We can assume that, at the time Paul wrote, the New Testament church had a clear understanding of what these offices required, how they operated and who filled them. However, with the passing of time, the role and operation of these ministries in the everyday life of the church became less clear.

Thus, for centuries, the offices of pastor and teacher have been familiar ministries in all churches. However, only since the middle of the nineteenth century, with the success of Charles Finney and other “professional” evangelists of that day, has the office of evangelist gained a popular understanding and acceptance.

The offices of apostle and prophet have been more elusive for modern Christians. Many have accepted a belief developed throughout the centuries that the age of the apostles and prophets ended around 96 AD, about the time John, the last apostle, died. Another belief, first stated by St. Augustine (and later retracted), has been widely accepted along with this. It holds that, with the completion of the canon of Scripture, the Lord withdrew miraculous gifts of the Spirit such as tongues, prophecy and healing.

Over time, as the bishops consolidated their power in the church, the office of apostle was almost forgotten. By the second century, apostles and prophets were seen as nothing more than traveling medicine men with little or no influence or authority. In the Didache (11:3) the following rules were laid down for itinerant “apostles and prophets”: “Now, as regards apostles and prophets, act strictly according to the precept of the Gospel. Upon his arrival every apostle must be welcomed as the Lord; but he must not stay except one day. In case of necessity, however, he may stay the next day also; but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. At his departure the apostle must receive nothing except food to last till the next night’s lodging; but if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.”

Danielle Treweek, “Will ‘Complementarianism’ Survive?: I want to continue to call myself a complementarian. But we need to reclaim the term” Christianity Today (March 18, 2024).

As appearing in the April 2024 issue of Christianity Today.

Gaby Viesca, “Egalitarianism Is More Than a PR Statement: Are churches moving to an egalitarian model truly embracing female leadership?” Christianity Today (March 18, 2024).

As appearing in the April 2024 issue of Christianity Today.

Gordon P. Hugenberger, “Complementarian at Home, Egalitarian at Church? Paul Would Approve: The biggest New Testament passages on gender roles may have more to do with marriage than ministry” Christianity Today (March 18, 2024).

As appearing in the April 2024 issue of Christianity Today.

John Stonestreet and Shane Morris, “Richard Dawkins, a ‘Cultural Christian’: You can’t have Christianity’s fruit without its root” Breakpoint (April 9, 2024).

Mark R. Fairchild and Jordan K. Monson, “Was Paul a Slave?: The surprising argument that Saul of Tarsus was born into bondage” Christianity Today (May/June 2024).

This cover story from Christianity Today offers historical and biblical evidence that has been convincing to non-English theologians and Bible scholars for over a hundred years. Will we read Paul differently if this is true, and if so, how?<< [seek cover image]

“Preaching and Pentecostalism panel discussion” CraigKeener.com (June 26, 2024).

This was a Panel discussion at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary posted to CraigKeener.com on June 26, 2024.

Rasool Berry, “For Christians, Juneteenth Is a Time of Jubilee: Observing Juneteenth as a national holiday affirms what we believe about our faith and our freedoms” Christianity Today (June 16, 2022).

PneumaReview.com Editor Raul Mock writes: “I would like to introduce you to my friend, Rasool Berry, and this terrific introduction to Juneteenth. Although this article was published in 2022, it should be evergreen until every follower of Jesus in the USA appreciates this holiday. Rasool was the host and narrator for the excellent, award-winning documentary, ‘Juneteenth: Faith & Freedom’ produced by Our Daily Bread Ministries and shown throughout the country on PBS.”

Here is another article on Juneteenth: John Mark Richardson, Sr., “Juneteenth: Through the Eyes of an African American Wesleyan Holiness Leader” Firebrand (June 18, 2024)

Image: Andrea Tummons

PR

Karl Barth and Pentecostal Theology: A Convergence of the Word and the Spirit, edited by Frank D. Macchia, Terry L. Cross, and Andrew K. Gabriel. London: T & T Clark, 2024.

The book is published in the growing academic book series Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology.

The book is currently very expensive (US$150), but in a year or two the publisher should release a paperback version that will be closer to US$50. That is still expensive, but a little more reasonable for an academic book.

