Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
Contending For Tongues: W. W. Simpson’s Pentecostal Experience
in Northwest China
Michael D. Wilson
Associate Professor of History, Department of History and Political Science, Vanguard University of Southern California, 55 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92656
Abstract
The Pentecostal Movement spread over China in the early twentieth century and with it came the usual controversies, as is evident in the life of W.W. Simpson. Simpson experienced Spirit baptism, with glossolalia, in 1907, after 15 years in China. His insistence thereafter that tongues- speaking was the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism cost him dearly and caused a great deal of strife among missionaries and their sponsoring agencies. Nevertheless, even while it spawned conflicts, the Pentecostal Movement seems to have influenced the development of the Chinese Church.
Keywords
A. B. Simpson, W. W. Simpson, speaking in tongues, Pentecostalism, Chinese mission
Introduction
Shortly before he left New York in 1892 to be a missionary in China and Tibet, William Wallace Simpson believed he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and that, as a result, he would receive the gift of speaking in other tongues. For him this meant that he would spontaneously, by the power of the Holy Spirit, be able to speak fluent Chinese. Simpson held fast to the words of Christ in Mark 16:15 — “and these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.”1
1
William Wallace Simpson, Contending For the Faith, unpublished manuscript, Flower Pen- tecostal Heritage Center (Springfield, MO), p. 1. Many early Pentecostals, including Charles
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157007407X237953
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 281NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 281
11/7/07 11:00:57 AM11/7/07 11:00:57 AM
1
282
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
Arriving at the Christian and Missionary Alliance station in Wuhu, on the south bank of the Yangzi in Anhui Province, Simpson declared to the station superintendent that he would not need to undertake the study of Chinese because he was, in his own words, “trusting the Lord to give me the language.” In response, the superintendent made a deal with Simpson: if by noon he could speak Chinese then the new missionary could skip language study; if, on the other hand, Simpson was not so empowered by midday, he would have to acquire the language the old fashioned way. “I prayed the Lord to guide,” Simpson wrote, “and He led me to submit.” Simpson began studying Chinese, and after six months or so, he began leading meetings in Chinese.2
Simpson’s unpublished autobiography begins not with his birth in White County, Tennessee in 1869, nor his surrender to Christ in 1881, not with his attraction to China, nor his training at A. B. Simpson’s New York Missionary Training College (later, Nyack College). Simpson begins his life story with his Holy Spirit experience, which would become for him linked to speaking in tongues. This should not be surprising given the centrality of Spirit baptism in his life — his long and determined search for it, the prominent emphasis he felt he must give to it in his missionary work, and the far-reaching changes to his relationships that came as a result of that emphasis. Simpson came to insist that all believers need baptism in the Spirit, and, further, that speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enables is the initial physical sign of Spirit baptism. His unyielding advocacy of this doctrine would cause considerable contro- versy among the missionaries on the Gansu-Tibetan border where he worked for most of his life, and led to a break between him and the Christian and Missionary Alliance, under whose auspices he had first gone to China. After the break in 1915, Simpson affiliated with the fledgling Assemblies of God. He considered himself to be the AG’s first missionary to China because, as he
Parham and William Seymour, believed that through Spirit baptism foreign languages had been or would be given them to preach the gospel throughout the world. Note, Gary B. McGee, “Shortcut to Language Preparation? Radical Evangelicals, Missions, and the Gift of Tongues,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 25:3 (July 2001): 118-125.
Daniel Bays states that “Nothing seems to have outraged other missionaries more” than the idea that missionaries new to the field could acquire the Chinese language without study. “T is was not only an insult to their long years or decades of struggle with the language, but in their opinion it made the whole mission enterprise look foolish in the eyes of the Chinese. T is claim or expectation of language was a typical and general one among early Pentecostals, as far as I can tell.” “The Protestant Missionary Establishment and the Pentecostal Movement,” in Edith L. Blumhoffer, Russell P. Spittler, and Grant A. Wacker, eds., Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 60.
2
Simpson, “Contending For the Faith,” 1.
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 282PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 282
11/7/07 11:00:57 AM11/7/07 11:00:57 AM
2
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
283
put it, he, his wife and their children “were thoroughly A of G in experience and faith before affiliation in 1915.”3
The case of W. W. Simpson is illustrative of the dilemma many missionaries — indeed, many earnest believers everywhere — found themselves in in the early twentieth century during the emergence and growth of the Pentecostal move- ment. At Topeka, Kansas beginning on January 1, 1901, at Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906, and in other places around the world, people witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, often with extraordinary manifestations, such as shouting, dancing, and glossolalia. And with Spirit baptism came fervency for foreign missions. “Within weeks,” writes Daniel Bays, “Christians trans- formed by the power of the Holy Spirit were heading off to foreign lands.”4 Pentecostals left Azusa for Canada, England, Scandinavia, Germany, Africa, South America, India, and China.5 By 1910 Pentecostal missionaries from North American and Europe were reported in over fifty nations of the world.6
Many believers, such as those affiliated with Holiness congregations, had been praying earnestly for some special sign that would assure them that they had been sanctified. Surely this revival was the work of the Holy Spirit, but why did the work seem to proceed unevenly? Why some regions and not oth- ers? Why some people and not others? And why were manifestations so different, some experiencing a distinctive warming sensation, some falling to bouts of joyous laughter, some speaking in unknown tongues? Tese and sim- ilar questions were difficult to answer for many reasons. The events were unprecedented in the modern age (though Acts chapter 2 provided some guid- ance). T ere was no single leader or point of origin, but rather “multiple, suc- cessive outpourings” of the Spirit.7 It seems almost inevitable, then, that even
3
Wardella F. Plymire, ed., “The AG in China, 1908-1950,” unpublished collection (Springfield, MO: Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center), p. 35.
