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.

On this website you will find:

• All of the new books that we have published over the last five years—all available at good prices.
• Over 200 articles on Pentecostal Theology, Missions and History, dating back to the beginning of the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies in 1998. All articles are downloadable and absolutely free!
• Dozens of book reviews and editorials

Please drop us a line and let us know what you think of the site. We want to hear from you!

Dave Johnson, DMiss

Press Director & Journal editor

In the Spring of 2015, Fuller Theological Seminary published this series of articles by Amos Yong on its Patheos blog.

Holy Spirit and Mission in Canonical Perspective

The Life-Giving Spirit

Genesis 1:3 & 6:3 – Creation and Fall: The Life-Giving Spirit

If the wind or breath of God is understood also as the spirit of God, then in this ancient words, we have a trinitarian image of the primordial creation: that God fashioned the world through his word and spirit.

Joseph and the Spirit

Genesis 41:38 – Joseph and the Spirit: The Mission of God in the Torah

The divine spirit appears thrice in the book of Genesis: once in Genesis 1:2, a second time in Genesis 6:3, and a third time in a question that the Pharaoh of Egypt poses to his servants: “Can we find anyone else like this—one in whom is the spirit of God?” (Gen. 41:38).

The Wind and Breath of Yahweh

Exodus 15:8, 10 – The Wind and Breath of Yahweh: Liberation and Mission

There are at least three trajectories of missiological readings of the book of Exodus. In the next chapter we will look at that which links the Sinaitic covenant with Israel’s witness to the nations. The other two are intertwined, involving Israel’s liberation from Egypt and Israel’s mission in or to Egypt.

The Crafts of the Spirit: A Missional Vocation in the Book of Exodus

… Yahweh speaks to Moses as leader and representative of the people, and in effect commissions Israel as a holy priesthood to the nations: “if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:5-6).

Intercessory Mission: The Spirit’s Dangerous Answer to Prayer in Numbers 11:16-34

Much has been made by modern Pentecostal interpreters of the Spirit’s filling of the Seventy in Numbers 11 as an Old Testament prototype of the Day of Pentecost event in Acts 2. There are certainly many observable parallels – i.e., of Moses as Spirit-filled leader of the people of God being a type of Jesus the Spirit-anointed messiah; of the Seventy and the Twelve as representative leadership under the two (Mosaic and Pentecostal) covenants; of the prophesying of the Seventy and the glossolalia of the Twelve, among other aspects. Without denying the correspondences, our focus here will be on understanding the connections between the sendings of the Spirit of Yahweh not only on the Seventy but also “from the sea” (Num. 11:31). Any pneumatological reading of Numbers 11 will need to be expansive enough to account for both manifestations of the divine ruach.

​Pentecostalism from a Multicultural Perspective​

A public lecture with Dr. Allan Anderson, Professor at University of Birmingham, UK. All are welcome to attend.

When: Thursday, April 7 at 6pm PDT.

Where: Living Waters Church, 9095 Glover Road, Langley, British Columbia.

Father Bill De Arteaga with Pastor J. C. Church

This year the accent was on Church unity and the growing ecumenical dialogue across churches and denominations. J. C. Church, pastor of Victory Church in Columbia SC, began the conference with a presentation about America’s cultural decline and the Church’s responsibility to form a united front to reverse this trend before God’s judgement falls on the nation.

Next, the African American evangelist and pastor, Brondon Mathis, brought a hopeful message about revival through round the clock prayer meetings. He described how his church, inspired by the International House of Prayer pattern, has brought revival and a radical decline of crime, to Columbus, Ohio.

Then Matteo Calisi, a prominent Catholic Charismatic layman from Italy and a person who regularly graces CLF meetings, reported on the ongoing breakthroughs in Pentecostal-Roman Catholic dialogue and reconciliation. Calisi is especially enthusiastic about Pope Francis’ ecumenism, for instance, his willingness to ask forgiveness for past Catholic persecution of Pentecostals and other Protestants. Pope Francis recently asked forgiveness from the Calvinists in France, the Hussites of Austria and the Check Republic, and Italian Pentecostals for their suffering and persecution from Catholics. Some readers would be aware of Calvinist and Hussite persecution, but few would know that the Italian Pentecostals suffered grievously under the Fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini. Sadly, the Catholic Church refused to speak a single word of protest – unlike its continuous attempts to shelter the Jews.

CLF participants praying for Oral Roberts University president, Billy Wilson.

