonder that Acts 4:13 is a favorite Pentecostal text: “When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” Pentecostals see this life-transforming encounter with Jesus as the essential ingredient for effective ministry. Since other qualifications fade into insignificance by comparison, everyone is potentially a pastor, evangelist, or missionary. The church is, after all, a community of Spirit-inspired prophets.

5. An Emphasis on Experience

Many in the modern era shied away from the enthusiasm of the apostolic church, viewing it as a primitive and relatively uncouth response to religious truth. They felt that enlightened and civilized people should respond in a more cognitive and serene manner. But none of this dissuaded Pentecostals from embracing the biblical record and seeking a profound encounter with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. This approach has enabled the Pentecostal movement, at least in modern times, to bring together an emphasis on experience with a commitment to the authority of the Bible. Rather than seeing these twin themes as competing with one another, most Pentecostals view them as complementary. Certainly, Pentecostals would affirm the importance of a cognitive grasp of basic, fundamental truths. Thus, Pentecostals have established thousands of Bible schools around the world. However, Pentecostals do not tend to look to creeds or doctrinal statements for a verification of true faith. A cognitive understanding of doctrinal truth may be helpful and even necessary, but it is not proof of spiritual vitality. Rather, Pentecostals see fervent prayer, a willingness to suffer for the gospel, and a deep sense of God’s leading as signs of true spiritual life. Pentecostal theology is, at its heart, a theology of encounter.¹⁴⁶ Pentecostal doctrine—with its emphasis on baptism in the Spirit, speaking in tongues, and gifts of the Spirit—and Pentecostal praxis reflect this reality.

This positive and welcoming attitude toward experience marks Pentecostal services around the globe. Pentecostal meetings, although generally following a simple pattern of singing, preaching, testimonies, and prayer, nonetheless are often punctuated by manifestations of the Spirit and frequently end with an extended time of corporate prayer. The manifestations of the Spirit might take the form of a word of prophecy, a message in tongues (which is then interpreted for the congregation), or a word of encouragement. Most services end with an altar call “so that the goal of the preaching can be sealed with a season of prayer.”¹⁴⁷ This time of prayer is viewed as the true climax of the service and an important opportunity for people to encounter God in a personal and tangible way. At this time special needs may be voiced. When a request for prayer is offered, the individual is frequently surrounded by a group of supportive intercessors who, with the laying on of hands, cry out to God on behalf of the person in need. Routinely, the sick are anointed with oil and prayer for healing is offered. Those struggling with temptation or addictions may be bathed in prayer as well, with the prayer extending until there is a sense of spiritual breakthrough or victory. Although this dynamic and participatory type of worship service is perhaps less common in the large Pentecostal churches of the West, generally even in these churches one can find a small group setting where these kind of experiences are encouraged and nurtured. It all makes for an interesting and exciting time. Pentecostal services are rarely dull.

In a world filled with people who long to experience God, to feel His presence, and encounter Him at a deeply personal and emotional level, this kind of dynamic worship service is very attractive.¹⁴⁸ The largely cognitive and sedate approach of traditional churches fails to connect with these needs. In fact, for the many illiterate or semi-literate people who populate our planet, a cerebral approach is virtually incomprehensible. They desire to meet God: a God who is tangible, whose presence can be felt, and whose impact can be seen and heard—a God who has power over evil spirits and who can change lives. Pentecostals proclaim that this is the God who is revealed in Jesus. The contrast with the cold, liturgical formalism and largely cognitive orientation of the traditional churches is evident. Is it any wonder that Pentecostal churches are growing?

Some will still remain skeptical. They will ask: Is not this approach to church life, with its emphasis on ecstatic experience, emotional response, and spiritual power, filled with inherent dangers? Might it not encourage us to feature emotionally manipulative methods and to focus on superficial matters? Yes, undoubtedly, there are dangers. However, there is more danger in an approach that fails to make room for the full range of human experience, including the emotions, in our encounter with God. I have observed that post-Enlightenment Westerners tend to be far more worried about “emotional excess” than their brothers and sisters in the East. As a result, they often do not allow significant room for the place of emotions in their spiritual encounters. Non-westerners delight in “feeling” God’s presence. If the biblical record is to be our standard, then perhaps we in the West should take careful notice.

Conclusion

I have argued that Pentecostal church growth flows naturally from five characteristics that mark Pentecostal church life. Each of these characteristics may be traced to the distinctive way that Pentecostals emphasize and read the book of Acts. While Pentecostal churches adapt to the various settings and cultures in which they exist, these foundational characteristics transcend specific cultural settings. They are common to Pentecostal churches around the globe precisely because all of these churches share a common commitment to the Bible and, more specifically, to a preferential reading of Acts. In short, since Pentecostals view the early church as described in the book of Acts as their model, the narrative of Acts represents a powerful and cohesive force that shapes global Pentecostal praxis.

Perhaps a key to the success of Pentecostal churches can be found in their willingness to take risks. Desperate people take risks. They have little to lose. Historically, Pentecostals have been people with little to lose. As a result, they have been desperate for God. Globally, the majority of Pentecostals still live on the wrong side of the tracks: they are the poor, the powerless, and the marginalized.¹⁴⁹ So, they are hungry for God. And so, too, they recognize that they are absolutely dependent upon Him. Pentecostals talk about God’s power because they know that they are weak. They pray for God’s healing and deliverance because they have no other hope. They seek God’s presence because only in Him do they find joy and peace. In a word, Pentecostals are desperate. And Luke’s narrative reminds us that God loves to work in and through desperate people:

He has brought down rulers from their thrones,

but has lifted up the humble.

He has filled the hungry with good things,

but has sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:52–53)

PR

This is Chapter 5 from Robert Menzies, Pentecost: This Story is Our Story. Used with permission.

Notes

125 See Miller’s comments at www.usc.edu/uscnews/newsroom/news_release.php?id=558.

126 Ibid.

127 See Menzies and Menzies, Spirit and Power, 37–45.

128 See for example John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991).

129 Menzies and Menzies, Spirit and Power, 145–58.

130 David Martin, Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish (Oxford: Blackwell, 2 002), 1 06; prior quote from 105.

132 For an objective but positive assessment, see Martin, Pentecostalism.

133 Graham H. Twelftree, People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 203. Twelftree concludes, “Social action, in terms of caring for the physical needs of the outsider, plays no part in Luke’s view of mission” (203). On the priority of proclamation over social action in Luke’s view of mission, see also Robert Menzies, “Complete Evangelism: A Review Essay,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 3 (1998), 1 33–42. More affluent Pentecostals are beginning to engage in a variety of creative approaches that enable them to connect with non-Christians, including business enterprises and social programs. Whether they will be able to maintain their historic focus on the priority of sharing the gospel and making disciples remains to be seen. Since, from a Pentecostal perspective, the gospel is our most precious gift, I would suggest that love demands nothing less.

134 Martin, Pentecostalism, 106. Prior quotes from 105–6.

135 David Yonggi Cho, Salvation, Health, and Prosperity: Our Threefold Blessings in Christ (Altamonte Springs, FL: Creation House, 1987), 54–55. 136 Allan Anderson, “The Contextual Pentecostal Theology of David Yonggi Cho” in David Yonggi Cho: A Close Look at His Theology and Ministry, eds. W. Ma, W. Menzies, and H. Bae (Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 7, no. 1 [Baguio: APTS Press, 2004]), 155.

137 See Anderson, “David Yonggi Cho,” 154.

138 Yonggi Cho, The Fourth Dimension, Volume Two: More Secrets for a Successful Faith Life (Plainfield: Bridge Publishing, 1983), 16.

139 Yonggi Cho, Fourth Dimension, Volume Two, 2.

140 Paul Yonggi Cho, The Fourth Dimension: The Key to Putting Your Faith to Work for a Successful Life (Plainfield: Logos, 1979), 140.

141 Yonggi Cho, Salvation, 39.

142 Ulrich Luz, “Paul as Mystic,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, eds. G. Stanton, B. Longenecker, and S. Barton (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004), 141.

143 TSPM stands for “The Three Self Patriotic Movement.”

144 In his book on the Charismatic movement in Britain, Nigel Scotland chronicles a litany of problems related to authoritarian tendencies in church leadership. Although past extremes appear to have sobered the movement and much progress has been made, the abuse of “apostolic” authoritarianism is clearly a key concern for the future (Charismatics and the Next Millennium: Do They Have a Future? [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995], see chapters 4 and 5).

145 Martin, Pentecostalism, 176.

146 Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 21.

147 Menzies and Menzies, Spirit and Power, 185.

148 Scotland notes that whereas “Western evangelicalism was very much a one-dimensional affair in which the middle classes … looked for ‘sound teaching,’” the charismatic movement, with its experiential focus has met a growing desire for “deeper emotional and spiritual satisfaction” (Charismatics, 24).

149 Martin concludes, “We have in Pentecostalism and all its associated movements the religious mobilization of the culturally despised, above all in the non-western world, outside any sponsorship whatever, whether of their own local intelligentsias, or of the clerical and secular intelligentsias of the West” (Pentecostalism, 167).

Missionary-scholar Robert Menzies looks at what one China scholar says about recent changes in religious policy in China: this is not an attempt to make churches more Chinese. Rather, this is a move to politically domesticate the church in China. Despite this, there are reasons for hope.

Fenggang Yang, “Xi Jinping is Not Trying to Make Christianity More Chinese” Christianity Today (Jan 16, 2024).

I warmly recommend this well-written and informed article on the current state of Christianity in China. Professor Yang’s candid assessment of the current religious policy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and what it means for the Christian church are, in my view, on target. Yang’s main thesis is clearly stated in the article’s tagline, “The primary goal of Zhongguo hua is not cultural assimilation but political domestication. Yet I’m more confident than ever that house churches will survive.”

