Save

Wesley, Fletcher, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

A Pentecostal Analysis

In: Journal of Pentecostal Theology
Author:
Geoffrey Butler Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, geoffreyrolandbutler97@hotmail.com

Search for other papers by Geoffrey Butler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Full Access

Abstract

Long regarded as a spiritual grandfather of sorts for the Pentecostal movement, John Wesley has been credited by some as paving the way for their doctrinal distinctive of Spirit baptism through his teaching on entire sanctification. Yet, Wesley’s language surrounding Spirit baptism and the meaning of Pentecost differs significantly from that of classical Pentecostalism, calling into question whether a direct line can be drawn from Wesley himself to this Pentecostal distinctive. This article makes the case that their doctrine of Spirit baptism owes much more to the theology of Wesley’s intended successor John Fletcher and the Holiness movement that followed than Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification, and that one may find in Fletcher’s theology the seeds that would culminate in this Pentecostal doctrine easier than one could in Wesley’s theology.

1 Introduction

The Wesleyan roots of the Pentecostal movement are well documented. According to the late Assemblies of God theologian Stanley Horton, in the modern era there has been no greater preacher than Wesley.1 ‘The Pentecostal movement’, Horton claims, ‘owes a great deal to him … Wesley prepared the way for the Holiness movement, and the Holiness movement did much to prepare the way for the Pentecostal revival of the twentieth century.’2 Wesley frequently used language that many Pentecostals would also employ within their ranks; he spoke of the Spirit being poured out in a mighty way during the rise of Methodism, and the writings of others concerning his ministry depict him as a passionate believer in the power of God.3 Given this legacy and immense impact that the Wesleyan tradition has exerted upon Pentecostalism, question have inevitably risen concerning how Wesley might have impacted the development of the latter’s cardinal doctrine; the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Some have rightly charged that global Pentecostalism, in all its diversity, cannot simply be traced back to a single root. Allan Anderson, for example, observes that ‘there were several parts of the world where Pentecostal revivals actually preceded the events in North America, or were independent of them’,4 refuting the idea all of Pentecostalism stems from the Wesleyan/Holiness movements. A prime example, in his view, is ‘India, (where) the first Pentecostal outpouring took place in Tamil Nadu in 1860–65’.5 With a view to North America, William Menzies has made a compelling case that much of classical Pentecostal theology may trace its roots to the Reformed tradition, charging that ‘It is an oversimplification to assert that Pentecostalism is but an extension of the Wesleyan Holiness movement’.6 Yet, the tendency to trace the origins of Pentecostalism back to Wesley at least in part have persisted due to the Wesleyan roots of several major Pentecostal denominations and, indeed, the writings of Wesley himself. The notion of a tangible post-conversion experience occupied a central place in Wesley’s theology.7 His rejection of Calvinistic soteriology possibly excepted, there is no doctrine for which he is more renowned than that of entire sanctification8 – or, as it would come to be popularly understood by some followers, a second work of grace.9 Pentecostals stress the importance of a post conversion experience as well through their doctrine of Spirit baptism; therefore, on the surface one might conclude a direct parallel exists between the two.

Yet, when one closely analyzes the statements Wesley makes concerning Spirit baptism, his theology seems to differ considerably from the classical Pentecostal understanding. How is it, then, that he continues to be viewed by many as the spiritual grandfather of a movement with which he would disagree on their key distinctive? This article will discuss the link between John Wesley’s theology of Spirit baptism and that of Pentecostalism, demonstrating the former’s understanding to be fundamentally different from the Pentecostal position. It will take note of the dialogue between Wesley and his intended successor, John Fletcher, concerning the doctrine, demonstrating that the latter’s thought actually displays far more commonality with the pioneers of the Pentecostal movement, planting the seeds to help their distinctive position develop over a century later. Given that the Pentecostal position bears more similarity to Fletcher’s view than Wesley’s, and that Pentecostalism has emerged in many church traditions and regions of the globe far removed from his influence, perhaps his influence is not quite as responsible for the rise of Pentecostalism as many believe.

2 Tongues of Fire: the Traditional Pentecostal Position

In order to assess Wesley’s understanding of Spirit baptism through a Pentecostal lens, it is vital to clarify how Pentecostals themselves have historically understood their hallmark distinctive.10 Horton and Menzies charge that Spirit baptism is ‘not primarily for the development of holiness in the individual … (but) empowering for service’.11 It is a post-conversion experience that empowers the believer to witness for Christ; while sanctification should result, the primary purpose of the baptism is ‘preparing for service’ in the Kingdom of God.12 Not only is this experience subsequent to and separate from salvation but is also regularly accompanied by speaking in other tongues. The constitution of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada states:

The baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience in which believers yield control of themselves to the Holy Spirit…Believers should earnestly seek the baptism in the Holy Spirit according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. The initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth.13

