I cannot stress enough how important this article is. It should be read by anyone in a Christian leadership position. It is the finest article on the background to the takeover of the America university system by Marxists and radicals that has occurred in the past decades.

The Rev “Rob” Smith is an Anglican priest and lecturer of theology and ethics at Sydney Missionary Bible College, and a book review editor for the e-journal Themelios. It is published for the Evangelical English-speaking world, with contributors from this country, the UK and “down under.”

In his article, Rob Smith sets out to examine the concept of “Cultural Marxism” and determine if the term is useful, if it pertains to a real ideology, or if it is merely a myth invented by conservative activists to negatively broad brush the Left.

He goes about this principally from a historian’s perspective, and rightly affirms that intellectual history is especially difficult, though it is important:

The development of ideas and their links to the movements they generate or justify is often a messy process. It can be notoriously difficult to identify the precise relationship between this school of thought and that social phenomenon or to quantify the impact of particular individuals on larger social changes.

Rob begins his analysis by examining the main components of Karl Marx’s theories (especially useful for those who have not majored in economics or history in college). Rob points out that Marx came from a nominal Christian family and became an atheist as a boy, and never looked back. Not surprisingly, the salient feature of Marx’s theories was his hatred of the bourgeois (the economic middle class). He also developed a reliance on, and then reversed, the philosophy of Hegel. Marx believed that history was driven by materialists factors, not spirit as Hegel believed, and primarily driven by the struggle of the underclasses. Marx believed this would eventually end in a classless Utopia after the bourgeois were violently overthrown. He predicted that communist revolutions would first take place in Europe led by awakened industrial workers. Of course, this did not happen. In Russia and China, the Communist revolution was led by intellectuals and supported mostly by peasants.

Kentaro Toma

Marxist followers tried to make sense of why the industrial workers did not succeed in bringing revolution in Europe and America, and why only a minority were truly radicalized. The answers were worked out by an Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) who died young but left an extremely influential set of writings. These were done while he was in one of Mussolini’s prison – He had actually supported the fascist Mussolini earlier. Reflecting on his Catholic youth, Gramsci concluded that the reason that prevented workers from becoming communist as Marx had predicted was that the culture was Christian and held on to Judeo-Christian values and ethics. This would always impede and stop the spread of communism. His solution was not a frontal attack on the church, as was happening in Russia, but rather a slow takeover of church institutions and government agencies.

Gramsci’s work was not edited and published in English until 1970, but it circulated among the radical youths of the 1960s and continues to be vastly influential today among radicals and Marxists. The Rev. Smith affirms that after Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci is the most influential Communist writer of all time. What he advocated has become fact in the American University system, many NGOs, and through “liberation theology” in many parts of the Catholic Church.

This continued advancement of Marxism in the universities and other institutions of America was fueled by a group of Marxist intellectuals that came together at a Communist think-tank in Frankfort, Germany after World War I. They were independent of Stalin’s control, unlike the official Communist parties of the time, and developed different ideas about how to bring about the promised Communist Utopia. The Frankfort group, including Theodore Adorno, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, fled Germany after the Nazis won power (1933). For a time, they gathered in Columbia University and established the influential Marxist journal, Studies in Philosophy and Social Science. They were careful to be discrete and not overtly call for revolution or cite Karl Marx directly. What they did was develop critical theories of the important institutions of the West, with the intension that if they collapsed internally, or lost authority, the Communist revolution would succeed naturally, and utopia could be gained.

A salient quality of their writings was that they said nothing about the coming Utopia, assuming it would naturally fall into place. Several, including Eric Fromm, attempted to unite Marxist theory with Freudian psychoanalysis. Marcuse did this also, and in his Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (1955) went to the extreme of suggesting the capitalist bourgeois restrictions on sexuality were what made people unhappy. The liberated person should have no restrictions on sexual expression, including doing what some children do, playing with their own poop. He called this “polymorphous perversity” – a truly demonic idea which invites the spread many parasitic and bacterial diseases. In spite of this, Eros and Civilization became one of the foundations of the sexual liberation movement.

The writings of Gransci and the Frankfort group permeated American and European universities and blended with ecological, feminist, and LGBQ agendas to produce the political correctness movement – which is destroying freedom of speech in the universities. In this regard, Marcuse’s essay, “Repressive Tolerance” (1965) is key, as he suggested there that free speech can be oppressive to the underclasses of society and must be restricted.