4
Daniel H. Bays, “The First Pentecostal Missions to China, 1906-1916,” paper presented to the Society for Pentecostal Theology at Wilmore, Kentucky, 1988, 47.
5
Stanley M. Burgess, ed., International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Revised and Expanded edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. xviii.
6
D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal T ought (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 212-216. Quoted in Allan Anderson, “Christian Missionaries and ‘Heathen Natives’: The Cultural Ethics of Early Pente- costal Missionaries,” paper presented at the 10th European Pentecostal/Charismatic Research Association, http://epcra.ch/papers/belgien/anderson.htm.
7
Everett A. Wilson, “T ey Crossed the Red Sea, Didn’t T ey?: Critical History and Pentecos- tal Beginnings,” in Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, eds., The Glo- balization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 1999), p. 91.
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 283PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 283
111/7/07 11:00:57 AM1/7/07 11:00:57 AM
3
284
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
among those open to the work of the Holy Spirit there would be differences of opinion about what was happening.
Within the context of these differences falls the case of W. W. Simpson and his split with his mentor and friend, the founder of the C&MA, Albert Ben- jamin Simpson. Both were sensitive to the work of the Spirit, both sought Spirit baptism and believed they had in fact been filled with the Spirit. But in 1912, W.W. Simpson (no relation to A. B. Simpson) had a profound encoun- ter with the Spirit that included glossolalia, and the experience transformed his view of Spirit baptism. He became an unyielding convert to the doctrine that tongues was the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism. He yearned for all believers to know this same power, even hoping that Christian unity would be accomplished through Spirit baptism with tongues. The obvious implication of his new position was that, without tongues, the Christian experience — even for those who sincerely believed that they had been filled with the Holy Spirit — was incomplete, and therefore inferior. Simpson’s hope that Pentecostalism would unify believers in China would be disappointed.
Simpson’s Spirit Baptism Experience
W. W. Simpson thought he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit before he left the United States for China, but he had not been entirely sure because he had not received a sign, a manifestation of the Spirit in his life. This expectation was based on Mark 16:20: “Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it (NIV).” Initially, the sign he expected was the ability, acquired spontaneously, to speak the Chinese “tongue.” Though that did not happen, Simpson still yearned for some sign to accompany his missionary work as a confirmation that the Spirit was with him. He worked tirelessly among the Chinese and Tibetans from the station he and his partner, William Christie, established in Taochow, Gansu Province, only five miles from Tibet — about as near to that closed land as they could get. By 1908, the C&MA had established five mission sta- tions in Northwest China and counted more than 50 Chinese and Tibetan converts. As he preached the gospel, Simpson habitually taught that all believers can receive the Holy Spirit, using Galatians 3:14 as his scriptural base. He believed in the empowering work of the Holy Spirit, that it was essential to his efforts among the Chinese and Tibetans. But he was
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 284PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 284
11/7/07 11:00:58 AM11/7/07 11:00:58 AM
4
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
285
troubled by the absence of signs from above. “I could not point to a single sign,” he wrote,
which was unmistakably one truly wrought by the Lord working with me, confirming the word with signs following. I was not only disappointed, I was often discouraged, even tempted to give up in despair.8
In January, 1908 — his fifteenth year in China — Simpson received a sign. In Los Angeles, the Azusa Street fires were burning. In Northwest China, eight missionaries and some 40 Chinese and Tibetan converts gath- ered for an annual convention in Minchow, Gansu province. An afternoon meeting of Bible study centered on Romans 6 (dead to sin, alive in Christ) ended with an invitation to the altar for the purpose of dying to sin. Simpson described the events that followed:
All Chinese and missionaries . . . knelt at the altar, many weeping. . . . All were under deep conviction and prayed most earnestly. Soon I noticed the tone of voice of one of our humble Chinese brethren changed.