The movement has played host to repeated debates on the particulars of this doctrine, not the least of which concerns the relationship between it and entire sanctification. Given the influence Wesleyan theology exerted on early Pentecostalism, many early adherents who came out of that stream actually viewed Spirit baptism as a third work of grace subsequent to both salvation and entire sanctification.14 Yet, other pioneers of the movement, from a more Reformed-Baptistic background insisted Spirit baptism to be the only subsequent work of God the believer ought to expect.15 Yet, both camps agreed that entire sanctification must not be conflated with Spirit baptism. Despite such divisions, a broad consensus began to emerge concerning Spirit baptism with the formation of major Pentecostal denominations such as the Holiness denomination, the Church of God, as well as non-Wesleyan bodies such as the Assemblies of God, their differences on sanctification remaining to this day.16 Indeed, French Arrington of the former denomination and Stanley Horton, of the latter offer strikingly similar descriptions of the doctrine. Arrington declares, ‘The experience of baptism in the Spirit is distinct from the experience of believers in regeneration, which believers have at the time of conversion… (It) is a supernatural, charismatic empowerment that equips the church to fulfill its mission in the world.17 Two things should be noted. First, compare Arrington’s description to Horton’s claim the baptism entails ‘empowering for service’. Their basic understanding of the baptism, differences on sanctification aside, is clear. Secondly, Arrington, like Horton, mentions the fulfillment of the Church’s mission. Pentecostals typically rely heavily upon their reading of the book of Acts in support of their hallmark distinctive. As Menzies notes, the general consensus, in light of Jesus’s promise in Acts 1.8 that his disciples would be clothed with power, is that Spirit baptism has an essentially missional purpose.18 In his commentary on Acts, Horton expands on this understanding by noting the disciples ‘Were to “receive power” when the Holy Spirit came on them … then their business was to be witnesses to tell what they had seen, heard and experienced’.19

The strong reliance upon Acts as a theological source is also due much of the credit for classical Pentecostalism’s doctrine of initial evidence. Because accounts of Spirit baptism in the book of Acts link this baptism with speaking in other tongues, Pentecostalism has historically done the same, viewing this, as Arrington describes it, ‘as the audible, visible, initial evidence of being filled with the Spirit’.20 With this definition established, it now bears asking how Wesley would respond to this claim were he to interact with contemporary Pentecostalism.

3 The Writings of Wesley

In any discussion of Spirit baptism in historical theology, perhaps the greatest challenge is that, as Chad Owen Brand has noted, ‘there was no conscientious theological reflection on Spirit baptism as such before the nineteenth century’.21 While granting that various theological traditions did give place to discussing the ‘gift of the Spirit’ and differed as to the meaning and timing, a fully developed doctrine of Spirit baptism was left lacking for much of Church history. Thus, perhaps it is not surprising that while Wesley did touch on the matter in his writings, it did not feature as prominently nor was it expounded as systematically as in the work of traditional Pentecostal theologians like Arrington or Horton.

On the one hand, Wesley sometimes makes reference to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost in defending his doctrine of entire sanctification.22 Old Testament passages like Ezek. 36.25 or Deut. 30.6,23 for example, were cited in support of his position – passages that clearly look forward to the outpouring of the Spirit in the New Testament. Moreover, like the pioneers of the Pentecostal movement, the Evangelical Revival of which Wesley was an influential leader, were keen to recover a primitive form of the faith.24 They were not averse to ‘intense religious experience’, including what some may label bizarre phenomena on occasion. Wesley, like the early Pentecostals, spoke of restoring ‘apostolic Christianity’, appealing to the first three centuries of the Church – the pre-Constantian era – as the model by which the body of Christ ought to operate.25 There are instances in Wesley’s journal where he seems to link the coming of his own ‘Day of Pentecost’ with a great work of God in England and Ireland; he claims that after its arrival ‘we did hear of persons sanctified, in London and most other parts of England, and in Dublin and many other parts of Ireland, as frequently as of persons justified’.26

On the other hand, there are also compelling reasons to believe that Wesley would distance himself from the doctrine of subsequence as it is currently articulated in the Pentecostal movement. First, the aforementioned passage from his journal does not link the arrival Pentecost so much with a personal experience of Wesley’s, but rather a move of God within the broader Church which he participated in. Though he sometimes implied a connection between entire sanctification and being filled with the Spirit, in making an explicit statement on their connection Wesley actually cautioned against identifying Christian perfection with receiving the Holy Spirit.27 Receiving the Holy Spirit, he asserted, occurs at conversion, and thus it is ‘not scriptural, and not quite proper’ to describe the experience of being ‘made perfect in love’.28 One can sense the conflicting instincts in Wesley as he encourages his colleagues to pursue and preach entire sanctification as a post-conversion experience yet cautions it must not be confused with receiving the Spirit; that, he claimed, occurs when one is justified.29 In a 1786 sermon, published in The Arminian Magazine, Wesley makes a telling statement about his view in commenting on the Eph. 4.5 passage declaring ‘there is one baptism’. Here he notes that:

Some, indeed, have been inclined to interpret this in a figurative sense, as if it referred to that baptism of the Holy Ghost which the apostles received at the day of Pentecost, and which, in a lower degree, is given to all believers. But it is a stated rule in interpreting Scripture, never to depart from the plain, literal sense unless it implies an absurdity. And beside, if we thus understood it, it would be a needless repetition, as being included in, ‘There is one Spirit’.30

What exactly Wesley means by a ‘lower degree’ is debatable. Perhaps he simply means that the Day of Pentecost was an unrepeatable event in salvation history. Perhaps he means that there is yet more of the power of God to be sought beyond that which believers receive at conversion. Nevertheless, what is clear is Wesley’s view that all believers possess the Spirit, at least in some sense, in the same way as the apostles received in Acts 2. This contrasts with the Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence, which by its very nature assumes that one must be a believer prior to receiving the baptism. Thus, as Donald Dayton points out, it seems that Wesley rejected the notion of a ‘baptism of the Spirit’ in the sense Pentecostals would articulate it.31

