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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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