PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
George Jeffreys, the Spirit of Christ, and Early Pentecostal Thinking on Spirit Reception
Gregory Kane*
Regent’s Theological College, Malvern, uk
Abstract
The emerging pentecostal movement of the early twentieth century recognized the need to develop a coherent pneumato-soteriological framework from which to pro- mote the pentecostal distinctive of Spirit baptism. In the midst of heated debate interwoven with various personality cults, a multiplicity of alternative models was advanced. George Jeffreys, the founder of the Elim Pentecostal Church, taught that Christians do not receive the Holy Spirit at conversion; they receive him only at the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Rather, Jeffreys asserted, it is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who comes to indwell the believer at regeneration, and this Spirit of Christ is entirely distinct from and in no way synonymous with the Holy Spirit. Jef- freys’ Spirit of Christ teaching was widely promoted within the Elim movement dur- ing the 1920s and 1930s and was still being discussed within British Pentecostalism as late as the 1960s, before it faded into theological obscurity. Nevertheless, the implica- tions of this early debate on Spirit reception remain a live issue within Pentecostalism today.
Keywords
George Jeffreys – Smith Wigglesworth – Elim Pentecostal Church – Spirit of Christ – Spirit reception – baptism in the Holy Spirit – pneumatology – early pentecostal history
* The author wishes to thank both his thesis supervisor, Dr. M.S. Clark, and the reviewers and
editors of Pneumafor their constructive critique.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03701027
1
64
kane
In 1933, George Jeffreys, the founder of the Elim Pentecostal Church, published what is perhaps his best known book, Pentecostal Rays,1 in which he set out his unusual views on Spirit reception. Jeffreys taught that Christians do not receive the Holy Spirit at conversion—they only receive him on the occasion of the baptism in the Holy Spirit (bhs). Instead, Jeffreys asserted, it is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who comes to indwell the believer at regeneration, and this Spirit of Christ is entirely distinct from and in no way synonymous with the Holy Spirit.2
What prevents this from being dismissed as little more than a quaint item of early pentecostal dogma is the realization that Jeffreys’ Spirit of Christ (sc) teaching was a popular stance within the Elim movement of the 1920s and 1930s. As a doctrinal position, it was still being discussed at the Elim Bible College as late as the 1960s, yet this same teaching is virtually unknown today among the current generation of Elim ministers. At one level, it seems entirely reasonable to dismiss the sc position as a historical peculiarity and thereby agree with R.M. Pope that “the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are one and thesame.”3Afterall, as T.A.C.Bush points out, the scview is a doctrinal position that “very few Pentecostals would find tenable today.”4 Indeed, Des Cartwright, Elim’s designated historian, denies that the Spirit of Christ teaching was ever official Elim policy.5
Nevertheless, it should be remembered that Jeffreys ministered at a time when there was a multiplicity of theological opinion concerning the reception of the Holy Spirit.6 Jeffreys was not even the originator of this particular doc- trine. As will be shown, the sc position was being disseminated in the usa only a few years after the events of the Azusa Street revival. Neither was this model of Spirit reception restricted to the Elim movement. Smith Wigglesworth, a
1 G. Jeffreys, Pentecostal Rays(Clapham, uk: Elim Publishing, 1933).
2 Ibid., 39.
3 R.M. Pope, “The Holy Spirit,”Lexington Theological Quarterly15, no. 3 (1980): 82–96 (90). 4 T.A.C. Bush, “The Development of the Perception of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit within
the Pentecostal Movement in Great Britain,”epta Bulletin 11, nos. 1/2 (1992): 24–41 (29). Cf.
S.S. Schatzmann, “The Gifts of the Spirit: Pentecostal Interpretation of Pauline Pneumatol-
ogy,” in K. Warrington, ed., Pentecostal Perspectives (Carlisle, uk: Paternoster Press, 1998),
80–97 (85).
5 D. Cartwright, “From the Backstreets of Brixton to the Royal Albert Hall,” smithwigglesworth
.com. Accessed at http://smithwigglesworth.com/pensketches/brixton.htm on January
18, 2012.
6 W.J. Hollenweger,The Pentecostals(London: scm, 1972), 323–324.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
2
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
65
renowned healing evangelist with the British Assemblies of God (ag), held to it,7 as did a number of other ag ministers.
In this article I will describe some of the theology underpinning Jeffreys’ sc teaching. I will consider how the sc view was promoted within the Elim movement during the 1920s and 1930s and will assess the response of other pentecostal denominations at that time. Further, I will set the sc position within some of its historical and theological context by highlighting several of thealternativemodelsofSpiritreceptionthatwerebeingadvocatedintheearly years of the pentecostal movement. In so doing, I hope that the reader will gain a fresh perspective on and appreciation for some of the serious challenges faced by the nascent pentecostal movement. Finally, I will assert that the need for a coherent pneumatological framework that maintains pentecostal distinctives remains just as vitally important today.
George Jeffreys and His Teaching on the Spirit of Christ
According to D. Cartwright, Jeffreys was the most successful British evangelist since John Wesley or George Whitfield.8 Born in 1889, he formed the Elim Evangelistic Band in 1915,9 held numerous healing crusades, and planted a succession of churches.10 In 1939, Jeffreys separated from Elim and went on to form the Bible Pattern Church, taking his closest associates and a number of Elim congregations with him.11
7 D.W. Dorries, “The Making of Smith Wigglesworth, Part 2: The Making of His Message,”
Assemblies of God Heritage 12, no. 4 (1992): 4–8, 32 (21). See also S. Wigglesworth, “God’s
Treasure House,”The Bridal Call (August 1927), 21–23, 31–32 (23).
8 D. Cartwright, The Great Evangelists (Hants, uk: Pickering & Inglis, 1986), 158. Cf. N. Hud-
son and A. Walker, “George Jeffreys, Revivalist and Reformer: A Revaluation,” in A. Walker
and K. Aune, eds.,On Revival:A CriticalExamination(Carlisle, uk: Paternoster Press, 2003),
137–156 (139). For a fascinating, nonpartisan, outsider’s view of George Jeffreys’ ministry
during the 1930s, Landau’s account is highly recommended. R. Landau, God Is My Adven-
ture(London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1935), 149–178.
