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.”

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

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

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

1. Missional DNA

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

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

Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Image: Pedro Lima

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

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

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

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

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

2. A Clear Message

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

Image: Adrianna Geo

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

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

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

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

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

3. Signs and Wonders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Limited Church Structure

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

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

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

Image: Ismael Paramo

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

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

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

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

5. An Emphasis on Experience

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

He has brought down rulers from their thrones,

but has lifted up the humble.

He has filled the hungry with good things,

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

PR

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

Notes

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

126 Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

141 Yonggi Cho, Salvation, 39.

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

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

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

145 Martin, Pentecostalism, 176.

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

147 Menzies and Menzies, Spirit and Power, 185.

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

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

Robert Banks’ ministry experience includes being a professor and an author, he has also lectured at seminaries in various Asian countries (biographical information on the back cover). This book is Volume 3 in the APTS Press Occasional Papers Series (page v). The text is an expanded development of the lectures that the author gave when he presented the William Menzies Annual Lectures at Asia Pacific Theological Seminary in 2021 (page vii). In writing this current volume Banks drew from some of his earlier writings and research (page vii-viii).

As the title of the book indicates its focus is the apostle Paul, in particular, the versatility of the apostle is noted. After the front matter, which includes the Publisher’s Preface, Acknowledgements, a brief entry titled “Paul’s Versatility” by James Stalker D. D., and an Introduction (“Specialist or Generalist?”), the book is composed of 3 parts and a conclusion. Part 1 (pages 5-37) focuses on Paul as an “Artisan Missioner,” Part 2 (pages 39-72) looks at Paul as a “Community Developer.” Part 3 (pages 73-102) is given to a consideration of Paul as a “Pastoral Educator.” Each of these parts is composed of two chapters, the book closes with the Conclusion (pages 103-108).

Part 1, “Artisan Missioner,” consists of Chapters 1 and 2. In these chapters Banks gives attention to what Paul is perhaps best known for: his missionary activities. In Chapter 1, “Cross-Cultural Innovator,” the author writes about the apostle’s efforts to take the gospel to others, to those who had not previously heard, including the Gentiles (pages 11, 7-9). As he pursued this ministry Paul traveled long distances (pages 8-9). Banks points out that Paul’s life and experiences uniquely qualified him for working with different kinds of people (pages 12-13). While he engaged in his Christian ministry, he was not a full-time missionary in our contemporary understanding of the term (page 10). The apostle was not content to just evangelize, Banks notes that he also labored to establish communities of faith, churches (page 9). He gives some attention to Paul’s evangelistic strategy (pages 15-17). The key text for this is Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (page 15). It is clear from this passage that the apostle could be versatile, or flexible, as he sought to lead people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Chapter 1 also includes brief sections on Paul’s pastoral approach (pages 17-18) and personal practice (pages 18-19).

In Chapter 2, “Flexible Response Planner,” the author gives attention to some of the guidance that the apostle received and how he responded to it. He notes that while the Holy Spirit was involved, some of Paul’s movements seem to have been influenced by circumstances and personal relationships (pages 24-27). In this regard too we see that Paul could be flexible.

Chapter 4, “Distinctive Lifestyle Exemplar,” gives attention to Paul’s dual citizenship, his citizenship on earth and in heaven (pages 55-58). It also takes a look at the apostle’s approach to making decisions about how believers should conduct themselves in this world when confronted with various issues (pages 60-62). Banks, referencing Longenecker, notes that Paul considered some issues “vital” in which case all believers should take one course of action, while others were less critical and offered some measure of freedom so that a believer could take one course of action or another (page 61).

Part 3 looks at Paul as a “Pastoral Educator.” This section is also made up of two chapters, Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 5 focuses on the apostle as a “Life-Shaped Theologian” (pages 75-89). This chapter basically explores the question of whether theology shapes experience or experience shapes theology (page 75). In the course of the chapter Banks points out that Paul’s experiences had a significant impact on his beliefs.