Fenggang Yang, Professor of Sociology at Purdue University, makes several important points: First, he astutely argues that the term “Sinicization” (often used to translate the Chinese phrase, Zhongguo hua) is inaccurate and misleading. Yang insists that a new term is needed because the goal of Zhongguo Hua is not the faithful contextualization of the gospel in contemporary China—the Chinese church has actually been quite good at this—but rather it’s political domestication. Thus, Yang proposes the term, “Chinafication,” as a helpful descriptor of the CCP’s attempt to co-opt the church. Second, Yang provides important historical context for understanding the Chinese Church’s “bitter Winter” that actually began in earnest at the beginning of 2018 when new, restrictive religious policies were enacted. Persecution is real and Yang offers numerous concrete expressions of the CCP’s attempts to muzzle and control the church. For example, churches are required to display “patriotic posters” such as “Love the party, love the state, love the religion” (note the priority assumed in the sequence of commands). While the CCP has attempted to eradicate the house church movement, the resulting wave of persecution (including the imprisonment of vocal house church pastors) has simply forced the church to move “underground” by operating more discretely and in smaller groups. Finally, Yang seeks to answer a question he raised five years ago, “Will Chinese house churches survive the latest government crackdown?” His answer today is a “resounding yes.” He describes the proliferation of meetings of small groups of believers (numbering in the dozens rather than in the hundreds) and the growth of online meetings. The essential point is that house church Christians have “held on to the teaching of ‘not giving up meeting together’ (Heb. 10:25).”

Reviewed by Robert Menzies

Is the Church in China Predominantly Pentecostal?

Author’s Preface
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: The House Church Networks
Part 3: Gaining Perspective: A Contextual Assessment

PneumaReview.com reader ISC wrote:

Actually, I don’t think the True Jesus Church [discussed in “Is the Chinese Church Predominantly Pentecostal? Part 3: Gaining Perspective“] was directly influenced by Pentecostal Truths (Wuxunjie zhenlibao). I had a chit-chat with Prof. Bays during the break time at a symposium in 2013, I asked him how he made the conclusion that Pentecostal Truths influenced the TJC? This periodical reflects a quite strong Holiness Pentecostal perspective while the TJC has its root in Oneness Pentecostal missionary Berntsen. He said to me that leaders from the TJC told him this way when he visited its general assembly in Taichung, Taiwan many years ago.

According to what I have known, many TJC folks do not know that Classical Pentecostals can be divided into Holiness, Finished work, and Oneness. Most of them think all the Pentecostals believe in salvation and Spirit-Baptism identical experiences as what Oneness Pentecostals do. To put it simply, most of them do not know that Pentecostals mostly believe in “subsequence” except Oneness Pentecostals. So, it’s not necessary for them to look into what type of Pentecostal sub-traditions the Pentecostal Truths actually carried.

According to some more overall field investigations, churches in China including those with Pentecostal characteristics mostly feel uncomfortable with being called “Pentecostal” or “Charismatic”. I think one should be cautious of using a Western-made term such as Pentecostal or Charismatic to describe Christianity in the global south.

Furthermore, leaders from the five largest house church groups in China such as Zhang Yinan tend to avoid identifying themselves as Pentecostal or Charismatic. Rather, they would like to learn from various Christian traditions.

Robert Menzies responded:

First, let me say that I appreciate the reader’s interesting comments and informed suggestion with respect to the origins of the TJC.  Nevertheless, I still have to side with Daniel Bays on this one.

Although the TJC was a oneness Pentecostal group, this does not preclude its early leaders from being influenced by the Pentecostal Truths (Wuxunjie zhenlibao) as Bays argues. One can see how both the Pentecostal Truths and Berntsen both exerted influence.  Pentecostals tended to feature Acts, so a oneness perspective flowed from this literalistic (and I would add, in the case of oneness Pentecostals, myopic) perspective.

In response to the reader’s comments about attitudes toward the terms, “charismatic” or “Pentecostal,” in China, I offer the following. While it is true that the term “charismatic” (lingen) often has pejorative connotations in China, the term “Pentecostal” (wunxunjie) is generally viewed favorably. Some groups are quite willing to accept this label. Leaders of the Fangcheng group, for example, emphasize their Pentecostal beliefs. Other groups that are not “classical” Pentecostal but accept most of the features of Pentecostal theology and praxis, may be more cautious in using the label. I suspect that the language they use often depends on the context and with whom they are speaking.

Have you posed this question to Dennis Balcombe? I believe Dennis has had more first-hand experience with these groups than any person I know. I’m confident that Dennis would affirm my conclusion, based on my own experience with leaders from various house church groups (as well as a written survey – see my ”Pentecostals in China,” in Vinson Synan and Amos Yong, eds., Global Renewal Christianity: Spirit-Empowered Movements Past, Present, and Future, vol. I: Asia and Oceania [Lake Mary, Fla.: Charisma House Publishers, 2015], 67-90).

I would add that to suggest that the term, “Pentecostal,” is Western, is simply wrong. Most Pentecostals today do not live in the global West. Furthermore, the term is biblical and flows from the Bible. While I hope we all want to learn from the various Christian traditions, this should not blind us to the Pentecostal character of much of the Chinese house church movement. Perhaps the more important question is, how do we define the term, “Pentecostal”? I have been careful to clearly define this term in my writings and I do believe that the term must be understood theologically, not simply phenomenologically.

Robert Menzies

Part 3: Gaining Perspective: A Contextual Assessment

The strong Pentecostal orientation of the Church in China is striking, but it should not surprise us. In fact, when the recent revival of Christianity in China is viewed against the backdrop of its historical, global, and sociological contexts, this is precisely what we would expect. Let us examine each of these contexts.

The Historical Context

One of the striking aspects of Christianity in pre-1949 China was the emergence of strong, vital indigenous churches. These churches were founded and led by Chinese Christians. They were established and operated entirely independent of foreign finances, control and leadership. Although these groups were largely overlooked by missionaries and have been neglected by historians, it is evident that these groups were extremely significant. More recently, Daniel Bays, a noted historian of Chinese Christianity, has highlighted the significance of these groups. Speaking of these independent Chinese Christian groups, Bays writes, “I believe that this sector [of the Christian Church] was far more interesting and significant than it might have been thought.”[1] Bays estimates that by the 1940s these indigenous groups accounted for between 20-25% (or 200,000 believers) of all Protestants.[2] Furthermore, Bays notes that these groups have exerted a tremendous influence on the Christianity that has flourished in China since the 1980s:

Moreover, judging from what we know of the churches in China today, it is clear that a great many of the older Christians whose experience dates to before 1949 came out of these indigenous churches.[3]

The largest of these groups, the True Jesus Church, was and remains Pentecostal in character. Bays has established important links between the Azusa Street revival and the key founders of the True Jesus Church.

Another link between the Azusa Street revival and the True Jesus Church can be traced through a Mr. Bernsten, a missionary serving in China who was profoundly impacted by his experience at the altar of the Azusa Mission. After his experience at the Azusa Mission, Bernsten returned to China and, along with a small group of Pentecostals, opened an independent mission station in Zhending (just north of Shijiazhuang) of Hebei Province. In 1912 this group began to publish a newspaper, Popular Gospel Truth (Tongchuan fuyin zhenlibao). This paper, along with the Hong Kong paper noted above, provided inspiration for the early founders the True Jesus Church. Additionally, two of the key Chinese founders of the True Jesus Church, Zhang Lingshen and Wei Enbo were impacted in Beijing by members of the church Bernsten’s group had founded, the Faith Union (Xinxinhui).[5]

These two men (Zhang Lingshen and Wei Enbo), along with Barnabas Zhang, all of whom had Pentecostal experiences that included speaking in tongues, determined that they would form a Pentecostal church in China. They founded their first church in Tianjin in 1917. The church grew quickly and spread to Shandong, Hebei, Henan, Zhejiang, and other provinces. Its key areas of strength were in Hunan, Fujian, and Henan. Hunter and Chan note that the church’s “estimated membership was at least 120,000 by 1949” with 700 churches throughout China.[6]

The series, “Is the Chinese Church Predominantly Pentecostal?” is an excerpt from The Church in China. Robert Menzies used a pen name, Luke Wesley, to write The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004).
Read the 2023 Author’s Preface to this series.

Another large indigenous Chinese Church which was also Pentecostal in nature was the Jesus Family. The Jesus Family was founded in the 1920s by Jing Dianyin in the village of Mazhuang (Taian County) in Shandong Province. The Jesus Family’s worship was marked by prayer for healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, and other spiritual gifts. The Jesus Family also featured a communal way of life in which everything was shared. The Jesus Family was especially strong in the poorest parts of China. Hunter and Chan provide a wonderful description of the church from a present-day believer’s perspective: the church was “a love fellowship, a meeting-place for the weary and a place of comfort for the broken-hearted…where you are, there is our home, and our home is everywhere.”[7] In its heyday in China the Jesus Family totaled over a hundred communities and around six thousand members.[8] The church still continues today in Taiwan.

The Spiritual Gifts Church (Ling’en hui) was a loosely knit independent church movement that emerged in the early 1930s. The movement centered in Shandong Province and was linked to the famous “Shandong Revival,” which impacted and divided a number of mainline churches and missions organizations. Bays notes that the Spiritual Gifts Church was composed of Chinese churches and pastors “who broke away from denominations or missions that refused to approve their controversial Pentecostal doctrines and practices.”[9] The church did not develop organizationally and it is difficult to ascertain its strength or influence.

There were, of course, other indigenous churches that were non-Pentecostal in character, such as The Little Flock (Xiao qun) established by Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng) in the mid-1920s. And there were certainly a number of non-Pentecostal Chinese church leaders of stature. Wang Mingdao, for example, apparently had a Pentecostal experience in 1920, but later “backed away from full Pentecostalism.”[10] Nevertheless, the fact remains that of the three largest independent Chinese churches that sprang up in the early part of the twentieth century (The True Jesus Church, The Little Flock, and the Jesus Family), two were Pentecostal. And one of these Pentecostal groups, the True Jesus Church, was by far the largest single indigenous Chinese church group of that era. This fact, coupled with the significant impact of the Pentecostal form of revivalism that swept through China in the 1930s, indicates that the majority of Chinese Christians prior to 1949, when able to develop their own Christian identity, gravitated to Pentecostal forms of worship and doctrine. It is worth noting, then, that indigenous Chinese Christianity was predominantly Pentecostal.[11]

Tony Lambert points out that today the Church in China is generally strong in those areas where historically the missionaries were most active; that is, in the eastern coastal provinces of Fujian, Zhejiang, and Jiangsu. However, Lambert goes on to note that the Chinese church is also very strong in some provinces where the missionaries were not as active, provinces like Henan and Anhui. He offers no rationale for the growth of the church in these regions, but does note that “the witness of independent, indigenous churches, such as the Little Flock and the Jesus Family, are also vital factors to be taken into account.”[12] What Lambert does not state, but what is especially striking is this: strong, indigenous Pentecostal churches were active in these regions prior to 1949 and today, strong, indigenous Pentecostal churches have blossomed in these same regions. It is difficult to deny that the legacy of these early indigenous churches lives on in the Christians and churches birthed in the revivals of the 1980s.[13] This legacy is conspicuously Pentecostal.