9 Cartwright,The Great Evangelists, 54.
10 G. Jeffreys, “How Elim Ministry in Ireland Began with Fulfilled Prophecy,”Direction (May
2003): 24–25; C. Cartwright, ed., George Jeffreys: A Ministry of the Miraculous (Tonbridge,
uk: Sovereign World, 1999), 29–42.
11 A. Walker, Restoring the Kingdom: The Radical Christianity of the House Church Movement
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988), 258–259; Cartwright, The Great Evangelists, 156.
The reasons for Jeffreys’ abrupt departure from the movement he founded form the basis
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
3
66
kane
Jeffreys’ strength was as an orator, and he articulated a powerful pentecostal message that emphasized divine healing, the second coming of Christ, and Spirit baptism.12 A populist speaker rather than a theologian, his preaching style posited a selection of biblical proof texts so as to build an interpretative framework that would support his doctrinal emphases. Jeffreys’ writing is not theologically robust and is susceptible to criticism within academic circles today, yet it was typical of pentecostal teaching of his time. The remainder of this section will trace the outline of Jeffreys’ teaching on the Spirit of Christ as outlined in Pentecostal Rays without unduly critiquing his arguments, so as better to understand the logical reasoning, significance, and implications of this unusual pentecostal doctrine.
For Jeffreys, the key verse for the sc position was Romans 8:9, in which Paul writes that “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Jeffreys acknowledged that some commentators regarded the Spirit of Christ as synonymous with the Holy Spirit, noting that for them Romans 8:9 implied that the gift of the Spirit was identical with regeneration.13 His detractors concluded from this verse that there was no need for a subsequent reception of the Spirit, thereby decrying the pentecostal emphasis on Spirit baptism. As such, Jeffreys’ unusual interpretation of this text and his adoption of the sc position needs to be understood within the context of what was at times a very heated debate on the reality of the bhs as an experience subsequent to conversion.14
For Jeffreys, the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit represent two distinct members of the Godhead. He taught that one receives the Spirit of Jesus as an indwelling presence at conversion, while the Holy Spirit is received subse- quently at the time of the bhs. In support of this pneumatological understand- ing, Jeffreys brought together two principal arguments: first, that the disciples
for Hudson’s doctoral thesis: D.N. Hudson, A Schism and Its Aftermath(unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, King’s College, London, 1999). To some extent, Jeffreys’ departure was provoked
by the unwillingness of the Elim Conference to accept his proposed reforms on local
church autonomy and representation. However, Hudson argues persuasively that Jeffreys’
increasingsupportforBritishIsraelismwasacontributoryfactor.Cf.A.W.Edsor,InDefence
of a Man of God Falsely Portrayed (Gloucester, uk: Open Letter, 1986), n.p.; Hollenweger,
The Pentecostals, 198–199; Cartwright, The Great Evangelists, 133–155; Hudson, A Schism
and Its Aftermath, 188–189, 202–212.
12 Cartwright,George Jeffreys, 103–126.
13 Jeffreys, Pentecostal Rays, 39.
14 Cf. H.S. Ward, “The Anti-Pentecostal Argument,” in Vinson Synan, ed., Aspects of Pentecos-
tal-Charismatic Origins(Plainfield: Logos, 1975), 99–122.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
4
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
67
of Jesus were spiritually clean and hence regenerate (John 15:3, 8) long before they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost;15 and second, that “the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified” (John 7:39). The implication of this is that, according to Romans 8:9, Jesus’ disciples must have already pos- sessed the Spirit of Christ even before Pentecost, but this could not have been the Holy Spirit, as he had not yet been given. Hence, in Jeffreys’ mind, the two Spirits must have been distinct.
Jeffreys made reference to 1Peter 1:11, which states “what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify.” He saw this as a further indication that the Spirit of Christ was present in regenerate Old Testament believers long before the reception of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.16 Furthermore, although he could not prove conclusively that Jesus’ disciples were spiritually clean before Pentecost, he posited the rhetorical question of whether it was reasonable to believe that the “Lord’s bosom friends and companions” were unregenerate.17 Jeffreys also drew attention to Galatians 4:6, which states that “because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.” For Jeffreys, this indicated that the new familial relationship that every convert enjoys with God the Father is due to, and indeed enhanced by, the personal indwelling of the Son of God.18
In keeping with pentecostal hermeneutics in general,19 Jeffreys derived much of his theology predominantly from narrative, whether from the Gospels or from Acts. With regard to the experience of the Samaritans in Acts 8, Jef- freys observed that they were baptized in water “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16), even though they had not yet received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15). Jeffreys opined that this made no sense if, according to Romans 8:9, they were none of his.20 Jeffreys also cited the case of the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19, insisting that they were regenerate and yet somehow ignorant of the Holy Spirit. If they were indeed regenerate, he argued, they must have already been indwelt by the Spirit of Christ.21
15 Jeffreys, Pentecostal Rays, 39–42.
16 Ibid., 47.
17 Ibid., 49.
18 Ibid., 49–50.
19 W. Atkinson, “Worth a Second Look? Pentecostal Hermeneutics,”Evangel 21, no. 2 (2003),
49–54; S.R. Graham, “‘Thus Saith the Lord’: Biblical Hermeneutics in the Early Pentecostal
Movement.”Ex Auditu12 (1996): 121–135 (127–128).
20 Jeffreys, Pentecostal Rays, 50.
21 Ibid., 53–57.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
5
68
kane
As an evangelist, Jeffreys was accustomed to inviting people to “receive Christ” as their Savior.22 By means of the sc position, Jeffreys would have understood Bible verses such as John 1:12, Colossians 2:6, 1John 5:12, and Rev- elation 3:20 as teaching that Christ stepped into the physical body of the convert and personally took up residence by means of his own divine Spirit. As a pentecostal revivalist, Jeffreys would then have gone on to invite exist- ing believers to “receive the Spirit” by entering into the experience of the bhs.