Simpson saw the man begin to shake violently until he fell prostrate, “as if crucified.” The man began to speak,
but not in any language I could understand. For nearly an hour he lay prostrate speak- ing in a loud voice. I was dumbfounded, pacing the aisle thinking, “Lord, what does this mean?” Suddenly he cried out “ETERNITY IS NIGH” in purest emphatic Eng- lish. I knew him well; had baptized him three years before; and knew it was utterly impossible for him to speak English.9
The Chinese brother, Mr. Yong — the Simpson family cook, described by W.W. Simpson as a poor, illiterate farmer — then struggled to his knees and spoke in the local Chinese dialect, then in the more standard Beijing dialect, then in “most elegant poetry in Chinese classical style” that astounded Confucian scholars who were present. Finally Mr. Yong called the mis- sionaries to him and, in a long prophetic message, told them how to carry on their work, who should lead, and what the results would be.
8
Simpson, “Contending For the Faith,” 1. 9
Ibid., 2.
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 285NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 285
11/7/07 11:00:58 AM11/7/07 11:00:58 AM
5
286
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
Weeks later Simpson began receiving magazines with word of the spread of the Pentecostal movement. In an article, “Cloud of Witnesses to Pentecost in India,” Alfred G. Garr described the work of the Spirit that he and his wife, Lillian, witnessed and experienced first-hand at Azusa Street in 1906, and also their meetings in Calcutta not long thereafter. Simpson also read at this time a piece by Joseph H. King, probably in the Apostolic Evangel, in which King explained Spirit baptism and the doctrinal connection to tongues. Simpson was now seeing signs, and concluded that, contrary to what he had previously believed, he had in fact never been baptized in the Holy Spirit. Now, more than ever he coveted Spirit baptism with the gift of tongues as confirmation. He and his wife, Otilia, and a co-worker began to meet every evening in their sitting room to seek Spirit baptism. He recalled telling A. B. Simpson in a let- ter: “I was no longer a missionary; I was a humble disciple seeking the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”10
And with a new earnestness he taught the “the baptism in the Spirit as at Pentecost.” At this time he expressed his hope that the believers in Gansu “could all be of one accord in seeking [the baptism] as were the 120 in the Upper Room [at Pentecost].”11
But W. W. Simpson’s personal disappointment continued. The Spirit bap- tism the Simpsons and their friend sought did not come. To make matters worse, their fervent seeking aroused consternation among the other missionar- ies, some of whom began to complain to the C&MA Board. When at the annual regional council meeting the invited speaker, a China Inland Mission missionary, denounced the Pentecostal movement, Simpson’s co-workers agreed, increasing the pressure on him. Simpson’s own wife, apparently at the urging of her brother, David P. Ekvall, a fellow C&MA pioneer missionary in China and Tibet, ceased praying with her husband. (She later changed her mind and rejoined the quest for Spirit baptism.) Simpson was heart- broken. Pentecostalism was dividing, not unifying the missionaries in North- west China.
In response to the complaints against Simpson, the C&MA Mission Board in 1910 authorized William Christie, Simpson’s friend and fellow pioneer (they had sailed to China together in 1892) to investigate and attempt to settle the strife. Christie heard the charges against Simpson and Simpson’s defense, and ultimately cleared him of any wrongdoing. However, he told Simpson
10
Ibid., 4. 11
Ibid., 4.
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 286PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 286
11/7/07 11:00:58 AM11/7/07 11:00:58 AM
6
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
287
privately that he believed him wrong to hold that tongues was the evidence, exclusively, of Spirit baptism.12
Meanwhile, Simpson witnessed works of the Spirit among Chinese and Tibetans. Mr. Yong figures prominently in his memoirs. According to Simp- son, Mr. Yong prophesied in 1911 the fall of the Qing government, which in fact did fall in October of the following year during the revolution inspired by Sun Yat-sen. Some months later, Mr. Yong invited Simpson for three days of meetings. Simpson wrote that Mr. Yong was “in the spirit” nearly the whole time, speaking a tongue, interpreting, prophesying.” On the last day he announced that “the Lord is going to give the people of this village a sign to prove His Gospel is true.” He then called on the blind to come forward. A Christian woman who was completely blind in one eye and with only limited vision in the other regained perfect and lasting vision. “As a result of the mir- acle,” he wrote, “many came to faith and later were filled with the Spirit.”13 In May 1912, Simpson invited several of the missionaries, including Wil- liam Christie, to Taochow for a three-day meeting with many of the Chinese Christians. On the last day, while playing the organ, Simpson became over- whelmed with the awareness of his utter depravity and the atoning work of Christ. He fell to the floor and tried to give thanks to the Lord, but “my mouth was so full of laughter I could not utter a word.” The laughter, however, changed to articulate sounds and Simpson heard himself speaking an unknown language. In that moment all of his doubts receded:
I KNEW I WAS FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT JUST AS TRULY AS THE 120 AT PENTECOST, PRAISE THE LORD! How satisfying to be SURE WITH- OUT A DOUBT, no longer hoping or supposing so. What assurance it gives to one’s faith! No more hap-hazard wavering but steadfast, unmovable!14
Simpson’s 12-year-old daughter, Louise, was filled with the Spirit at the same moment, as was William Christie’s son, both of them speaking in tongues. Simpson wrote that Christie declared that what had occurred was genuine baptism in the Spirit, and the next morning asked the gathering to pray for him that he too might receive Spirit baptism. “When we laid hands on him he felt as if fire went through his body. He was filled with joy and laughter, saying, ‘I never expect to be happier even in heaven.’”15
12
Ibid., 8.