In the light of these historical facts, I would raise this question: If the majority of indigenous Chinese Christians prior to 1949 gravitated to Pentecostal forms of worship and doctrine, why would we expect it to be any different today? The lessons of history suggest that the predominantly Pentecostal character of the contemporary Chinese Church should not surprise us.

The Global Context

If we step back and look at the current revival of Christianity in China from the vantage point of contemporary trends in the global Christian community, again we see that our description of the Chinese Church as predominantly Pentecostal is precisely what we should expect. Historians and researchers of Christianity all agree that one of the most significant religious phenomena of the past century (and many would say the most significant) is the astounding growth of the modern Pentecostal movement.[14] At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Pentecostal movement did not exist. Today, there are over 200 million denominational Pentecostals and over 500 million charismatics and Pentecostals around the world.[15]

This movement, which ranks as the second largest family of Christians in the world (after the Roman Catholic Church), has experienced staggering growth, especially in the developing countries of the world.[16] Over 70% of charismatics and Pentecostals worldwide are non-white and 66% are located in the Third World.[17] Today, in continents like Latin America and Africa, a large majority of evangelical Christians are charismatic or Pentecostal. David Barrett estimates that there are now over 126 million charismatics and Pentecostals in Africa, and over 140 million in Latin America.[18] Charismatic and Pentecostal groups have also grown rapidly in Asia, where they now number over 134 million.[19] Barrett suggests that over 54 million charismatics, neo-charismatics, and Pentecostals (which he defines largely in ecclesiastical terms) now reside in China.[20] And, speaking of the Han Chinese worldwide, Barrett claims that by 1985 over 25% were tongues-speakers. Furthermore, he sates that the proportion of all Han Chinese Christians who are “phenomenologically” Pentecostal or charismatic may be as high as 85%.[21]

The Sociological Context

The reasons for the growth of Pentecostal Christianity worldwide are complex and one should resist the temptation to view these developments totally in terms of naturalistic explanations. Nevertheless, sociologists may provide insight into some of the factors which have encouraged this amazing growth. One of the most striking features of contemporary China is the startling pace of its modernization and economic development. Strange as it may sound, this process of modernization and development may represent a major factor in creating a context conducive for the growth of Pentecostal Christianity.

Ryan Dunch, in a very perceptive article, notes that modernization does impact the religious makeup of a nation. However, he suggests that rather than “producing a straightforward decline in religion,” modernization tends to change its nature. More specifically, Dunch suggests that religion, as it meets modernization, tends to become more voluntary (rather than acquired at birth), individualized, and experiential. These shifts in turn force religious institutions to change accordingly. Dunch views the Pentecostal movement as especially well-suited to minister to the needs of people in societies, like that of China, which are shaped by industrial market economies:

Pentecostal movements, once routinely presented as reactions against modernity, are now being reevaluated as especially reflective of these forces, in their emphasis on the self, and in equipping their adherents, especially in the developing capitalist societies of Latin American and South Korea, with the ‘values of ascetic Protestantism…so essential for social mobility in a capitalist economy.’[22]

We have already noted that Pentecostal doctrine and praxis were particularly appealing to indigenous Chinese Christians in the 1920s and 30s. Certainly many Chinese were attracted to this new form of religion, “which preached good conduct, promised fellowship with divinity, afforded healing and exorcism and offered forms of worship that could be corporate or individual according to the circumstances.”[23] And, as Hunter and Chan recognize, “the religious revival of the 1980s suggests that these are still deep needs.”[24] It is not unreasonable to suggest, then, that the forces of modernization have, in part, enhanced this sense of need. All of this suggests that China, like other societies being shaped by modernization, represents fertile ground for the seeds of Pentecostal revival.

Conclusion

We are in a position to summarize our findings. I have analyzed the theological orientation of the five largest house church groups in China. My analysis was based on my own personal conversations, the findings of fellow researchers, and selected written documents. I have concluded that these five groups should be categorized as follows:

1. China for Christ: largely classical Pentecostal, partly Pentecostal
2. China Gospel Fellowship: largely Pentecostal, partly charismatic
3. Yin Shang Church: largely Pentecostal, partly charismatic
4. Li Xin Church: largely Pentecostal, partly charismatic
5. Word of Life Church: largely non-charismatic, partly charismatic

These conclusions suggest that the overwhelming majority of the Christians in China today are at least charismatic, this would include 90% of house church Christians and perhaps 80% of the total Christian population in China. Furthermore, it is also apparent that a significant majority of the Christians in China today are not only charismatic, but also Pentecostal in their theological orientation. Approximately 75% of house church Christians and 60% of the total Christians population in China would fall into this category. Finally, while it is evident that classical Pentecostals represent a minority of the believers in China, it is a significant minority, encompassing approximately 25% of house church Christians and 20% of the total Christian population in China.

I have also suggested that these findings should not surprise us. Given the strong history of Pentecostalism within the Chinese indigenous churches prior to 1949 and the dramatic growth of Pentecostal churches around the world in recent years, particularly in developing countries, this is precisely what we would expect. I have also noted that Chinese society, which is to a significant degree shaped by the forces of modernization, appears to be particularly fertile soil for the growth of Pentecostal Christianity. Thus, historical patterns, global trends, and sociological factors all serve to strengthen our conclusions.

First, there is Lambert’s curious description of the house church: “There is a strong wing who are charismatic or Pentecostal, but they are not in the majority.”[26] Lambert makes this claim and yet he fails to define the crucial terms, charismatic and Pentecostal, or to offer any supporting evidence.

Secondly, Lambert rather consistently refers to charismatics and Pentecostals in a pejorative way. He links Chinese charismatics and Pentecostals with divisive extremists,[27] uncritically cites a very negative assessment by a TSPM pastor of a prophetic utterance,[28] refers to the “hyped artificial atmosphere of ‘healing meetings’” in the West,[29] perhaps implies that the teaching of classical Pentecostals is “extreme”,[30] and speaks of some charismatic (and evangelical) churches in the West where “preaching is at a discount” and the focus has shifted away from the Bible to “the shifting sands of subjectivism and emotionalism.”[31]

Finally, Lambert generally refuses to refer to Chinese groups and individuals as charismatic or Pentecostal even when they clearly are. This is especially striking with respect to the indigenous Pentecostal groups which emerged in pre-1949 China, the True Jesus Church and The Jesus Family. Lambert discusses these groups in both of his books, but, with one exception, fails to mention that they are Pentecostal.[32] Lambert also cites two testimonies that almost certainly come from Pentecostals. The first testimony is cited as illustrating “the authentic spirit of spiritual revival” and offering “insight into the deeper evangelical spirituality of the house-churches.”[33] Any reference to the Pentecostal nature of this believer’s faith or church is conspicuously absent. The second testimony is so dramatically Pentecostal that Lambert feels compelled to comment: “Not all Christians in China would be as Pentecostal or charismatic as the writer of this letter…”[34] This testimony is reproduced in condensed form in China’s Christian Millions, but with all of the overtly Pentecostal content discretely edited out.[35]

Image: Christian Lue

My purpose here is not to denigrate what are by all accounts two well-researched, highly readable, and extremely valuable books about the Church in China. I simply want to suggest that many evangelical researchers appear loathe to acknowledge the dramatically charismatic and Pentecostal character of the Chinese Church. I do believe that this is an omission that needs to be rectified. This is particularly the case since the most capable and prolific researchers writing on the Chinese Church for western Christians are evangelicals with apparently non-charismatic leanings, such as Tony Lambert and Jonathan Chao. I trust my comments will be understood in the larger context of my great appreciation for these men, their gifts, their dedication, and their writings.

So, it would appear that a clearer, more objective assessment of the theology and practice of the Chinese Church, at least when it comes to charismatic and Pentecostal issues, is needed. I hope this essay represents a small step in that direction. We all are inclined to see only what we want to see. This was certainly the case with many of the missionaries who were contemporaries of those first indigenous Chinese Christians. As Hunter and Chan, speaking of this largely Pentecostal revivalist movement, note:

The missionaries perhaps failed to appreciate the significance of these expressions of popular religiosity, which they compared unfavourably to the quieter and more orderly forms of worship they advocated themselves. As we look back from the 1990s they seem a quite natural form of religious behaviour among peasant communities and recent immigrants to cities.[36]

I do hope that our generation will not make the same mistake. I trust that we will acknowledge and respect the significance of this powerful, indigenous, and largely Pentecostal form of Christianity that has emerged in China over the past two decades.

PR

This excerpt is part of Chapter 3 from The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004). Used with permission.

Notes

[1] Daniel H. Bays, “The Growth of Independent Christianity in China, 1900-1937,” p. 309 in Daniel Bays, ed., Christianity in China: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996).

[2] Bays, “Independent Christianity,” p. 310; for similar estimates see Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 134, n. 60.

[3] Bays, “Independent Christianity,” p. 310.

[4] Daniel Bays, “Indigenous Protestant Churches in China, 1900-1937: A Pentecostal Case Study,” p. 129 in Steven Kaplan, ed., Indigenous Responses to Western Christianity (New York: New York University Press, 1995).

