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.

“The Relatable Zeal of Puritan Women: They were extremely into religion without being extreme” Christianity Today (January 3, 2023).

Catherine Parks interviews Pneuma Review author Jenny-Lyn de Klerk about Puritan spirituality.

Max Lucado, “Help, Wisdom & Strength for You Right Now” Charisma (Jan-Feb 2023).

In this excerpt from Help Is Here: Finding Fresh Strength and Purpose in the Power of the Holy Spirit (Thomas Nelson, 2022), Max Lucado describes his early struggles with burnout and how to move past four common misunderstanding about the gifts of the Spirit and keep growing.

From the archives: Tim Stafford, “The Pentecostal Gold Standard: After 50 years in ministry, Jack Hayford continues to confound stereotypes—all to the good” Christianity Today (July 2005).

John Lathrop suggested this significant article, the cover story from Christianity Today’s July 2005 issue, as another way of marking the passing of Jack Hayford.

Kyle Duncan, “Just Call Me Jack: Pastor Hayford’s heart, humility & authenticity allowed the Holy Spirit to shine through” Charisma (February 20, 2023).

Wolfgang Vondey, “Pentecostal Theology” St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology (January 25, 2023).

Thanks to Rick Wadholm Jr for this recommendation by PneumaReview.com author Wolfgang Vondey. This entry includes recommended further reading and works cited.

Image: Jeremy Thomas

Craig Keener, “Opinion: What is Revival—and is it Happening at Asbury?” Roys Report (February 16, 2023).

John K. Jenkins Sr., “The Apostle Paul’s Secret to Preaching” Outreach (March 14, 2023).

“This article is adapted from a talk John K. Jenkins Sr., pastor of First Baptist Church of Glenarden in Maryland, gave at the 2022 Amplify Outreach Conference.”

David Livermore, “Leadership Advice You Should Ignore” DavidLivermore.com (March 16, 2023).

Global pioneer in Cultural Intelligence, PneumaReview.com author David Livermore writes to business leaders, emphasizing principles that also speak to the world our parishioners live in: “So much advice to leaders and entrepreneurs is ill suited to leading in a digital, diverse world. It often includes kernels of truth; but if we’re committed to being an effective global leader, we need to rethink a lot of what passes as essential leadership advice …”

Kelsey Kramer McGinnis, “Company that Trademarked ‘Worship Leader’ Makes Others Drop the Term” Christianity Today (March 20, 2023).

Subtitle of the article reads: “Popular meme accounts lose social media pages after being reported by Authentic Media, which says it coined the phrase.”

Stanford E. Linzey, Jr., “Is Speaking in Tongues Just Gibberish?” CharismaNews.com (March 25, 2023).

Does speaking in tongues seem foolish? The late Stanford Linzey wrote: “So when speaking in tongues, if it sounds foolish, silly or like gibberish, and one does not think it is a language, he should remember this: There is nothing one can utter that does not have meaning as far as God is concerned.”

PR

Jim Linzey, currently serving as a pastor in Coffeyville, Kansas, shares a story about a miracle that happened in his community.

Recently, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and God TV reported that a woman in Coffeyville, Kansas rose from the dead. Landon D. Vinson, M.D., who was the attending physician, along with the local Assembly of God pastor, Randy DePriest who was called upon to console the next of kin upon the death of the woman, two nurses, and other staff members witnessed the miracle. Mr. Steve Warren, who is the senior multimedia producer of CBN News, and I communicated directly with Dr. Vinson. Here is CBN’s report.

“She Was Dead Before the Prayer and Alive After the Prayer”
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2023/march/she-was-dead-before-the-prayer-and-alive-after-er-doctor-reports-clinically-dead-woman-revived-in-true-miracle

Three years ago, I was cutting across the campus when a zealous African-American freshman named Lena Marlowe stopped me. We had never met, but she asked if she could pray for me. Lena is now a senior, and she was one of the members of the gospel choir singing when the Spirit fell on February 8.

People in our community had prayed for another outpouring since the last one here, fifty years ago. Asbury experienced significant outpourings of the Spirit in 1905, 1908, 1950, and 1970. Anna Gulick, a French professor at the university in 1970, assured me that during that outpouring one could feel the presence of God from blocks away. Robert Coleman, a professor at the seminary in 1970, told me just enough professors at the seminary were on board with shutting down classes that the seminary joined in.

Hughes Auditorium, February 8, 2023

The university normally has chapel at 10 am three days a week for 45 or 50 minutes. Chapel on Wednesday Feb. 8, 2023, started like chapel any other day. Zach Meerkreebs preached a very ordinary message. The gospel choir closed the service with a song. It was not unusual for a few students to stick around to sing an extra song or two, but this day the gospel choir was so caught up in worship that they didn’t stop. And soon others wouldn’t stop either.

Student Zeke Atha continued to worship in his seat, and then went to class. After class, however, he heard singing still continuing in the chapel. As he entered, he recognized that God had begun pouring out the Spirit and he joined others in spreading word. Eventually hundreds were worshiping God. Some students began to openly confess their sins, weeping and dedicating their lives to Christ.