The Rev. Smith concludes by identifying Cultural Communism as a real, strong, and active ideology. It is not a myth invented by right-wing activists, nor is it a Jewish plot as some have suggested. Although many in the Frankfort group were indeed Jews, it also had non-Jews. Rather, Cultural Marxism is Marxism elaborated and gone to seed while the West snoozed.

This is a masterful article, concise and insightful. Readers need not have a degree in philosophy or history to understand, though it might be difficult to follow for someone without a college education.

I find the only weak point in his article is the Rev. Smith’s section on how to reverse the present, awful situation in our universities. He advocates pursuing standard evangelistic techniques of conversations and evangelization with the radicals, as in, being polite and listening, and then giving the Gospel. Unfortunately, that has not worked very well. There have been Evangelical groups and clubs at universities for decades, and they have not stopped the universities’ march to radicalization. Traditional evangelism and apologetics has had relatively little impact on non-believers who are saturated with the ideas and myths of Marxism, while the writings of the New Atheists, have widely broadcast distorted and deformed views of Christianity.[1]

What the Rev. Smith is lacking is any understanding in the development that has occurred in recent decades in the area of spiritual warfare. He hints that some of the success of the Cultural Marxism may be due to demonic influences, but does not elaborate on this.

In this regard, I am preparing an essay which suggests that to counter Cultural Marxism it is necessary to massively employ spiritual warfare techniques and strategies, as in “concerts of prayer” that war against the territorial “principalities and powers” that reign over universities. Decades ago, the missiologist Peter Wagner showed this could be done to bind the demonic spirits that held back effective evangelization in the areas that resisted the Gospel.[2] To this type of spiritual warfare[3] should be added the “power evangelism” technique for individual evangelization made popular by John Wimber.[4] Indeed, radicalized individuals will not be swayed by evangelistic tracts or Billy Graham type crusades. Their deep contempt for Christianity makes them resistant to those forms of evangelization. But they will respond to the Gospel if it is presented, as scripturally mandated, with “signs and wonders,” as in their own healings (Heb 2:1-4). Power evangelism might best be brought to the universities through the “public prayer stations” where intercessors are posted on the streets to offer prayer to pedestrians. Even radicals have personal needs (“I’m sick,” “My girlfriend left me,” etc.) and are often willing to try prayer.[5]

Reviewed by William De Arteaga

Notes

[1] Siniscalchi, Glenn B., “Evangelization and the New Atheism,” American Theological Inquiry, 2 no 2 Jul 15 2009, p 29-41

[2] Peter Wagner has written many books and articles, but perhaps the two most pertinent in praying for the universities and colleges are: C. Peter Wagner, ed., Territorial Spirits: How to Crush the Enemy Through Spiritual Warfare (Shippensbury: Destiny Image, 2012) and Confronting the Powers (Regal, 1996)

[3] [Editor’s note: For a counter-point to the discussion of strategic level spiritual warfare, please see Larry Taylor, “Worldviews in Conflict: Christian Cosmology and the Recent Doctrine of Spiritual Mapping” Pneuma Review (Part 1 in Fall 2001 and Part 2 in Winter 2002).]

[4] John Wimber and Keven Springer, Power Evangelism (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1987).

[5] William L. De Arteaga, The Public Prayer Station: Taking Healing Prayer to the Streets and Evangelizing the Nones (Lexington: Emeth Press, 2018). Note the rapid conversion of a dedicated atheist during a prayer station healing, p. 62.

Praying in the Spirit was first released in 1987. Now, thirty years later, it has been re-released in an updated and expanded edition. Robert Graves is eminently qualified to write about this subject because of his longstanding connections to the Pentecostal Movement. He is a member of the Society of Pentecostal Studies, has taught at an Assemblies of God College, and is the co-founder and President of the Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship.