Moreover, unlike the pneumatological emphasis typically placed on this experience, his doctrine of entire sanctification was largely developed along Christological lines; the ‘crisis experience’ of entire sanctification was the culmination of gradually being conformed into the image of Jesus.32 This experience – contrary to the Pentecostal baptism’s emphasis on missions and evangelism – is intended to cleanse the Christian from sin and provide an inward assurance one is a child of God.33 While classical Pentecostals would generally draw a distinction between a believer in general and a ‘Spirit-filled’ Christian who has received the baptism, Wesley resisted using such language when describing those who had received entire sanctification. Larry Wood’s summarizes Wesley’s view by explaining:

Pentecost was in one sense an unrepeatable event in salvation history…. all believers as members of the body of Christ are justified, converted, sanctified, and ‘filled with the Spirit’ in the positional sense of being ‘in Christ’. Yet, in another sense, the fullness of the Spirit may not be actualized in all believers. It is one thing to be ‘in Christ’, but it is another thing for ‘Christ to be formed in us’ in the actual sense that we fully appropriate His righteousness.34

Common ground could be found with Pentecostalism if this is taken to mean that, while all believers possess the Spirit in that they are united with Christ, not all are filled with his full power. However, the position that all the justified are filled with the Spirit would mark a difference with the Pentecostal view. Perhaps the tension in Wesley’s own view helps explain this paradox; though Wesley did not ascribe to the Pentecostal doctrines of subsequence or initial evidence, his theology of entire sanctification – a second work of grace – has inevitably drawn comparisons with the Pentecostal baptism due to surface level commonalities.

4 The Thought of John Fletcher: the Seeds of Pentecostalism?

The question, then, is if Wesley himself did not help lay the foundation of what would grow into the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism, who is responsible? In the early days of the Methodist movement, there is perhaps no individual who could be credited with this to the extent of John Fletcher.35 A Swiss born, evangelical minister in the Anglican Church who lived from 1729–1785, he was both a dedicated pastor an astute theologian who worked closely alongside Wesley – who viewed the younger Fletcher as a potential successor to lead the Methodist movement.36 As it happened, Fletcher eventually passed away before Wesley, and thus never did succeed him;37 however, his influence upon early Methodism is striking, including in those areas where he and Wesley did not quite see eye to eye. While Wesley, for example, focused on Christian perfection as the culmination of a life of holiness, a number of his followers came to understand this crisis experience as something available to every Christian – not necessarily the result of a lifetime of holiness. Not only so, but some, such as Fletcher, began to distinguish between those believers who had been regenerated by the Spirit and those who had been filled with his power.38 Dayton, in his 1980 article exploring the origins of the Pentecostal movement,39 quotes one of Fletcher’s statements demonstrating his difference with Wesley; he explains that ‘I would distinguish more exactly between the believers baptized with the Pentecostal power of the Holy Ghost, and the believer who, like the Apostles after our Lord’s ascension, is not yet filled with that power’.40 One might offer a number of explanations for Fletcher’s attempt to make such a distinction, for example his disdain of Hyper-Calvinism, which downplayed the idea of salvation as a process.41 On the question of soteriology, certainly he and Wesley would agree.

Yet, the tendency to identify the second work of grace in a Christian’s life as synonymous with Spirit baptism is foreign to Wesley himself;42 while some classical Pentecostals have noted that their distinctive likely would not have emerged without his notion of entire sanctification, it seems this second work must be radically reimagined to get from Wesley to Pentecostalism.43 Fletcher’s innovative doctrine of dispensations also may be due credit for the development of his theology of Spirit baptism. In his context, the notion of dispensations must not be confused with the later system proposed by John Nelson Darby nor the premillennial eschatology adopted in much of classical Pentecostalism. Rather, the dispensations refer to a theology of history that climaxed in the universal atonement of Christ; for Fletcher, ‘all of history is Christocentric’,44 and every period of history before and after Jesus’ atonement ultimately find their meaning in him. Each member of the Trinity was active in salvation at all points in history, and Fletcher viewed traditional Covenant Theology as insufficient as far as highlighting the work of the Father and Spirit along with the Son in accomplishing it.45 This pattern of distinction in his theology had far reaching consequences which extended to his pneumatology. Between the ideas of viewing history in distinct periods that all pointed to the atonement of Christ in some way, combined with a desire to highlight the work of all three members of the Trinity in salvation, Fletcher came to hold ‘an inextricable connection or unequivocal link between the doctrines of the baptism of the Spirit and entire sanctification’.46 Though some argue that Fletcher convinced Wesley himself to adopt this view, his aversion to conflating them suggest otherwise.47

While Fletcher was no traditional Pentecostal, it seems he, and not Wesley himself, deserves more credit for setting the stage for the movement. One can spot the seeds of ‘subsequence’ in his writings; he, unlike Wesley, was convinced regenerate individual have not yet received ‘in the proper sense the Holy Spirit’.48 Such statements, which carry even more force than those of many Pentecostals, suggest that he, more so that his elder, may be the true spiritual grandfather of the movement – at least those segments of it with a firm tie to Wesleyanism. Yet, it must be remembered that for all of Fletcher’s apparent sympathy for the doctrine of subsequence, one searches in vain for anything resembling the doctrine of initial evidence as expressed in classical Pentecostalism.49 For this, one must look beyond the era of Wesley and Fletcher into the later Holiness movement, the time period during which such ideas began to take shape.