That evening after small group in our house some friends texted my wife Médine. “You’ve been praying for this!” she called, interrupting my commentary writing. “Why aren’t you there?” It was her way of announcing that an outpouring had begun. We donned our shoes and headed over to Hughes Auditorium.

While I didn’t “feel” much that night, something shifted over the next few days—especially as I moved from trying to feel something to seeking to serve. As worship continued, the sense of God’s presence in a special way became palpable. Walking even beside the chapel or across the street at the seminary, I could now feel God’s presence in an extraordinary way. The university was making no effort to publicize what was happening, but word spread. Soon so many people were visiting from outside that I quit trying to get into the auditorium myself. But even as I served as a doorkeeper at one of the exits, I was caught up in the Spirit of worship. As I joined in the singing, “Holy, Holy, Holy,” I pondered how sad it was that some Christians today object if you sing a song too many times. Yet the glorious living creatures before God’s throne do not rest from crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come!” What a foretaste of heaven we enjoy in the beauty of God’s presence during worship.

Radical humility

The focus on the Lord himself and his holiness pervaded most of the worship I experienced and witnessed there. It was the sense of his holy presence that led so many—first students and then others—to consecrate their lives more deeply to God.

Although famous preachers and singers visited and worshiped as part of the congregation, they did not lead. The campus leaders maintained the ethos with which it began. Lena and other students continued to lead worship. Zach and others regularly involved at the university periodically preached, including messages about the gospel and holiness (which continued to be needed as new people continued to visit). When they did invite anyone new to help in leading worship, they first succinctly explained the worship “culture” to them: radical humility and racial unity.

No names, no introductions; the focus belonged on King Jesus alone. The outpouring surrounded God’s own manifest presence, and the leaders were careful not to quench his gracious Spirit. Recognizing who God is puts everything else, including ourselves, in perspective: in the presence of a holy God, no flesh can boast. Zach insisted, “Jesus is the only celebrity here” (See further: https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/february/asbury-revival-outpouring-protect-work-admin-volunteers.html).

Worship continued seamlessly as worship teams rotated day and night. The worship was low-tech and without human fanfare, promoting neither those on the platform nor Asbury itself. For journalistic and historical purposes, I would share more names of those who displayed sacrificial devotion, but they insist that the honor should go only to Jesus.

I was not one of those secret-identity professors she mentioned, but my seminary colleagues Tom McCall (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/february-web-only/asbury-revival-1970-2023-methodist-christian-holy-spirit.html) and Jessica LaGrone certainly were among those at the front line, as were even more professors from the university. Médine was often up front praying for people one on one, but I stayed more in the intercessor room, engaging the many visitors outside, or (when the chapel began closing at night) praying with students and visitors in the student union.

Eventually I shifted more of my attention to trying to field interviews and calls. As a seminary professor, I was not at the heart of it the way many others were, but those at its heart were tied up on the front line, and I finally realized that I could be of greater service trying to write and speak and counter misinformation. I nevertheless shared a concern that one of the campuses’ ministers expressed to me: pouring out continually to serve during this time, she did not want to miss out on what the Lord had for her as well as for others. Me neither; as the old hymn pleaded, “While on others Thou art calling, do not pass me by!”

Radical unity

While the university is in the Wesleyan tradition, it welcomed all traditions hospitably, occasioning a few complaints from some outside critics (Those don’t like charismatics, for example, have sometimes complained that charismatics attended. But everybody else attended too).

The spirit of unity transcended denomination. One participant who has worshiped in several denominations over her life shared her appreciation for how believers from all denominations were worshiping in one accord. There was nothing there to divide us because it was all about Jesus, the one we adore. Michael McClymond, the St. Louis University revival historian who came to report on the outpouring for Christianity Today, shared that what he experienced in the auditorium was what Acts 1:14 calls homothumadon—a unity of heart with others worshiping in the same place. Believers who had never met before and would never meet again in this life experienced a common heart.

This was often evident outside the auditorium as well, as many of those crowded on the lawn outside the auditorium worshiped and prayed together. Some Korean friends from another evangelical seminary came to visit and we worshiped together on the lawn before moving to one of the overflow destinations. I had more fortuitous, Spirit-led encounters, including with visitors from various nations, than there is space or need to describe.

A Back Story

In 2010, Asbury Seminary interviewed me for a position. Being a night person, I don’t remember what I said at the morning interview and have no idea why they hired me. But afterward I stopped at the university’s Hughes Auditorium, already vaguely familiar with the 1970 Asbury Revival. As I peered in, I was struck by the words “Holiness Unto the Lord” emblazoned above the altar, and I felt the wind of the Spirit sweep through me. I felt there were embers still there, ready to be fanned into flame when God would move in such a way again.

Since then, my wife and I have prayed for revival, all the more so once our son and daughter were students there. But as mentioned earlier, we were far from the only ones. Indeed, Anna Gulick noted that before the 1970 outpouring, various students around the campus had been praying together.