13
Ibid., 7.
14
Ibid., 10. Emphasis in original. 15
Ibid.
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 287NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 287
111/7/07 11:00:58 AM1/7/07 11:00:58 AM
7
288
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
The Taochow meetings continued for another two weeks and in that time Simpson’s wife, his other daughter, and his son were baptized in the Spirit, along with some 30 others — men, women, and children. But significantly for Simpson, William Christie did not speak in tongues. T ough he reported that many times afterward when praying he felt the same pure joy that he had known during the Taochow meeting, Christie did not receive the gift of tongues. Simpson believed that if Christie “had only fully yielded he would have spoken a tongue, but there was always just a slight doubt.”16
In the days that followed, Simpson led meetings at and around the C&MA stations in Northwest China and reported that many Chinese converted and received Spirit baptism. But such results did not always occur. Simpson attrib- uted this difficulty to opposition from missionaries not favorable to the Pente- costal teaching. At Liangchow, a China Inland Mission station, for example,
several were deeply convicted of sin and confessed with weeping, but no one received the full baptism as in Acts 2:4. It must have been because the missionaries were opposed and the Lord knew if any spoke in tongues the missionaries would regard it was the work of evil spirits.17
He sometimes found it difficult to preach, and sometimes was prevented by the missionaries from leading meetings.
Simpson included in his regular reports to the C&MA Mission Board in New York word that he and many others had received Spirit baptism and were speaking in tongues, so the board knew that “the work in Gansu had become largely Pentecostal.” The board asked Christie, who was chair of the C&MA executive committee for the region, if now only tongue-speaking missionaries should be sent to Gansu. Polling the missionaries, Simpson and only one other agreed that it would cause division if missionaries opposed to the Pentecostal teaching were sent. But apparently the others disagreed, for Christie told the board that it was not necessary to send Pentecostals exclusively.18
Strife among the missionaries over the tongues controversy continued. At the annual regional council in 1913, when a Pentecostal message was given by a Chinese Christian and some were filled with the Spirit and began to speak in
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., 16.
18
Ibid., 17. In the years following this disagreement, Simpson would continue to insist that he could use only missionaries who were Spirit-filled, the evidence being that they spoke in tongues. For example, in The Pentecostal Evangel , April 14, 1945, 3, he wrote, “I cannot person- ally recognize any worker and use him in my work in China if he has not these credentials.”
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 288PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 288
111/7/07 11:00:58 AM1/7/07 11:00:58 AM
8
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
289
tongues, William Christie interrupted the meeting and denounced tongue speaking. Deeply troubled by this opposition, Simpson prayed and felt the Lord tell him to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), regardless of the consequences. It is noteworthy that Simpson would entitle his autobiography, written many years later, “Contending for the Faith”; the struggle that occupied much of his energy was against his English and American co-workers and for the Pentecostal teaching. And contend he would. At the 1913 council meeting, he used his turn to speak to uphold the Pente- costal message. He likened those who opposed the Pentecostal teaching to the disciples who would not believe that Christ had risen from the dead on the third day: “their unbelief forced the Lord to appear to them and upbraid them for their unbelief.” Simpson closed by declaring his determination “to thus contend for this faith even if thrown out of the C&MA.”19
After the 1913 council meeting, Simpson no longer felt constrained by opposition to Pentecostal teaching but instead “free to do as the Lord wished.”20 When he could he joined with Pentecostal missionaries, the numbers of which were now increasing in China and other parts of the world as independent “faith missionaries” or affiliates of the Pentecostal Missionary Union of Britain and Ireland. At a water baptism service, Simpson explained that “baptism was incomplete until they received the Holy Spirit as in Samaria (Acts 8:14-17).” And although “the Spirit fell on every one in conviction, rejoicing and praising the Lord,” none spoke in tongues. Simpson pressed on. “I said we must con- tinue the meetings until all were filled and spoke in tongues as at Pentecost.” The meetings continued until all received Spirit baptism, “speaking in tongues as the spirit gave utterance.” Simpson’s work was now guided by the principle that Spirit baptism did not occur until the believer spoke in tongues. “I dare not lower that standard,” he wrote.21
Simpson’s Separation from the Christian and Missionary Alliance
The C&MA grew increasingly concerned over the “unhappy condition of affairs in the mission.”22 Simpson believed that his fellow missionaries’ “strong stand against me and my teaching of the scriptural baptism in the
19
Ibid., 18.
20
Ibid., 21.
21
Ibid.