5 Wesley or Wesleyan?: the Holiness Movement and Spirit Baptism

Before proceeding, a distinction should be made between Wesley the man and Wesleyanism as a movement – particularly the Holiness stream that served as the forerunner to Pentecostalism. While there is little doubt as to the influence the former exerted on the latter, in light of Wesley’s own understanding of Spirit baptism it may be worthwhile to explore where the Holiness stream within the Wesleyan tradition differed with its founder.

One of the most notable ways is on the point of entire sanctification; Wesley held that Christian perfection was intended to cleanse the believer of original sin, offer them assurance of salvation, and ‘consecrate their lives to God’.50 Though Wesley would not deny the experience should result in a more effective witness, his writings do not indicate the primary purpose of Christian perfection to be missional. Many in the Holiness tradition, however, took the position that this second work of grace ought to evoke a passion for evangelism.51 It is no surprise that the Holiness stream would have differed somewhat with traditional Methodism on this doctrine; indeed, the driving force behind the Holiness movement’s 19th century emergence was a sense many Methodist churches were losing the passion for which they were known in Wesley’s era. Though the denomination was growing rapidly in the Americas, by the early to mid-1800’s a marked decline in preaching and testimonies focusing on holiness and entire sanctification led many Methodists to conclude a reemphasis on the power of experience, a personal testimony to an encounter with God, was long overdue.52 One of the most logical doctrines to emphasize, then, was the second work of grace. While some revivalists like Charles Finney reimagined the doctrine of perfection to entail social action as an essential outcome,53 some Holiness preachers went even further, associating the experience with such manifestations as speaking in tongues, prophetic utterances, visions, and miracles.54 Here for the first time in Wesleyan-Holiness history, then, is an understanding of entire sanctification that very closely resembles the Pentecostal notion of Spirit baptism. Phoebe Palmer, another influential leader in the Holiness movement, claimed a believer could experience this blessing simply by coming to the altar and asking God for the experience.55 Not only did this eliminate the notion, precious to Wesley, that Christian perfection was the result of a gradual process of growing in Christlikeness,56 but it also depicted this second work of grace as more pneumatological than Christological in many ways.

While both Wesley and Fletcher associated the second work of grace with growth in Christlikeness, under the influence of individuals such as Finney and Palmer many Holiness adherents began to adopt more Spirit-oriented terminology to describe this crisis experience. In an 1845 edition of the Oberlin Quarterly – a faculty publication of the influential Ohio college of the same name – two articles were published by John Morgan which many believe to be the first usage of the term ‘baptism in the Holy Ghost’ in an American context.57 In them he declared that the ‘Pentecostal fullness’, as detailed in the book of Acts, ‘was not to be confined to the Primitive Church; but is the common privilege of all believers’. What is even more striking that his use of Pentecostal terminology, however, is that the notion of sanctification is almost omitted altogether, giving way to an emphasis on endowment with the power of God.58 With the exception of initial evidence, it is quite clear that all the necessary elements that would form the core of Pentecostal theology were emerging rapidly in Holiness circles. Moreover, like the Pentecostals to follow them, Holiness adherents railed against the increasing worldliness of their society; jewelry, expensive clothing, and even doctor’s visits were derided as sinful.59 While the Holiness stream, doubtless in part due to such extremism, began to fade toward the end of the 19th century, not all adherents were content to form established denominations as their Methodist predecessors. Many, hungry for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit, continued to seek the second blessing they believed the Scriptures promised, albeit with a radically different understanding of what that meant than Wesley, Fletcher, or even many of early leaders of the Holiness movement itself. At the turn of the century, the stage was set for the emergence of a new movement that, on the back of its key distinctive, would forever alter the nature of Global Christianity.

One final point must be made before proceeding. It is worth noting that the Holiness movement did not just lay the foundations for the emergence of Pentecostalism in terms of Spirit baptism, but also in challenging racial barriers. This is certainly not to say either were free of racial prejudice. Charles Parham, for example, one of the most influential players in the movement’s infancy, expressed viciously racist views.60 On a more subtle front, many white Pentecostals tended to read Christ’s proclamations that he would free the captive and bring good news to the poor in a strictly spiritual sense. Their African American brethren – such as William Seymour – took them to literally mean that the church of Christ must actively minster to ‘The poor, those incarcerated in the city’s jail, those without physical sight or with other physical needs’, showing a much deeper concern for social justice.61 It is perhaps not too surprising, then, that when classical Pentecostal denominations were formed, they largely tended to do so along racial lines.62 That said, it is no coincidence that the forerunner to Pentecostalism – a movement which shocked observers due to mixed race services and leaders like Seymour – emerged from a tradition that vehemently argued biblical Christianity was incompatible with the institution of slavery.63 Whether one concurs with the distinctives of either movement on Spirit baptism or sanctification, surely this legacy is something for the church to celebrate with great joy.64

6 The Birth of Pentecostalism

As noted, by the time of the late nineteenth century, the increasing drift of mainstream Methodism from its original emphases on entire sanctification and personal holiness, coupled with the growing fanaticism and fragmentation of much of the Holiness movement left many believers who longed for the second work of grace they had long been taught about looking for a new theological home. Moreover, the increasingly Pentecostal language utilized by many writers within the Holiness camp near the turn of the century lead some to look to Pentecost itself as the model the second work of grace, that which believers should seek after. About this time, testimonies from various voices within the Wesleyan-Holiness wing of the church began to emerge claiming they had received the second work of grace detailed in the book of Acts – the baptism of the Holy Spirit – and, in doing so, had spoken in other tongues. Two of the earliest, itinerant evangelist Maria Woodworth-Etter and Methodist preacher David Myland, both reported such experiences in their meetings around the year 1890, well before the beginning of the Azusa Street revival.65 Benjamin Hardin Irwin, also a product of the Holiness movement, promoted the Acts 2 baptism as a third blessing, subsequent to salvation and sanctification, demonstrating the diversity that encapsulated this renewed discussion around Spirit baptism.