Chapter 6 gives attention to Paul as a “Learning-Oriented Teacher.” Banks notes that Paul saw a number of different venues as places for teaching and learning, he writes “For Paul, teaching and learning takes place in lecture halls and house churches, in city centers and on road trips, in workplaces and local homes” (page 92). He further notes that this learning can take place in a variety of ways, these include: stories and ideas, conversations and instruction, experience and knowledge, emotions and thoughts, imagination and information, and practice and reflection (pages 92-101).

I think there are two things that are of special note in this book. First, the author’s description of a first-century Christian worship service (page 41). In reading this the contemporary believer can easily see that there is a marked difference between what many of us experience as church today and what the apostolic churches experienced. Second, I found interesting what the author brought out about the complexities of Paul and how he navigated his Christian life and ministry. Paul was both principled and flexible and knew which matters were negotiable and which were not. He was a master at contextualization. The book truly lives up to its title, it is about The Versatility of Paul. I think that serious readers of Scripture will find much to ponder in this volume.

Reviewed by John Lathrop

USA Publisher page: https://wipfandstock.com/9781666773774/versatility-of-paul/

For a sample chapter, go to: https://www.aptspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Free-Sample-The-Versatality-of-Paul-2.pdf

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 doctrine of the Holy Spirit has been present from the time of the primitive church and on into the 20th century. However, generally speak­ing, what has been lacking is His concrete influence in the same way that was evident in the early days of Pentecost, in the primitive churches, and among the proclaimers of the gospel at that time. That faith returned and started to grow among the holiness movements in the United States in the 19th century. It was faith in the fact that the Holy Spirit can presently fill the believer so that he/she speaks in new tongues, can prophesy, or become a channel for another of the spiritual gifts. That phenomenon of speaking in tongues began to increasingly appear throughout the world. The Pentecostal movement did not start in a vacuum. Its explosive spread in the 20th century was, however, a surprise.

I will now more intensely observe some central elements in the work of the Holy Spirit. These seem to have a pivotal role in the composition of the Pentecostal DNA.

The Importance of Baptism with the Holy Spirit

In our lives we strive for things that have significance. An athlete is ready to work hard in order to reach his/her ultimate fitness. A cook is ready to spend time in creating a unique taste experience. A musician repeatedly practices tone sequence until he/she is finally satisfied.

Jesus gave the promise of sending the Holy Spirit as the source of power for us. He did not say he would send power, but that He would send the Holy Spirit which would bestow power in us. The Holy Spirit is a person, one of the three persons of the Godhead. That fact provides the correct basis of our attitude toward Him. Power is impersonal. The Holy Spirit sees, feels, rejoices, mourns, comforts, defends, equips, serves, exhorts, upholds. It is important to us that He entrusts us with power. The Old Testament already gave a clear message regarding the Holy Spirit: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty.” (Zech. 4:6)

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting …All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit…” (Acts 2:1-4) Their waiting was rewarded. The followers of Jesus were always focused on seeing His kingdom estab­lished on earth. He had taught them to pray for the coming of God’s king­dom. The will of God would be realized in heaven as well as on earth. This right expectation needed a correction in emphasis. It was not for them to know exact timetables. (Acts 1:7) There was something more important. Jesus instructed them in this way: “But you will receive pow­er when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

Receiving power is connected to the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It has a special purpose. This power is not for bodybuilding nor for boasting about brawn. It is power for service. Jesus did not send His servants out with their own power. His intent was to equip them extraordinarily well for the task He was sending them to accomplish.

This chapter is an excerpt from Arto Hämäläinen’s book, The DNA of the Spirit-Empowered Christians and Churches (2023). Part of the Peace by the Spirit Series.

The promise of the Spirit to the disciples was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. At the same it gave birth to the church. The apostles served the multitude of thousands by leading them to faith in Jesus and by bap­tizing them. The power given to them enabled this action. The power was there for a purpose, for spreading the gospel, for giving birth and providing care for the community of believers, and for the spreading of the kingdom of God.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter reminded his hearers of the promised infilling of the Holy Spirit for all believers. “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:39) Unfortunately, this emphasis and the desire for this privilege among the believers started to weaken in the churches during the following centuries. References to the work of the Holy Spirit can still be found long after the first outpouring of the Spirit, but the workings of the Holy Spirit were no longer a center of focus. Here and there people received charismatic experiences. In my home country, Finland, there were people in a few revival movements in the Lutheran church a few hundred years ago who had charismatic experiences such as speaking in tongues.³ The same kind of experiences took place in the history of many other countries.