[5] Bays, “Indigenous Protestant Churches,” p. 130. Bays also traces a link with a Pentecostal group associated with Pastor M.L. Ryan of Salem, Oregon, which established a Pentecostal center in Shanghai (pp. 130-31).

[6] Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 121.

[7] Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 121; on the Jesus Family see also Bays, “Independent Christianity,” p. 312.

[8] Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 121; Bays, “Independent Christianity,” p. 312.

[9] Bays, “Independent Christianity,” pp. 312-13. See also Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, pp. 129-130.

[10] Daniel Bays, “Christian Revival in China, 900-1937,” p. 171 in Edith Blumhofer and Randall Balmer, eds., Modern Christian Revivals (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993).

[11] Murray Rubinstein states that the “churches of the Holy Spirit” in Taiwan “have come the furthest toward creating a Christianity that is congruent with basic patterns of traditional Chinese religion” and feels they are on the “cutting edge of Christian progress” (Murray A. Rubinstein, “Holy Spirit Taiwan: Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity in the Republic of China,” p. 366 in Bays, ed., Christianity in China (1996).

[12] Lambert, Resurrection, p. 154.

[13] See also Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 140.

[14] Vinson Synan notes that “some historians refer to the 20^th century as the ‘Pentecostal century’” (Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001], p. 2). See the similar judgment issued by William and Robert Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), p. 15.

[15] Synan, Century, p. 2. The global statistics are conveniently chronicled in D.B. Barrett and T.M. Johnson, “Global Statistics,” pp. 284-302 in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (NIDPC). See also Synan, Century, especially chapters 14 and 15.

[16] Synan, Century, pp. 1-2.

[17] Synan, Century, p. 383.

[18] See the NIDPC, p. 287.

[19] See the NIDPC, p. 287.

[20] See the NIDPC, p. 58.

[21] See the NIDPC, p. 297.

[22] Dunch, “Protestant Christianity,” p. 215 (citing Andrew Walker, “Thoroughly Modern: Sociological Reflections on the Charismatic Movement from the End of the Twentieth Century,” p. 36 in Charismatic Christianity: Sociological Perspective).

[23] Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 140.

[24] Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 140.

[25] On the evangelical nature of the Chinese Church, see for example Lambert, Resurrection, pp. 282-83 and China’s Christian Millions, pp. 30-33, 68, and 188. Note also his positive assessment of miracles and healing in the Chinese Church in Lambert, Resurrection, pp. 112-114 and China’s Christian Millions, pp. 117-20.

[26] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 45.

[27] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 48.

[28] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 111.

[29] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 120.

[30] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 64 and note our discussion of Lambert’s interpretation of the house church Statement of Faith above.

[31] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 188.

[32] See Lambert, Resurrection, pp. 14, 154, 158, 246, 271; and China’s Christian Millions, pp. 49-55. The one exception is found in China’s Christian Millions, p. 49, where Lambert indicates that one of the founders of the True Jesus Church, Paul Wei, was “inspired by the Pentecostal movement.” He also mentions various practices of the church, including speaking in tongues. Lambert goes on to discuss the Jesus Family at length (pp. 50-52) without a single reference to their Pentecostal roots or orientation.

[33] For the testimony see Lambert, Resurrection, pp. 159-62; the first quote is from p. 159, the second from p. 162.

[34] For this testimony see Lambert, Resurrection, pp. 163-67; the quote is from p. 168.

[35] See Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, pp. 171-72.

[36] Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p. 135.

Part 1: Introduction

By Robert P. Menzies

The Wind of the Holy Spirit Will Blow Everywhere

From the East coast to the West coast/

The wind of the Holy Spirit will blow everywhere/

From the East to the West/

The glory of the Holy Spirit will be released/

Good news comes from heaven/

Good news rings in the ear/

Causing dry bones to become moist/

Frail bones to become strong/

Full of the Holy Spirit, we will not turn back/

Step by step we go to distant places/

The lame skipping/

The mute singing/

The fire of the Holy Spirit, the longer it burns the brighter it gets.[1]

The Urging of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is urging/

Distant lands call/

Asking for the sound of salvation to ring in their ears/

Countless pairs of expectant eyes/

Oh, have not seen, have not heard the servants of God/

No matter what you feel/

No matter what you see/

We must declare the good news everywhere/

The Lord has already enabled us to see the land/

Oh, servants of God, you must boost your courage/

The Lord has already won the victory/

Satan has been bound/

Only one step further/

And we enter Canaan land.[2]

The series, “Is the Chinese Church Predominantly Pentecostal?” is an excerpt from The Church in China. Robert Menzies used a pen name, Luke Wesley, to write The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004).
Read the 2023 Author’s Preface to this series.

It is now apparent that since the early 1980s the Church in China has experienced unprecedented growth. Once viewed as an essentially foreign faith, Christianity has taken root in the Chinese soil. And it has blossomed. If the trends of the past two decades remain constant, by 2020 there will be more evangelical Christians in China than in any other country in the world.[3]

Researchers are agreed that the form of Christianity that has emerged in China is both evangelical in character and Chinese in expression.[4] It is evangelical in that the vast majority of Chinese believers exhibit a firm belief in the authority of the Bible, faith in Christ as the sole means of obtaining salvation, and the necessity of evangelism.[5] And yet this evangelical faith has been expressed in ways that are especially appropriate to the Chinese context. Church life is often experienced in small groups that feature close relationships and family ties. There is a strong emphasis on the miraculous, with prayer for healing taking on an important role in the life of faith. The experiential dimension of Christian spirituality, expressed in prayers and worship charged with deep emotion, is significant to many Chinese believers. And the vast majority of Christians in China worship in ‘house churches’ (or, as some prefer, ‘autonomous Christian communities’) that are independent of state or foreign control.[6]

Observers in the West are still attempting to understand this burgeoning Christian movement and much is still unknown. It is evident that there is much to be learned from the Chinese Church, dynamic, multifaceted and polymorphous as it is, and that we in the West would do well to attempt to understand it more clearly. This is the case, not only because increasingly many western missionaries seek to minister in this great country; but, it is also the case because an understanding of the Church in China might shed light on ourselves, our own strengths and weaknesses, and stimulate new insights into our understanding and application of God’s Word. In short, a greater understanding of the Church in China might help us more fully understand and fulfill God’s plans and purposes for our lives.

Methodology

In order to answer our question, I shall analyze the five largest house church networks in China. Based on my own personal interviews with leaders from these groups, additional information gleaned from other researchers, and an analysis of relevant written documents, I will seek to characterize these five groups in terms of the following four categories:

1. Non-Charismatic – those Christians who believe that the Spirit’s work flows out of regeneration and who deny both a Baptism in the Spirit distinct from conversion and the validity of at least some of the gifts of the Spirit listed in 1 Cor. 12:8-10 for the church today.
2. Charismatic – those Christians who believe that all of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12:8-10, including prophecy, tongues, and healing, are available to the Church today.
3. Pentecostal – those Christians who believe that all of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12:8-10 are available to the Church today and who also believe that the Bible encourages every believer to experience a Baptism in the Spirit, an empowering for service distinct from regeneration.[9]
4. Classical Pentecostal – those Christians who, in addition to the beliefs ascribed to Pentecostals above, also affirm that speaking in tongues is the accompanying sign of Baptism in the Spirit.

I am using the terms listed above as theological rather than ecclesiastical descriptions. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (NIDPCM) tends to define the terms based largely on ecclesiastical considerations. Therefore the NIDPCM classifies 99% of the 54.2 million Pentecostals and charismatics who it claims reside in China as “neocharismatics.” The term “neocharismatic” refers to charismatics not affiliated with the historic, classical Pentecostal groupings or to traditional, mainline denominations.[10] Of course, by definition, virtually all of the charismatic house church Christians in China would fall into this category. This system of classification is less helpful for elucidating the specific nature and theological orientation of the various groups in the Chinese church. We are primarily interested in what they believe.

It should also be noted that all of the categories listed above are compatible with the term ‘evangelical’. With the designation evangelical, I refer to those Christians who affirm: the authority of the Bible; that salvation is found only in Christ; and that evangelism is an important part of the Christian’s mission in the world. As I have already noted, the vast majority of Chinese Christians are evangelical in this sense. And, I might add, all five of the house church networks which we will analyze are also evangelical in nature.

In addition to defining key terms, I would also like to clarify the nature of my sources. I will be working with a variety of oral and written sources. First, I will utilize notes from my personal conversations and interviews with various house church leaders. Second, I will also draw upon responses to questions which I have posed to others who are experienced researchers of Christianity in China. Most of these researchers wish to remain anonymous so that their continued service in China might not be jeopardized. For this reason I will describe and list these sources as follows:

“A” – refers to notes sent to me on August 28, 2003 by a researcher who is associated with a large, evangelical, and generally non-charismatic denomination.

“B” – refers to notes sent to me on Sept. 1, 2003 by an independent researcher who is affiliated with a non-denominational mission.

“C” – refers to notes sent to me on Sept. 9, 2003 by a missionary in the classical Pentecostal tradition who works closely with house church groups in China.

“D” – refers to written notes and oral comments presented to me within the past year from an independent Pentecostal missionary who works closely with several of the house church networks listed above.

A third source of information will come from documents draw up by the house church networks themselves, especially the Statement of Faith produced and signed by leaders of several of the churches listed above on November 26, 1998.[12] Finally, I shall also draw from a number of books and articles which speak to our topic.

Image: Christian Lue

The five house church networks which I will examine are: China for Christ, a group with origins in the Fang Cheng district of Henan Province; The China Gospel Fellowship, a group which began in the Tang He District of Henan; The Li Xin Church, which stems from Li Xin region in Anhui Province; the Yin Shang Church, which also has its origins in Anhui Province; and finally, the Word of Life Church, sometimes called the “Born Again Movement”, which was founded by Peter Xu. These groups have been chosen for analysis because it is generally agreed that they represent the five largest house church networks in China.

It is extremely difficult to determine with any degree of precision the size of these groups. Estimates for these groups run as high as 12 million for China for Christ (Fang Cheng), 10 million for the China Gospel Fellowship, five million for the Word of Life, and five million each for the two Anhui groups.[13] My purpose here is not to argue for specific numbers, but rather to affirm that all of the researchers contacted agreed that these five house church networks represent a significant majority of house church Christians in China. This is especially significant in that virtually all researchers also agree that house church Christians represent the vast majority of Christians in China today. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these five groups represent a very significant cross-section or sampling of the Chinese Church.