What we call revival is a collective experience of God’s presence that transforms us (cf. Acts 2:4; 4:31; 8:15-17; 10:44; 13:52; and 19:6). In Matthew 7:11, Jesus promises that the Father will give us the good gifts we request, but the parallel passage in Luke 11:13 focuses on the best gift of all: God’s own presence by the Holy Spirit. That insight struck me deeply. One night when I was teaching in Indonesia, I dreamed that the most important insight from the decade of work on my four-volume Acts commentary was how often the outpouring of the Spirit follows prayer.

Scripture offers many prayers for empowerment by or revelation from the Holy Spirit (Ps 143:10; Rom 15:13; Eph 1:17; 3:16), but in Luke’s second volume he develops at greater length this theme of the Spirit coming after prayer (cf. also Luke 3:21-22). After believers spend some days praying together (Acts 1:14), Jesus pours out the Spirit (2:4, 17-18, 33); they pray again with the same effect in 4:31 and 8:15. Although God can pour out the Spirit whenever he wills, often (and in Acts, especially when the outpouring involves those who are already believers) he first moves his people to pray for this. Concerts of prayer also preceded many outpourings in the history of the U.S.

A few years ago, many students at the seminary, especially international students, were meeting together in small groups for prayer. One of the most ardent advocates of revival on campus was Malaysian visiting scholar Hong Leow. He had one time not given much stock to dreams or spiritual experiences, but after a dramatic dream in which he saw God pouring out revival on the campus, Hong insisted that revival was coming and we should be ready.

One big encouragement of this outpouring was that God does hear our prayers. For the first week or two I was walking around disoriented. Something I was used to praying for, I was now seeing, and at a level beyond what I had imagined. I had prayed for an outpouring of the Spirit in our community; I hadn’t expected it to connect so closely and quickly to what he was also doing elsewhere.

But while years of prayer preceded this experience at Asbury, the timing and manner took us all by surprise. Actually, I will confess a secret here (so don’t tell anybody!): in my arrogance, I had sometimes hoped that maybe revival would happen when I preached in chapel or taught my New Testament class at the seminary. But God in his gracious wisdom did it in a way that nobody else could even try to take credit for. The outpouring was God’s action, his initiative. His Spirit fell as students were caught up in worship.

Divine Coordination

Within the first week of the outpouring we heard that the Spirit was now also stirring worship on Christian campuses such as Lee University and Samford University. We also heard that on a nearby secular campus students stirred by the Spirit were sharing their faith boldly and baptizing new believers in public fountains.

Of course, this can happen here or there at any time, but it seemed like it was happening in a special way right now. In fact, it looked coordinated—by the only One who could have coordinated it.

Long before this outpouring began at Asbury’s campus, representatives from a range of campus ministries united to reignite the historic Collegiate Day of Prayer in 2023. Because Asbury University already had a history of campus revivals, the last being in 1970, they settled on Asbury as their host campus for the 2023 event, scheduled for February 23. At that time, campuses and prayer partners around the country would band together through a simulcast to pray that God would stir this new generation of students with his heart. Francis Chan narrated the announcement days before the outpouring began.

Gabe, a freshmen on the university’s planning committee for the event, says that he started praying that God would get the campus ready. God surprised Gabe, along with everybody else, with an answer that began a couple weeks before the human schedule. Most of the students who just kept worshiping on February 8 probably had no thought about the Feb. 23 event. (There are lots of events on campuses, and though I had heard about the planned event from a friend months earlier, I didn’t remember when it would be.)

Nobody humanly planned for more than fifteen days of mostly nonstop prayer before the prayer meeting, and nobody humanly could have recruited most of the participants to engage in such intense prayer. But the inaugural February 23 event now became the closing event of the outpouring’s public phase. Students from other campuses joined those from Asbury, sharing testimonies, reading Scripture, and banding together in worship. Meanwhile, the closing service was simulcast far beyond the walls of Hughes Auditorium (I had planned to watch the simulcast, but got to attend this one in person. A friend snuck me a seat. That’s a secret, though, so don’t tell anybody I was there).

This was not, as originally planned, a prayer for revival to start. It was gratitude for what God had already begun, and a commissioning service for those beyond Asbury to continue the call elsewhere to recognize God’s holy presence. What happened at Asbury was not meant to be simply perpetuated on Asbury’s campus for “revival’s” sake. Nor was it meant to be kept at Asbury as if it was the location that made the difference. The simulcast spread this final service around the country—though the outpouring had already been spreading to other campuses long before this.

God had been getting things ready. Zach Meerkreebs, the humble and low-key preacher from February 8, felt he bombed his sermon that day. But he told me that for a year before he had been feeling that revival was coming.

Nor was Hong the only person at the seminary to feel confidence that God was sending revival. A few years ago, some new students at the seminary insisted that God told them that revival was coming, and they wanted to be here when it happened. One even said God showed him this in a vision. Donna Covington, the seminary’s vice president of formation at the time, told Médine and me about a prophecy that revival would come in Kentucky; she felt that it would begin at the university campus first.