The book consists of a forward, preface, introduction, ten chapters, afterword, and four appendixes. As you read through this volume you will see that it contains some history, theology, practical instruction, and apologetics for the biblical practice of speaking in tongues. The historical element can be seen in the first chapter in which the author refers to a number of people from outside of the Pentecostal Movement who have spoken in tongues. The individuals mentioned were largely part of what is commonly called the Charismatic Movement; they came from both the mainline Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the people mentioned include: Dennis Bennett, Terry Fullam, Michael Harper, Larry Christianson, Cardinal Suenens, and Kevin and Dorthy Ranaghan. Some of the theological content of the book can be seen in chapters given to a consideration of what some non-Charismatics are now saying about speaking in tongues (Chapter 2), a description of the effects of praying in the Spirit (chapter 3), and a description of the nature of the prayer language (chapter 5). Practical instruction is particularly evident in chapter 8, “How the Prayer Language Comes,” where Graves offers instruction, encouragement, and counsel about how one may enter into the biblical experience of speaking in tongues. The apologetic for the contemporary practice of speaking in tongues can be found in the appendixes. These appendixes make up almost half of the book and are much more academic in content than the chapters of the book. The appendixes are: “Foreign vs. Unknown Languages,” “When Will Tongues Cease?,” “The Acts-As-History Argument Against the Lukan Theme of Spirit-Baptism,” and “The Day Tongues Left the Leaders Speechless.” In the appendixes the reader will learn some of the ways that cessationists attempt to invalidate the present day practice of speaking in tongues. However, each of the arguments set forth by cessationists are soundly answered. Continuationists will surely find this section of the book very affirming. I have read much over the years about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues but I learned some new things in this section of the book.

Author Robert W. Graves

This book has many commendable qualities. I enjoyed one statement made in the Introduction of the book. On page 1 it says “Someone has pointed out that the majority of the New Testament, if not all of it, was written by men who spoke in tongues.” This is a good point to keep in mind when considering this subject. Early Christian leaders spoke in tongues. The fact that this book is a re-release contributes to its value; it contains input from both older and more recent scholarship. One example of newer scholarship that is reflected in this volume is the inclusion of references to the works of New Testament scholar, Dr. Craig Keener. I was pleased to see that Graves devoted a chapter to the topic of singing in the Spirit. Continuationists, both Pentecostals and Charismatics, will for the most part enjoy this book. However, the author does set forth a scriptural truth that will challenge the practice in many Pentecostal and Charismatic gatherings. In many Spirit-filled gatherings when a person exercises the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues that requires interpretation (see 1 Cor. 12 and 14) the interpretation that comes forth is quite frequently a message from God. That is, God speaks to His people, encouraging or directing them. But Graves points out that Scripture does not teach that tongues and interpretation result in a message from God. The author calls the reader’s attention to the fact that the various words connected with speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, words like praise, and thanksgiving indicate that what is spoken is addressed to God not to men (pages109-110). Tongues and the interpretation of tongues taken together are not the same as the gift of prophecy, which is a word from God to His people 1 Cor. 14:3).

Molecular biologist Denis Alexander and geophysicist Robert White are committed to both their Christian faith and their scientific fields, which is a characteristic to be emulated by both sides. Since they affirm both, however, this is not a standard ‘apologetic’ work; rather, the authors intend to develop and promote a ‘robust’ theism, all the while defending the verity of science, in a search for meaning and accommodation (perhaps) on both sides. Alexander and White argue that that the natural sciences and Christianity share many attributes with one another, and that any conflict between the two has been due to a priori assumptions, or interpretations of the data that each field presents; there is no real conflict, then, in truth, as the two are congruent. At the same time, however, they do not read too much into the congruencies between the two, as if the consonances reflect beneficially unto theology. In what follows, we will explore individual chapters a little more closely.

The first five chapters constitute part one, and focus – largely – on the relation of science to religion, and vice-versa. They address such issues as whether there are two separate knowledge domains – science and religious – or if the two are interdependent; it seems that they tend more-so toward the latter view than former. In successive chapters, the third and fourth, they show that neither science nor religion are discredited by discoveries in the opposite realm. In the fifth, they argue that science could benefit from the encounter and interaction with religion.

