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

Wesleyan Quadrilateral

John Wesley (1703 – 1791)

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

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

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

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

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

II. The Perfectionism of Wesleyan Methodism and the Holiness Movement

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

The very mention of holiness can conjure up images of dower saints dressed in black garb, expressionless countenances, and a total lack of joy or fun. Think American Gothic without the pitchfork. The Holy River of God points to a picture of Christian holiness that is living, vibrant, engaged, and filled with joyous expectation. In the opening sentences, the holiness stream of Christian faith is described as “wide and deep,” “full of life and inspires life wherever it goes” (page 3). The book is a collection of chapters written by authors representing a wide variety of Christian denominations. The entire work is edited by Barry Callen faculty member of Anderson University, editor of the Wesleyan Theological Journal, and an editor at Aldersgate Press.

The vision of holiness that is characteristic of those who participate in the river is a work of the Spirit carried out as a “steady stream of purifying love” (page 6). It is “God’s holiness proceeding from love,” which “brings life wherever it goes in the world.” Wherever this holiness stream flows, those who choose to immerse themselves in it are transformed. They become the “reflection of God, … compelled by love, … to the end that lives are restored, systems are redeemed, and all of creation is being made new” (page 6).

The roots for this vision of holiness are found in the theology of John Wesley. However, Wesleyan holiness is by no means monolithic. How Wesleyan holiness is understood and implemented is widely diverse. This diversity is not viewed as an impediment, but is an asset. It deepens the movement to provide a “fuller vision of God’s holiness and love” (page 8).

The biblical basis of this holiness focus is based in God’s command for his people to be holy (1 Peter 1:14-16). “The entire biblical narrative is about holiness granted, lost, and recovered” (page 15). Throughout the Church’s history this holiness tradition has been manifested in Catholicism, both Roman and Orthodox, in the Radical Reformation, especially in Great Britain in the ministries of John and Charles Wesley, in the US in the 19^th century, and in the 20^th century with the rise of Pentecostalism. Each expression was a “fresh search for a credible Christian holiness that truly transforms lives and advances the kingdom of God on earth” (page 18).

After a few short chapters on the prominent characteristics of Wesleyan Holiness and the development of Wesley’s teachings in the US and internationally, the book goes on to describe the formation of the Wesleyan Holiness Connection and those denominations that are part. The Wesleyan Holiness Connection, or WHC, was principally founded by Kevin Mannoia. He describes the connection as an idea that formed over a long period of time through conversations, meetings, and study groups (page 143). The first of those conversations occurred in 2002 at a breakfast attended by Mannoia and a few friends. They realized that churches that possessed a holiness heritage lacked a means of sharing the common mission to spread scriptural holiness across the land (page 145). With the help of additional scholars, Mannoia formed the Wesleyan Holiness Study Project. The Project consisted of about 40 scholars from 13 different historical Wesleyan-Holiness denominations. Their objective was to “commit to a fresh articulation of holiness in the 21^st century” (page 145). The Project produced two significant documents: The Holiness Manifesto, and Fresh Eyes on Holiness: Living Out the Holiness Manifesto. In September of 2006, at the end of the Project, those who participated met to work out their next steps. They agreed that there was a future for the infant movement, and the Wesleyan Holiness Connection was born. The Connection has since grown to consist of several regional networks throughout the US, Brazil, Kenya, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom as well as a collection of associated ministries and a publishing house, Aldersgate Press.

Donald Dayton

Dr. Donald Dayton is this year’s keynote speaker at the Wesleyan-Pentecostal Symposium, a one-day event hosted by Master’s Pentecostal Seminary and Tyndale Seminary. Tuesday, March 22, 9:00AM to 4:00PM. Tickets are $15.

For the full list of speakers and to register, visit: http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/wesley-studies/annual-symposium/2016

S. T. Kimbrough, Jr., ed., Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005), 330 pages.

“I sit down alone: only God is here; in His presence

 I open and read this book to find the way to heaven”

- John Wesley  

Our search for the theological and practical connection between Pentecostalism and Eastern Orthodoxy continues with yet another publication by St. Vladimir’s Press titled, Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice. The book represents an ongoing dialogue between the Orthodox and Wesleyan confessions and it emphasizes how theologians from both sides are attempting to discover commonalities in theology and praxis. To come together, not so much as theologians and thinkers, but as practical doers motivated by the proper interpretation of Scripture. As observed from the title, as well as through the text, these similarities are not necessarily in theological convictions, but in the proceeding Biblical approach toward interpretation of Scripture.

Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice is a compilation of essays from the Second Consultation on Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality under the editorship in 2000 of S.T. Kimbrough, Jr., who contributed the chapter on Charles Wesley’s’ Lyrical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. I must issue the caution that the book is not an easy read. But it is by no means a book to be easily passed by Pentecostal scholars searching for the Biblical roots of Pentecostalism within the Eastern Orthodoxy.

The book begins with an interesting observation of the exegesis of the Cappadocian Fathers by John A. McGuckin, and continues with an article on the spiritual cognition of my personal favorite, Simeon the New Theologian by Theodore Stylianopoulos. Although the discussion on Gregory the Theologian, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa was thoughtful and presented in an interesting manner, the essay on St. Simeon struck me as well structured, but somewhat shallow.

An interesting approach was taken in Tamara Grdzelidze’s essay where she presented an orthodox perspective of the Wesleyan position on authority of scriptural interpretation. The essay had a very strong exposition in regard to the Wesleyan understanding of the importance of Scripture in Christian living. The latter part, which dealt with the influence of tradition, however was not investigated to its full capacity, which left the text (perhaps on purpose) open to multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, this issue was resolved later in the book by Ted Campbell that dealt with the subject from the Wesleyan perspective.

Editor Steven Kimbrough as Charles Wesley in the musical drama, Sweet Singer.

A central theme throughout the book was the comparison of prayers and song lyrics from both camps. Although I am no musical expert, I must agree with the authors when they say that theology in music has played an important role in both Orthodox and Wesleyan traditions. Music continues to be important in the everyday spiritual experience of the Pentecostal believer. This rather practical approach seemed to be the heart of the discussion where both sides could agree.