 PR

Next Issue: “The House Church Networks: A Theological Assessment”

This excerpt is part of Chapter 3 from The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004). Used with permission.

Notes

[1] Lu Xiaomin, Sounds of the Heart, p. 806 (Song #747).

[2] Lu Xiaomin, Sounds of the Heart, p. 826 (Song #767).

[3] Tony Lambert, China’s Christian Millions (London: OMF/Monarch Books, 1999), p. 179. In this book Lambert offered what is by all accounts a conservative estimate of the number of evangelical Christians in China: 30-50 million.

[4] Due to the limitations of my knowledge, I am not able to include Chinese Roman Catholics in this study. When I use the terms Christianity or the Church, it should be understood that I refer to Protestant Christianity and the Protestant wing of the Christian Church.

[5] On the evangelical character of the Chinese Church, see Tony Lambert, The Resurrection of the Chinese Church (Wheaton, IL: OMF/Harold Shaw Publishers, 1994), pp. 282-283 and China’s Christian Millions, pp. 30-33, 45, 48, 188; Alan Hunter and Kim-Kwong Chan, Protestantism in Contemporary China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 82; Ryan Dunch, “Protestant Christianity in China Today: Fragile, Fragmented, Flourishing” in Stephen Uhalley, Jr. and Xiaoxin Wu, eds., China and Christianity: Burdened Past, Hopeful Future (London: East Gate/M.E. Sharpe, 2001), p. 215.

[6] The emphasis on healing and the miraculous in the Chinese Church is noted in Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, pp. 85, 145-146; Lambert, Resurrection, pp. 112-114 and China’s Christian Millions, p. 112; and Dunch, “Protestant Christianity,” p. 203 and the experiential focus of the Chinese Church is highlighted in Dunch, “Protestant Christianity,” pp. 203, 215-16; and Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, pp. 85. 140, 155. Some researchers prefer to use the term ‘autonomous Christian communities’ rather than ‘house church’, see in this regard Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, p, 81.

[7] Stanley Burgess and Eduard M. Van der Mass, eds. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (revised and expanded; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), p. 58.

[8] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 45. Unfortunately, Lambert does not offer a clear definition of the terms, “charismatic” or “Pentecostal.”

[9] This empowering experience might be designated by various terms, including ‘being filled with the Spirit’ or ‘anointed by the Spirit’. However, crucial concepts would include the belief that this experience is given by God in order to equip the believer for service, that it is available to every believer, and that it is logically distinct from conversion.

[10] See the NIDPCM, p. xviii-xxi, 58.

[11] Hunter and Chan, speaking of China, correctly note that “within the Pentecostalist movement one can find relatively restrained as well as exuberant groups…” (Protestantism, p. 155).

[12] See the English translation provided by Lambert in China’s Christian Millions, pp. 60-64.

[13] These numbers are taken from D, but are also very much in line with the estimates given to me by B, with one exception. D did not give an estimate for the number of believers in the Word of Life Church. B noted that the Word of Life group claims that it represents 23 million believers. This group is quite fragmented and it is difficult to take this estimate seriously. In 1998 an article in Christianity Today suggested that this group totaled around three million believers (see Timothy C. Morgan, “A Tale of China’s Two Churches,” Christianity Today 42 (July 13, 1998), pp. 30-39). Although it is likely that this group has grown significantly since then, five million appears to be a more realistic number. A and C did not offer specific estimates, but A indicated that these five groups represented a significant majority (60%) of the house church Christians in China.

By Robert P. Menzies

The essays that follow are not descriptions of the current state of the church in China.[1] Rather, they represent a slice of Chinese church history, albeit an important slice. Dr. Kevin Xiyi Yao of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary has described 1990 through 2010 as the “Golden Age” of the church in China,[2] an assessment with which I concur. This was a period of rapid growth, missionary endeavor, and, in terms of the political and social environment, relative openness. The following essays, drawn from my book, The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful, were written around 2000 and reflect the situation of the Chinese house church movement during this Golden Age (more specifically, in the 1990s).[3] Thus, they are now out of date and do not describe the current state of the church in a fast-changing China. Due to urbanization, changes in leadership, fragmentation, and increasing political pressure (especially since 2018), the five house church networks that I describe is these essays either no longer exist or have significantly changed. Nevertheless, this slice of history is important for it describes a particularly vibrant and dynamic period in the history of the Church. Furthermore, the essays that follow represent an early, pioneering effort to describe an aspect of the Chinese church that was often not acknowledged, let alone described. I refer to its Pentecostal character.

A number of more recent works have added important context and detail to my early study and largely support its central thesis that the Chinese house church movement of the 1990s was predominately Pentecostal. I think here especially of the writings of David Aikman, Paul Hattaway, and Dennis Balcombe.[4]

Robert Menzies used a pen name, Luke Wesley, to write The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004).

The same may be said of more recent academic studies, with one important caveat. The strong experiential nature of Protestant Christianity in China, and particularly the emphasis in the house churches on healing, exorcism, and prophecy, has led many scholars to describe the dominant form of Protestant Christianity in China as Pentecostal. While Tony Lambert describes Chinese Christianity as “biblical supernaturalism,” others, such as Gotthard Oblau, Edmond Tang, and Chen-Yang Kao speak of the specifically Pentecostal features of the church in China.[5] Scholars do, however, disagree concerning how we should define the term, Pentecostal.[6] The general charismatic and Pentecostal orientation of the Chinese house church movement is widely acknowledged as the key to its rapid growth over the past four decades.[7] Nevertheless, sociologists like Oblau and Kao tend to minimize the significant role that the Bible or theological convictions play in shaping the praxis of these “Pentecostal” Chinese Protestants.

In the following essays, I presented at an early date evidence for the Pentecostal nature of the house church movement that grew so rapidly during what is now understood as the Golden Age of the church in China. While, as I have noted, some scholars downplay the role of the Bible in shaping Pentecostal practice in China, and thus they also deny that Chinese Pentecostals possess a clear theological identity, these essays challenge this assessment.[8] Certainly, not every Christian that prays for the sick, exorcises demons, or prophesies, would affirm a baptism in the Spirit distinct from conversion that is marked by speaking in tongues. Nevertheless, there are a significant number that do.[9] And their influence, as well as the clarity of their biblical convictions, should not be underestimated. The common thread that unites Pentecostals in China with other Pentecostals around the world is their sense of connection with the apostolic church as reflected in the book of Acts. Chinese Pentecostals pray for the sick, worship with joyful abandonment, speak in tongues, and seek the enabling of the Spirit for bold witness in the face of persecution because they find all of these experiences described in the New Testament. The message and methods of the early church are models for their lives and ministry. I sought to demonstrate this thesis through an analysis of five of the largest house church networks in China during this remarkable period. I will leave it to others to assess the extent to which these earlier networks have influenced contemporary house church groups; but, from my vantage point, the impact is evident.

PR

Notes

Image: Christian Lue

[1] For a more contemporary, but now slightly dated description, see Robert P. Menzies, “Pentecostals in China,” in Global Renewal Christianity: Spirit-Empowered Movements Past, Present, and Future , vol. 1: Asia and Oceania, ed. by Amos Yong & Vinson Synan (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2016). See also my blogs on ChinaSource.org: “Pentecostal Theology and the Chinese Church” (Jan. 21, 2015); “Urban Churches in China: A Pentecostal Case Study” (June 26, 2015); “The Seed of the Church and the Modern Missions Movement” (Feb. 21, 2022). [Editor’s note: See David Bradnick’s review of Vinson Synan and Amos Yong, eds., Global Renewal Christianity: Spirit-Empowered Movements—Past, Present, and Future, Volume 1: Asia and Oceania]

[2] In his March 27, 2021 ChinaSource presentation.

[3] The essays are drawn from Chapter 3 of my book, written under the pen-name, Luke Wesley, The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004).

[4] David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2003) [Editor’s note: see Tony Richie’s review]; Paul Hattaway, The Heavenly Man (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2003), and The China Chronicle Series [Editor’s note: see Paul Hattaway’s author page and reviews of books from The China Chronicle series including Guizhou, Zheijiang, and Tibet]; Dennis Balcombe, One Journey One Nation (Chambersburg, PA: eGen Co, 2011) and China’s Opening Door (Lake Mary, Fl: Charisma House, 2014).

[5] Tony Lambert, China’s Christian Millions (London: OMF/Monarch Books, 1999), 112; Gotthard Oblau, “Pentecostals by Default? Contemporary Christianity in China” in Allan Anderson and Edmond Tang, eds., Asian and Pentecostal: The Charismatic Face of Christianity in Asia (Costa Mesa: Regnum, 2005), 411-36; Edmond Tang, “‘Yellers’ and Healers: Pentecostalism and the Study of Grassroots Christianity in China” in Asian and Pentecostal, 467-86; Chen-yang Kao, The Cultural Revolution and the Post-Missionary Transformation of Protestantism in China (PhD thesis, University of Lancaster, 2009).

[6] I agree with Simon Chan, “an adequate definition of Pentecostalism cannot be restricted to phenomenological description” (Chan, “Wither Pentecostalism” in Asian and Pentecostal, 578).

[7] Kao, Cultural Revolution, 99.

[8] This is true of my earlier book, The Church in China (2004), from which these essays are drawn, but also of my more recent study, “Pentecostals in China,” in Global Renewal Christianity (2016).

[9] I define Pentecostals, then, as those who believe that: the book of Acts serves as a model for contemporary Christian life and ministry; the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) is a post-conversion enabling for ministry; and speaking in tongues marks this experience. Neo-Pentecostals affirm all of the above except they reject the notion that tongues serve as a normative sign of baptism in the Spirit. For more on Pentecostal identity and related definitions, see Robert Menzies, Pentecost: This Story is Our Story (Springfield, MO: GPH, 2013), 11-20.