The second part of the book addresses ‘hot issues’ within the science-religion dialogue in the twenty-first century, and comprises four chapters. In the sixth, they address the issue of whether the world – and humans are created or has evolved; notably, they answer with an affirmation of both. Herein they ably discuss the three mechanisms of evolution, consisting of mutation, recombination, and gene flow; they affirm Asa Gray’s intention, directly following the publication of On the Origin of Species, to ‘baptize’ Darwin’s theory of evolution, insomuch as ‘nature is what God does’ (109). Chapter seven considers genetic engineering from a Christian perspective, and the authors advocate that we should not attempt to change the essence or telos of any organism, but that it is permissible to proverbially ‘tinker’ with various organisms (they make particular mention of transgenic plants, with reference to both pesticide and herbicide resistance, on pg. . 117). In chapter eight, the authors assert that we – as Christians – have a responsibility to be decent stewards of God’s creation, and we thus should engage in the environmental debate. The ninth chapter affirms that Christians should be – and need to be! – actively involved in contemporary science as active scientists, and thereby preserving and promoting integrity therein. All in all, the authors argue that that Christianity has much to contribute to the scientific and ethical debates facing today’s world, and we would do well to heed their advice.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Publisher’s page: http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/560182.trade.html

This review was first published on the In Depth Resources page of the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization to PneumaReview.com) February 22, 2010.

Editor Introduction: For many Pentecostals and charismatics, John MacArthur’s 2013 book, Strange Fire, represents the same tired arguments used for years by those who believe God is done giving gifts to his church. PneumaReview.com asked The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship President, Robert Graves, about their response, their first published book, Strangers to Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture.

PneumaReview.com: What was the reason for creating this anthology? Is it merely to offer an answer to John MacArthur’s Strange Fire?

Cover for the November 2016 re-release by Empowered Life.

Robert Graves: John MacArthur’s book presented an opportunity to show that there is a scholarly side to Pentecostalism. It’s not just fire—there’s a great deal of light! A response to Strange Fire allowed us to show that other side. When I read Strange Fire, I detected a bit of embarrassment on MacArthur’s side as he tried to woo back to the cessationist side some scholarly minds that had seen the failure of cessationism, that is, it’s failure to correctly interpret and apply the Scriptures. The Foundation’s anthology, Strangers to Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture, displays the other side of Pentecostalism, that is, the scholarly side. It’s also a side that the average Pentecostal needs to see; they need to know that there are teachers they can go to for truth when errant Pentecostal teachers go off course, not just errant cessationists.

PneumaReview.com: There are some that still believe that the renewal movements of the Pentecostals and charismatics have produced few scholars or theologians, but the list of contributors to Strangers to Fire defies that idea. Would you take the time to introduce us to each of the writers appearing in this volume and how they are contributing to renewal theology today? It is a long list, but there are many students and church leaders that do not yet know who these scholars are or how many Christian traditions they represent.

Robert Graves presenting at the 2014 meeting of Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Robert Graves: Allow me to begin with a summary: there are twenty-six authors and thirty-five chapters, obviously, some wrote more than one chapter; for instance, there are three chapters by Jack Deere and three by Jon Ruthven. Almost all of the contributions were previously published, so the anthology serves more as a clearinghouse or convenient compendium of first-class scholarly responses to cessationism than a source of new ideas (I must note as an exception Paul Elbert’s chapter “Face to Face: Then or Now? An Exegesis of First Corinthians 13:8–13,” which alone is worth the price of the book; it’s been around for awhile as a paper read at the Society for Pentecostal Studies, but it was never published). A number of the authors I do not personally know, but my best guess is that 14 of them are classical Pentecostals, six of them have Baptist backgrounds, three have Reformed backgrounds, one is an Anglican, and one comes from a Methodist background. Most of those who come from non-Pentecostal backgrounds would now consider themselves to be Charismatic or Third Wave. Here they are in alphabetical order:

Stanley M. Burgess is Professor of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State University. He received a BA and MA from the University of Michigan and a PhD from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He has taught history for 57 years and was Distinguished Professor of Christian History, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia (2004–2011). He has written numerous scholarly articles on church history and the history of Christianity as well as several scholarly books, including The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity (Hendrickson), The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions (Hendrickson), and The Holy Spirit: Medieval Roman Catholic and Reformation Traditions (Hendrickson).

Randy Clark is the Overseer of Global Awakening and the Apostolic Network of Global Awakening. He has ministered for over 43 years in 45 countries; he pastored for over 30 years. He received an MDiv from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, a DMin from United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio (a United Methodist seminary), and a ThD from Phoenix University of Theology (not ATS accredited). He was ordained in the General Baptist denomination in 1971, the American Baptist in 1975, the Vineyard in 1984, and the Apostolic Network of Global Awakening in 2006. He has authored over twenty books, training manuals, and workbooks, including There Is More and The Essential Guide to Healing (along with co-author Bill Johnson); compiled and contributed to Power, Holiness, and Evangelism and Supernatural Missions. He had vision for an institute to verify healings which has become a reality, the Christian Medical Research Institute.org. He is the president of Global School of Supernatural Ministry.