It would be difficult to pinpoint the exact moment at which Pentecostalism as such actually came into existence; as Aimee Semple McPherson, an influential leader in the Foursquare denomination once claimed, in its infancy Pentecostalism could be rightly depicted as ‘A pot of stew boiling away over the cook fire of the Spirit … there was not another movement on earth made up of such a varied assortment of teachings, creeds and organizations’.66 Yet, if one were forced to pinpoint a time and place which could be considered the birth of the movement, surely the evening of December 31, 1900 at Charles Parham’s Topeka, Kansas Bible school would have to be a prime candidate. Parham, a former Methodist minister with no formal theological education, became convinced that speaking in other tongues was not only a possible sign, but the key sign that God had baptized an individual in the Holy Spirit.67 On this evening, Parham and his students reported that Agnes Ozman – herself a student at the college – had received the baptism of the Spirit and spoken in other tongues, which, in Parham’s understanding, meant the supernatural ability to converse in a foreign language.68 While Pentecostalism would, in time, jettison this understanding of tongues, in short order Parham and a number of other students began to have similar experiences to Ozman, convincing many of them that God, once more, was pouring out his Spirit for one last revival prior to the end of the age. This outbreak, coupled with the dramatic Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906, placed Pentecostalism on the map theologically, attracting – among others – former Wesleyan and Holiness Christians who were naturally inclined to the second work of grace teaching that lay at the very core of early Pentecostalism. As Donald Jacobsen describes those who came to discover this new revival:

They came to the Azusa Street Mission as scattered individuals seeking God’s power, but | they usually left as members of a self-conscious community of Pentecostal believers and co-workers. In essence, the Pentecostal movement was born at the Los Angeles revival. Before the Azusa meetings, Pentecostalism had been a small regional religious phenomenon limited mostly to the Midwest. At Azusa, Pentecostalism became a national and global movement of faith. The Azusa revival was a complex affair. It was not a planned event; it was a surprising eruption of spiritual energy and ferment.69

Taking all this into account, it seems fair to ask the question: do the theological presuppositions that created this type of atmosphere wherein Pentecostalism was allowed to thrive stem from Wesley’s thought itself, or from the thought of his followers? On the one hand, a case could certainly be made that Wesley did, whether inadvertently or not, sow the seeds for Pentecostalism’s emergence; without his doctrine of Christian perfection, it is hard to imagine John Fletcher, Phoebe Palmer, or even Charles Parham with all his penchant for doctrinal novelty and disdain for tradition, would have come to the conclusion that they did. On the other hand, there is no shortage of material penned by the pioneers of the Pentecostal movement with which Wesley would strongly disagree. Not only would Wesley, with his deep respect for Orthodoxy and ecumenicity, recoil at Parham’s cavalier attitude toward the great creeds of the early Church, but Pentecostalism’s notion of initial evidence and even subsequence are a far cry from what Wesley had in mind when he expressed his own doctrine of Christian perfection.

7 Conclusion: Bridging the Gap

The question remains of how Wesley would likely interact with the Pentecostals were they his contemporaries, given his convictions concerning the baptism and gifts of the Spirit.70 It must be recognized that he would likely view as error both the doctrine of initial evidence – after all, Wesley never spoke in tongues himself – and the notion of subsequence, as articulated by classical Pentecostals. Again, as previously discussed, one only need take into consideration his assertion that it is neither scriptural nor proper to speak of receiving the Spirit as a second work of grace to see the chasm between himself and Pentecostalism.71 Indeed, he would likely offer a gracious word of concern to adherents of the movement in the same way he did so to those in his own day who tended to conflate entire sanctification with Spirit baptism. While would not be classified as a Pentecostal himself, the posture taken in his own writings gives one reason to believe he would be a charitable ally to the movement despite certain differences.

That said, as far as tracing a line from Wesley to Spirit baptism, given his own statements, perhaps it would be more accurate to trace the beginnings of Pentecostalism from Wesleyanism – and from some of its early figures who sat under John Wesley’s teaching – rather than Wesley himself. If one were to trace a line from Wesley’s era to the beginnings of the Pentecostal movement, it seems that his intended successor John Fletcher and the Holiness stream that followed after him deserves more of the credit for its emergence than Wesley as an individual.

In concerning how this might impact Pentecostal theological reflection moving forward, several proposals may be put forward. First, though Wesley should not be unequivocally cited as the forerunner of Pentecostalism’s doctrine of Spirit baptism, his sustained attention to the work of the Holy Spirit more broadly makes him a capable dialogue partner on other matters. The atonement, in Wesley’s view, ‘is always presupposed, always the foundation, always the spring of all God’s grace, all actualized by the power of the Holy Spirit’, for instance.72 Moreover, his theology of the Lord’s Supper, ‘presents is a dynamic drama of worship in which both the believer and the Holy Spirit are actively involved’, a position that would seem to be a natural fit within a pneumatologically driven movement like Pentecostalism.73 Finally, Wesley’s ecumenical outlook provides a model for Pentecostals to learn from as they grow and mature as a distinct theological tradition and – inevitably – are forced to come to terms with stark theological diversity even within their own ranks. Certainly, for a forward-looking movement that is, paradoxically, always aiming for a return to the ancient faith, learning from one of the great giants of Christian history on these and other points would seem a wise and logical endeavor.