China for Christ (Fang Cheng)

Let us begin with what appears to the largest of the house church networks currently operating in China, China For Christ (sometimes called the Fang Cheng Church). The China for Christ Church began in the Fang Cheng district of Henan Province. It has grown very rapidly since the early 1980s and constitutes a large network of house churches which span the length and breadth of China.

On Nov. 26, 2002 I met with the top leader of the China for Christ Network, Brother Z. We met and discussed various items for about an hour and a half and then shared a meal together. While we were eating, Sister D, the second highest leader in the China for Christ Network, joined us.

During our meal Sister D, who was sitting next to me, raised a question about a book on Pentecostal doctrine that I had made available to them.[1] She suggested that baptism in the Spirit, although possibly an experience subsequent to conversion, could also take place at the moment of conversion. She felt the book implied that Spirit-baptism must take place after conversion. I assured her that we were all in agreement on this point and that when most Pentecostals speak of baptism in the Spirit as subsequent to conversion, we actually mean that it is logically subsequent to conversion, a distinct work of the Spirit. Temporally, both could occur at essentially the same moment (as with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10). We continued our discussion and Sister D indicated that their church was classical Pentecostal in nature.

The series, “Is the Chinese Church Predominantly Pentecostal?” is an excerpt from The Church in China. Robert Menzies used a pen name, Luke Wesley, to write The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004).
Read the 2023 Author’s Preface to this series.

Sister D then stated emphatically that their church came to these classical Pentecostal conclusions, not of the basis of receiving this tradition from others; but rather, as a result of their own experience and study of the Book of Acts. She indicated that in the 1970s and 1980s they were quite isolated and experienced considerable persecution. In this context of persecution they developed their classical Pentecostal orientation. At this time their church began to grow. Today, as I have indicated, the China for Christ Network is widely recognized as the largest house church group in China.

I then asked the group if they felt the majority of Christians in China were Pentecostal. Brother Z answered and said that apart from the TSPM churches and various smaller house church groups, the vast majority were indeed Pentecostal. He considered, in addition to their own church, the China Gospel Fellowship, the Li Xin Church, and the Yin Shang Church to be Pentecostal.

On another occasion late in 2002 I had the joy of teaching in an underground Bible school associated with the China for Christ Network. During one of the breaks, the leader of the school showed me around and introduced to me some of the other faculty members. In the midst of our conversation, I noted that their theological tradition was similar (lei si) to mine (he knew of my classical Pentecostal orientation). He stopped, looked at me, and said emphatically: “No, our theological traditions are the same (yi yang).” Later, with great excitement, he spoke of the hunger for the things of the Spirit in the churches in the countryside.

This evidence, admittedly anecdotal in character, is substantiated by the responses I have received from the other researchers mentioned. Virtually all of them would agree that the China for Christ group should be classified as classical Pentecostal, although certainly there may be some in this large network that might be best described as Pentecostal.[2]
China Gospel Fellowship

The origins of the China Gospel Fellowship can also be traced to Henan Province. This network of house churches has grown rapidly since the early 1980s and now has evangelists working in virtually every province in China. I have developed close relationships with a young couple sent out as evangelists by this group. This couple has been very effective in planting churches among village people in our region. They are very open to all of the gifts of the Spirit listed in 1 Cor. 12:8-10. Their testimonies are laced with references to healing, visions, prophetic insight, and persecution. They also speak of being “filled with the Spirit,” an experience which enables them to face hardships and adversity. While they do not appear to view tongues as integrally connected to this experience, they do view tongues-speech as a valid and edifying experience. If this couple is reflective of the group as a whole, I would say that the group is Pentecostal. This conclusion is consistent with the judgments of the three other researchers I contacted with knowledge of this group, two of whom categorized the group as, at least, charismatic (A and B). One other (D) indicated that the group is Pentecostal in its orientation.

I have participated in a number of house group meetings associated with this group. The following example, an excerpt from my personal notes, reveals a bit of the excitement and sense of community that characterize these meetings.

On December 23, 2002 I participated in a house church Christmas service. I walked through the door of the small apartment, roughly 600 square feet in all, and entered into the main room. It was very simple, with concrete floors and bare walls. The walls were now adorned with Christmas decorations. One banner proclaimed, “Pu Tian Tong Qing” (The whole world celebrates [His birth] together). The crowd grew to the point that the small adjoining rooms had to be pressed into service. All told, around 70 people packed into the little sanctuary.

The people were simple, country people. This house church is situated at the edge of a large city. The people living in this area represent village people who have migrated to the city. Urbanization is taking place at a breath-taking pace in China. In cities across the country there are large populations of village people attempting to “make it” in the cities. It was apparent that these folks were marked more by the village than the city.

The service, [led by the capable young Chinese couple noted above], began and a sense of joy quickly permeated the small make-shift sanctuary. Songs and scripture readings celebrating Christ’s birth followed. It was then my turn to preach. I greeted the crowd, which now seemed like a large family, and began to share about Christmas.

After the short, simple message, a call to accept Christ as Savior and Lord was given. Nine people responded joyfully. There was a lot of clapping and celebration as they moved to the front of the room. I led the small group in a prayer of repentance, commitment, and thanksgiving and followed with a prayer of blessing.

The next stage of the service was filled with a number of truly amazing and very culturally authentic forms of worship. Small groups of believers, usually two or four, sang songs based on Scripture as they performed Christian folk dances. It was incredible – a wonderful form of worship which instructed and edified the entire group. Everyone entered in and the joy was almost tangible.

When the service finally came to an end, the nine new believers gathered together for instruction. I was especially touched by one family. The husband had just committed his life to Christ. He along with his wife and their small one year-old baby stood together. Their faces beamed with new-found joy.

The Yin Shang Church

This house church network began in Anhui Province in the late 1970s. It claims to have over 20,000 distinct congregations and approximately five million followers.[3]

On Nov. 25, 2002, I met with Brother C., the leader of the Yin Shang Network. Persecution was a major topic of our discussion. One of Brother C’s colleagues had been arrested a few weeks before our meeting and he was still in prison. After we prayed for this man, Brother C. noted that just two days prior to our meeting the Chinese government had conducted high level meetings with various departments within their bureaucracy. In these meetings they discussed their policy toward the house churches. The government officials concluded that they would strictly enforce new measures which demanded that all house churches register with the government. The government attempted to present this new policy as an opportunity for house church groups to register and receive government recognition. During our meeting, Brother C. received many calls from his colleagues asking how they should respond to the new policies. Brother C. said they would not register, but wait and watch how things developed. He felt that this new policy actually represented a new wave of persecution, not a new opening. In the past, the government had often issued fines for not registering. Now, Brother C. stated, they are intent on arresting people who do not comply. Brother C. indicated that they would only register if there were no conditions placed upon them. He stated that currently the government was asking for the names of leaders, the number and names of believers, and the location of their meetings. This was not acceptable to him. Approximately one month after our meeting, Brother C. was arrested and imprisoned. He is currently still being held in prison.

During the course of this meeting, Brother C. stated very clearly that the Yin Shang Church did believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. He stressed that they seek to maintain a balance between the Word and Spirit. Although I would not say that this group links tongues with Spirit-baptism in the classical Pentecostal sense, they are indeed Pentecostal. This was explicitly stated by Brother C.[4] It is likely that, in a manner similar to the members of the China for Christ Church (and, I would add, the early Christians in the book of Acts), their experience of persecution has shaped their theology at this point.

The Li Xin Church

This church takes its name from the Li Xin region in east central Anhui Province where it was first established. The church was founded around 1980 and was especially strong in Shandong, Anhui, and Henan. It then rapidly spread from this base to other parts of China. One of the strongest leaders of this movement is a woman.

I have not had much personal contact with this group or its leaders. One research colleague, D, who has had considerable contact with the Li Xin leaders insists that this group is Pentecostal, but that they are not classical Pentecostal in that they do not insist on tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Another research colleague, A, characterized this group as charismatic with some Pentecostal leanings. B characterized this group as charismatic and C was not able to make a judgment due to lack of knowledge. It would appear that the group is predominately Pentecostal with some segments perhaps best described as charismatic.

The Word of Life Church

The origins of the Word of Life Church, sometimes called the “Born Again Movement” by outsiders, can be traced to 1968.[5] At this time, Peter Xu began to preach in his hometown in southern Henan. By 1979 he was leading a group of evangelists whose ministry was now reaching into other areas of Henan. Beginning in the early 1980s they experienced tremendous revival. Many accepted their message and hundreds of churches were established. In 1982 they began to send teams of evangelists to other provinces. The first teams were sent to Sichuan Province. Initially, a number of these teams were arrested and sent back to Henan. However, in spite of these setbacks, the church persevered and finally a strong work was established in Sichuan. This also became a major center of ministry.

In 1982 Peter Xu was arrested and imprisoned. However, he was able to escape from the labor camp and resume his ministry. In 1983 a wave of persecution came and many Word of Life evangelists scattered to other provinces. During this time they developed a “seven point missions strategy” (see below) and sent out other full-time evangelists to plant churches.

By 1988 more than 3,000 churches had been planted. Peter Xu was re-arrested in 1988 for attempting to meet with Billy Graham when he visited China. Xu spent three years in prison and was released in 1991. Xu was arrested again in March of 1997 and again spent three years in prison. He was released in May of 2000 and now resides outside of China. Since his departure from China, the Word of Life Church has experienced significant fragmentation. In 1998 an article in Christianity Today estimated that the church numbered around three million believers. This article also rejected some claims that this group was heretical and concluded that it was evangelical in character.[6]

The Word of Life bases its theology on John 3:3-5 and emphasizes that the only way to eternal life is to repent and have a new birth in Jesus. In some respects they are quite charismatic. They love the “Fire Bible,” the Chinese translation of the Life in the Spirit Study Bible, pray regularly for the sick, and are very much attuned to the power of the Holy Spirit.[7]

The have been criticized for supposedly emphasizing that believers must cry for prolonged periods of time in order to be truly saved. Thus, they have been called the “criers” and “the born again movement.” It is true that they are very emotional and frequently cry when they pray, but Peter Xu and other leaders insist that crying is not a requirement for salvation. It is quite possible that in a movement this size that some extremes might be propagated at the grass-roots level which do not in fact reflect the more orthodox views of the leaders.