Although admittedly controversial, this distinction between the two divine Spirits does make conversion solidly christological while maintaining Spirit baptism as a more distinctly pneumatological activity. T. Smail accuses con- temporary Pentecostals of overemphasizing the importance of Pentecost to the cost and possibly even exclusion of Calvary.23 Yet, the early Elim movement placed a great deal of christological emphasis on the foursquare gospel,24 with Jesus portrayed as the primary agent in salvation, particularly in terms of jus- tification through the blood of Christ.25 Healing was seen as effected primarily through Christ’s atonement.26 It was Jesus who commissioned the bhs (John 14:16; Acts 2:33), and it was in expectation of Christ’s imminent return that early Pentecostals looked to the future. Jeffreys’ biblical exegesis may have been lim- ited, indeed at times selective and subjective, but his focus on the Spirit of Christ meant that his followers were encouraged to interact personally and directly with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Finally, Jeffreys claimed that biblical references to the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22–24) refer to the effect of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ rather than to
22 Dunn counters this by insisting that “the nt nowhere speaks of conversion as ‘receiving
Christ’ despitethe frequentuse of this phrasein popular evangelism.”J.D.G.Dunn,Baptism
in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 95.
23 T. Smail, “The Cross and the Spirit: Towards a Theology of Renewal,” in T. Smail, A. Walker,
and N. Wright, eds.,Charismatic Renewal(London: spck, 1995), 49–70 (55–58). Cf. B. Pugh,
“The Mind of the Spirit: Explorations in the Reciprocal Relationship between the Work of
the Spirit and the Work of the Son,” jepta32, no. 1 (2012): 41–60 (54–59).
24 See K. Cho, The Move to Independence from Anglican Leadership: An Examination of the
RelationshipbetweenAlexanderAlfredBoddyandtheEarlyLeadersoftheBritishPentecostal
Denominations (1907–1930) (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, 2009),
217–218, 233–238.
25 See Pugh, “The Mind of the Spirit,” 46–53.
26 G. Jeffreys, Healing Rays (Clapham, uk: Elim Publishing, 1932), 154; E.C. Boulton, “Divine
Healing,”Elim Evangel2, no. 4 (1921), 62–65 (63). Cf. M.J. Cartledge,Testimony in the Spirit:
Rescripting Ordinary Pentecostal Theology(Farnham, uk: Ashgate, 2010), 126–127.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
6
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
69
the activity of the Holy Spirit.27 Such an assertion cannot be supported exeget- ically and serves as but one example of the seeming arbitrariness with which Jeffreys typically differentiated between his two divine Spirits. In addition, Jef- freys argued that regenerate believers are expected to grow in Christlikeness regardless of whether or not they have received the bhs. This interpretation is again characteristic of Jeffreys’ christocentric focus, whereby he was wary of pentecostal excesses arising from an unbalanced preoccupation with manifes- tations of the Holy Spirit.28
Popularization of the Spirit of Christ Teaching within Elim
Neil Hudson, who has written extensively on Elim’s early history, traces Jeffreys’ support for the sc position to the influence of Thomas Myerscough,29 who ran a training school in Preston for the Pentecostal Missionary Union (pmu), the earliest British pentecostal missionary sending agency.30 The pmu was even- tually absorbed into the British Assemblies of God, and Myerscough served on the ag executive for nine years until his death in 1932.31
When George Jeffreys joined the pmu school in November 1912,32 this was to comprise the only formal Bible College education that he received. Jeffreys left in January 1913 to assist his brother Stephen in an evangelistic campaign in Cwmtwrch,33 but relations between Myerscough and Jeffreys remained strong. Myerscough was a close personal friend of Smith Wigglesworth,34 who also
27 Jeffreys,Pentecostal Rays, 113–117; G. Jeffreys, “The Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit,”Elim
Evangel 6, no. 6 (1925), 61–64 (62); P. Parker, “The Model Christian,”Elim Evangel12, no. 37
(1931), 585–587.
28 G. Jeffreys, “Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance,” Elim Evangel 10, no. 34–35 (1929), 547;
J. McWhirter, “Pentecost,” Elim Evangel 15, no. 9 (1934), 136–137 (136); N. Hudson, “The
BlessingsandBurdensofRevival:GeorgeJeffreys:ARevivalist,aMovementandaCrisis,”in
Pentecostalism and the Body, vol. 1 (Marquette University: Society for Pentecostal Theology,
2004), 1–16 (11).
29 Hudson, A Schism and Its Aftermath, 74.
30 P. Kay, “Pentecostal Missionary Union and the Fourfold Gospel with Baptism in the Holy
Spirit and Speaking in Tongues: A New Power for Missions?” jepta19 (1999): 89–100. 31 J.N. Parr, “Homecall of Mr Thomas Myerscough,”RedemptionTidings(April 1932), 2; K. Mal-
comson, Pentecostal Pioneers Remembered (Maitland, fl: Xulon Press, 2008), 174. 32 W. Kay, Pentecostals in Britain(Carlisle, uk: Paternoster Press, 2000), 21.
33 A.A. Boddy, “An Apostolic Welsh Revival,”Confidence(February 1913), 27–29. 34 Malcomson, Pentecostal Pioneers Remembered, 172–173, 175.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
7
70
kane
held to the sc view. So too did William Burton, a fellow student at the pmu school35 and founder of the Congo Evangelistic Mission.36 Burton wrote in the ag’s Redemption Tidings in 1930 that “the Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit.”37
This is to suggest not that the sc doctrine originated with Myerscough, but rather that he was instrumental in popularizing it within Britain. Writing from a pentecostal context within the usa, E.N. Bell referred to the sc doctrine as far back as 1916,38 while J.T. Boddy reported in 1921 that he had heard the sc position expounded by a pentecostal leader from Chicago some years before.39 It seems reasonable to deduce that Myerscough came across the sc teaching, that it made sense to him, and that he recommended it to those students and ministers within his sphere of influence.