Not unlike Hong, I had dreams in which revival fell. In one, it came during worship, and I just came in the back and joyfully sang in tongues (and somersaulted through the air, which I can do with great agility—in dreams). In another, revival started in Hughes Auditorium, and we were going out into the community to welcome people. As I knocked on one door, an older African-American man asked if he would be welcome. “That,” I answered in the dream, “will be how we know if it’s a true revival.” But happily God fixed that from the beginning, since many of the members of the gospel choir where the outpouring started are Black. Racial unity was one of the outpouring’s central foundations.

Divine coordination also happened on an individual level. To give one example, although Riely Mikrut had led worship at her old church for years, she was not doing it at her new church. On February 5, she journaled, “Lord, I don’t want to be a ‘good’ worship leader; I want to be an anointed one.” Without God’s anointing, she resolved, she didn’t ever need to get on a stage again. On February 10 she was with her former worship colleagues at her old church and insisted, “The Lord would have to force a microphone in my hand right now for me to get up and lead again.”

The next evening she and some friends traveled to Wilmore to experience what was happening at Asbury. Médine and I had just slipped out of the balcony before she arrived. The Lord spoke to her heart that he had made her for leading worship. The next day, as she was kneeling at the altar, one of the worship leaders approached her and declared, “You’re a worship leader, aren’t you?” How could she have known that? Riely wondered. Then the leader shoved a microphone in Riely’s hand. Riely had led hundreds of hours of worship over the previous decade, but she had never felt the fear of the Lord and his presence like she did for the next two hours. God had reconfirmed his calling in her life.

Some piercing observations for a young generation

Madison Pierce, a seminarian from the same generation as the university students, has allowed me to share here some of his experience and insight.

I come from a spiritual background that has left me weary of hype in a culture of spectacle. I’ve grown tired of disingenuous representations of divine work but it is clear God is moving in a surprising and transformative way.

The movements of the spirit in western evangelicalism always exist in the middle of a cultural moment. A generous interpretation of these movements reveals unique traits for each one. For example, fervor for the great commission at the Mt. Hermon Conference, overwhelming joy in Toronto Outpouring, zeal for the lost in Brownsville Revival, acts of healing at the Kansas City awakening, and manifestation of tongues at the Azusa Street revival. In each move of the Spirit, God clearly manifests in a specific way for that generation. I find it interesting that God would mark this [present] outpouring with:

• A tangible sense of peace for a generation with unprecedented anxiety.
• A restorative sense of belonging for a generation amidst an epidemic of loneliness.
• An authentic hope for a generation marked by depression.
• A leadership emphasizing protective humility in relationship with power for a generation deeply hurt by the abuse of religious power.
• A focus on participatory adoration for an age of digital distraction.

It feels as if God is personally meeting young adults in ways meaningful to them. My generation was formed differently than previous generations and so the traits of this revival are different than revivals of old. The new outpouring is not the signs and wonders nor zealous intercession nor spontaneous tongues nor charismatic physicality nor the visceral travail. It is marked by a tangible feeling of holistic peace, a restorative sense of belonging, a non-anxious presence through felt safety, repentance driven by experienced kindness, humble stewardship of power, and holiness through treasuring adoration.

I too witnessed brokenness when I prayed with people, for example, a young man broken by being abused as a child, but now finally able to feel God’s pure love for him. Others struggled with fear or need for direction.

You don’t need to be at Asbury

The university and community labored to receive hospitably the tens of thousands of visitors who came. But the university also wanted everyone to be clear that this wasn’t about Asbury. It was about Jesus. You don’t need to come to Asbury to experience humble adoration of the Lord.

The new movie, Jesus Revolution, brought back old memories of my early Christian experiences at High Mill Christian Center in northern Ohio, a movement that in the 1970s brought some of the fruit of the Jesus movement to our community. The Spirit moved in remarkable ways, with the pastor, Chuck Schumacher, regularly calling out issues by the Spirit and people being converted in virtually every meeting.

Likewise, there was a brother named Ernie at the Assemblies of God Seminary when I was there, who was just so full of the Spirit that it didn’t take much extra for him to spill over. One of us would say something about the Lord; the other would say, “Thank you, Lord!” and within a few moments we would both be worshiping in tongues and prophesying, even there in the seminary corridor (Yes, the Spirit can be expressed that way; note tongues in Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; prophesying in e.g., 2:17-18; 19:6; Num 11:25-29; 1 Sam 10:5, 10; 19:20-25).

When I was teaching at a predominantly African-American seminary attached to Livingstone College, our undergraduate campus ministry joined up with New Generation, an African-American campus ministry. One year, the moment we entered NGM’s conference, the Spirit was so strong I heard God’s voice immediately. When we returned from the NGM conference, we planned to pray together for half an hour each evening at 5 pm. Instead, the praying and prophesying went on for a couple hours each time; it was just too hard to stop. On Sunday, at the end of that prayer-filled week, the campus minister got up to preach in the campus church. She was also my seminary student, and I was feeling worthless as a professor as I listened to what I thought was a horrible sermon. Then she gave the altar call and one-third of the congregation came forward to give their lives to Christ. I may have underestimated the sermon, but too often we all underestimate prayer.

God is available and even eager to touch us by his Spirit everywhere. Again Luke 11:13: “So if you, even though you’re evil, know how to give your children good gifts, how much more will your Father from heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?”