A second is that, given he may be more accurately identified as the spiritual grandfather of the Pentecostal movement as far as Spirit baptism is concerned, perhaps Pentecostal scholarship ought to more extensively engage the theology of John Fletcher. If his pneumatology displays such striking similarity with the movement on this point, it bears asking what other areas of his thought might be further mined to enrich contemporary Pentecostal theology. While some within the Wesleyan tradition, such as Larry Wood, have engaged Fletcher’s theology at length, particularly in dialogue with Wesley’s own thought, there is great potential for further research on Fletcher from a specifically Pentecostal vantage point.74

Finally, given the ever-increasing expansion of Pentecostalism on a global scale – and the theological diversity that has ensued as a result – perhaps trying to identify any single figure or movement as the preeminent precursor to the movement is in itself an error. While Fletcher does indeed appear to be more responsible for planting the seeds of North American Pentecostalism than Wesley himself, that does not account for its 19th century emergence in pockets of the globe void of exposure to his influence, or its rise in historically Reformed circles. While some historical figures and movements – like Fletcher and the Holiness tradition that followed him – may certainly claim more credit than others for the emergence of Pentecostalism, to view the movement as an offshoot of any one branch of Christendom or any one theologian may well be a serious oversimplification in any case.

1

Stanley Horton, ‘Response by Stanley M. Horton’, in Ralph Del Colle and Chad Brand (eds.), Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004), p. 237.

2

Horton, ‘Response by Stanley M. Horton’, p. 237.

3

Laurence W. Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism: Rediscovering John Fletcher as Wesley’s Vindicator and Designated Successor (Pietist and Wesleyan Studies 15; Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2002), pp. 146–47.

4

Allan Anderson, ‘The Origins of Pentecostalism and Its Global Spread in the Early Twentieth Century’, Transformation 22.3 (2005), p. 181.

5

Anderson, ‘The Origins of Pentecostalism’, p. 182.

6

William W. Menzies, ‘The Reformed Roots of Pentecostalism’, PentecoStudies 6.2 (2007), p. pp. 96.

7

See Laurence W. Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism: Rediscovering John Fletcher As Wesley’s Vindicator and Designated Successor (Pietist and Wesleyan Studies 15; Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2002), pp. 166–67. In Wood’s 9th chapter entitled ‘The Pentecostal Wesley and His Later Sermons’, he cites one of Wesley’s sermons on Acts 2.39 as evidence that he believed ‘that Pentecost should be personalized for everyone today’. Yet, the question this article seeks to address is whether Wesley understood ‘Pentecost’ in a comparable way to the classical Pentecostal movement.

8

J. Kenneth Grider, Entire Sanctification: The Distinctive Doctrine of Wesleyanism (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1980).

9

It has been noted by a number of observers that that ‘second work of grace’ language is much more typical of the later Holiness Movement than of John Wesley himself. Nevertheless, the substance of their doctrine finds its roots in Wesley’s view of entire sanctification.

10

It is, of course, impossible to speak of one single Pentecostal pneumatology that encompasses all who claim the label worldwide. Of particular interest to this article are classical Pentecostal denominations within North America and individuals such as Stanley Horton and French Arrington whose theological reflection helped shape them, given that their generation of Pentecostal scholars would have articulated an earlier Pentecostal pneumatology more directly influenced by their Baptistic and Wesleyan forebearers. Indeed, George O. Wood, former General Superintendent of the AoG, asserts that ‘Few people in the Assemblies of God exemplify its founding ideals better than Dr. Stanley M. Horton. A child of the Azusa Street Mission and revival, he went on to become a bridge linking Pentecostalism’s past to its present’ (See George O. Wood, Foreword, in Lois E. Olena and Raymond L Gannon, Stanley M. Horton: Shaper of Pentecostal Theology (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 2009)). The pneumatology articulated in traditional Pentecostal denominations, then, and not necessarily that of the many variations of Pentecostal-Charismatic theology today, is in focus here.

11

William W. Menzies and Stanley M Horton, Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective (Logion Press, 2015), p. 123.

12

Menzies and Horton, Bible Doctrines, p. 124.

13

Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, Statement of Fundamental & Essential Truths: Article V of the General Constitution, By-Laws and Essential Resolutions Adopted by General Conference, 1988 (Mississauga, ON: Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, 1988), p. 7.

14

Douglas G. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal movement (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), p. 17.

15

Menzies, ‘The Reformed Roots’, pp. 86–87.

16

Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, pp. 134–35.

17

French L. Arrington, The Spirit-Anointed Church: A Study of the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 2008), p. 57.

18

Menzies, ‘The Reformed Roots’, p. 79.

19

Stanley M. Horton, Acts: A Logion Press Commentary (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2001), Kindle edition, Ch. 1.

20

Arrington, The Spirit-Anointed Church, p. 187.

21

Ralph Del Colle and Chad Brand (eds.), Perspectives on Spirit baptism: Five Views (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004), p. 9.