In the June 1924 edition of the Elim Evangel, Myerscough referred to a “distinction between the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God,”40 opining that “there have been ages of darkness since Pentecost in which vital truths have been lost sight of.”41 The following month, he acknowledged that some teach that the Holy Spirit is received at regeneration, but he denied that there was any Scripture to support this, even though “godly men with a great reputation make the assertion.”42 In a detailed argument, which, as Hudson notes, “became very abstruse,”43 Myerscough taught that there are two divine Spirits that need to be implanted in the life of the believer: the Spirit of Christ who grants eternal life; and the Holy Ghost who convicts of sin, grants assurance, and anoints with power for service.44
35 C. Whittaker,Seven Pentecostal Pioneers(Basingstoke, uk: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983),
152–154, 157.
36 Whittaker,Seven Pentecostal Pioneers, 158–163.
37 W.F.P. Burton, “My Testimony to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,”Redemption Tidings(April
1930), 3–4 (4).
38 E.N. Bell, “Questions and Answers,”Weekly Evangel (September 23, 1916), 8–9. 39 J.T. Boddy, “Is the Holy Spirit in All Believers?” Pentecostal Evangel (March 5, 1921), 1–2
(1).
40 T. Myerscough, “The Epistle to the Assembly at Rome 17,” Elim Evangel 5, no. 6 (1924),
133–137 (135).
41 Ibid., 136.
42 T. Myerscough, “The Epistle to the Assembly at Rome 18,” Elim Evangel 5, no. 7 (1924),
156–160 (157).
43 Hudson, A Schism and Its Aftermath, 75.
44 Myerscough, “The Epistle to the Assembly at Rome 18,” 158–160.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
8
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
71
Shortly after this, Jeffreys took up the baton for the sc cause by writing a series of articles in the Elim Evangel.45 He also popularized the sc position in his public teaching ministry and later by means of his books.46
It is arguable, however, that Percy Parker, Principal of theChristian Workers’ Bible Correspondence School, did more to champion the sc position than did Jeffreys himself. Curiously, Parker had earlier opposed such an understanding of Spirit reception. Espousing a standard evangelical view of the Holy Spirit, Parker had identified the Spirit of Christ with the Holy Spirit,47 equated the termbaptism in the Holy Spiritwith conversion,48 and viewed the indwelling of the Spirit as commencing at regeneration.49 Parker first encountered Jeffreys when the latter visited Glasgow in 1927. He was clearly impressed by the revival- ist’s manner as well as by the hundreds of testimonies of healing.50 He began accompanying Jeffreys on his campaigns51 and, in November of the same year, his correspondence course was repackaged as theElim Bible College Correspon- dence School, with Jeffreys recommending the course to those unable to attend Elim’s residential Bible College.52
In 1929, Parker published The Baptism in the Holy Spirit, acknowledging therein that he had aligned himself with the emphasis and ethos of the Elim Pentecostal Church under the leadership of George Jeffreys.53 In contrast with Jeffreys’ own writings, The Baptism in the Holy Spirit provided a more robust theological framework for both the sc position and the wider pentecostal doctrine of the bhs. Although space does not permit an adequate treatment of Parker’s arguments, I will offer one example that illustrates his appreciation of the wider theological issues.
45 G. Jeffreys, “Believers Who Had Not Received the Holy Ghost,”Elim Evangel 6, no. 1 (1925),
1–3; G. Jeffreys, “A Striking Analogy,”Elim Evangel6, no. 4 (1925), 37–41; Jeffreys, “The Spirit
of Christ and the Holy Spirit,” 61–64.
46 G. Jeffreys, The Miraculous Foursquare Gospel: Supernatural (London: Elim Publishing,
1930); Jeffreys, Pentecostal Rays.
47 P.G. Parker,cwbcs23 (n.d.), 7 in P.G. Parker,ChristianWorkersBibleCorrespondenceSchool:
24 Handbooks in One Volume(Glasgow: The Hulbert Publishing Co., n.d.).
48 Ibid., 7–8.
49 Ibid., 8.
50 P.G. Parker, “Pastor George Jeffreys at Glasgow,”Elim Evangel 8, no. 10 (1927), 150–151. 51 P.G. Parker, “The Close of the Portsmouth Campaign,”Elim Evangel 8, no. 20 (1927), 306. 52 G. Jeffreys, “A Golden Opportunity to Study the Bible at Home,”ElimEvangel8, no. 21 (1927),
322.
53 P.G. Parker,The Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: Elim Publishing, 1929), v–vi.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
9
72
kane
According to Parker, Paul’s references in his epistles to Christians possessing the Spirit should be understood as applying exclusively to Spirit-filled believers, which is the “normal” state of nt congregations. Hence, in Parker’s mind, covenantal verses that might seem to imply the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in every Christian should be properly interpreted within the context of a normative pentecostal experience. Parker contrasted this with the mainstream church of his day, noting that it was in a “sadly abnormal condition” whereby water baptism rarely followed conversion, spiritual gifts were seldom exercised, and, in his opinion, many individuals on church membership rolls remained unregenerate.54
Parker’s intention was not primarily to be dogmatic about the sc position, but to use it to establish a theological framework from which to make a com- pelling case for Spirit baptism. He wrote frequently in the Elim Evangel, either setting out the sc position55 or interpreting other areas of Christian doctrine within the sc framework.56 Between January 1929 and December 1934, Parker wrote twenty-nine articles for the Elim Evangel in which he made direct refer- ence to the sc position. Other Elim leaders also contributed articles in support of this understanding of Spirit reception. Pastor Jesse Lees, acknowledging that not everyone accepted the sc doctrine, went on to offer his own arguments for this view.57 An editorial in 1932 asserted that “we must be filled with the Spirit of Christ before we can expect to be filled with the Holy Spirit.”58 In 1938, Joseph Smith, a member of Elim’s Executive Council, wrote an article in which he pon- dered how trinitarian relationships might be viewed within the sc framework. Smith affirmed that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are distinct persons, with no difference in their essence or their natural or moral attributes but with each possessing a will of his own.59
54 Ibid., 16–17.
55 For example P. Parker, “The Family Altar,”Elim Evangel11, no. 49 (1930), 775; P. Parker, “The
Model Christian,”Elim Evangel12, no. 31 (1931), 484–485; P. Parker, “The Overflowing Life,”
Elim Evangel14, no. 10 (1933), 148–150 (149).