22
A. B. Simpson to R. H. Glover, 13 April 1914. W.W. Simpson Papers, Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center, Springfi eld, MO.
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 289NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 289
11/7/07 11:00:59 AM11/7/07 11:00:59 AM
9
290
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
Spirit” came as a result of influence by William Christie and Dr. Robert H. Glover, a veteran China missionary who chaired the Alliance Central China Mission and became foreign secretary of the C&MA in 1913.23 Glover sent a letter from central China ordering Simpson and his family home on furlough so that a meeting between Simpson and the C&MA Board could take place and differences sorted out. Simpson resisted the call home. He was occupied with important work and had no time to be the object of an official investigation. But Christie gave him no choice, and the Simpson family reluctantly packed and headed for the United States. The Simpsons made it only as far as Wuhan, in central China where they met Glover, who had received new instructions from the C&MA board to settle the matter in China. A. B. Simpson was dismayed that his friend and former student felt persecuted by the C&MA. He wrote that the board had
taken up no case against Mr. Simpson, has not summoned him home for an offi- cial investigation, and has never entertained anything but kindly and fraternal regard toward him and his family. It appears to be simply a question of missionary policy. . . .24
But a large and looming question it was. The C&MA founder wanted to calm Simpson down, but he also believed that the tongues controversy would certainly spread in China and would “only arouse partisanship and bitterness and do great harm to all the interests of the mission and the Alliance movement.” He hoped to contain the growing controversy. Therefore, the C&MA board authorized Glover to conduct his own “investigation on the field.” Glover was instructed to take up the matter in Hankow (one of the three cities that comprise Wuhan), and, if necessary, return with Simpson to Gansu to make “fuller inquiries in the presence of all concerned, and determine the matter in view of all the facts which you will thus be in a favorable position to become directly acquainted with.”
A. B. Simpson hoped for and expected an “amicable adjustment of this matter.” But if Glover deemed it best for Simpson to leave the mission,
the separation should be in a kindly spirit on the part of all concerned, and with the full recognition of the fact that further cooperation is impracticable. If on the other
23
Simpson, Contending For the Faith, 18. 24
A.B. Simpson to R.H. Glover, 13 April 1914.
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 290PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 290
111/7/07 11:00:59 AM1/7/07 11:00:59 AM
10
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
291
hand, a practicable basis of cooperation is possible, every effort should be made to reach such an understanding.25
The question boiled down to this: Could W.W. Simpson accept the “doc- trinal attitude of the Alliance in regard to the Pentecostal experience?” To make that question easy for Glover to ask and Simpson to answer, A. B. Simpson provided an explicit statement of the CMA’s “well known attitude in regard to the so-called Pentecostal experience”:
We believe that the gift of tongues or speaking in tongues did in many cases in the Apostolic Church accompany or follow the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We believe also that other supernatural or even miraculous operations on the part of the Holy Spirit through His people are . . . possible according to the sovereign will of the Holy Ghost Himself through all the Christian age. But we hold that none of these manifestations are essentially connected with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that the consecrated believer may receive the Spirit in His fullness without speaking in tongues or any miracu- lous manifestation whatever, and that no Christian teacher has the right to require such manifestations as evidences of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The teaching of the apostle Paul in I Corinthians, Chapters 12-14 makes this exceedingly plain.26
If W. W. Simpson could accept this and “avoid anything that would prejudice or discourage brethren who do not have these special manifesta- tions, we see no reason for his leaving the Alliance.”27
According to W. W. Simpson, A. B. Simpson told him years later that he had been sure the C&MA statement would be accepted by W. W. Simpson.28 He was wrong: W. W. Simpson felt he could not accept the C&MA position on Spirit baptism. He received it on May 12, 1914 and resigned the same day. “We consider it contrary to the teaching” in Acts, he wrote. Simpson closed his letter of resignation with the following: “Praying the Lord may show you your error on this point and use you for His glory.”29
Two years later, A. B. Simpson was asked by a friend of the two Simpsons, Mrs. M. A. Weaver, about the rift between them. A. B. Simpson explained in a letter to Mrs. Weaver that the C&MA did not question the genuineness of the “special manifestation of the Spirit known as the Tongues Movement
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid. Emphasis in the original.
27
Ibid.
28
Simpson, Contending For the Faith, 34.
29
W. W. Simpson to the Board of Managers of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, 12 May 1914, W. W. Simpson Papers, Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center, Springfield, MO.
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 291NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 291
111/7/07 11:00:59 AM1/7/07 11:00:59 AM
11
292
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
or the Pentecostal Experience,” but that “manifestations in these experiences should be kept under proper control as directed in the 14th Ch. of I Cor.” A. B. Simpson added a third point: “we draw the line when teachers and evangelists insist on preaching either to the Christians or the natives that the manifestations in tongues or miracles must always be sought and are the only evidences of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. We believe this is unscriptural.” This was, A. B. Simpson wrote, the position of the C&MA that W.W. Simp- son could not accept.