The attitude of waiting for a filling with the Spirit is no longer at the forefront but remains in the background in many Pentecostal churches. The teaching about Spirit baptism and the steps toward receiving it have been forgotten or at least is very limited. The danger is that the meaning of the infilling of the Spirit is not understood or the experience of the infilling is not expected. The whole picture has somehow become distort­ed. To be filled has become a norm which is to be accomplished in order not to appear to be a lower level Pentecostal. This can lead to mental pressure and to a loss of the whole kernel of the matter. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift, not a result of merit. Jesus taught that God loved His children and gave them good gifts including the Holy Spirit. “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.” (Luke 11:13)

God is pleased to give the fullness of the Spirit. Therefore, it can be expected without stress or any pressure. It is a gift. What else can we do when receiving a gift than to be thankful? Gratefulness is the basic atti­tude in waiting for it.

The undisputed leader of the Swedish Pentecostal movement from its beginning and for a long time after was pastor Lewi Pethrus. To be filled with the Holy Spirit was so important to Pethrus that he travelled to Oslo to meet with Methodist pastor Thomas Barratt for three weeks. The latter had experienced Spirit baptism some time earlier in United States, and was now teaching it in Norway. During those weeks, however, Pethrus did not experience Spirit baptism. “But I received something almost as precious than the very experience,” he writes later. The key matter to him was to understand that it is received by faith, as Paul writes in his let­ter to the Galatians: “I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you learned?” (Gal. 3:2)⁴

In the New Testament we find that some people had a special gift in leading people to experience being filled with the Holy Spirit. Peter and John were sent to Samaria where a revival occurred as a result of the work of Philip the evangelist. After they laid their hands on the new believers, they experienced the infilling of the Holy Spirit. People like them which have this special gift have been and are still in the churches. In Finland, we have had pastor Arthur Kukkula lead thousands of believers into Spir­it baptism, among them the internationally known evangelist Reinhard Bonnke. It took place when Bonnke was still a young boy. Kukkula could not imagine this teenager becoming one of the most effective gospel preachers ever, leading more than 17 million people to Jesus.

I also experienced the infilling of the Holy Spirit as a young boy of 12 years in my home city of Lappeenranta in Finland. Pastor Arthur Kukku­la was praying for me, and I still remember the moment when I received this blessing. Suddenly I felt like heaven was opened and a stream was flowing from there, touching my innermost being. I started speaking in tongues. It was very natural and spontaneous, something which I could not initiate myself.

Although God uses special people for leading others into the fullness of the Holy Spirit, it is important to remember that He is sovereign and acts as He likes. Many people have experienced the filling without any laying on of hands or special prayer. It is the Lord himself who pours out His Spirit, and people are only His servants, but not always needed. The Holy Spirit can fill a person in bed at night, or when he/she is driving the car, when jogging, preparing food, or when reading the Bible, etc. The most important factor is the openness or preparedness of the individual. Mary, the mother of Jesus had a very unique task. Through an angel she received an invitation to fulfill it. A special act of the Holy Spirit was involved in that experience. In receiving a promise, Mary’s attitude was a model for anyone who is waiting for the presence and leading of the Holy Spirit. “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” (Luke 1:38)

We are the Lord’s servants. As Peter taught on the day of Pentecost, the Lord has promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to every believer. Along with Mary let us say: “May your word to me be fulfilled!”

How can we be sure we have been filled with the Holy Spirit? What are the signs of it according to the New Testament?