In fact, as the Rev. Calisi reports, Pentecostal-Roman Catholic relations are at an all-time high. The Pope has directed that Catholic evangelization be suspended towards Protestant Believers, but rather focus on the unchurched. As Calisi added more details of the ongoing Catholic-Pentecostal reconciliation, I recalled how different all this is from when I was a boy in Catholic school – we thought all Protestants were doomed to hell – and they returned the favor!

After this upbeat presentation we had a jarring counter-point given to us by Fr. Timothy Cremeens, an American Orthodox priest and dean at the Cathedral of the Orthodox Church in America in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Fr. Cremeens is a person well connected with the Greek, Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox churches in America and overseas. He bluntly stated that Orthodox-Roman Catholic or Orthodox–Protestant dialogue of any sort will go nowhere. The recent meeting of the Russian Orthodox primate with Pope Francs in Cuba was all political show and no substance.

Missionary-scholar Jim Harries discusses the difference between the biblical categories of clean and unclean, holy and common. He argues that neither Africa or the West have a correct understanding of these concepts.

A story about man whose neighbours describe as a good Christian. The man was a passenger on a bus. He went to talk to the driver. Something upset him. He struck out at the driver. As a result, the bus crashed and everyone in it was killed. His neighbours argue, did the man go to heaven or hell?

Abstract

Many African people, as the Rekabites praised by God in Jeremiah 35, keep strictly to ancestral requirements. In parts of Africa, this is done to avoid death. Biblically we find two levels of holiness. Akathartos (unclean) contrasts to katharos (clean), but also bebelos (common) as distinct from hagios (holy). The latter (hagios) presupposes the existence of katharos, whereas something may be katharos without being hagios. These categories are largely forgotten in the West. African languages do not distinguish them clearly. Jesus’ emphasis was on achievement of hagios. This important and very positive orientation can easily be lost in contemporary theological education.

Introduction

The two categories – cleanliness and Godliness – have strong parallels. The distinction between them is often unclear. This article suggests that confusion in distinguishing these categories is exaggerated by Western people’s tendency to presuppose themselves to be hagios (holy instead of being common), while African people’s tendency is to seek to be katharos (clean) while remaining akathartos (unclean) and failing to perceive hagios.

Greek terms are used to represent biblical standards so as to avoid confusion with misunderstanding of translations of those terms on the part of Africa and of the West. The categories of ‘Africa’ and ‘Western’ are used loosely with the understanding that they are generalisations and that there are in both cases exceptions to what is herein stated.

Clean and unclean in African Churches

A group of KIST students [Kima International School of Theology in Maseno, Kenya] joined me a few years ago on a visit to an indigenous (African founded and African led) church near Yala. Many things struck them as interesting. One was to find that even while the service was going on and although the church was not full, some members sat listening to the service sitting outside the church building. When the students asked the pastor later, he told them that those people sitting outside were ‘unclean’. There were various reasons for them to have been unclean; some ladies were having their period, other people had been to funerals and handled a dead body, and so on. According to this church, such unclean people should not be in the holy place, i.e. the church building. I have in recent months asked a number of congregations in Luoland about a particular traditional law, and their take on its importance. Luo tradition states that a son should build his house in front of and below the parental house, with the door at right angles to the door of the main house, facing into the middle of the homestead. If you travel around Luo areas in Kenya, you will find that this pattern is almost invariably followed. On visiting church congregations, I have asked them whether they would be ready to contravene this ‘law’ and allow their sons to build their houses behind the parental house, if paid to compensate them for doing so. I have asked, would they be ready to allow their son to build behind their house, if given KSh100,000 [about $1,000]? Everyone in the church congregation expressed clear refusal. Then I asked if they would be ready to allow their son to build behind their house if offered KSh1,000,000 [almost $10,000]? Still everyone has refused. On a few occasions someone has taken the trouble to explain the justification for their refusal; having their son build behind the parental house would very likely result in his death, and no way would these people take any amount of money that would result in the death of their children.

Left to right: Bishop Lerullo (Uganda), Father Bill and Carolyn De Arteaga, Bishop Sean Larkin (UK).

This year the Charismatic Leaders’ Fellowship (CLF) met on February 23 to the 26, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the Oral Roberts University campus. The weather outside was cold and icy, and in fact about one third of the registered participants could not make it in. But the atmosphere inside the conference was warm with the Holy Spirit.

For those of you who are not familiar with the CLF, it is the descendent of the Charismatic Concerns Committee, an important leadership group that was, among other things, instrumental in warning and ending the discipleship controversy of the 1970s. Every year the CLF brings issues of current importance to the attention of its members to inform them and to receive their discernment.