But is it “revival”?

One cannot readily identify long-term effects when we are still the short term. What we can say for sure is that the Holy Spirit met us. I am grateful to the leaders for their openness to the Holy Spirit. This time around it was accomplished without canceling classes (except when individual teachers chose to do so). That is fine; God is at work in the ordinary too. When you combine the ordinary and the extraordinary, though, you are doing double duty. Many of us were exhausted after the most labor-intensive period of hospitality and ministry, so the opportunity to rest felt timely.

Sometimes people have preconceptions of what revivals should look like. Some say they have to include healings, or conversions, people falling down and shaking, or massive cultural transformation. But different revivals in history have taken different forms, and part of the problem is that we have lumped a range of different expressions of God’s work under the label “revival.” During the First and Second Great Awakenings in the U.S., many people did fall to the ground, shake, and do other things that Christian descendants of those converted in those awakenings criticize when they happen today. But as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, it’s not such “manifestations” that prove or disprove revival. It is changed lives.

“Revivals” come in different shapes and sizes. The First Great Awakening spanned decades in the eighteenth century, was most prominently Calvinist (on this side of the Atlantic) and especially impacted churchgoers. The Second Great Awakening lasted for half a century (about 1790 to 1840); it was more Wesleyan-Arminian, evangelized the unevangelized, and mobilized Christians against slavery. It included revivals such as the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky for nearly a week in 1801, a revival that involved Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists. God has sent revivals among Calvinists (such as the Hebrides and West Timor Revivals) and Wesleyans (such as the Azusa Street Revival). Some events called revivals last for years; some (such as most college revivals, including past Asbury revivals) only for a week or weeks.

The Bible doesn’t use “revival” the way we’ve used it historically, so nobody can, on biblical grounds, claim that something must or must not be defined as a revival. But outpourings of the Spirit are certainly biblical (Acts 2:33; 10:45). As in historic revivals, so in the Bible not everybody showed up for the right reasons (cf. 5:1-2; 8:18-19), but that did not stop God from changing the lives of many others in ways that ultimately shifted their direction and often the course of history. This was often called an “Asbury revival” because that’s the nomenclature used for the earlier outpourings at Asbury, but as I asked in an earlier article (https://julieroys.com/opinion-what-revival-happening-asbury/): “Who cares what we call it?” Let’s not miss out on what God is doing in many people’s lives.

But the key purpose of outpourings of the Spirit in Acts was to empower God’s people for mission (Acts 1:8), and that has characterized all the Asbury outpourings so far. In this one, many, touched by God’s holiness, consecrated their lives to his service (Meanwhile, those who want to make Acts 2 the only template are often the same people who complain about speaking in tongues [2:4] or onlookers thinking disciples are drunk [2:13]. And imagine the uproar if we get so radical as share many of our possessions, 2:44-45!).

Weeping characterized many past revivals, but some worried in the 1990s when cathartic laughter occurred—even though Acts does not describe weeping during outpourings yet once describes being “filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.” God does not always do things the same way and does not fit our boxes. Yet early in the outpouring at Asbury many were weeping in repentance for sin, before forgiveness turned their sorrow into joy.

In the final analysis, people met Jesus deeply here. We thank God for the obedience of Lena and the gospel choir, who, overwhelmed by the Spirit, just kept worshiping. By the time they were done, tens of thousands of other people had joined in worshiping the same Lord.

PR

Further Reading

Craig S. Keener, “The outpouring at Asbury University: Responding to a critic” CraigKeener.com (February 19, 2023)

Asbury Outpouring Documentary

Lora Timenia, “Reflections on the 2023 Asbury Revival and its Implications for Pentecostal Christians“

The last several years have seen a plethora of books published concerning the church and political involvement. While I haven’t done a detailed study of the number of books published annually in the field of political theology, it seems to this casual observer that the quantity each year is increasing. Some people have long held that politics have no place in the church. Others point out that Christianity itself is a politic, in that it addresses how human beings should best organize their shared lives and communities.

Dr. Michael L. Brown is no stranger to addressing politics from a biblical standpoint. In 2022, he entered the political realm once again with the book The Political Seduction of the Church. In fourteen chapters spanning 265 pages, he discusses Christian involvement in the January 6 storming of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., false prophecies concerning the 2020 election, and Christian nationalism, among other pertinent topics.