Description (from the Publisher):

The essays in this volume evaluate and build on Barth’s theology from the perspective of Pentecostal theology and, thereby, contribute to constructive Pentecostal systematic theology by using Barth as a valuable dialogue partner. At present, a theological conversation of Pentecostals with Barth does not exist and this volume fills this void. More widely, it will aid all those who seek a convergence of the Word and the Spirit in theology.

Barth and Pentecostals share some important common theological interests. Barth’s mature theology has a decidedly christological emphasis. Likewise, historically, Pentecostals have often spoken of a “full gospel” with an emphasis on Christ as savior, healer, baptizer (in the Spirit), and soon-and-coming King, with some Pentecostal traditions also adding a fifth emphasis on Christ the sanctifier. Furthermore, near the end of his life, Barth anticipated “the possibility of a theology of the third article, a theology where the Holy Spirit would dominate and be decisive.” The realization of Barth’s dream is no doubt coming to pass in part through the development of Pentecostal theology in as much as pneumatological theology (exploring how pneumatology affects, supplements, and might reform other doctrines) is an emerging paradigm for Pentecostal theology.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction, Frank D. Macchia (Vanguard University, USA), Terry L. Cross (Lee University, USA), Andrew K. Gabriel (Horizon College and Seminary, Canada)

Part One: Theology and Revelation

2. Theology as a Pointing Finger: Barth and Pentecostalism on the Nature of Theology, Todd Pokrifka (Institute for Community Transformation, USA)
3. Revelation as Encounter: Karl Barth, Pneumatological Realism, and the Pentecostal Notion of Prophetic Preaching, Gary Tyra (Vanguard University, USA)

Part Two: God and Creation

4. Oneness, Pentecostals and Karl Barth: Theological Cousins Who Never Met? David A. Reed (Wycliffe College, Canada)
5. Barth and Pentecostals on the Divine Perfections of (Im)mutability and (Im)possibility, Andrew K. Gabriel (Horizon College and Seminary, Canada)
6. Barth, Election, and the Spirit, William Atkinson (London School of Theology, UK)
7. Empowered by the Spirit: A Pneumatological Revision of Karl Barth’s Theological Anthropology, Lisa P. Stephenson (Lee University, USA)

Part Three: Christ and Salvation

8. Jesus the Spirit Baptizer: A Pentecostal Revision of Karl Barth’s Spirit Christology, Frank D. Macchia (Vanguard University, USA)
9. On Giving the Devil (No More Than) His Due: Karl Barth, Pentecostalism, and the Demonic, Michael McClymond (Saint Louis University, USA)
10. Subjects and Predicates: Barthian Grammar and Pentecostal Soteriology, David J. Courey (Continental Theological Seminary, Belgium)
11. Slamming the Door and Cracking a Window? Pneumatological Investigations for Possible Openings in Karl Barth’s Generally Closed Theology of Religions, Tony Richie (Pentecostal Theological Seminary, USA)
12. Barth, Pentecostalism, and the Eschatological Cry for the Kingdom, Christian T. Collins Winn (Augsburg University, USA)

Part Four: Holy Spirit and the Church

13. Spirit, Love, and Charisma: Pneumatology in the Theology of Karl Barth and Pentecostalism, Peter Althouse (Oral Roberts University, USA)
14. Let the Church be the Church: Barth and Pentecostals on Ecclesiology, Terry L. Cross (Lee University, USA)
15. You Wonder Where the Real Presence Went: The Sacraments and the Pentecostal Experience, Chris E. Green (Southeastern University, USA)

Bibliography

Index

PR

Publisher’s page: Karl Barth and Pentecostal Theology: A Convergence of the Word and the Spirit

More by authors appearing in this book:

The theology and influence of Karl Barth: an interview with Terry Cross

Terry L. Cross, Answering the Call in the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on a Theology of Vocation, Work and Life (Lee University Press, 2007) as reviewed by Mara Lief Crabtree

Frank Macchia: Assessing the Prosperity Gospel

John Wesley and Pentecostalism: an interview with Frank Macchia

Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Zondervan, 2006) as reviewed by Tony Richie

Frank D. Macchia, Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Cascade, 2023) as reviewed by Wolfgang Vondey

Robert W. Graves, ed., Strangers To Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship, 2014) as reviewed by Tony Richie

Tony Richie, Essentials of Pentecostal Theology: An Eternal and Unchanging Lord Powerfully Present and Active by the Holy Spirit (Wipf & Stock, 2020) as reviewed by John Lathrop

Tony Richie, “Do All Abraham’s Children Worship Abraham’s God?”