The theme for this year was “Muslims, Jews, and the Kingdom of God.” The lead speaker was Pastor Emmanuel Doulat, a native of Pakistan and convert to Christianity. After sharing his witness, Doulat proceeded with his analysis of Islam as a religion. His thesis was that the Koran is not really a “revelation” since there is absolutely nothing new in it about God or the spiritual world. Rather, the Koran is a mish-mash of elements of Judaism, Christianity and several religions that occupied the Arabian Peninsula at the time. The elements taken from the Gospels did not include the centrality of the cross or that Jesus is the son of God – both of which are denied in the Koran.

In his second talk Pastor Doulat shared the successes that Christian Church in Pakistan is now having in attracting new believers and converts from Islam in spite of the dangers involved. He shared pictures of his own revival/healing meetings in Pakistan. The key is to talk about Jesus, whom Muslims already esteem as prophet and healer, and then heal the sick in Jesus’ name. It is important to say nothing negative about Islam. That is against the law in Pakistan, as in most Islamic countries, and would put the evangelist in danger.

Emmanuel Doulat

Doulat’s insight dovetails my understanding that the Koran is a mediumistic (non-incarnational) document. [1] That is, unlike the books of the Bible, where the Holy Spirit inspired various writers, yet respected their personalities, vocabulary and viewpoints, the Koran is the product of mediumistic dictation. In mediumship the host person is bypassed and a spirit brings forth a “revelation” without use of host’s history, vocabulary or personality. Usually the host is entranced and does not remember what the invading spirit said. Muslims claim that the angel Gabriel whispered to Mohomet the verses of the Koran which he then repeated and these were subsequently written down. This is mediumship. Thus, since the Koran is a mediumistic document, it is necessarily demonic in origins, and like most all mediumistic works, unoriginal – the point of Pastor Doulat presentation.

An Ethical Approach

More of a practical guide than a theological statement, “Recommendations for Conduct” outlines “A Basis for Christian Witness”. This is the most consistently biblical section, and primarily upholds mission as a participation in the mission of God and obedience to the example of Jesus and the early church with a strong emphasis on ethical behavior and responsibility.³ The document also details “Principles” of Christian conduct in bearing witness to the gospel: “Acting in God’s love,” “Imitating Jesus Christ,” “Christian virtues,” “Acts of service and justice,” “Discernment in ministries of healing,” “Rejection of violence,” “Freedom of religion and belief,” “Mutual respect and solidarity,” “Respect for all people,” “Renouncing false witness,” “Ensuring personal discernment,” and “Building interreligious relationships.” True to its subtitle, it also suggests “Recommendations” for guiding relationships between Christians and others as Christians respond to God’s call to do mission: “study” the critical issues involved, “build” relationships of respect and trust, “encourage” Christians to strengthen their own religious identity and faith, “cooperate” with other religious communities for justice and the common good, “call” on governments to respect religious freedom, and “pray” for all neighbors.

“Recommendations for Conduct” ends with an “Appendix” describing the background and process of its origin and development over the last five years. As a participant from beginning to end in that process, I understand that this background is essential for appreciating many of the nuances of the statements of this document. Also, it would be a mistake to divorce the content and tone of “Recommendations for Conduct” from the clear purpose statement in the “Preamble”.

The purpose of this document is to encourage churches, church councils and mission agencies to reflect on their current practices and to use the recommendations in this document to prepare, where appropriate, their own guidelines for their witness and mission among those of different religions and among those who do not profess any particular religion. It is hoped that Christians across the world will study this document in the light of their own practices in witnessing to their faith in Christ, both by word and deed.

Early Response

How Shall We Lead the Church?

In this Pneuma Review conversation, preacher and international instructor Aldwin Ragoonath asks, what is hindering church growth in North America? How can we can lead towards growth in the church in the Twenty-first century?

Where I am Coming From

Aldwin Ragoonath

I was born into a nominal Hindu home that progressed to a nominal Christian in Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies. I became a committed Christian at age 15 and received some of my theological training in Trinidad where I pastored for a few years. Later, I pastored for more than 20 years in Canada. I earned a Doctor of Ministry in homiletics and a Doctor of Theology in Pentecostal preaching. My book, Preach the Word: a Pentecostal Approach (Canada: Agape Teaching Ministry, 2004) has been printed in several languages and is being used around the world.¹ In the last thirteen years I have facilitated Pentecostal preaching seminars and courses in Pentecostal preaching all over the globe to more than 4,000 pastors, mainly in the 10/40 window—among the highest populations of non-Christians in the world.