In the second chapter of the book, Brown makes it clear that the church of Jesus is transcendent; it goes beyond boundaries human beings tend to use to dive people, such as ethnicity, language, nationality, or political affiliation. He takes the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 6 concerning not joining the members of Christ’s body to a prostitute, and makes a point concerning not joining ourselves to anything that is unclean and defiling, which could include political activity when engaged in according to the world’s standards instead of God’s. When it comes to political activism, Brown writes:

Unfortunately, we often lose our way here, joining ourselves to the spirit of the age, becoming as partisan as the political system and as nasty (and childish) as the worst attack ads. We gleefully repost all kinds of mocking memes and loudly castigate those who differ with us—even our fellow Christians—insulting them in the basest of ways. And we do this, we claim, because God has emboldened us, because we are full of the Spirit, because we will not back down. What a deception. What a severe degrading of our holy calling. What a pathetic compromise. In reality, when we, God’s people, fight primarily with political or worldly weapons, we forfeit our supernatural strength. (pp. 25-26, italics mine)

In chapter four, Brown discusses the subtlety of seduction. Just as an extramarital affair rarely happens overnight, but comes about as a result of small compromises here and there, so too spiritual seduction is an incremental process. Brown writes, “We have lost our will to resist, or, perhaps worse still, we don’t even realize that we need to resist.” The promises of political protection of our interests, along with the offer to have a seat at the table of power, slowly convince us to overlook the faults and foibles of those making the offer to us, until we are firmly entangled in the sticky web and find it difficult, if not impossible, to extricate ourselves. Christians got behind Trump because he “was willing to put himself in harm’s way for their sake. He was willing to challenge the lying media….He was willing to confront the radical leftists who wanted to disfigure our nation….So what if he lied. So what if he was nasty in the process. So what if he created deeper divisions along the way” (p. 49). Notice the irony: Christians embraced someone they knew was a liar to confront the lying media. Yet Christians should know that one cannot fight the devil using the devil’s tactics. Brown goes on to call out the idolatrous nature of the dedication to Trump exhibited by many:

In the end, we even began to mirror Trump in our own attitudes and words, acting in ways that we would have deplored just years or even months before, ways that were in violation of our faith and morals. We, too, engaged in mockery and name-calling. We, too, savaged those who rejected Trump’s leadership. We even questioned the spirituality of those who could not vote for Trump, as if they were being disloyal to God. And ultimately we took on some of Trump’s most unchristian characteristics, just as Psalm 115 declares that those who worship idols become like the idols they worship. (p. 52)

But more liberal-minded Christians don’t escape scrutiny. Brown points out that, just as many conservative believers justified their hateful words and actions because their opponents were “the godless Left,” many professing Christians on the Left likewise justified their own words and actions toward fellow Christians on the Right by reasoning that Trump—and anyone who voted for him—were so bad they didn’t deserve the basic respect due to all those made in God’s image.

Dr. Brown goes on in chapter five to point out that idolatry, just like seduction, is very subtle. While many Christians bristle at the suggestion that their political activism has become idolatrous, their sense of despair and impending doom when their preferred candidate loses—or, in some cases, their unwillingness to admit he or she lost—reveals that things have actually arrived at the point of idolatry. Brown reminds his readers that idolatry does not always involve a complete denial of the God of Israel, but “attributing to others what should only be attributed to Him” (75). Looking to anything or anyone other than God to provide what only God can rightfully provide is the essence of idolatry.

In chapters seven and eight, the book gets into perhaps the issue most closely related to the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement: the prophets who missed it in regard to the 2000 election. Brown here includes extended quotes from the political prophets’ YouTube videos, newsletters, and web sites. When their predictions of a second consecutive term for President Trump went bust, many of those who had claimed direct revelation from God doubled down, rather than admit they had mistaken their own thoughts and desires for the voice of the Lord. This insistent denial struck me as analogous to proponents of the health and wealth gospel who refuse to admit they are ill, for fear of making a “negative confession.” Brown gives an extensive analysis of possible causes for so many missed prophecies, some of which basically amount to spiritual peer pressure: if someone you believe genuinely hears from God says that Trump will be re-elected (or reinstated, as the case may be), and you know your followers like Trump and expect you to hear from God, it’s a short walk to allow your own desires (and ministry standing) to push you to make a similar proclamation. “They assumed that, as prophets, they should know the future. And that assumption led to presumption since the Lord had clearly not revealed these things to them” (125).

Chapter eleven deals with healthy and unhealthy mixtures of politics and religion. It is healthy for believers to become politically involved by attending local council and school board meetings, advocating for biblical views on issues, and even running for office at the local, state, and national levels. The mixture of religion and politics becomes unhealthy, however, when political expediency, and compromising principles for the sake of gaining or maintaining power, cause politics to become the dominating influence, dimming the light of truth. The American church needs to remember that Jesus does not need the political system to advance His kingdom; the church is growing by leaps and bounds in places like China and Iran, where the governmental systems are overtly opposed to and oppressing Christians.

In the thirteenth chapter, Brown discusses Christian nationalism and some of the violent tendencies that have arisen in some sectors of the church. He advises against embracing the term “Christian nationalism,” in part because God has not called political nation states to do the work of the church. Chapter fourteen provides a summary of how Christians failed the test when it comes to the seduction of political power, and how we can learn from our past mistakes in this area. We must focus more on the unity we have around King Jesus than we do on the differences of opinion regarding policies and partisanship. We must seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, instead of seeking the power of worldly kingdoms. And even when we do get involved in politics, we must do everything in a Christian spirit of love and respect, even when we differ.

Perhaps the problems we are seeing with partisan politics dividing the church of Christ today stem from the church’s past failure to disciple believers in how to address political issues faithfully in accordance with the Scriptures, leaving the sheep to get their political formation from talk radio and cable news. Human beings are political creatures; if the church doesn’t teach them how to deal with political issues with compassion while maintaining biblical convictions, they will find instruction elsewhere, and that instruction will likely follow the ways of the world rather than the way of King Jesus.