But when W. W. Simpson saw the letter (Mrs. Weaver showed it to him), he became incensed at what he perceived to be an enormous discrepancy between the C&MA position as presented to him on the field in 1914 and as stated in the letter to Mrs. Weaver. He charged that A. B. Simpson had added the admonition against the practice of insisting “that the manifestations in tongues or miracles must always be sought.” Simpson fired off an impassioned letter to A. B. Simpson, telling him that this “addition” would have changed every- thing. “I have always consistently cautioned them against seeking for tongues or manifestations,” he wrote, “telling them to seek the Lord Jesus for that Bap- tism in the Holy Spirit. . . .” Further,
Had Dr. Glover submitted the statement contained in your letter to Mrs. Weaver to us in China our differences could easily have been adjusted and we could have remained in the Alliance and perhaps have returned to the field by now.30
Simpson felt betrayed by his former mentor, and in an obvious bit of overstatement accused him of political maneuvering worthy of “Tammany Hall.” “These miserable policies and subterfuges and efforts to make black appear to be white are ruining the Alliance,” he wrote. He told A. B. Simpson that the C&MA leader was “fighting against God in turning down the teaching that the Lord baptizes people in the Holy Spirit now just as He did on the day of Pentecost, so that it is seen and heard just as Peter says in Acts II:33.”31 The breach seemed irreparable.
A. B. Simpson and the Gift of Tongues
A.B. Simpson did seem to add something in his later account of W. W. Simpson’s resignation from the C&MA, but it appears the addition was
30
W. W. Simpson to A.B. Simpson, 17 Oct. 1916, W.W. Simpson Papers, Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center, Springfield, MO.
31
Ibid. Emphasis added.
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 292NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 292
111/7/07 11:00:59 AM1/7/07 11:00:59 AM
12
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
293
probably a matter of emphasis rather than a revision — certainly it was not “subterfuge,” as W. W. Simpson charged. He had not stated it explic- itly in his letter, but A. B. Simpson was very concerned that W. W. Simpson had begun to emphasize tongues as superior to other gifts of the Spirit.
This matter of tongues and its relation to Spirit baptism was not new to A. B. Simpson; he had given it soul-wrenching consideration — both on a per- sonal level and as leader of the C&MA — as the Pentecostal Movement devel- oped. For years, A. B. Simpson and the C&MA had been preparing for “a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”32 In 1905, A. B. Simpson exhorted Christians to pray for a “great evangelistic movement” and that there might be “a signal manifestation of God’s presence and supernatural power, ‘by stretch- ing forth T y hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done in the name of T y holy child, Jesus.’”
33
In February 1906 Simpson wrote “there is no doubt that a deep, Divine and spontaneous spiritual movement is steadily spreading over the world” and, a month after that:
The greatest thought that God is projecting upon the hearts of Christians these days of increasing revival is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of deep thankfulness that the attention of Christians is being directed so forcibly to the person and work of the Holy Spirit.34
In 1907 Simpson fasted and prayed in an effort to know the mind of God concerning “the special movement of the Holy Spirit abroad today.”35 Then, at the C&MA General Council that same year, there were several cases of tongue speaking and other extraordinary spiritual manifestations.
After the General Council, A. B. Simpson earnestly sought the will of God concerning tongues. His diary reveals that he was seeking
a new claim for a mighty Baptism of the Holy Ghost in His complete Pentecostal full- ness embracing all the gifts and graces of the Spirit for my special need at this time and for the new conditions and needs of my life and work.
He met me as I lay upon my face before Him with a distinct illumination. T en as the Presence began to fade and I cried out to Him to stay, He bade me believe and take
32
John S. Sawin, “The Response and Attitude of Dr. A. B. Simpson and the Christian and Missionary Alliance to the Tongues Movement of 1906-1920,” paper presented at the 16th annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology, November 15, 1986, Costa Mesa, CA, 3.
33
Ibid., 7.
34
Ibid.
35
Robert L. Niklaus, John S. Sawin, and Samuel J. Stoesz, All For Jesus: God at Work in the Christian and Missionary Alliance Over One Hundred Years (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publica- tions, Inc., 1986), 113.
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 293NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 293
111/7/07 11:00:59 AM1/7/07 11:00:59 AM
13
294
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
it all by simple faith. . . . I did so and was enabled definitely to believe and claim it all and rest in Him.36
In the diary, A. B. Simpson recorded that he occasionally experienced “a baptism of holy laughter” or “a distinct sense of warmth, at times a pen- etrating fire,” and a “mighty sense of rest, reality and joy.” But he never spoke in tongues.37
Five years later Simpson wrote in his diary:
No extraordinary manifestation of the Spirit in tongues or similar gifts has come. Many of my friends have received such manifestations, but mine has still been a life of fellowship and service.