56 For example, P. Parker, “The Tabernacle: Its History and Mystery,”Elim Evangel 11, no. 23
(1930), 361–363 (361); P. Parker, “The Model Christian,” Elim Evangel 13, no. 15 (1932),
228–229 (228).
57 J. Lees, “Another Comforter,”Elim Evangel10, no. 12 (1929), 180–181 (180).
58 Editorial, “Cleansed for Service,”Elim Evangel13, no. 41 (1932), 648. W.G. Hathaway was the
editor at the time.
59 J. Smith, “Who and What: What Is the Difference between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of
Christ?”Elim Evangel19, no. 16 (1938), 256.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
10
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
73
J.T. Bradley was convinced by Jeffreys’ arguments and, as Dean of Elim Bible College, he ensured that the sc doctrine was “disseminated to a wide audience of future ministers.”60 Bradley later commented that “to most people the distinction seems academic. In actual experience it is not.”61 Although Bradley upheld the sc position through his entire ministry, he stopped referring to the “Spirit of Christ” because his views were being misrepresented, preferring to say simply that “Christ dwells in us, one of the persons of the Trinity.”
There is anecdotal evidence that support for the sc position continued within the Elim movement long after Jeffreys’ departure in 1939.62 When George Canty attended Elim Bible College in the 1930s,63 he was formally taught that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Spirit of Christ, although Canty insists that he and his fellow students rejected this teaching.64 When Tom Walker enteredElimBibleCollegein1942,opinionsamongElimministersweresharply divided over the sc question. Robert Griffiths recalls that when he attended the ag Bible College in 1940, the sc view was not formally taught but was discussed among the student body.65 When Des Cartwright attended Elim Bible College in 1952–1953, the sc distinction was still being put forward.66 By the time that David Woodfield was at Elim Bible College between 1962 and 1964, the sc posi- tion was being referred to as a doctrine that had once been well known within Elim but was no longer accepted.67
It is interesting to contrast this with Cartwright’s denial that the sc teaching was ever official Elim policy.68 There can be little question that it was certainly a popular understanding during the movement’s formative years.
60 Hudson, A Schism and Its Aftermath, 75.
61 J.T. Bradley, Letter to D.N. Hudson, May 12, 1993, used with permission. Original in posses-
sion of Dr. D.N. Hudson.
62 The author is indebted to these retired Elim ministers for sharing their personal reflec-
tions.
63 G. Canty, “Witnessing the Growth of This Wonderful Movement,” Direction (February
2008): 20–21 (21).
64 G. Canty, Letter to K. Warrington, November 25, 1996, used with permission. Original in
possession of Dr. D.N. Hudson.
65 R. Griffiths, Email to author, November 15, 2011.
66 Cartwright, “From the Backstreets of Brixton to the Royal Albert Hall.”
67 D. Woodfield, Email to author, November 14, 2011.
68 Cartwright, “From the backstreets of Brixton to the Royal Albert Hall.”
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
11
74
kane
Support for the Spirit of Christ Teaching outside of Elim
Writing for theWeekly Evangelin the usa, Bell complained that he felt harassed by a number of insistent correspondents over the sc position, ending with the caution that he had “neither time nor inclination to answer personal discus- sions further on this subject.”69 Boddy dismissed the sc view in 1921,70 while Williams insisted in 1936 that there was no difference between the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit.71 The fact that the editors of theWeekly Evangel felt the need to refute the sc position on multiple occasions suggests that it was a persistent, even if officially rejected, teaching within the American ag.
Within the British ag, opinions were more divided. Smith Wigglesworth advocated the sc position, asserting that “when you are born again the Christ Spirit—not the Holy Spirit, but the Christ Spirit—comes and quickens your human spirit and becomes a new generating power in you.”72 Burton wrote in favor,73 as did John Carter,74 C.L. Parker,75 and Arthur Sturgess,76 demonstrating that the teaching was certainly not restricted to Elim. According to an interview conducted by Bush, there were a number of older ministers in the British ag by the early 1990s who still subscribed to the sc position.77
Donald Gee emerged as a major opponent to the sc position.78 He de- nouncedtheteachinginRedemptionTidings,assertingthatto“statethatbeliev-
69 Bell, “Questions and Answers,” 8–9. In spite of this, Bell returned to this same question
in 1917 and again in 1921, providing similar though much briefer responses. E.N. Bell,
“Questions and Answers,” Weekly Evangel (March 24, 1917), 9; E.N. Bell, “Questions and
Answers,”Pentecostal Evangel (November 12, 1921), 5.
70 Boddy, “Is the Holy Spirit in All Believers?” 1–2.
71 E.S. Williams, “Questions and Answers,” Pentecostal Evangel (February 22, 1936), 8. Pre-
sumably Williams’ response generated some lively correspondence, as he returned to the
subject the following year. E.S. Williams, “Questions and Answers,” Pentecostal Evangel
(March 27, 1937), 6.
72 Cited in R. Liardon, Smith Wigglesworth Speaks to Students of the Bible (Tulsa, ok: Albury
Publishing, 1998), 282–283.
73 Burton, “My Testimony to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” 4.
74 J. Carter, “The New Birth,”Redemption Tidings(July 1932), 6–7 (7).
75 C.L. Parker, “Perplexing Problems: Answer b,”Redemption Tidings(August 1932), 15. 76 A. Sturgess, “Have Ye Received the Holy Ghost Since Ye Believed?” Redemption Tidings
(January 27, 1939), 5–6.
77 Bush, “The Development of the Perception of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit within the
Pentecostal Movement in Great Britain,” 38 n. 57.