Robert L. Calhoun, Scripture, Creed, Theology: Lectures on the History of Christian Doctrine in the First Centuries (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 508 pages, ISBN 9781556354946.

Robert Calhoun was a well beloved lecturer at Yale Divinity School until his retirement in 1965. Before he retired, he planned to have his lectures in the area of historical theology prepared for publication, but those plans fell through until more recently, decades after his death. This book represents the completion of those plans, carried through by George Lindbeck. Lindbeck also contributed an informative 62-page introduction.

These lectures cover a span from Jesus to Gregory the Great. After an initial methodological clearing, Calhoun covers the New Testament in two chapters, one dealing with Jesus and the “Primitive Church”, and another dealing with Johannine theology. After that, the chapters proceed apace, for more than 400 pages total, covering most of the major developments. Some historical figures are given chapters of their own (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine)—Clement of Alexandria and Origen share a chapter. Both “orthodox” and heretical figures are covered.

There is, of course, an obvious drawback to publishing lectures from so long ago: they will inevitably be dated. When Calhoun lectured, we had a lot fewer noncanonical gospels, and those that we did have had not yet made much of an impact on our understanding of the early church. Walter Bauer’s ideas about the lateness of “orthodoxy” had not yet made an impact in the English-speaking world. The introduction owns up to the dated aspect of Calhoun’s work, and assures us (rightly) that the lectures stand the test of time much better than we might have expected. Although the reader will want to supplement these lectures with something more recent, they are thoroughly solid in what they do discuss.

Calhoun’s writing is clear, and his judgments are measured. Future studies will undoubtedly quote a great deal from this book. We owe a debt to Lindbeck for seeing Calhoun’s promise through.

Reviewed by John C. Poirier

Robert E. Webber, The Divine Embrace: Recovering the Passionate Spiritual Life (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2006), 282 pages.

Robert Webber has written an effective teaching manual that has covered the essential factors of spiritual formation. With an eye towards the historical foundation of Christ-centered spirituality, he established the building blocks for the contemporary reader. Webber and his publisher have gratefully retained the pertinent citations and endnotes, which for the reader with little familiarity with the historic names and situations of the characters that he referred to is quite helpful. Webber’s organized style of writing efficiently and end of chapter summaries make the material easy to comprehend and great for group study.

The idea that Christ-centered spirituality is safely rooted in the history of the church is essential to Webber’s content. Step by step, and era by era, he walks the reader through the concepts that demonstrate the spirituality of the church. Spirituality must have an equal voice with the rationality of the church. He candidly expressed his Evangelical Protestant bias (even ignorance) against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Church—and he leads the reader through his journey towards a greater awareness of the treasure that is contained within the history of the whole church. Further, he has made a proficient synthesis of the books from several current and popular authors on the subject of Christian spirituality.

Robert E. Webber (1933-2007).

Is it just one more book on spirituality? Yes and no. Yes, Webber championed the call for the church to embrace her historical spirituality. And no—he has advanced foundational spiritual disciplines toward a fresh perspective to challenge our American or Western perspective of spirituality. What would the Church look like if we all carried the Rule of St. Benedict in our pocket everyday? How might ecumenism be approached if we put genuine spirituality ahead of our preference of tradition and dogma? Webber’s synthesis of ancient (our common heritage) and contemporary (our various traditions) Christian resources are condensed here for the novice or mature seeker of genuine spirituality.

Reviewed by John R. Miller

Editor’s note: Robert E. Webber passed away on April 27, 2007. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/aprilweb-only/118-12.0.html

Publisher’s page: http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/the-divine-embrace/230122

Preview The Divine Embrace: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Divine_Embrace.html?id=GqH8_2gmmycC

Robert Heidler, Experiencing the Spirit: Developing a Living Relationship with the Holy Spirit (Ventura, CA: Renew/Gospel Light, 1998), 259 pages.