1. “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” (Acts 2:4)
2. “The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.” (Acts 10:45-46)
3. “When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:6)

In all of these contexts, speaking in tongues is mentioned as a conse­quence of the infilling with the Holy Spirit. In one case, prophesying also is mentioned. Even there, however, speaking in tongues is mentioned. This has been the foundational teaching of classical Pentecostalism re­garding the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. This is a major difference between the charismatic movement and classical Pentecostal­ism. Although there is some variance among Pentecostals in relationship to this sign, it is very clear, e.g. in the World Assemblies of God Fellow­ship (WAGF). This Pentecostal family includes about 68 million Pente­costals (2018).

The breakthrough of global Pentecostalism took place in Los Angeles in 1906. The infilling with the Holy Spirit accompanied with the sign of speaking in tongues had been experienced in Topeka, Kansas already in 1901. Agnes Ozman, a student in the Bible school there became a witness to the fact that Pentecostal experiences are not a phenomenon only of the first century.⁷ During the entire second half of the 19th century, in the American Holiness movement, there was typically an expectation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. That was the ground from which the Pente­costal revival emerged.

The same was experienced also in my home country of Finland. In the beginning of the last century, Pietari Brofeldt described the expectancy in this way: “We all were surrendered before the face of God in order to receive the Holy Spirit who was promised to all who believe. We were so given up to this issue that we came together in the mornings and often returned by the last tram stopping in a coffee house for eating a porridge.” Brofeldt assumed that there were no more devoted waiters on the infilling of the Holy Spirit elsewhere. His observation was that the concentration was so much on waiting that thanking in faith was left to a lesser role.⁸ In any case, in the long run, people experienced the infilling of the Spirit which led to the breakthrough of the Pentecostal movement in Finland.

Although the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Los Angeles was decisive for the spread of Pentecostalism more than one hundred years ago, Pen­tecostal experiences took place in various locations around the world. The revival in Wales and in the Ramabai Pandita’s girls’ home in India, and a strong spiritual movement in Korea, paved the way for the global Pentecostal movement and were the first heralds for it.⁹

Questions to church leaders:

1. When was the last time that you taught about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the importance of the role of the Holy Spirit?
2. When was the last time you prayed for the infilling of the Holy Spirit for those who are seeking for it?

PR

This chapter is an excerpt from Arto Hämäläinen’s book, The DNA of the Spirit-Empowered Christians and Churches. Used with permission.

Scripture quotations taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

The “NIV,” “New International Version,” “Biblica,” “International Bible Society,” and the Biblica Logo are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc. Used with permission.

Notes

Please see Arto Hämäläinen’s book, The DNA of the Spirit-Empowered Christians and Churches for complete citations.

³ J. Ruohomäki, 273, Aikamedia, 2009.

⁴ Pethrus, 97.

⁵ Ibid., 101-103.

⁶ Miller, 2005, 332.

⁷ Synan, 2001, 1.

⁸ Brofeldt, 1932, 30.

⁹ Anderson, 2013, 25-36.

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 Praying in the Spirit Series. 

Robert Graves making a presentation at the 2014 meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Robert W. Graves wrote Praying in the Spirit (Chosen Books) in 1987, when it received great reviews from a number of Pentecostal/charismatic scholars and leaders including John Sherrill, Dr. Vinson Synan, Dr. Gordon Fee, Dr. William Menzies, Dr. Howard Ervin, Dr. Walter Martin, and Dr. Stanley Horton. It is the great privilege of the Pneuma Review to republish it here.

What They’re Saying Now: Some Non-Charismatics Reevaluate Tongues (Winter 1999)
What They’re Saying Now: Some Non-Charismatics Reevaluate Tongues

Some Marvelous Effects of Praying in the Spirit (Spring 1999)
Some Marvelous Effects of Praying in the Spirit

Focus of the Charismatic Experience: Tongues, the Holy Spirit, or Christ? (Summer 1999)
Focus of the Charismatic Experience: Tongues, the Holy Spirit, or Christ?

Just What Is the Nature of the Prayer Language? (Fall 1999)
Just What Is the Nature of the Prayer Language?