Similar stories of great men and women of God, who, like Luther, found little consolation amidst the darkest times of their lives, stir me and remind me that theological precision is a poor substitute for weathered faith. Life, it seems, has this annoying habit of knocking down our fragile, uncontested theological formulas like foul breath beating against a house of cards. Still we are troubled when we read about Luther, a champion theologian and accomplished composer, who was occasionally muted and numbed by personal tragedy. Nor is he an isolated example from church history. As we may recall that New England’s church leader, Cotton Mather, lost eight of fifteen children before reaching their second birthday. And if we are to add tragic marriages (John Wesley, William Carey) and constant illnesses (Charles Spurgeon, Mary Slessor) to the list of life’s tribulations, there would be no time left for the main point, which has been intentionally obscured until now. To the faithful pilgrim, there may be times in life when God alone has the answer for our grieving heart, and it may well be concealed until we pass beyond the veil of this life.

Image: Joshua Earle

I realize that this remark cuts across our American, have-it-your-way philosophy. Frankly, I don’t personally find these stories necessarily uplifting, but they are real and they remind us that death and sorrow are great equalizers while we sojourn on this planet. The first century Christians understood this truth all too well. Paul told the Corinthians of the many perils he faced constantly (II Cor. 11:23-29). The Hebrew author reminded his readers that faith is always rewarded, just not always in this life (11:35-39) as evident in the lives of past saints. Peter went even further, calling attention to our role as “aliens and strangers” (I Pet. 2:11) in this world. I take this to mean that we look to eternity for our ultimate hope, and not meaning that we forsake or despise our earthly, temporal existence. Even Jesus stated that, “in this world [we] will have trouble” (John 16:33a).

The stories we read from church history reinforce the notion that good and godly Christian people can often suffer inexplicably in this life. But having to wait for answers means that we must rely unconditionally on faith in God rather than the standard soapbox bravado and stereotyped propaganda-practices that are more deeply rooted in American business than the Bible. Of course we do not plan our “light and momentary troubles” (as Paul referred to them), but we expect good things from God and in this country we usually get them. But when difficult, even terrible times occur, it is best to remember that we are not entitled to always have a ready answer. Someday, God will “wipe every tear from [our] eyes. There will be no more death or mourning, or crying or pain, for the old order of things [will have] passed away” (Rev. 21:4). Faith is sufficient for the time being.

Copyright © 2003, Larry Taylor. Used by permission of the author.

Originally published on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website. Later included in the Spring 2024 issue.

Outpouring: A Theological Witness, is a brief (107 pages), first-hand account of the events of the spring of 2023 at Asbury University in Wilmore, Kentucky. Both authors were professors at Asbury Theological Seminary at the time (Vickers has since moved to a position at Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University in Waco, Texas). Some of the material in chapters one and four was previously published in articles in Christianity Today in 2018 and 2023, but those reprinted portions are key to the telling of the events of the Asbury Outpouring, and theological reflection on those events.

In the introduction to the book, the authors point out that while they are trained, experienced theologians, they were careful to approach the events occurring around them as learners, rather than as dogmatic gatekeepers. They state, “What was most invigorating about the Asbury Outpouring for us as theologians was the way in which it required us to return to the sites of Holy Scripture and classical Christian doctrine and theology with fresh questions in our minds” (3). The authors point out that while one always approaches such events with certain established theological convictions and presuppositions, one also has to keep in mind that God is not bound to operate only within the categories we have established.

In chapter one, Vickers and McCall relate their experiences as eyewitnesses to what occurred on the Asbury campus. Each gives his own personal account of the first service each attended (McCall on Wednesday, Feb. 8, when the initial chapel service ran well past its normal, and Vickers on Friday, Feb. 10). McCall, whose specialty is analytic theology, notes that although he is “resistant to forms of Christian experience that bypass the life of the mind” and walked into the event with “a fair bit of caution,” within seconds of entering Hughes Auditorium, he found himself speechless. “My vocation—my job—is talking about God. But what I was encountering went far beyond any talk, and I knew that my words were so far from adequate” (16-17).