In recent years God has been moving upon evangelical Christians who have been skeptical about contemporary expressions of the gifts of the Spirit, ushering them into charismatic experiences of their own. Robert Heidler is one of those people. In the early 1980’s he underwent a radical transformation in reference to both his understanding and experience of the Spirit. Heidler graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary with a Th.M. in New Testament Literature and Exegesis. While he was in seminary he planted a church, and upon graduation became its pastor.

Experiencing The Spirit is a mixture of testimony and teaching. In the beginning of the book, Heidler shares his story, admitting that he was not supportive of the charismatic position. He thought that charismatics were, to use his words, “way off base.” He also admits that he warned the people in his church about seeking spiritual experiences.

A number of things contributed to changing his mind about the Spirit. One was the hunger in his own soul. As he read the New Testament he was frustrated with the fact that the people in the Bible had experiences with God that were foreign to his own experience. A second thing which played upon his mind was the fact that his family had a charismatic friend who would call their home whenever one of the members of the family was sick, she would pray for the person who was ill—and they would be healed. Another thing that helped change his mind was the breakthrough that he and his wife experienced during a very trying time in their lives. The breakthrough came when another charismatic friend of theirs prayed for them and the next day the presence of God descended on their home.

The rest of the book is a study of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Heidler covers such topics as the personality of the Spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit and the transforming work of the Spirit. The final chapters are devoted to the charismatic work of the Spirit including tongues, prophecy and healing, but the book is not a heavy theological treatise. Heidler’s writing is very easy to read and he offers scriptural support for the things that he teaches. One of the significant points that he makes in the book—which might be especially helpful to those who say that we should not seek experiences with the Spirit—is that the people in the Bible did have experiences with the Spirit. While I have some minor points of difference with Heidler, overall I found the book to be very good and encouraging.

Robert M. Bowman, Jr., The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 254 pages, ISBN 9780801063442.

When I came across Bowman’s book The Word-Faith Controversy, I was very interested in his approach and conclusions because I had earlier done my Th.D. dissertation on nineteenth and twentieth century “faith theologies.” Bowman’s book is a significant contribution to the study of the Word of Faith movement. While not uncritical of the movement, he takes exception to many of the conclusions of Hank Hanegraaff (Christianity in Crisis) and D.R. McConnell (A Different Gospel). Contrary to Hanegraaff, he does not portray the movement as monolithic, but recognizes diversity and disagreement within the movement.

Bowman prefers to call E.W. Kenyon the “grandfather” of the Word-Faith movement, citing what he considers three other “fathers”: William Branham and the Latter Rain movement, Oral Roberts (whom he does not classify as Word-Faith), and especially Kenneth Hagin. He recognizes that Kenyon would not accept all that is taught in the Word-Faith movement (e.g., that God has a body or that believers are little gods), nor would Word-Faith leaders accept all that Kenyon taught (e.g., that tongues is not the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit). He concludes, “Kenyon is the source of most, but not all, of the distinctive and controversial teachings of the Word-Faith movement” (p. 38). Further, the Word-Faith teachers have sometimes gone beyond anything that Kenyon himself taught.

Taking a more scientific approach than McConnell and Hanegraaff, Bowman lists and compares 23 standard New Thought concepts with Christian Science and Kenyon. From this statistical analysis, he concludes that while there is much in common between Christian Science and New Thought, there is “little resemblance” between Kenyon and New Thought. Further, he concludes that Kenyon is “far closer to orthodoxy than is Christian Science” (p. 46). Kenyon may share some similarity with metaphysical thought, but his views are “fundamentally different” (p. 48). He demonstrates that McConnell’s methodology is faulty, and thus his conclusions regarding Kenyon’s connections with metaphysical New Thought are deeply flawed. While there may have been some metaphysical influence, Kenyon’s views are more unlike such concepts than like.

Bowman goes on to show that Kenyon’s teaching was rooted more in the pre-Pentecostal Higher Life, Keswick, healing and proto-Pentecostal movements. He cites examples of such teaching including Andrew Murray, Hannah Whitall Smith, Charles Cullis, A.J. Gordon, and others, especially concentrating on the teachings of A.B. Simpson and John G. Lake. He is less critical of the Keswick/Higher Life stream than Dale Simmons (E.W. Kenyon and the Postbelllum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Prosperity), seeing less similarity between the Keswick/Higher Life tradition and metaphysical teaching.

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.