Problems within the Western Church

David Mains, founder of the national Christian Canadian TV program 100 Huntley Street, did a survey of 100 cities in Canada trying to find out what are some of the problems hindering church growth. He discovered that the major problem in the church is apathy. People don’t care about the church and its ministry.² This can also be said of America.

Selfishness, in all its manifestations, is the second problem. When a proposal is presented to a pastor or lay person, the usual response is, “What’s in it for me?” Historians in the future will refer to this generation as the “I” generation. People are preoccupied with “I.”

People in the church and outside the church are not only concerned about “I” but are very materialistic, overly concerned with money and possessions. Success is measured by how many things i.e. houses, money and cars one possesses. And everything else is sacrificed at this altar of “me, myself and I” including: family, relationships, friends, and commitment to God.

For church leaders, preachers and even ordinary Christians, choosing a Bible translation can be a difficult task. This is made even more difficult for those who study translation in order to make an informed decision. It is unfortunate that discussions of Bible translations tend to be centred on personal opinions (for example Taylor 2007) or discussions over the techniques used to overcome small-scale linguistic problems (for example Fee and Stuart 2002, Neff 2002 and Hill 2006) rather than on objective facts.  However, to be in a position where they can make a truly informed choice, pastors and leaders would need to have some sort of reliable guide as to what they can expect in the translation as a whole. Based on recent translation research and my own professional experience as a translator, this article will suggest an approach based on the intended purpose of each Bible translation. It will show that it is this approach, and not the traditional approaches that spark the “free vs. literal” debate, that has the potential to help church leaders and preachers to make informed, objective decisions on the translation or translations they choose to use.

The Traditional Approaches and their Weaknesses

Historically, most Bible translation scholars have described their work in relation to two main translation schools. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth (SU, 2002), arrange nine translations of various dates along a line with “Literal” at one end and “Free” at the other (Fee and Stuart 2002: 36)¹. For them, “literal” translation is “the attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing of the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language” (ibid, p. 35). Translators working using the “free” approach, on the other hand, would agree with Dr. Mark L. Strauss (2004: xx) who says that “translation is first and foremost about meaning, not form.” The goal of free translation is to get as close as possible to the ideas and meaning of the original and to express these in a manner more closely resembling modern-day speech. The following sample of possible translations of a simple question in French illustrates the differences between these two approaches.

French: Comment vous appelez-vous?
English 1: How yourself calls you?
English 2: What do you call yourself?
English 3: What is your name?

In this example, English 1 represents the version most likely to be generated if someone with knowledge of French grammar were to look each word up in a dictionary and translate the sentence accordingly. English 2 represents the version most likely to be generated by a translator using the “literal” approach—as few changes as possible have been made to the grammar of the sentence while still making sense in English. The verb “to call” has also been retained as the literal, dictionary translation of the verb “appeler.”

English 3 represents the “free” translation approach. In this case, more attention has been paid to the normal expectations and phrasings of English than to the grammar of the original. None of the words in English 3 can be found in any form in the original but this version has the advantage of being the version that most native English speakers would be familiar with.

In this simple example we can see that literal translation has the advantage of giving us an insight into the grammar of the original and the meanings of the individual words used. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it is likely to generate translations that contain phrasings that are unfamiliar and do not reflect normal English use (Fee and Stuart 2002: 35; Strauss 2004: xix; Fee and Strauss 2007: 34). Free translation, on the other hand, has the advantage of offering translations that read more naturally. The disadvantage of this approach is that it makes it more difficult for readers to gain access to the patterns used in the original language (Van Leeuwen 2001: 30, Strauss 2004: xix, Fee and Strauss 2007: 57).

An example of the problems with either approach in Bible translation is found in how four different translations have handled 1 Kings 2:10. In this example, the first two translations can be roughly seen as traditional, literal translations with the second two representing the free approach to translation to differing degrees.

NKJV: So David rested with his fathers…
ESV: Then David slept with his fathers…
NLT: Then David died and was buried with his ancestors.
TM: Then David joined his ancestors.

It is clear from comparing these four translations that we have a phrase that can be loosely translated into English as “David died.” The NKJV and ESV, in order to translate literally, have tried to keep as much of the original Hebrew phrasing as possible. While their choice of phrasing may be clear enough for those who are used to reading the Word, they have turned a phrase that would have been natural and easy to understand to the original readers into a phrase that is foreign and, in the case of the ESV especially, can easily be interpreted in a sense that is completely different to that intended by the original author. In the two free translations, on the other hand, the phrase either had to be extended to include both elements of the Hebrew image, as in the NLT, or recreated to express these elements and keep the same meaning as the original, in the case of The Message. This verse, therefore, clearly illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.