22

Laurence W. Wood, ‘Guest Editorial: Baptism with the Spirit: John Wesley’s Caution’, The Asbury Journal 33.2 (1978), p. pp. 3–4. ‘It is true, however’, Wood argues, ‘that Wesley did not make systematic use of Pentecostal terminology in defining his doctrine of holiness. It is also true that Wesley discouraged the identification of “receiving the Spirit” with Christian perfection on the grounds that it might confuse some into thinking that believers at conversion do not have the Spirit.’

23

See John Wesley, Frank Whaling, and Charles Wesley, John and Charles Wesley: Selected Prayers, Hymns, Journal Notes, Sermons, Letters and Treatises (The Classics of Western Spirituality; New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 321. In his defence of the doctrine of Christian perfection, Wesley cites these passages to support the assertion God will save his people from all their sin – meaning not just that he will forgive them but cleanse them such that they love him with all their heart and soul.

24

Donald W. Dayton, ‘Theological Roots of Pentecostalism’, Pneuma 2.1 (1980), p. 7.

25

Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Studies in Evangelicalism 5; Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1987), p. 41.

26

John Wesley, The Journal of John Wesley (ed. Christopher Idle; Tring: Lion, 1986), p. 107.

27

Wood, ‘Guest Editorial’, p. 3.

28

William M. Arnett, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit in Entire Sanctification in the Writings of John Wesley’, The Asbury Journal 29.2 (1974), p. 8. Wesley’s quote here will further explained, with special attention to the particular context, at a later point.

29

John Wesley, The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley (ed. John Telford (London: Epworth Press, 1931), iii, p. 9.

30

John Wesley and Albert Outler, John Wesley (Library of Protestant Thought; New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 311. Though Larry Wood charges that, through the influence of Fletcher, ‘Wesley, during the last twenty years of his life, highlighted Pentecost in a more distinct way than his earlier sermons did’ (See Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost, p. 8), which affirm the baptism of the Spirit is ‘given to all believers’ would be quite difficult to reconcile with the Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence. It seems possible to recognize this development in Wesley from his early writings to his later sermons, due in large part to Fletcher’s influence, yet still dispute the notion that Wesley would have embraced this later Pentecostal distinctive.

31

Dayton, ‘Theological Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 7. ‘Wesley’, Dayton argues, ‘advocated a doctrine of “Christian Perfection” but steadfastly resisted any doctrine of a “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Wesley did, however, move toward an explication of “entire sanctification” in terms of a second crisis, but this crisis was for Wesley firmly embedded in a process of gradual sanctification … (yet) although Wesley firmly resisted the development, his formulation of the doctrine of Christian Perfection was susceptible to translation into “Pentecostal Language”.’ This explanation from Dayton may help explain why Fletcher was able to develop Wesley’s theology into something more similar to what would become classical Pentecostalism, despite the fact this was not the former’s intention.

32

Dayton, ‘Theological Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 7.

33

Arnett, ‘The Role’, pp. 9–10.

34

Wood, ‘Guest Editorial’, p. 4.

35

See Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost, xv, as he notes, ‘If the Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions find the language of “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” at the heart of their theology, it will be seen in this study that they have John Fletcher primarily to thank for the rediscovery of the centrality of Pentecost through suggestions which he derived from Wesley’s Standard Sermons’.

36

J. Russell Frazier, True Christianity: The Doctrine of Dispensation in the Thought of John William Fletcher (1729–1785) (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2014), p. xi.

37

H. Ray Dunning, ‘A Wesleyan Perspective on Spirit Baptism’, in Ralph Del Colle and Chad Brand (eds.), Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004), p. 195.

38

Allan Thomas Loder, An Examination of the classical Pentecostal Doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in Light of the Pentecostal Position on the Sources of Theology (PhD diss., 2000. National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque Nationale Du Canada, 2000), p. 27.

39

Dayton would later publish a monograph by that same name (See Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism [Studies in Evangelicalism 5; Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1987]).

40

Dayton, ‘Theological Roots of Pentecostalism’, pp. 7–8. Dayton argues that, ‘Such a formulation is already well on the way to the basic thought patterns of Pentecostalism’, noting that ‘Wesley objected to this formulation because it tended to speak of entire sanctification as “receiving the Holy Ghost”’.

41

Frazier, True Christianity, p. xii.

42

Fletcher seems to acknowledge as much in his 1778 Original Letter to Miss Bosaiquet, republished in Luke Tyerman, Wesley’s Designated Successor: The Life, Letters, and Literary Labours of the Rev. John William Fletcher (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1882), p. 411. It was in this letter that he highlighted his differences with Wesley, even while noting their common ground on the doctrine of entire sanctification, by explaining, ‘You will find my views of this matter in Mr. Wesley’s sermons on Christian Perfection and on Spiritual Christianity; with this difference, that I would distinguish more exactly between the believers baptized with the Pentecostal power of the Holy Ghost, and the believer who, like the Apostles after our Lord’s ascension, is not yet filled with that power’. Therefore, as with the disagreement at Trevecca College, it seems that while Fletcher did indeed desire to uphold Wesley’s teaching on Christian perfection, it was important to him that the experience be explicitly linked with a Pentecostal experience, the baptism of the Holy Spirit – an understanding that, as previously noted, Wesley not only disagreed with but flatly labelled ‘not scriptural’ and ‘not proper’.

43

Loder, An Examination, pp. 27–28.