Better Than I Was, Not Better Than You Are (Winter 2000)
Better Than I Was, Not Better Than You Are

Part 1 of: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Spring 2000)
That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Part 1)

Part 2 of: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Part 2)

Figure 1 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Consensus on First Corinthians 13 by Non-Pentecostal Scholars

Figure 2 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Proposed Dates of Charismata Cessation

Figure 3 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Charismata in Post-Apostolic Church

Editor Introduction: How the Prayer Language Comes (Fall 2000)
Editor Introduction: How the Prayer Language Comes

How the Prayer Language Comes (Fall 2000)
How the Prayer Language Comes

Now That You’ve Spoken in Tongues (Winter 2001)
Now That You’ve Spoken in Tongues

Singing in the Spirit (Spring 2001)
Singing in the Spirit

Afterword: Beyond the Charismatic Experience (Summer 2001)
Beyond the Charismatic Experience

Praying in the Spirit: Works Cited (Summer 2001)
Works Cited

The 1987 version of Praying in the Spirit is also available for sale here (Kindle and softcover).

In June 2017, Robert Graves wrote:

Praying in the Spirit was updated and expanded this year. It is more than 65% longer than the original with current updates, new arguments, and added chapters. Of course, it needed it after 30 years! If you’re buying a copy make sure you get the Empowered Life Academic edition, 280 pages (Empowered Life Academic is an imprint of Harrison House Publishers).

This index was later included in the Winter 2023 issue.

In recent years, there have been several books from Pentecostal/Charismatic scholars challenging what has been the traditional—or default—pre-Tribulation, pre-millennial view of the end times within many P/C circles. Among these are Daniel Isgrigg’s Imagining the Future, and Not Afraid of the Antichrist by Michael Brown and Craig Keener [Editor’s note: See Brian Roden’s review]. Assemblies of God missionary scholar Robert P. Menzies adds to this discussion with his 2022 book, The End of History: Pentecostals and a Fresh Approach to the Apocalypse. While Brown and Keener mainly focus on the exegetical deficiencies of the pre-Trib position, and Isgrigg focuses on the historical development of A/G eschatology to show that the pre-Trib view should not be the only acceptable option for that denomination’s ministers, Menzies goes a step further and actively advocates for an amillennial stance.

The book is divided into two main parts and includes seven appendices containing various Pentecostal statements of faith as well as shorter excurses that did not warrant chapter-length treatment. Part One of the book consists of two chapters, the first of which addresses problems with dispensationalism, with the second dealing with issues regarding premillennialism in general. Part Two consists of four chapters, each one presenting two theological affirmations Menzies sees as important for the Pentecostal movement. The eight theological affirmations in Part Two are interspersed with expository sermons drawn from the book of Revelation that address each pair of affirmations. Much of the content of the sermons reflects Menzies’ experience working with persecuted believers in eastern Asia.

In this chapter, the author also touches on the issues of whether Revelation’s chronology is one of linear progression or recapitulation; literal versus typological fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies; continuity and discontinuity regarding Israel and the Church; and whether Revelation’s prophecies extend and add to other New Testament prophecies about the end times or reaffirms them in a new context.

Chapter Two, “Premillennial Problems,” raises issues the author encounters with premillennialist interpretation in general (including historical or classical premillennialism). First, Menzies points out the “thousand years” of the Millennium is only mentioned in one place: Revelation 20:1–7. No other New Testament writer, nor the other books attributed to John, make any reference to it. Menzies, who finds himself more in the amillennial camp, encounters difficulty in dogmatically affirming a literal one thousand year reign based solely on a seven-verse passage. For his second objection to the premillennialist view, the author again raises the question of chronology in the Apocalypse, opting for a recapitulation pattern rather than a linear recounting of events. Menzies next deals with the binding of Satan, the question of two resurrections, and whether the nature of Christ’s reign is physical and political or spiritual. But even after arguing strongly against general premillennialist interpretations, he concludes the chapter saying, “The hermeneutical approach and theological perspective of historic premillennialists are actually much closer to those of most amillenialists than to those advocated by dispensational premillennialists” (84).