Their theology, described as a “theology of the cross”, led to the following seven point missions strategy:

1. Preach the salvation of the cross in order to make sure one repents and experiences the new birth.
2. Take the way of the cross to persevere in faith during suffering.
3. Recognize that the TSPM embraces a worldly authority.
4. Plant churches (this is the goal of evangelism)
5. Build up spiritual life (through spiritual life training)
6. Build up fellowship (fellowship in church and with co-workers)
7. Grow through planting churches (send out evangelists, plant churches, and establish Bible schools).

My first encounter with this group came in Beijing in October of 1998. I had the joy of meeting with a group of eight Word of Life leaders. The eight leaders, who came from their ministry posts in various parts of China, were, with one exception, all young, in their mid-to late twenties. Most, however, had already been preaching for close to ten years. Seven of the eight were women. Their testimonies were incredibly inspiring. All but one had been in prison. One young lady who had been arrested along with Peter Xu the previous year had only recently been released from prison.

A colleague of mine asked one young lady, D, if she had been mistreated in prison. In a very matter of fact way, she said, “yes, they beat me.” She recounted how the prison officials tried to prevent her from preaching or praying: they beat her and shocked her with an electric baton in the chest. In spite of these difficulties, she was able to minister to many in prison. One prostitute was healed and accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. On one occasion a guard attempted to rape her, but as she prayed the guard fell unconscious and had to be taken to the hospital. Their testimonies of God’s faithfulness and protection were filled with many stories of miraculous intervention.

Since this meeting in 1998 I have had considerable contact with various members of this group. On June 4, 2003 I interviewed one of their leaders whom I know quite well. I asked her about her group’s attitude toward spiritual gifts and baptism in the Holy Spirit. She confirmed that they were conservative evangelicals. She also stated that:

1. They do not encourage speaking in tongues. Although this may rarely happen, it is not really encouraged and a small element in the group would see it as demonic.
2. They emphasize healing, but they do not practice prophecy or speaking in tongues.
3. They do emphasize the importance of the Spirit’s power in their lives, especially in evangelism and ministry. And, although they might connect this with baptism in the Spirit, this appears to be an area where their theology is not clearly developed. They appear to be open to the Spirit’s empowering after conversion, but whether they would describe this as a definite experience available to everyone or connect this with Acts 2 is not clear. My friend did say said they did not emphasize the term, “baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

Image: Christian Lue

In short, the Word of Life Church represents an interesting mixture of conservative theology and experiential piety. They expect to see miracles, pray for healing, and look to the Holy Spirit for supernatural guidance and deliverance. At the same time, they are generally quite closed to some manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy and tongues. One researcher, B, after classifying the group as “charismatic”, put it this way: “Overall, [the Word of Life Church is] similar to the Southern Baptists in theology (eternal security, etc.). Yet the first time I met Xu he was on his way to try to raise from the dead one of his workers who had suddenly died.” According to the definitions I have listed above, I would classify this group as non-charismatic. As I have indicated, they do not appear to see all of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12:8-10 as valid for the church today.

The House Church Statement of Faith

On November 26, 1998 a group of four house leaders, including the leaders of the China for Christ Network and the China Gospel Fellowship, signed a statement of faith that they had forged together during meetings convened throughout the previous days. This statement represents the most significant theological statement issued by house church leaders to date. It is thoroughly evangelical and organized around seven key headings: On the Bible; On the Trinity; On Christ; On Salvation; On the Holy Spirit; On the Church; and On the Last Things. The statement on the Holy Spirit is especially significant for this study. It reads:

On the Holy Spirit: We believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. He is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of holiness. The Holy Spirit illuminates a person causing him to know sin and repent, to know the truth and to believe in Christ and so experience being born again unto salvation. He leads the believers into the truth, helps them to understand the truth and obey Christ, thereby bearing abundant fruit of life. The Holy Spirit gives all kinds of power and manifests the mighty acts of God through signs and miracles. The Holy Spirit searches all things. In Christ God grants a diversity of gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church so as to manifest the glory of Christ. Through faith and thirsting, Christians can experience the outpouring and filling of the Holy Spirit. We do not believe in the cessation of signs and miracles or the termination of the gifts of the Holy Spirit after the apostolic period. We do not forbid speaking in tongues and we do not impose on people to speak in tongues; nor do we insist that speaking in tongues is the evidence of being saved.

We refute the view that the Holy Spirit is not a person of the Trinity but only a kind of influence.[8]

This statement contains several significant declarations that highlight the Pentecostal leanings of its framers. First, the notion that charismatic gifts were given only for the apostolic period (cessationism) is explicitly denied: “We do not believe in the cessation of signs and miracles or the termination of the gifts of the Holy Spirit after the apostolic period.” Thus, it is not surprising that the statement also declares that the Holy Spirit “gives all kinds of power and manifests the mighty acts of God through signs and miracles.” This statement, at the very least then, identifies the framers and the house church groups they represent as charismatic.

But there is more. This statement contains another significant declaration: “Through faith and thirsting, Christians can experience the outpouring and filling of the Holy Spirit.” Since this “outpouring and filling” may be received by Christians, this phrase must refer to a work of the Spirit subsequent to (at least logically, if not temporally) the regenerating work of the Spirit experienced at conversion. Although the purpose or impact of this gift is not explicitly stated, it is interesting to note that the language used to describe the experience (i.e., “outpouring and filling”) is drawn from the Book of Acts.[9] It seems obvious that a strengthening or empowering of the believer by the Spirit in accordance with the experience of the early church as recorded in the Book of Acts is in view here. The only prerequisites for receiving this gift which are listed in the statement are “faith” and “thirsting.” Surely this is another way of saying that this gift is available to all earnest believers who desire it. This statement then speaks of an empowering by the Spirit that is distinct from conversion and available to every believer. It thus identifies the framers as not only charismatic, but Pentecostal as well.

Finally, let us examine the reference to tongues: “We do not forbid speaking in tongues and we do not impose on people to speak in tongues; nor do we insist that speaking in tongues is the evidence of being saved.” Tony Lambert, noting this passage, states: “the careful neutrality concerning speaking in tongues is very far from the extreme teachings current in some charismatic or Pentecostal circles.”[10] It is not entirely clear what Lambert has in mind when he alludes to “extreme teachings current in some charismatic or Pentecostal circles.” Is he talking about the belief held by classical Pentecostals around the world that speaking in tongues is the sign or initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit? If so, Lambert not only states that this doctrine is “extreme,” he also implies that this house church statement rejects this doctrine. I would suggest, however, that this ‘reading’ of the statement tells us more about the interpreter’s presuppositions than it does about the intent of the original framers. The phrase, “we do not impose on people to speak in tongues” probably should be taken in light of what follows to mean that they do not force believers to speak in tongues by means of emotional or psychological coercion (e.g., by declaring tongues to be a sign that they are truly believers).[11] It is highly unlikely that the framers, with this phrase, were consciously renouncing the initial evidence doctrine of classical Pentecostalism. This seems to be an obvious conclusion in view of the fact that one of the four cardinal framers is the head of a classical Pentecostal group, the China for Christ Network.

The only doctrine that the statement specifically rejects and which is relatively common in evangelical circles in the West is the doctrine that denies the current validity of speaking in tongues. The statement is very clear: “We do not forbid speaking in tongues.” The statement, of course, also rejects the strange and rare notion that tongue-speech is a sign of salvation. It is possible that this indeed is what Lambert has in mind when he speaks of “extreme teachings,” but it is such a rare and unusual doctrine, certainly not representative of mainstream charismatic or Pentecostal Christianity, that one can only wonder.[12]

In short, the statement on tongues does not appear to be a rejection of the classical Pentecostal position. However, it does not affirm this position either. It reads like a very diplomatic attempt to steer a middle path between two extremes. It rejects the position of those who would seek to forbid tongues and it refutes those who would seek to use manipulative means to force believers to speak in tongues. In fact, the careful way in which this statement is framed suggests that it is a wise compromise which accommodates both classical Pentecostals on the one hand and charismatics and (non-classical) Pentecostals on the other.

We are now in a position to highlight the implications which the house church statement of faith has for the question at hand. Our analysis has revealed that this statement is indeed significant. With its carefully worded phraseology concerning the work of the Holy Spirit, the statement of faith suggests that its framers and the churches they represent are, at the very least, Pentecostal and perhaps even classical Pentecostal in their theological orientation.

Summary

I have surveyed what are generally recognized to be the five largest house church groups in China. Collectively these groups almost certainly represent a significant majority of the house churches in China,[13] and possibly a majority of the Christian population in China as a whole. In any event, these groups represent a significant cross-section of the Church in China. More specifically, I have analyzed the theological orientation of these groups, particularly as it relates to Pentecostal and charismatic issues. My evaluation has been based on my own personal conversations, the findings of fellow researchers, and selected written documents. Although my conclusions must be viewed as somewhat tentative since hard sociological data in the form of grass-roots surveys are lacking, these conclusions are based on what would appear to be the most extensive research on this issue available to date.

My research suggests that the five groups should be categorized as follows:

1. China for Christ: largely classical Pentecostal, partly Pentecostal
2. China Gospel Fellowship: largely Pentecostal, partly charismatic
3. Yin Shang Church: largely Pentecostal, partly charismatic
4. Li Xin Church: largely Pentecostal, partly charismatic
5. Word of Life Church: largely non-charismatic, partly charismatic

Based on this analysis, I would conclude that the overwhelming majority of the Christians in China today are at least charismatic. This study suggests that 90% of house church Christians and perhaps 80% of the total Christian population in China would affirm that the gifts of the Spirit listed in 1 Cor. 12:8-10 are available to the church today.[14]

Furthermore, in the light of the significant strength of the Pentecostal groups listed above, it is reasonable to conclude that a significant majority of the Christians in China today are not only charismatic, but also Pentecostal in their theological orientation. I would estimate that 75% of house church Christians and 60% of the total Christians population in China are accurately be described by this designation.

