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.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: ‘The Finished Work,’” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 187-198.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: The Influence of Fundamentalism,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 199-211.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Keswick and the Higher Life,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 213-225.

In his lectures on Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism, presented at the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, William W. Menzies ably surveys the impact of non-Wesleyan traditions upon Pentecostalism, and especially the Assemblies of God. These include Finished Work, Fundamentalism, Keswick, and The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA). A review of Menzies’ lecture on the A.B. Simpson and the C&MA appeared in an earlier article.

In his first lecture, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Finished Work,” after a brief biography of William Durham, the prime proponent of Finished Work Pentecostalism, Menzies describes Durham’s departure from the Wesleyan eradication view of sanctification. Early Pentecostal belief, as reflected in Charles Parham and William Seymour, taught that a person needs to be sanctified by a second crisis experience before one can receive the baptism in the Spirit and tongues. Durham viewed sanctification as the believer’s position in the finished work of Christ, with no need for a second blessing crisis of sanctification to root out sin. Thus, one did not need to become sanctified before receiving the baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues. This created an acrimonious division in the Pentecostal movement. As a result, William Seymour, catalyst of the Azusa Street Revival of 1906, locked Durham out of his church in 1911. However, the influence of the finished work teaching became so pervasive that Menzies notes that “virtually all Pentecostal bodies that had origins after 1911 adopted non-Wesleyan sanctification views” (p. 218).

Two significant omissions to this issue include the prophecies of both Seymour and Parham regarding Durham. When Seymour locked Durham out of his church, he prophesied that Durham would die if he turned aside from the will of God.[1] Likewise, in January 1912 Charles Parham claimed that Durham had committed the sin unto death and prophesied Durham’s death within six months, praying, “If this man’s doctrine is true, let my life go out to prove it, but if our teaching on a definite grace of sanctification is true, let his life pay the forfeit.”[2] Durham, in fact, did die in July 1912, and thus in the eyes of some Wesleyan Pentecostals a fulfillment of their prophecies, but his teachings had already gained traction and the prophetic fulfillment was ignored or dismissed.

Menzies then presents the impact of Fundamentalism on the Pentecostal movement in his lecture “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Fundamentalism.” The fundamental doctrines of the faith were at the very foundation of Pentecostalism. These included belief in the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, salvation by faith, the person of the Holy Spirit, the inerrancy of Scripture, and dispensational teaching on the literal second coming of Christ. Menzies notes, however, that fundamentalism did not respond in kind to Pentecostalism. By 1928, fundamentalism had formally adopted cessationist dispensationalism, by rejecting tongues, prophetic revelation, and healing.

Menzies’ next article discusses the “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Keswick/Higher Life.” He is correct in noting the significant influence of Keswick/Higher Life holiness teaching. He holds Steven Barabas and his teaching as representative of Keswick. However, this is not fully accurate. It would be more accurate to say that Barabas’ teaching was the predominant developing expression of sanctification. Barabas wrote a history and theology of Keswick in the 1940s, but he was more representative of later Keswick than turn-of-the-century Keswick. Menzies appears to take most of his information from Barabas rather than from original sources and more recent research. Menzies states, “Keswick leaders often say that God’s method of sanctification is not suppression, but counteraction.” (p. 221). Although this is somewhat true, it is not totally accurate. Actually, earlier Keswick leaders did use the language of suppression, but as time went on, and in response to criticisms, the language of counteraction was used. A.B. Simpson, for instance, spoke at the Keswick convention of 1890, especially opposing the language of suppression. His cautions apparently were heeded, and by a few years later, the language had changed from suppression to counteraction.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: The Christian and Missionary Alliance and The Assemblies of God,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 226-238.

In his lectures on non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism, presented at the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary in 2000, William W. Menzies ably surveyed the impact of non-Wesleyan traditions upon Pentecostalism, and especially the Assemblies of God. These included Finished Work, Fundamentalism, Keswick, and The Christian and Missionary Alliance. This article focuses on reviewing Menzies’ lecture on “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: The Christian and Missionary Alliance.” In a later article I will review the other three lectures.

In this lecture, Menzies discusses the non-Wesleyan influence of A.B. Simpson and the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) upon Pentecostalism, declaring accurately that “More than any other single institution, the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination profoundly impacted the shaping of the Assemblies of God. … Much of the theology, as well as the polity, of the Assemblies of God, was borrowed directly” from the C&MA (p 226, 227). Although many confuse the C&MA with the Wesleyan holiness movement, Menzies correctly identifies the C&MA as a “higher life” movement.[1] Since I am an ordained minister with the Christian and Missionary Alliance who has prayed in tongues for more than 40 years, I was especially interested in Menzies’ portrayal of Simpson and the C&MA. I found him generally accurate, but with some important misunderstandings. Menzies used primary sources, including Simpson’s Fourfold Gospel and Wholly Sanctified, standard texts for C&MA ministers. He also referenced research and interviews with C&MA historian John Sawin.

