William Menzies’ lecture on the Christian and Missionary Alliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Menzies called the C&MA a “denomination,” when, in fact, at the time of the forming of the Assemblies of God, it was an interdenominational para-church movement, and it did not become a formal denomination until more than half a century later. He also claims A.B. Simpson “certainly diverged from his Calvinist roots.” However, although Simpson was not a five-point Calvinist, neither was he an Arminian. Simpson was heavily influenced by Scotch Reformed Covenant theology, and while ecumenical and conciliatory toward Arminians, still maintained Calvinist roots. Menzies further concludes, “There is nothing unusual about Simpson’s eschatology,” viewing it as consistent with Scofield’s dispensationalism. However, he seems not to be aware that Simpson, along with many evangelicals and Pentecostals of the time (such as J. Hudson Taylor and the Pentecostal Stone Church in Chicago) personally (though not the C&MA) held to a type of partial rapturism, the belief that some are raptured earlier, others later, depending on state of preparedness. Menzies observes that the correspondence between the C&MA and Assemblies of God are so close that the AG Statement of Fundamental Truths almost mirrors that of the C&MA with the exception of evidential tongues (p. 238). While a close correspondence does indeed exist, other significant differences can be seen as well between C&MA and AG theology: 1) the C&MA identifies the filling of the Spirit as a sanctifying experience, both crisis and progressive, 2) the C&MA does not take an Arminian position (or Calvinist, for that matter), 3) the C&MA, while premillennial, has always allowed for various views of the tribulation, whereas the AG is distinctly pre-trib. Menzies discusses the former “seek not, forbid not” tongues position of the C&MA, noting that Alliance historian John Sawin remarked it was not the position of Simpson.[2]

Overall, Menzies presents a mostly accurate portrayal of the non-Wesleyan influence of A.B. Simpson and the Christian and Missionary Alliance upon the Assemblies of God, with a few exceptions due to lack of more recent and more detailed and more accurate research. Most of his sources are older, the lectures being presented about 2000. More recent research, such as my own Genuine Gold: The Cautiously Charismatic Story of the Early Christian and Missionary Alliance, would inform, correct, and bring a higher level of accuracy to his portrayal and strengthen his thesis as well.

Reviewed by Paul L. King

Read the full article online at: http://www.apts.edu/aeimages//File/11-2_William_Menzies_4.pdf

Editor’s note: William Menzies went home to be with the Lord on August 15, 2011.