At all times my spirit has been open to God for anything He might be pleased to reveal or bestow. But He has met me still with the old touch and spiritual sense, and in distinct and marked answers to believing prayer in my practical life.38
The chroniclers of the C&MA, Niklaus, Sawin, and Stoesz, write that for A. B. Simpson, the issue of tongues had become clear. After a prolonged period in which he had studied Scripture and searched earnestly for the gift of tongues, he concluded that it was one manifestation of Spirit bap- tism; it was not, however the sole evidence of the baptism.39
T roughout this period, A. B. Simpson was often accused of opposing tongues speaking — W. W. Simpson was one who made this charge after 1912. On several occasions A. B. Simpson attempted to clarify the position of the Alliance concerning tongues. In an editorial in April, 1910 he wrote:
Our attitude has been often stated and is consistent and explicit. We fully recognize all the gifts of the Spirit, including ‘diverse kinds of tongues’ as belonging to the Church in every age. And many of our most wise and honored workers both in the homeland and in the mission field have had this experience.
But we are opposed to the teaching that this special gift is for all or is the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Nor can we receive or use to edification in our work and assemblies those who press these extreme and unscriptural views.
We give and claim charity and liberty, that those who have not this experience shall recognize in the Lord those who have it and use it to edification. And that those who have it, shall equally recognize those who have not this special form of divine anoint-
36
Ibid., 113-114. 37
Ibid., 114. 38
Ibid. 39
Ibid.
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 294PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 294
111/7/07 11:01:00 AM1/7/07 11:01:00 AM
14
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
295
ing, but have the Holy Ghost in such other gifts as He is pleased to bestow upon one and another ‘severely as He will.’
On this scriptural ground of truth, liberty and love, surely we can all meet, and no other is practicable without error, division or fanaticism.40
A. B. Simpson welcomed the gift of tongues and those to whom it was given. He opposed, however, the practice of “making this experience a standard for every other Christian and insisting that without this special gift no one has a right to claim the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”41 He found no scriptural basis for it, and his own experience told him it was wrong. Therefore, the tongues-as-evidence doctrine was erroneous and divisive:
No man or woman, or local or district superintendent, or prayer conference has a right to settle these questions with authority. An attempt to do so, when there is such a diversity of opinion among many of the most spiritual [sic] consecrated Christians, will only lead to division and diversion from the great trust to which we have been called, i.e. world evangelism.42
Summary and Conclusion
W. W. Simpson and A. B. Simpson both were entirely open to and actively sought Spirit baptism. W. W. Simpson prayed every evening for four years for a sign that he had been baptized. When the moment came at the Taochow meetings in 1912, he fell dead to the floor and rose speaking in tongues. What remained dead was his doubt: “How satisfying to be SURE WITHOUT DOUBT,” he wrote. He saw his experience repeated as the Spirit poured out in Gansu, China. It is not difficult to understand why he concluded that tongues is the evidence of Spirit baptism, and why he zealously urged others, including A. B. Simpson, to seek tongues.
But A. B. Simpson’s own prolonged and earnest search for the Holy Spirit led to a different experience with the Holy Spirit — one that did not include tongues. While many of his friends and associates spoke in tongues after Spirit baptism, and though he was open to receiving that particular manifesta- tion, he never spoke in tongues. It is not difficult to understand why he con- cluded that tongues is but one manifestation of Spirit baptism, and that it was
40
Ibid., 115.
41
Sawin, “The Response/Attitude of A.B. Simpson,” 26. 42
Ibid., 24, emphasis in original.
PPNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 295NEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 295
11/7/07 11:01:00 AM11/7/07 11:01:00 AM
15
296
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
a mistake to insist on the pursuit of tongues (as W. W. Simpson clearly did) because the Spirit was made manifest in the believer in other ways as well.
What can we learn from W. W. Simpson’s Pentecostal experience in North- west China? First, the story tells us that Pentecostalism was controversial in China just as it seemed to be everywhere else it occurred. It divided the mis- sionaries in Northwest China — as it did in other regions of China.43 In this case, notwithstanding the fact that both W. W. Simpson and A. B. Simpson yearned to be blessed and empowered through Spirit baptism, the tongues issue ruined a previously cherished relationship between mentor and student. It is a tragedy, one that unfortunately has been often repeated in the Pentecos- tal movement.
Second, the episode raises the vexing question of Pentecostal identity: What does it mean to be Pentecostal? Who can rightly be considered Pentecostal? What can be considered authentic Pentecostal experience?
According to the Assemblies of God’s Statement of Fundamental Truths, “The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utter- ance.”44 By this definition, W. W. Simpson clearly can be considered a Pente- costal. However, A. B. Simpson, who believed in and sought Spirit baptism and experienced some manifestations often associated with Spirit baptism, nevertheless did not speak in tongues and therefore cannot be considered a recipient of the baptism, and thus not Pentecostal. This judgment may seem harsh. But it was, in effect, what so many believers who never spoke in tongues heard from their brothers and sisters in Christ who did. It is no great wonder that the Pentecostal experience so often aroused resentment. Were Pentecos- tals arrogant and mean spirited? Surely not. But their personal experience of Sprit baptism was profound and dear to them; they understandably urged oth- ers toward it, but many were not able to accept anything less than baptism with glossolalia as being truly authentic. As W. W. Simpson said it, “I dare not lower the standard.” Still, one hundred years after the Pentecostal movement began, tongues continues to be a touchy subject and, outside the Assemblies of God (and even within), there is no consensus on the question of what con- stitutes authentic Pentecostal experience.