78 Kay remarks that Donald Gee “by no means saw eye to eye with Jeffreys,” indicative of
tensions between the two movements. W. Kay, Pentecostalism(London: scm, 2009), 90.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
12
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
75
ers who have not received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit have never received the Spirit at all, seems, to the present writer at least, to be as unscriptural as it is ungracious.”79 It is interesting to note that Gee continued to refute the sc position into the 1950s and 1960s,80 suggesting that even by that stage the sc teaching was still something of a live issue within pentecostal circles.
Jeffreys continued to affirm and promote the sc position within the Bible Pattern churches. Writing in the Pattern,81 he rehearsed arguments that had previously appeared in the Elim Evangel. Two years after Jeffreys’ death in 1962,82 A.W. Edsor published his biography, George Jeffreys: Man of God, in which he drew attention to Jeffreys’ advocacy of the sc position.83 Curiously, when Edsor revised Jeffreys’ biography in 1989,84 he omitted any references to the sc doctrine, suggesting perhaps that by this stage the sc view had become largely forgotten within British Pentecostalism.
Other Models of Spirit Reception within Early Pentecostalism
Early Pentecostalism was a movement of considerable diversity and creativ- ity,85 with its pioneers united by a focus on the bhs as a donum superaddi- tum. According to Jeffreys, the standard nonpentecostal view at this time was that “all believers receive the Holy Spirit at regeneration,”86 whether effected evangelically through a conversion experience or sacramentally by means of baptismal aspersion. Although the pentecostal proclamation of the bhs was primarily driven experimentally,87 it proved necessary to develop a theologi-
79 D. Gee, “The Fruit of the Spirit,”Redemption Tidings (December 1931), 3–4 (4). Cf. D. Gee,
“Guidance by the Holy Spirit,”Redemption Tidings(June 1, 1935), 5–6 (6).
80 D. Gee, “Critics and Criticism,”Pentecost 35 (1956): 17; D. Gee, “The Indwelling Spirit,” The
Pentecostal1, no. 3 (1964), 16–19 (16–17).
81 G. Jeffreys, “A Striking Analogy,” The Pattern 7, no. 6 (1946), 6–7; G. Jeffreys, “Fruit of the
Spirit and Gifts of the Spirit,”The Pattern10, no. 11 (1949), 6–7; G. Jeffreys, “Four Answers to
Questions: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit,”The Pattern22, no. 11 (November 1961), 6. 82 Cartwright,The Great Evangelists, 159. The Daily Expressannounced Jeffreys’ death under
the banner, “Man who worked ‘miracles’ dies forgotten.” Hudson and Walker, “George
Jeffreys, Revivalist and Reformer: A Revaluation,” 138.
83 A.W. Edsor,George Jeffreys: Man of God (London: Ludgate Press, 1964), 75.
84 A.W. Edsor,Set Your House in Order (Chichester, uk: New Wine Press, 1989).
85 D. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement (Bloom-
ington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 353.
86 Jeffreys,The Miraculous Foursquare Gospel: Supernatural, 52.
87 Hollenweger,The Pentecostals, 336–341.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
13
76
kane
cal basis from which to support the pentecostal message. This, in turn, led to a reappraisal of the ordo salutis and a reassessment of the pneumatological ele- ments in the soteriological process.
Given that many pentecostal pioneers pursued evangelistic or healing min- istries and often lacked formal theological education, it is hardly surprising that much of this early pneumatology was experiential and populist rather than systematically developed. Such theology was largely articulated from the pul- pit or by means of short articles in periodicals rather than in a form suitable for academic debate. Moreover, there was considerable diversity among the pneumatological frameworks that were being endorsed by various preachers and church groups in the early days of the pentecostal awakening.88 J.T. Boddy noted in this regard that “the relationship of the regenerated soul to the Holy Spirit which gave it birth has always been a subject of much controversy among believers who honestly differ with regard to the matter.”89
While acknowledging the “difficulty of trying to harmonize” the relevant Scriptures,90 Boddy articulated what was to become the standard position of Classical Pentecostalism, namely, the Holy Spirit is to some degree received at regeneration.91 This “two-stage”92 understanding of Spirit reception is now accepted by the main British pentecostal denominations. For instance, David Petts, former principal of Mattersey Hall (the British ag’s theological college), affirms that the Holy Spirit indwells the regenerate, albeit noting that “not all Christians have ‘received the Spirit’ in the sense of having been baptised in the Spirit.”93 Likewise, Keith Warrington, vice-principal of Regents Theologi- cal College (Elim’s training institute), accepts that Christians “become recip- ients of the Spirit at salvation, while this is to be followed by a further and distinct infusion of the Spirit.”94 The Apostolic Church of Great Britain notes that “true believers who may not have enjoyed Holy Spirit baptism have been
88 D.W. Dayton,Theological Roots of Pentecostalism(Peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 1987), 17–18. 89 Boddy, “Is the Holy Spirit in All Believers?” 1.
90 J.T. Boddy, “Is the Holy Spirit in All Believers? (continued),”Pentecostal Evangel (March 19,
1921), 3.
91 Boddy, “Is the Holy Spirit in All Believers?” 1–2.
92 Turner employs this expression to describe the same model of Spirit reception, albeit
referring to the description by Robert Menzies. M. Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual
Gifts (Carlisle, uk: Paternoster Press, 2009), 149. Cf. R.P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness:
The Spirit in Luke-Acts(Sheffield, uk: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 232–243. 93 D. Petts,The Holy Spirit: An Introduction(Mattersey, uk: Mattersey Hall, 1998), 54. 94 K. Warrington,Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter(London: t. & t. Clark, 2008),
100.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
14
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
77
given some measure of the Spirit.”95 The New Testament Church of God has not published its own pneumatological texts, but its parent church, the Church of God (Cleveland), endorses this view, with Terry Cross accepting that “there is some sense in which the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer at regenera- tion.”96
It should not be imagined, however, that the two-stage view was the only model adopted by early pentecostal leaders. Attention has already been paid to Jeffreys’ sc position. Holiness Pentecostals and the Oneness movement (Jesus Only) maintained their own pneumatological distinctives. In addition to these, Dunn draws attention in his famous monograph to what he terms “the crude Pentecostal view that conversion is a matter of receiving Christ and Spirit-baptism of receiving the Spirit.”97 An example of this particular pentecostal model may be found in the writings of William Durham.98
Commenting on the Samaritan believers in Acts 8, Durham contested the idea that the Holy Spirit is received at regeneration:
this Scripture deals a hard blow to the theory that a person receives the Holy Spirit in conversion. In the Christian life we possess what we receive. When we receive Christ we have Christ, but we have not the Holy Spirit, till we receive Him.99
95 H.B. Llewellyn, A Study of the History and Thought of the Apostolic Church in Wales in the
Context of Pentecostalism (unpublished M. Phil. thesis, University College, Cardiff, 1997),
76.