Reviewed by Brain Roden

When we receive the Spirit of the Lord, we’re free from having to prove ourselves to others. You are then free to be the person God created you to be.

Image: Ivana Cajina

Friends, we have received the Spirit of grace through Christ who was crucified and resurrected. When we carry the hope of Heaven in our heart and let go of our tight grip, we have on ourselves—we receive true freedom in Christ!

Pastor Cletus

Used with permission.

In 1961, a few years before becoming one of the earliest US Naval Reserve Assembly of God chaplains, Dr. Spittler, who blew his students’ away, figuratively speaking, with his humility in bidding them to call him just “Russ,” began attending Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Edward W. Watson, Ph.D., Senior Professor of Biblical Literature and Practical Theology, Graduate School of Theology and Ministry at Oral Roberts University, and Senior New Testament Editor of the Modern English Version, who served on various committees with Russ, said:

Dr. Spittler’s legacy in Pentecostal studies is treasured by all those he has impacted. He not only was an outstanding teacher and author, but he brought legitimacy to the movement through his connections to biblical scholarship. His leadership in the academy will continue to resonate for generations to come.

At Fuller, in addition to all the courses he taught and books he wrote, he held the positions of Liaison Officer for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior New Testament Professor, Provost, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Provost Emeritus, and Professor Emeritus of New Testament. He passed away on Friday, January 20, 2023. He attained the rank of Captain as a chaplain in the US Naval Reserves.

One of Russ’s former Vanguard University and Fuller Seminary students, James F. Linzey, D.D., Chief Editor of the Modern English Version, reminisced:

Dr. Spittler mentored me and trained me for a successful military chaplaincy career as well as academic research, writing, and teaching. He was incredibly gifted in mentoring us students and preparing us academically for our respective callings in life. He was an outstanding mentor, personal friend, and friend of my parents.

It could be said that Russ had an impact on the creation of the Modern English Version Bible translation due to his profound impact on numerous scholars, including many not mentioned here, who served on its translation committee.

At his funeral on February 9, 2023, immense respect was shown by others with great character—people whose lives were obviously enriched by him and consumed with memories of his life and the impact his life made on theirs. They saw that his effect on the church and perhaps the world was unfathomable. Dr. Russell P. Spittler was the world’s foremost expert on the letters to the Corinthians by the apostle Paul. He will be remembered as an inspiring professor and a remarkable friend.

The First Nations Version[1] is “An indigenous Translation of the New Testament” that provides an Introduction ([ix]-xiii), including “Why the Name First Nations Version?” (x), “Partnering Organizations,” “Church Engagement,” “The Translation Council” (x-xi), “Other Native People Involved” (xi), “Consultants and Support” (xi-xii), “Community Checking and Feedback” (xii), “Reader Aids” (xii-xiii). These are followed by a “Prologue” that gives an overview of the Old Testament, including introductory sample translations from Genesis, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel ([xv]-xviii).

Throughout the New Testament text, commentary or explanatory notes are inserted and indicated by a left-justified grey vertical bar to the left of each note. For example, “Spear of Great Waters (Pilate) was the local governor representing the People of Iron (Romans). He had the power to decide who would live and who would die.” This note explains to whom Creator Sets Free (Jesus) was taken by “the tribal elders, the scroll keepers, and the Grand Council” (Mark 15:1b). Also, throughout the FNV footnotes are supplied that include Literal translations (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:22) and Old Testament references for 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 4). Further, “To Help The Reader with the historical and cultural context” [2] A “Glossary of Biblical Terms” is supplied. For additional information one is invited to visit: www.firstnationsversion.com and www.facebook.com/firstnationsversion.[3]

[From InterVarsity Press] Terry M. Wildman (Ojibwe and Yaqui) is the lead translator, general editor, and project manager of the First Nations Version. He serves as the director of spiritual growth and leadership development for Native InterVarsity. He is also the founder of Rain Ministries and has previously served as a pastor and worship leader. He and his wife, Darlene, live in Arizona.

The Translation Council “was selected from a cross-section of Native North Americans. Elders, pastors, young adults, and men and women from different tribes and diverse geographic locations were chosen to sit on the council” (x-xi). Also, “to minimize bias” the Council included “a diversity of church and denominational traditions” (xi). The “Translation Council humbly submits this new translation of the Sacred Scriptures as our gift to all English-speaking First Nations people and to the entire sacred family, which is the body of the Chosen One” (ix). This translation “is not a word-for-word” rendering, “but rather … a thought-for-thought translation, sometimes referred to as dynamic equivalence” (ix).

Now let us examine a few samples from the First Nation Version and other translations.

The Lord’s Prayer

⁹ Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.^[a]
10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,^[b]
on earth as it is in heaven.
¹¹ Give us this day our daily bread,^[c]
12 and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
¹³ And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil^[d]” (Matt. 6:9-13 ESV. [See linked footnotes for additional translation notes]).