43
See Daniel Bays, “The Protestant Missionary Establishment and the Pentecostal Move- ment,” in Edith L. Blumhoffer, Russell P. Spittler, and Grant A. Wacker, eds., Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999).
44
The Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Beliefs can be found at http://ag.org/ top/beliefs/truths_condensed.cfm.
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 296PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 296
11/7/07 11:01:00 AM11/7/07 11:01:00 AM
16
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
297
A third point is that W. W. Simpson’s story serves to verify the Pentecostal experience insofar as his description of the outpouring of the Spirit in North- west China matches in basic form the descriptions of that experience else- where around the world. Some may want to denigrate the Pentecostal movement by charging that it consisted of unstable characters whose ecstatic experience was manufactured for whatever reason. Tese skeptics, however, must explain the remarkable similarities of what is by nearly any standard a very peculiar experience, one that occurred throughout the world, including China.
Finally, and most importantly, the controversies and resentments, the bro- ken relationships, questions of who was right and who was wrong, and who or who has not really been Spirit filled — in a sense all of these are irrelevant. The fact is that Pentecostalism took root and spread in China and has had a pro- found influence on the development of the Chinese Church. Daniel Bays, the foremost student of the Chinese Church, states that Pentecostalism had the vital effect of accelerating the development of indigenous churches in China. In his opinion,
Traditional folk religiosity in China, with its lively sense of the supernatural, made a better “fit” with Pentecostalism than with the increasingly institutionalized and “ratio- nal” mainstream missions or even with other evangelical and fundamentalist missions, which tended to be high on spiritual regeneration but a bit squeamish about the truly supernatural. Indeed, most of the several indigenous Chinese Christian churches and movements of the twentieth century have been Pentecostal in explicit identity or in orientation, and a large percentage of Chinese Protestants today, especially in the rural areas, are Pentecostal.45
The Spirit of God worked in China in spite of human foibles.
Bibliography
Anderson, Allan. “Christian Missionaries and ‘Heathen Natives’: T
Pentecostal Missionaries.” Paper presented at the 10th European Pentecostal/Charismatic
Research Association. http://epcra.ch/papers/leuven2/anderson_2001.pdf (accessed
30 July 2007).
Bays, Daniel H. “The First Pentecostal Missions to China, 1906-1916.” Paper presented to the
Society for Pentecostal Theology at Wilmore, Kentucky, 1988.
e Cultural Ethics of Early
45
Daniel Bays, “The Protestant Missionary Establishment and the Pentecostal Movement,” in Edith L. Blumhoffer, Russell P. Spittler, and Grant A. Wacker, eds.,
ican Protestantism (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 63.
Pentecostal Currents in Amer-
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 297PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 297
11/7/07 11:01:00 AM11/7/07 11:01:00 AM
17
298
M. D. Wilson / Pneuma 29 (2007) 281-298
Blumhoffer, Edith L., Russell P. Spittler, and Grant A. Wacker. Pentecostal Currents in American
Protestantism. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999.
Burgess, Stanley M., ed. International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements,
revised and expanded ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Dempster, Murray W., Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, eds, The Globalization of Pentecos-
talism: A Religion Made to Travel. Oxford: Regnum Books International, 1999. McGee, Gary B. “Shortcut to Language Preparation?: Radical Evangelicals, Missions, and the
Gift of Tongues.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, July 2001, 118-125. Niklaus, Robert L., John S. Savin, and Samuel J. Stoesz. All For Jesus: God at Work in the Chris-
tian and Missioanry Alliance Over One Hundred Years. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publica-
tions, Inc., 1986.
Plymire, Wardella F. “The AG in China, 1908-1950.” Unpublished ms. Flower Pentecostal
Heritage Center, Springfield, MO.
Sawin, John S. “The Response and Attitude of Dr. A.B. Simpson and the Christian and Mission-
ary Alliance to the Tongues Movement of 1906-1920.” Paper presented to the Society for
Pentecostal Theology at Costa Mesa, California, November 15, 1986.
Simpson, William Wallace. “Contending for the Faith.” Unpublished ms. Flower Pentecostal
Heritage Center, Springfield, MO.
Springfield, Missouri. Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center. W.W. Simpson Papers. Collected
Letters, 12 May 1914 to 17 October 1916.
PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 298PNEU 29,2_f7_281-298.indd 298
111/7/07 11:01:00 AM1/7/07 11:01:00 AM
18