96 T.L. Cross, “Doctrines and the Spirit,” in H.G. Rhea, ed.,Knowing the Holy Spirit(Cleveland,
tn: Church of God School of Ministry, 2003), 101–150 (132).
97 Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 148, 93. Atkinson objects to what he regards as a mis-
representation of Pentecostalism, dismissing Dunn’s “crude Pentecostal view” as no more
than a minority position, insisting that “Classical Pentecostalism has always taught (even
if not entirely consistently) that all Christians have the Spirit.” W.P. Atkinson, Baptism in
the Spirit: Luke-Acts and the Dunn Debate (Eugene, or: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 104–
105. However, Atkinson’s views on early pentecostal historicity are rightly contradicted by
Warrington in Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 128.
98 Durham famously disagreed with William J. Seymour’s view of sanctification as a crisis
experience. W.M. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Origins of the Pentecostal Movement,” in Vin-
son Synan, ed., Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins(Plainfield: Logos, 1975), 90–92;
H.I. Lederle,Treasures Old and New(Peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 1988), 18.
99 W.H. Durham, “Two Great Experiences or Gifts,” Pentecostal Testimony 1, no. 8 (1911),
5–7 (6). Cf. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, 154–155. Cf. W.H. Durham, “False Doctrines,”
Pentecostal Testimony2, no. 2 (1912), 6–7 (6); Jacobsen,Thinking in the Spirit, 150.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
15
78
kane
In this, Durham held that at conversion sinful human nature is regenerated and remade in the image of Christ, but that no actual spiritual indwelling takes place. Durham’s understanding that the Holy Spirit is received only at the bhs was shared by Andrew Murray, a popular South African devotional writer. Murray taught that one’s human spirit is renewed and quickened by the Holy Spirit at regeneration,100 but the reception of the divine Spirit is delayed until the bhs:
there are two ways in which the Holy Spirit works in us. The first is the preparatory operation in which he simply acts on us but does not yet take up his abode, though leading us to conversion and faith and ever urging us to all that is good and holy.101
Murray’s emphasis on “the infilling of the Holy Spirit as an experience subse- quent to conversion”102 made him a popular author among emerging Pente- costals.103 Indeed, Mathew Clark has commented that Murray’s “writings often read more like a manual for Holy Spirit living than for confessional Reformed Protestantism.”104
It may be conceded that Boddy’s two-stage view is somewhat ambiguous about the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life, which makes it susceptible to a critique of the necessity of an additional Spirit reception, a critique that has been notably executed by Dunn.105 By contrast, Durham’s model is unequivocal in its promotion of the bhs as a necessary experience subsequent to conversion. It is interesting to note that, as the sc position
100 A. Murray, The Spirit of Christ (Springdale: Whitaker House, 1984 [original 1888]), 6–7,
10–11.
101 A. Murray,The Full Blessing of Pentecost (London: Victory Press, 1944 [original 1908]), 3. 102 L. Chandomba, The History of Apostolic Faith Mission and Other Pentecostal Missions in
South Africa(Milton Keynes, uk: Author House, 2007), 8.
103 For example “Opening Meetings of the Conference,” Confidence (June 30, 1908), 8–9
(9); “How to Prepare for the Close of the War,” Flames of Fire (November 1915), n.p.;
“Some Good Things in Store for Evangel Readers,” Pentecostal Evangel (October 1, 1921),
5; A. Murray, “Pardon and Healing,”Elim Evangel 7, no. 21 (1926), 245–246; S.H. Frodsham,
“The Pentecostal People and What They Believe,”RedemptionTidings(January 1, 1934), 3–4
(3).
104 M.S. Clark, Annual Visitor Lectures: apts 1998 (unpublished lecture notes: Baguio, Philip-
pines, 1998), 5. Although it is tempting to read pentecostal motifs into his work, it should
be recognized that Murray wrote in a very different ecclesial context and largely prior to
the events of Azusa Street.
105 Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 4–5, 226.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
16
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
79
declined in influence within Elim, the pneumatological framework commonly expressed within the pages of the Elim Evangel and its related publications was, to repeat Dunn’s phrase, this “crude Pentecostal view that conversion is a matter of receiving Christ and Spirit-baptism of receiving the Spirit.” For instance, theElim Lay Preachers’ Handbookaffirmed in 1946 that “Regeneration is the creative act of the Holy Spirit through which the divine nature of the risen Christ is imparted,”106 while the bhs was regarded as an experience “which is independent of, and subsequent and additional to regeneration.”107
Contemporary Relevance of Spirit Reception
The past half-century has seen its fair share of debate within the pentecostal and charismatic movements over the nature of Spirit reception and the neces- sity of the bhs. Early British Charismatics such as Terry Virgo and Arthur Wallis publicly espoused the bhs as an experience subsequent to conversion, set- ting this within the two-stage model of Spirit reception.108 Since then, Dunn’s mono-reception model—combining conversion, Spirit reception, and Spirit baptism into one contemporaneous event109 and dispensing with the doctrine of subsequence while allowing for the possibility of charismatic expression— has gained increasing popularity.110 Commenting on this theological shift away from pentecostal paradigms, Colin Dye remarks that the charismatic move- ment “soon began to disassociate itself from its pentecostal roots and now it is seen by many as being very different in theology, culture and ethos from the Pentecostalism that gave birth to it.”111 George Canty is even more scathing of what he sees as the dangers inherent in the neo-pentecostal approach to
106 The wording is perhaps slightly ambiguous so as to accommodate those who still sub-
scribed to the sc position.Elim Lay Preachers’ Handbook(London: Elim Publishing, 1946),
33.