One frequent critique of the Asbury Outpouring that appeared on social media centered around it not “checking all the boxes” that some individuals from certain ecclesial traditions expect as marks of “true revival.” Vickers and McCall write, “Differences in descriptions of God’s manifest presence and power should not be cause for alarm. If our thinking about God is anchored in Holy Scripture, this is precisely what we should expect. Throughout the Bible, God’s presence and power are depicted in a variety of ways” (25). It is unreasonable to expect everyone who has an encounter with God to describe what they experience and feel in perfectly formed systematic theological language (especially when dealing with college students who, even though they are enrolled in a Christian university, are not all Bible majors).

Chapter three is entitled “Word and Spirit.” Here the writers touch on the doctrine of Scripture, pointing out that “the ultimate point of studying the Bible is not to know the book better but to know God better” (52). They go on to survey the Trinity, the incarnation of the Word made flesh, the high priestly role of Christ in the work of salvation, and the Person and work of the Holy Spirit in making God known to humanity. In the conclusion to this chapter, they write, “Outpourings and manifestations are possible because the one who became incarnate and dwelled among us remains present now throughout the world in the power of the Holy Spirit. If this is not the case, then outpourings are religious manias, and those who participate in them are delusional, manipulative, or both. But if in the power of the Holy Spirit the risen Lord remains present now throughout the world, then outpourings can be thought of as being among the means by which God is drawing all people to himself” (67).

Reviewed by Brian Roden

Preview Outpouring: https://books.google.com/books?id=Zly9EAAAQBAJ

Publisher’s page: https://wipfandstock.com/9781666776140/outpouring/  

This study will utilize the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a model for further theological dialogue between Wesleyan and Pentecostal traditions by demonstrating that there is a unique pneumatology in Wesley’s theological method. This article will examine the historiography of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, analyze the role of the Holy Spirit in each of the four areas (scripture, reason, tradition, experience), and then offer a Pentecostal appropriation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Wesleyan Quadrilateral

John Wesley (1703 – 1791)

Particularly important for this study is John Wesley’s pneumatology. His doctrine of the Holy Spirit was not just a category in his theology, but is intricately connected to his overall theology. Throughout the sermons, hymns, journals, and the Explanatory Note Upon the New Testament one can see an emphasis on the person and work of the Spirit.⁵

Pneumatology develops a sort of theme throughout the corpus and provides a ground-tone in Wesley’s version of the ordo salutis.⁶

Pneumatology in Wesleyan studies is still being developed, especially in regard to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Therefore, this study proposes to demonstrate that there is a distinct pneumatology in John Wesley’s theological method. A rediscovery of Wesley’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit can build a bridge between Wesleyan and Pentecostal movements as well as make a distinct contribution in the contemporary ecumenical movement.⁷

Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are ways in which God continues to tell His story to man.⁸  Through them He speaks to us and lets us know that we are not alone, but that He is with us. The Holy Spirit is the initiator of this ethereal conversation between God and man.⁹  The Quadrilateral is a theological method that John Wesley used in order to understand the work and Word of God. The primary way this took place was through the role of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we must have the Spirit’s in our search for a more “Scriptural Christianity.”¹⁰

The struggle with precise definitions of revival comes from the fact that the nouns “revival” or “awakening” as we use it today, are extrabiblical. What we read in the Bible are active verbs like “revive” in Psalm 85:6 “Will you not revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you?” (c.f. Habakkuk 3:2, Psalm 119:25), “filled” in Acts 2:4 “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them,” or “awake/arise” in Ephesians 5:14 “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”[1] There are more related words, but most of them are verbs connected to this idea of God revitalizing his people whether in their religious affections, in their vocational call as witnesses, in their spiritual health, and even in their relationship with God and with their neighbors.

Latham’s typology on the six senses of revival can help us understand the different revival encounters the church experiences today:

R1 A spiritual quickening of the individual believer

R2 A deliberate meeting or campaign especially among Pentecostals to deepen the faith of believers and bring non-believers to faith.

R3 An unplanned period of spiritual enlivening in a local church, quickening believers  and bringing unbelievers to faith.

R4 A regional experience of spiritual awakening and widespread conversions (e.g. the Welsh, Hebridean, East African and Indonesia revivals, and possibly Pensacola in    the 1990s).