The Way to Pray

“9 … when you send your voice to the Great Spirit, here is how you should pray:
‘O Great Spirit, our Father from above, we honor your name as sacred and holy. 10 Bring your good road to us, where the beauty of your ways in the spirit-world above is reflected in the earth below.
11 “Provide for us day by day—the elk, the buffalo, and the salmon. The corn, the squash, and the wild rice. All the things we need for each day.
12 “Release us from the things we have done wrong, in the same way we release others for the things they have done wrong to us.
13 “Guide us away from the things that tempt us to stray from your good road, and set us free from the evil one and his worthless ways. Aho! May it be so (Matt. 6:9-13 FNV)!

“Our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9a ESV) is translated in the First Nations Version as “O Great Spirit, our Father from above.” Besides, “Great Spirit,” other names for God are used in the FNV, such as “… Creator, Great Mystery, Maker of Life, Giver of Breath, One Above Us All, and Most Holy One” (xiii).

For many White North Americans, their staple food is bread. But for Indigenous North Americans traditional basic foods include “the elk, the buffalo, and the salmon. The corn, the squash, and the wild rice” (6:11b-c FNV). Such a rendering of this portion in Matthew 6:11 illustrates an example of the “dynamic equivalence” (ix) principle in operation. Bannock is “a type of bread made with wheat flour, shaped into round, flat cakes and fried or baked” and that was used “(originally in indigenous Canadian cooking).”[4] So, bannock is another staple or basic food that might be considered in Matthew 6:11 (FNV).

Compare:

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to [sic] him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20 ESV).

 “I stand before the entrance of your tipi, asking you to welcome me in, I will sit down with you, and we will share a good meal together” (Rev. 3:20 FNV).

Kudos to everyone involved in producing this unique “dynamic equivalence” translation of the New Testament! To anyone—especially a non-Indigenous person—who takes seriously one’s need to understand and communicate better to First Nations or Indigenous people in North America, the reviewer highly recommends utilizing the First Nations Version of the New Testament.

 PR

Publisher’s page: https://www.ivpress.com/first-nations-version

Dedicated page: https://firstnationsversion.com/book/first-nations-version/

Read an interview with the FNV editor, “Terry Wildman on the Making of First Nations Version, a New Indigenous Bible Translation.”

Notes

[1] First Nations Version: An Indigenous Translation of the New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021.
[2]  Op. cit., [475]
[3]  Op. cit., [485]
[4] Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages (Accessed: Nov. 17, 2022).
[5] Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages (Accessed: Nov. 19, 2022).

Theme: The Holy Spirit and the healing of the body.

On behalf of the Center for the Study of the Work and Ministry of the Holy Spirit Today, we are inviting you to submit research paper proposals pertaining to the theme of the 2023 symposium. Our vision is for this interdisciplinary discussion to traverse the landscapes of the psychological, neurological, spiritual and biblical-theological (although not limited to these areas), culminating in a collective exploration of the Holy Spirit and the healing of the human body.

This conversation within the guild of pneumatology will be showcased at the upcoming Fall 2023 Holy Spirit Academic Symposium. The selected scholars, along with Biola’s five faculty fellows chosen to engage in this research, will present their findings at this time. Keynote speaker, Dr. Craig Keener, and responses by Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, will provide the biblical-theological foundation for a deeper discovery of the healing work of the Holy Spirit. We encourage you to submit an abstract (300 words) to the committee by completing this form no later than January 31st, 2023. 

Join the already accepted research from the following scholars: Dr. Carmen Imes, Dr. Leon Harris, Dr. Richard Gunasekera, Dr. James Johansen, and Professor Helen Mitchell.

The research produced for the symposium will serve students across diverse disciplines, including theology, business, social science, and biological science, integrating the work of the Divine Spirit with those areas of study. Additionally, pastors and leaders will also obtain a wider breadth of knowledge and understanding regarding healing within the Church. We truly hope you will consider sharing at this academic event.

Oscar Merlo
Director, Center for the Study of the Work and Ministry of the Holy Spirit Today

To celebrate some of his many contributions to Spirit-empowered ministry, please peruse some of this content available at PneumaReview.com:

John Lathrop reviews S. David Moore, Pastor Jack: The Authorized Biography of Jack Hayford (David C. Cook, 2020).

David Bradnick reviews Jack W. Hayford with Rebecca Hayford Bauer, Penetrating the Darkness: Discovering the Power of the Cross Against Unseen Evil (Chosen Books, 2011).

Mike Dies reviews Jack W. Hayford, “Practicing What We Preach” Ministries Today (Nov/Dec 2003).

Jack Hayford is one of the leaders featured in Dean Merrill, 50 Pentecostal and Charismatic Leaders Every Christian Should Know (Bloomington, MN: Chosen Books, 2021), reviewed by John Lathrop.

Jack Hayford / The King’s University

I can remember several occasions as a young leader when listening to Pastor Jack was something God used to allow me to see truth more clearly and embrace a greater love for fellow Christians I had theological disagreements with. We who remain will miss this well-spoken statesman for the fullness of the good news about what Jesus has done, is doing, and will complete.