It is also clear that classical Pentecostals represent a minority of the believers in China, but it is a significant minority nonetheless. This is evident from that the fact that what appears to be the largest house church network in China today is best described as classical Pentecostal. I would suggest that approximately 25% of house church Christians and 20% of the total Christian population in China are classical Pentecostal.[15]

In addition to these conclusions concerning doctrine or beliefs, some general observations may also be made concerning behavior. The praxis of the House Church Movement in China may be described as exhibiting the following characteristics:[16]

1. A strong emphasis on personal experience, often reflected in emotionally-charged prayers and worship. God is understood to be present, personal, and vitally interested in communicating with and relating to individual believers. Exuberant, participatory worship and emotional responses to preaching are quite common and might be described as typical.

2. A strong expectation that God will intervene in miraculous ways in the daily lives of believers. House church Christians exhibit a firm belief in God’s ability and willingness to work miracles in their midst. Their testimonies often refer to God healing the sick, raising the dead, granting special wisdom or direction, communicating through dreams, visions, or prophetic messages, providing boldness for witness, or granting miraculous strength and protection. This expectation is often expressed in an openness to the gifts of the Spirit and is certainly encouraged in part by such biblical passages as 1 Cor. 12:8-10.

3. A strong sense of their own weakness and dependence upon God. Perhaps due in part to their experiences of marginalization and persecution, house church believers often reflect a keen awareness of their own weakness and a strong sense of dependence upon God’s supernatural power and leading. This is reflected in an emphasis on receiving strength and encouragement from the Holy Spirit, often in specific moments of prayer. This perspective is undoubtedly patterned after the experience of the early church recorded in the book of Acts. It is often associated with the expectation that one can receive needed strength or encouragement through a definable experience, regularly described as being “baptized in” or “filled with” the Holy Spirit.

PR

Next Issue: Part 3: “Gaining Perspective: A Contextual Assessment”

This excerpt is part of Chapter 3 from The Church in China: Persecuted, Pentecostal, and Powerful (Baguio, The Philippines: AJPS Books, 2004). Used with permission.

Notes

[1] A Chinese translation of William W. Menzies and Stanley M. Horton’s Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective (Springfield: Logion Press, 1993).

[2] B, C, and D all affirmed that the China for Christ Network is classical Pentecostal, although B and C suggested that some might be better termed Pentecostal. A’s response was more general, and simply acknowledged that this group and the others listed were at least charismatic and very often Pentecostal in orientation.

[3] D provided this information.

[4] A characterized this group as at least charismatic with Pentecostal leanings; B characterized this group as charismatic; C had little contact with this group; and D characterized the group as Pentecostal.

[5] The material for the following historical and theological survey of the Word of Life Church comes largely from two unpublished papers, both produced by Chinese Christians: one paper, “A Case Study of The Way of Life (New Birth): A Chinese House Church Network,” was written in March, 2001 by an outside observer; the other paper, “Our Church History,” was written by a Word of Life Church leader in April, 2003.

[6] Timothy C. Morgan, “A Tale of China’s Two Churches,” Christianity Today 42 (July 13, 1998), pp. 30-39

[7] The Life in the Spirit Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Life Publishers, 2003) was first published as the Full Life Study Bible (1992).

[8] See Tony Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 62 for this English translation. I have included the sentence, “In Christ God grants a diversity of gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church so as to manifest the glory of Christ,” which is found in the Chinese original, but which is omitted in Lambert’s version. This appears to be an editorial oversight.

[9] The Chinese characters translated “outpouring” (jiao guan) and “filling” (chong man) of the Spirit in this statement are also found in Acts 2:17 (“pour out”) and Acts 2:4 (“filled”) of the He He Ben translation, the standard and most widely used Chinese translation of the Bible.

[10] Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, p. 64.

[11] The Chinese characters translated by the phrase, “do not impose upon” (mian qiang) certainly convey the notion of “force.” There is perhaps a slight difference in the nuances of the English terms “impose” and “force”, with force representing a slightly stronger term. The semantic range of the Chinese term, mian qiang, would certainly include the stronger connotations of “force.”

[12] Only a few ‘Jesus only’ groups, such as the United Pentecostal Church, would affirm this doctrine. These are fringe groups very much out of sync with mainstream charismatic or Pentecostal groups.

[13] This conclusion was affirmed by A, B, C, and D. Of course there are other large, significant groups that are non-charismatic, such as the Wen Zhou Church and the Little Flock. (I might note that I have spoken to one of the leaders of the Little Flock and he indicated that he has had a Pentecostal experience which included speaking in tongues. This experience and his contact with China for Christ leaders has encouraged him to relate more constructively to other to this and other church groups.) However, there are also other large, significant groups which are Pentecostal as well. One such classical Pentecostal group which C relates to is 400,000 strong.

[14] A word concerning the method used to arrive at these percentages is in order. I have taken the largest five house church groups as representative of house church Christians in China as a whole. I have used the estimated strength of these five churches listed in the methodology section above to arrive at specific percentages. Although these specific numbers may be high, the general proportions they represent are probably relatively accurate. Thus, the percentages for house church Christians were: non-charismatic (10%); charismatic (90%); Pentecostal (75%); and classical Pentecostal (25%). I have considered the China Gospel Fellowship and the two Anhui groups to be largely, but not entirely Pentecostal. This accounts for the variance between the percentages for charismatics (90%) and Pentecostals (75%). As a result of my own personal observations and my reading of the research available, I have also assumed that in China house church Christians are three times as numerous as Christians affiliated with the TSPM churches. I then estimated, based on my own personal experience, concerning the percentage of TSPM Christians that might be classified as non-charismatic (50%), charismatic (50%), Pentecostal (20%), and classical Pentecostal (10%). This was the rationale, then, behind the final estimates.

[15] These conclusions are generally consistent with the assessment of the other researchers consulted: A suggested at least 90% of house church Christians were, at the very least, charismatic; B affirmed that a significant majority were charismatic without stating any specific percentages; C and D also indicated that very large percentages were charismatic and Pentecostal.

[16] We have already noted the strong biblical focus of the house church movement and need not repeat it here.

When a Westerner participates in a house church service, your experience will be very different. You will likely enter into a city apartment or a village home. You will be greeted by a group of ten to twenty believers, possibly more. When the service starts, you will quickly be surrounded by the sounds of lively, earnest singing. The songs will flow from music quite different than anything that you have ever heard. The lyrics, if you were you able to understand them, would seem equally strange. They highlight themes from what appears to be another world. Utilizing largely rural imagery, the lyrics evoke a world of struggle and persecution, sacrifice and mission, courage and hope. The service will include the sharing of testimonies and prayer requests. This is a time that inevitably culminates in corporate prayer. Everyone is given an opportunity to contribute; everyone is expected to participate. The preaching that follows will center on a passage from the Bible and seek to apply this text to the life of the believers. This biblical message typically will be followed by much discussion. Various members of the church will share what they feel God is saying to them through this message. The service will often conclude with a specific call to action and always with prayer. After the service has concluded, the believers will share a meal and joyful fellowship. In short, it will all seem very different from traditional church services back home. The nature of the music, the structure of the service, the expectation of your participation, the character of the message, the discussion that follows, and the intimacy of the fellowship will all take you by surprise. You will recognize that you are in the presence of believers, but the unique (and, perhaps, if you are astute, the uniquely Chinese) character of what has taken place will be very clear.

This is the real beauty, in my opinion, of the house church movement in China: it allows for the rich diversity that characteristics the body of Christ, and it does so in an authentically Chinese way. Worship in the house churches is more diverse in nature than in the TSPM churches, and it is also much more indigenous. A “one size fits all” approach to church life simply cannot contain the wonder and beauty of the body of Christ, globally or in China. This is true of worship styles, but it is also true of theology and church structure. It is especially true when the apparent uniformity is forced and contrived.

I have provided below what I hope might be a useful introduction to the ACPT website and myself, including a blurb on my recent book on speaking in tongues.

The Asian Center for Pentecostal Theology

This month [March 2016] marks the official launching of the website for the Asian Center for Pentecostal Theology (www.pentecost.asia).  The Asian Center of Pentecostal Theology (ACPT) was established by Robert Menzies (Kunming, China) in conjunction with four contributing editors: Dongsoo Kim of Korea; Gani Wiyono of Indonesia; Lim Yeu Chuen of Malaysia; and Timothy Yeung of Hong Kong.

The ACPT seeks to strengthen the church in Asia by promoting Pentecostal theology, ministry, and experience in the region.  The ACPT seeks to be: A meeting place for a community of pastors and scholars committed to Pentecostal values and ministry; a digital library of books, articles, book reviews, and blogs that seek to bring clarity to the Pentecostal message, encourage the Church in its mission, and edify the body of Christ; a catalyst for research, writing, and publication of books and articles in Asia that address Pentecostal themes; a forum for discussion of topics relevant to Pentecostal theology and praxis, and for posting news about related events.

The ACPT’s founder, Robert Menzies (PhD, University of Aberdeen), is an Assemblies of God minister and a well-known Pentecostal scholar.  He has lived and served in China for the past 22 years and serves as the Director of Synergy, a rural service organization based in Kunming, China.  He now also directs the Asian Center for Pentecostal Theology.  Dr. Menzies’ most recent book was released earlier this month (March, 2016) and is entitled, Speaking in Tongues: Jesus and the Apostolic Church as Models for the Church Today.  Craig Keener, well known to PneumaReview.com readers, describes the book with these words:

“As always, Robert Menzies, one of Pentecostalism’s leading scholars, provides careful exegesis, weighing various alternatives and coming to reasoned conclusions, offering fresh insights for all interpreters to consider. His passionate, pastoral concerns mixed with live observations, especially from our brothers and sisters in China, add further to this book’s value. Even those who dissent from some of his conclusions should appreciate and learn from his magnificent literary explorations and intriguing proposals. This book should make us all the more grateful for the beautiful, Spirit-led gift of worship in tongues.” —Craig S. Keener, F. M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies, Asbury Theological Seminary