Part Two of the book is titled “A Fresh Approach,” and gets into the more practical outworkings of Pentecostal eschatology. Menzies here proposes eight affirmations to which Pentecostals should hold, while avoiding disputable minutiae:

• We believe in the personal, visible, and bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ.
• We believe that Christ’s return is imminent—that it could happen at any time.
• When Christ returns, he will judge all people: the righteous, his faithful followers, will enjoy eternal and perfect fellowship with him; the unrighteous will experience eternal separation from him and his wrath.
• God will consummate his redemptive plan in response to the prayers of his people.
• In these “last days” the church is called to bear bold witness for Jesus in the power of the Spirit.
• With his first coming, Jesus inaugurates God’s kingdom by decisively defeating the power of Satan, sin, and death. With his second coming, Jesus consummates God’s kingdom by destroying evil and redeeming his creation.
• The culmination of God’s redemptive plan includes the transformation of our world and the resurrection of our bodies.
• In these “last days” Christ calls his followers to pursue holiness by persevering and remaining faithful, even unto death.

The expositions of Revelation that accompany each pair of affirmations could easily be turned into sermons to be utilized in local churches. In regard to preaching and teaching the Apocalypse, Menzies writes, “We desperately need to highlight the central truths of the book of Revelation and other key New Testament texts that speak of Christ’s second coming, the ‘blessed hope.’ But we need to do so in a manner that avoids sensationalism and exaggeration and which is rooted in sober-minded and clear exposition of the biblical text” (p. 94).

The book concludes with seven appendices, three of which list the statements of faith of the Pentecostal World Fellowship, the World Assemblies of God Fellowship, and the U.S Assemblies of God, which provides a helpful comparison of the varying levels of specificity in the statements concerning the last things.

The fourth appendix compares and contrasts the eschatological stances of two major contributors to Assemblies of God theology: Menzies’ father, the late William W. Menzies, and the late Stanley M. Horton. The author points out that his father’s stance was premillennial but not dispensational, while it was Horton’s revision and expansion of the elder Menzies’ 1971 book Understanding Our Doctrine in the 1993 volume Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective that greatly expanded the material on eschatology, going from one paragraph on the Rapture in William Menzies’ book to over three pages focused on a defense of the pre-Tribulation Rapture.

The fifth appendix gives a brief comparison of varying interpretations of “the kingdom of God,” while the sixth proposes two new categories for interpreting Revelation (the picture puzzle approach and the stained-glass window approach) the author feels work better than the traditional categories of preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist. The seventh and final appendix restates in one location Menzies’ eight affirmations developed in chapters three through six.

Overall, I found the book an enjoyable read, even though I did not come away convinced by Menzies’ arguments for amillennialism. Perhaps it is my own leanings and bias in favor of historic premillennialism that keep me from understanding his line of reasoning, but I personally found the arguments unconvincing, though much better stated than I found Stanley Horton’s arguments for a pre-Tribulation view confusing in his book Our Destiny: Biblical Teachings on the Last Things, which I read for a class on eschatology many years ago.

The King is returning to judge, and He will reward the faithful and punish the evildoers. Knowing all the details of how that plays out is not as important as making sure as many people as possible are among the sheep that will receive rewards and the crown of eternal life. Therefore, we should not be quick to dismiss (or seek to disfellowship) someone who holds an end times view different from our own, but rather work together with all believers of good will who are seeking to carry the gospel message to the ends of the earth.

Reviewed by Brian Roden

Note from the Editor: On November 26, 2022, (after Brian Roden submitted this review) Robert Menzies wrote to friends and colleagues: “On November 16 Bob received news from the U.S. Assemblies of God Executive Presbyters (EPs) that they had determined he should be dismissed as an Assemblies of God (AG) minister in response to eschatological views expressed in his recent book, The End of History: Pentecostals and a Fresh Approach to the Apocalypse. This concluded a process that began some months ago.” If you would like more information about the on-going missionary work of Bob and Joanne Menzies in China, please Contact Us.

For a sample from The End of History: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Xr1dEAAAQBAJ

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.

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

II. The Perfectionism of Wesleyan Methodism and the Holiness Movement

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