R5 Societal or cultural “awakenings” (e.g., the transatlantic First and Second Awakenings).

R6 The possible reversal of secularization and “revival” of Christianity as such.[6]

This typology presents a wide semantic range of the term “revival” which is more appropriate for what’s really going on in the global church. This typology tells us that revivals today come in different shapes and forms, and that most often, what we experience in our Pentecostal churches are results of revivalism, or deliberate cultivation of revival experiences. The Asbury Revival, if we look at it from this semantic range, would fall under R3. Although we have heard testimonies that said they were praying for a revival at Asbury beforehand, it was an unplanned event and it did enliven the students, neighboring campuses, and led to the revitalization of student led prayer movements all over the nation.

A first-hand participant of the Asbury revival, Madison Pierce, testified via Facebook on February 15, 2023. Here’s an excerpt of the testimony:

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 outpouring with:

A tangible sense of peace for an [sic] 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 then [sic] previous generations and so the traits of this revival are different then revivals of old.[7]

For Pierce, the revival was timely for his generation. After a pandemic that brought fear of disease, anxiety, isolation, depression and grief, the younger generation has been asking for authentic encounters with God.

Although I evaluate this revival at the R3 level, we still don’t know its long-term effect. Who knows with the reinvigoration of student led prayer movements and the varied campus revivals around the nation, this revival may reach all the way to R6? We look forward to seeing its long-term effect.

In conclusion, revival is the spontaneous act of God in revitalizing his people and recentering us to his will, his love, and his passion. When the human “I” becomes less, and the eternal “I AM” becomes greater, the result is a restoration of wholeness and witness. The 2023 Asbury revival is just a reminder from God that he is still in control, and he is not done yet.

Let me end this essay by sharing Esther Jewel Holmes Shin’s testimony from her experience at Asbury. She posted it on Facebook on February 22, 2023. Here are excerpts of what she posted:

At Asbury people were delivered from demons, physical healings were taking place, repentance was a real thing, people were being saved. But mostly I heard testimonies of people who are experiencing internal healing.

A sense of belonging to those who feel alone. A sense of peace and hope to those struggling with mental health issues. People are being healed from social anxiety, PTSD, depression, trauma, panic attacks, and internal hurt from abuse of all types (religious, sexual, physical and power abuse.) All without hype or pressure. Just the gentle kindness of God’s love healing and restoring all things…

Truthfully, it was hard to leave…But we had responsibilities at home, and we needed to head out. But the beautiful thing with God is that he is not limited by geographic location. He is with us in our home. And I feel his presence more today than I have in a long, long time. I know everybody cannot drive to Asbury. But I promise you, no matter where you are located, if you will humble yourself and pray, God will be there. God is not pushy. He will not fill a space that has not been offered. But if you will make space for him in your heart (with your affection, thoughts, and time) He will gently, kindly, mercifully fill whatever space you have offered him.[10]

We don’t need to go to Asbury because our homes and our churches can be our sacred spaces. What we need is humility, repentance, and a recognition that we will never stop needing God. Let us not want revival for the sake of revival, but let us want God, desire God, and in humility lay flat on our face and pray: “Lord, have mercy on us. Take center stage in our lives and in our churches. Restore us to wholeness and embolden us to be your witnesses, so that the earth be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the water covers the sea (Habakkuk 2:14).”

PR

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken from the New International Version (NIV).

[2] Harvey Gallagher Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Addison-Wesley Pub., 1995).

[3] Douglas Jacobsen, The World’s Christians: Who They Are, Where They Are, and How They Got There (Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2011).

[4] David W. Bebbington, “What Is Revivalism?,” Christianity Today, 1990, https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-25/what-is-revivalism.html.

[5] Mark J. Cartledge, “‘Catch the Fire’: Revivalist Spirituality from Toronto to Beyond,” PentecoStudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements 13, no. 2 (2014): 225.

[6] Cartledge, “Catch the Fire,” 225.

[7] Madison Pierce, “I’m hesitant to post my thoughts on what’s happening in Wilmore. A few of you may have heard about the “Revival” at Asbury University.” Facebook, February 15, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/madison.pierce.353 (Accessed April 11, 2023).