107 Ibid., 48. Cf. W.G. Hathaway, A Sound from Heaven (London: Victory Press, 1947), 19;
W.H. Urch, “The Baptism in the Holy Ghost,”Elim Evangel23, no. 45 (1942), 534–535, 538. 108 A. Wallis, “Baptism in the Spirit,”Restoration (March/April 1979), 17–20; T. Virgo, Restora-
tion in the Church(Eastbourne, uk: Kingsway, 1985), 48–57. Cf. D. Petts,Baptism in the Holy
Spirit and Christian Initiation (unpublished M. Th. thesis: Nottingham University, 1987),
30–34.
109 So Turner,The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, 154–156.
110 J.D.G. Dunn, “Baptism in the Spirit: A Response to Pentecostal Scholarship on Luke/Acts,”
Journal of Pentecostal Theology3 (1993): 3–27 (7–11).
111 C. Dye, “Are Pentecostals Pentecostal? A Revisit to the Doctrine of Pentecost,” jepta 19
(1999): 56–74 (59).
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
17
80
kane
Spirit reception. “The Theology of Wimber and of Toronto is not Pentecostal,” he observes. “It makes the Baptism in the Spirit redundant, and undermines the entire Pentecostal movement worldwide … they want to turn the clock back to pre-1900.”112 M.M. Poloma’s observation that the bhs is rarely taught from clas- sical pentecostal pulpits in the usa113 suggests a growing lack of confidence over what Frank Macchia once termed “the ‘crown jewel’ of Pentecostal spiri- tuality and theology.”114
More recently, J.R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit has attempted to push the timing of Spirit reception even further back, when he speaks of
a holy spirit given to all human beings by dint of creation, a spirit that is the energy and essence of life, a spirit that can be cultivated through study and discipline, a spirit that is the locus of virtue.115
It should be of the utmost concern to evangelicals that Levison’s understanding of spirituality dispenses with the notion of forgiveness of sin as a precursor to Spirit reception. Levison’s arguments have faced some measure of criticism,116 but this has not prevented him from declaring that he has “set an essential— and unavoidable—agenda for Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars.”117 Levi- son has called for subsequence itself to be redefined, and it will be interesting to see how the pentecostal community responds to this.118
112 Canty, Letter to Warrington; G. Canty,Hallmarks of Pentecost: Discerning the True Spiritual
Gifts(London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 17.
113 M.M. Poloma, “The Symbolic Dilemma and the Future of Pentecostalism: Mysticism,
Ritual and Revival,” in E. Patterson and E. Rybarczyk, eds., The Future of Pentecostalism in
theUnitedStates(Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2007), 105–121. Cf. C. McMullen, “Holding
Their Tongues,”Christianity Today(October 1, 2009): 15–19.
114 F.D. Macchia, “Baptized in the Spirit: A Reflection on the Future of Pentecostal Theology,”
in E. Patterson and E. Rybarczyk, eds., The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States
(Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2007), 15–26 (15–16).
115 J.R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2009), 238.
116 For instance, J.M. Everts, “Filled with the Spirit from the Old Testament to the Apostle Paul:
A Conversation with John Levison,”Pneuma33, no. 1 (2011): 63–68 (65).
117 J.R. Levison, “Filled with the Spirit: a Conversation with Pentecostal and Charismatic
Scholars,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology20, no. 2 (2011): 213–231 (220).
118 J.R. Levison, “Recommendations for the Future of Pneumatology,”Pneuma33, no. 1 (2011):
79–93 (80–84). Cf. F.D. Macchia, “The Spirit of Life and the Spirit of Immortality: An
Appreciative Review of Levison’s Filled with the Spirit,” Pneuma 33, no. 1 (2011): 69–78;
A.K. Gabriel, “The Intensity of the Spirit in a Spirit-Filled World: Spirit Baptism, Subse-
quence, and the Spirit of Creation,”Pneuma34, no. 3 (2012): 365–382.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
18
george jeffreys, the spirit of christ
81
Conclusion
This article has omitted any examination of the relationship between Christ’s human nature and his divine identity, particularly from the perspective of trichotomous anthropology. Such concerns appear not to have overly troubled Jeffreys and so they have not been addressed here. Neither has any serious attempt been made to critique Jeffreys’ sc teaching from an exegetical position. Instead, the primary intent of this paper has been to offer historical background on what is otherwise an obscure aspect of the early pentecostal movement.
Along with many of his contemporaries, Jeffreys had had an experience of God that he termed the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Jeffreys’ purpose in seeking to construct a coherent interpretative framework was to allow him to preach the Christian gospel alongside a pentecostal message of Spirit baptism. In time, other models of Spirit reception gained popularity and the Spirit of Christ teaching fell into theological obscurity. What is important to appreciate is the pragmatic impulse underpinning these heated debates and disagreements. Our pentecostal forebears believed in the biblical veracity and experiential real- ity of Spirit baptism as a vital and necessary component in the ordo salutis. We live in an age in which a number of the old paradigms are being thrown down and there is a very real threat of our distinctiveness as a pentecostal movement being sacrificed on the altars of expediency and theological accom- modation.119 Our methodologies and exegetical prowess may be superior to those of pioneers such as Jeffreys, Wigglesworth, and Durham, but we do well to ask ourselves whether we share the same passionate intensity for the gospel. And it may be that we need to reevaluate our existing pneumato-soteriological frameworks to assess whether they adequately enable the people in our con- gregations to receive the Spirit for themselves.
119 These concerns were expressed by E. Patterson, “Conclusion: Back to the Future?” in
E. Patterson and E. Rybarczyk, eds., The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States
(Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2007), 189–210 (194–195) and by A. Butler, “Pentecostal
Traditions We Should Pass On: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,”Pneuma27, no. 2 (2005):
343–353 (344).
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 63–81
19
Leave a Reply