44

Frazier, True Christianity, pp. 58–59.

45

Frazier, True Christianity, pp. 60–61.

46

Frazier, True Christianity, p. 163.

47

It is well worth noting that the letter in which Wesley declared that it was ‘not scriptural, and not quite proper’ to speak of believers receiving the Spirit at a point subsequent to their justification was penned to Joseph Benson (See Arnett, ‘The Role’, p. 8), who shared deep sympathy with John Fletcher on the doctrine of Spirit baptism. Laurence Wood notes that Benson and Fletcher both parted ways with the Methodist Trevecca College – the latter having resigned and the former dismissed from his position – in no small part due to their emphasis on Spirit baptism as synonymous with Christian perfection (See Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost, p. 21). Fletcher went so far as to inform Wesley himself that his resignation from the college was precisely because he could not ‘defend the doctrine of Christian perfection in terms of this Pentecostal theme’. Thus, it seems clear that while Wesley himself did not see entire sanctification and Spirit baptism as synonymous, Fletcher and Benson did so vehemently – to the point of sacrificing their teaching roles over the matter.

48

Frazier, True Christianity, p. 164.

49

His massive volume, The Whole Works of the Rev. John Fletcher (London: Thomas Tegg & Son, 1836), for example, containing virtually his entire life’s work and doctrine, makes no reference to such signs – whether in relation to Spirit baptism or otherwise. This is despite repeated references to entire sanctification, baptism with the Holy Spirit, and the significance of Pentecost.

50

Donald A.D. Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice (Nashville: Abingdon, 2013), Kindle edition, Ch. 6.

51

Iain MacRobert, ‘The Roots of Pentecostalism: The American Holiness movement’, in The Black Roots and White Racism of Early Pentecostalism in the USA (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1988), pp. 37.

52

Melvin Easterday Dieter, The 19th-Century Holiness movement (Great Holiness Classics 4; Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1998), pp. 115.

53

MacRobert, ‘The Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 37.

54

MacRobert, ‘The Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 37.

55

Dayton, ‘Theological Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 9.

56

So committed was Palmer to imagining the doctrine more so as a crisis experience than a gradual process that she authored an entire book documenting her ‘shorter way’ to holiness entitled The Way of Holiness: With Notes by the Way; Being a Narrative of Religious Experience Resulting from a Determination to Be a Bible Christian (New York: G. Lane & C.B. Tippett, 1845). Her three steps can be summarized as faith, consecration/devotion, and testimony, and her conception of Christian perfection displays considerably less similarity with Wesley’s than Fletcher’s or Benson’s.

57

Dayton, ‘Theological Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 10.

58

Dayton, ‘Theological Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 10.

59

MacRobert, ‘The Roots of Pentecostalism’, pp. 40–41.

60

See Allan Anderson, ‘The Dubious Legacy of Charles Parham: Racism and Cultural Insensitivities among Pentecostals’, Pneuma 27.1 (Spring 2005), p. 52–53. Anderson notes that Parham openly ‘proclaimed the spiritual and racial superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon race’ and shockingly ‘believed that only those physically descended from Abraham (whom he identifies as the Aryan race) could belong to the Bride of Christ’.

61

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), pp. 13–14.

62

Robeck, Jr., The Azusa Street Mission, p. 318.

63

MacRobert, ‘The Roots of Pentecostalism’, p. 38.

64

Recall the earlier note highlighting that some Holiness Christians came to see the doctrine of Christian perfection as a catalyst for social reform, as noted by Timothy Smith in his work Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1976) which explores the social impact of mid 19th century revivalist Christianity in the United States.

65

Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, p. 16.

66

Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, pp. 17–18.

67

Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, p. 25.

68

See Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, p. 25. Despite his Methodist roots, Jacobsen notes that ‘By this point, Parham had moved to the very edge of the holiness movement and even beyond it … He believed that all Christians should experience a special baptism of the Holy Ghost. He was sure that a new wave of world evangelism was about to commence, and he believed that at least some people were being specially gifted by God with the miraculous ability to speak foreign languages without training to help them in that task’. Note here the focus shifts to world evangelization exclusively – not personal holiness or perfect love.

69

Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, p. 57.

70

Dojcin Zivadinovic, ‘Wesley and Charisma: An Analysis of John Wesley’s View of Spiritual Gifts’, Andrews University Seminary Student Journal 1.2 (2015), p. 6.

71

Arnett, ‘The Role’, p. 8.

72

Ole E. Borgen, ‘No End Without the Means: John Wesley and the Sacraments’, The Asbury Journal 46.1 (1991), p. 64.

73

Borgen, ‘No End Without the Means’, p. 68. See also Gordon T. Smith, Evangelical, Sacramental, & Pentecostal: Why the Church Should Be All Three (Downers Grove, IL: ivp Academic, 2017), 49. In Smith’s view, ‘Wesley was actually more sacramental that most of his followers … While a case can certainly be made that Wesley prioritizes the interior experience, we are not truly Wesleyan until and unless we recognize the significance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper in his vision of the church and of the spiritual life.’ Perhaps, then, Wesley might prove a key conversation partner for those who wish to develop a robust sacramental theology that is distinctly Pentecostal.

74

See Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost, xiii, as the author notes at the time of his writing, ‘Only a few doctoral dissertations and published works have appeared in recent years on the life of John Fletcher’.

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 519 0 0
Full Text Views 933 380 18
PDF Views & Downloads 1638 499 41