[8] Zach Meerkreebs, “The Chapel Service that Launched the Asbury Revival 2023,” YouTube, https://youtu.be/VGvvGbgUmMU (Accessed April 11, 2023).

[9] Thomas McCall, “Reflections on the Outpouring-Dr. Thomas McCall,” YouTube, March 11, 2023. https://youtu.be/RSRql64CBTc (Accessed April 11, 2023)

[10] Esther Jewel Holmes Shin, “So why was 4 days of driving to and from Asbury worth it? I will do my best in this post to communicate when I saw and heard during my time at Asbury,” Facebook, February 22, 2023. https://www.facebook.com/esther.j.shin.5 (Accessed April 11, 2023).

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.

Perspectives on Spirit Baptism is a collection of five scholarly essays that define Spirit Baptism from five traditions: Reformed (Walter C. Kaiser), Pentecostal (Stanley M. Horton), Charismatic (Larry Hart), Wesleyan (H. Ray Dunning), and Catholic (Ralph Del Colle). Each view is formatted as a chapter, which concludes with responses from the remaining four scholars. The space afforded each view differs widely in some cases. For example, the Reformed view is only 22 pages, whereas the Charismatic view is 64 pages long; the difference (42 pages) is longer than the Catholic view (39 pages). The Pentecostal and Wesleyan views are 48 and 49 pages, respectively. Regarding the responses, there is again a disparity. Horton’s responses total only six pages, while Del Colle amasses just over 14 pages (the average was 10 pages).

All of the contributors to this volume are terminal-degreed scholars, but were they the most qualified? What brings this question to mind are the credentials of Kaiser and Horton. These are highly distinguished scholars, but their forte is the Old Testament, whereas Spirit Baptism is a New Testament phenomenon. Both men are venerable patriarchs (Horton will soon be 90) of their denominations and have high degrees of name-recognition (which publishers desire), but I sensed a lack of edge and freshness in their presentations and responses.

Kaiser starts things off with a historical summary of the responses to Pentecostal theology by John Stott (1964) and James Dunn (1970). Mysteriously, forty years after Stott’s dividing of Scripture into didactic and historical, Kaiser makes the same mistake, favoring Paul’s “didactic” passages over Luke’s “narrative.” Kaiser ignores three and a half decades of scholarship, beginning with I. Howard Marshall (1970) and continuing to this day, that corrects the misguided notion that Luke was merely a historian.

Neither does Kaiser fare well in the department of fairness. In his attempt to connect Spirit baptism with conversion, he quotes Pentecostal scholar R. P. Menzies in order to counter him with a quote from J. B. Shelton (also a Pentecostal), but he unfairly ends the Shelton quote at a point that serves his purpose. Had he continued with the same sentence, it would have destroyed his point. Here is Kaiser’s quotation from Shelton: “[Although] Luke is not averse to associating the Holy Spirit with conversion. [Kaiser even omits the ellipsis that indicates an omission.]” Here is the omitted clause and next clause: “…this is not his major pneumatological thrust. Some misunderstanding has arisen when the role of the Holy Spirit in empowering for witness is confused with conversion.” But as serious as this violation of scholarship is, it pales in significance to Kaiser’s later mischaracterization of Larry Hurtado’s position on tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. He quotes Hurtado approvingly when the latter confirms that the NT does not raise the question of the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Then he chastises Hurtado for not thinking that this renders the doctrine invalid and for thinking that experience “can fill in the needed evidence here!” (30). Kaiser has grossly misread Hurtado, whose last clause of the quoted essay reads, “…the doctrine of initial evidence, whatever its historic significance for institutionalized Pentecostalism, should be set aside as a sincere but misguided understanding of Scripture.” Was Kaiser so desperate to compare the supposed experience-based Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism to Evangelical rationalism that he totally misread Hurtado? Whatever the case, Kaiser turns Hurtado into a tremendous strawman, and he owes Hurtado an apology, since Hurtado seems to be on Kaiser’s side. Hurtado is not a Pentecostal but appears more like a Lukan cessationist who does not believe Luke intended to teach Theophilus anything about the relationship between tongues and Spirit baptism even though Luke, following contemporary Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions, strategically linked them in pivotal scenes that demonstrate the programmatic Christ sayings of Luke 24:45-47 and Acts 1:4-8.

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.