Menzies describes the spiritual journey of A. B. Simpson, including his experiences of healing a a sanctifying baptism in the Spirit, as well as his later relationships with Pentecostalism. He mistakenly conflates Simpson’s experience of his sanctifying baptism in the Spirit with his experience of divine healing in 1881. In actuality, Simpson’s sanctifying Spirit baptism occurred in 1874. He accurately describes Simpson’s “Fourfold Gospel” of Jesus Christ as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King , which he stated is borrowed from A.J. Gordon (p. 231). However, he does not give a source for this claim, and in my 20 years of research, I have never seen anything in C&MA writings or Gordon’s writings to support this claim. Rather, George Muller acknowledges Simpson’s originality in the concept, telling Simpson that “his arrangement of truth was most evidently ‘of the Lord’ and suggested that he never change its mold.”

Menzies notes similarities between the C&MA and Keswick views of sanctification, claiming that Simpson “advocated a theology of sanctification that fits into the Keswick pattern rather than the classical Wesleyan Holiness theology. … the alliance view was certainly interchangeable with the Keswick teaching” (p. 233). It is true that Simpson’s view was much closer to Keswick than to Wesleyan; however, it is not accurate to say that Simpson’s view “fits” into the Keswick pattern. A.B. Simpson, for instance, spoke at a Keswick convention (1890), especially opposing the language of suppression held by some in the Keswick camp and he did not use the language of counteraction held by other Keswick leaders.

Simpson’s view, though similar to Keswick, was distinct, calling sanctification “the law of lift.” Christ in you, the hope of glory, lifts the believer above the old nature. He called the baptism in the Spirit “God’s elevator to the higher life.” He viewed it as a sanctifying experience, not in the same way as Wesleyans or Keswick proponents, but as an intensification of the sanctification begun at conversion, or as Richard Lovelace expresses it, “a large leap forward in progressive sanctification.” Menzies’ lack of full understanding of Simpson’s view of sanctification may be due to his referencing only the earlier works of Simpson, not Simpson’s later writings which explain his views more fully and maturely. Menzies also does not seem to be aware of nuances in differences between the Higher Life and Keswick movements.

A triple review of books by Robert Menzies and his father William, essay by Grant Hochman.

Robert P. Menzies, The Development Of Early Christian Pneumatology: with special reference to Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series #6 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 290 pages.

William W. and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 233 pages.

A quiet revolution has been taking place around the world. There are now over 530 million Pentecostal/charismatic Christians (David Barrett, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Jan/01). It was the church growth movement which first brought this explosive growth to the attention of Christian leaders. The focus on what they termed the “Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” based on Luke and Acts, was the driving force behind it, and secondarily, the emphasis on spiritual gifts as found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (Chs. 12-14). From a mere trickle of scholarly research, the last thirty years has seen a river of literature on this topic (see Charles E. Jones, where one finds over 11,000 entries in The Charismatic Movement, Scarecrow Press, 1994). This change has been underscored by the founding of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology in 1992 and published by the prestigious Sheffield Academic Press, in England.

The 2005 cover from Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

Even though they are relative newcomers, classical Pentecostal scholars have been major contributors to the scholarly dialogue. One individual stands out above the others both in quantity and quality: Dr. Robert Menzies. After publishing a series of articles and book reviews, his first book to be published was his doctoral dissertation: The Development Of Early Christian Pneumatology: with special reference to Luke-Acts, from Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. This work caught the attention of two of the most prominent world-class evangelical scholars on Luke-Acts, James Dunn and Max Turner. Dunn writes “Pentecostal biblical scholarship has become increasingly a factor to be reckoned with, as its contributions have grown in confidence and weight…So far none commands more respect than the Aberdeen thesis of Robert Menzies.” Dunn closes by saying, “this is a work of significant and substantial scholarship whose strengths cannot be done full justice to in a brief review,” (Evangelical Quarterly, 66:2, 1994, pp. 174-6). Max Turner pays tribute to Menzies in his book, Power From On High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. In the preface Turner writes about Menzies, “His rigorous and perceptive case caused me to reconsider the evidence,” (p.11). This in turn, resulted in Turner publishing a series of articles and then his book (listed above). While both Dunn and Turner take issue with certain areas of Menzies work, they pay tribute to his efforts.