Pastor
Sam Hey, a former high school science teacher, lectures in Biblical Studies at
the Brisbane Christian Outreach Centre School of Ministries. His article is part of his Ph.D. research
studies.
“Until
recently it was possible to obtain a doctorate in theology at a Pentecostal
Bible College without knowledge of ancient or modern languages, without
knowledge of the origin or composition of the Bible, without secondary
education, and simply on the basis of six years’ instruction on the Bible”
(Hollenweger 1972, 292).
As
Pentecostalism has matured and been accepted into mainstream denominations this
pre-critical fundamentalist view of the Bible has had to be replaced by more
sophisticated approaches which are more widely accepted by those with whom they
interact. But that change rang alarm
bells for many Pentecostals who had discarded scholarship as faith-destroying
and even demonic.
Pentecostal
beliefs have been considerably influenced by the hermeneutical approaches that
they have used. Pentecostalism
inherited from the Reformation the belief that Scripture has
meaning which is clearly and easily discerned (Osborne 1991, 9). From John Wesley they inherited the
conviction that the text of Scripture needed to be integrated into their own
life, speech, and devotional experience (Arrington 1988,378). The Holiness movement gave them a subjective
fundamentalist view of Scripture and a suspicion of critical scholarship
(Hollenweger 1972, 291).
After
an initial period of isolation, Pentecostal churches found increasing
opportunity for interaction with evangelical churches which shared their common
goals. The large Pentecostal
Assemblies of God (AOG) movement joined the National Association of
Evangelicals when it was founded in 1942 (Hyatt 1996, 179). The upward social mobility, higher incomes
and suburbanisation which followed World War II led to a change in educational
outlook and aspirations of American Pentecostalism led many members to pursue a
more sophisticated understanding of their beliefs.
Bible
school training was improved and the Bible-based theology programs of the
1940’s were mostly replaced by liberal arts degree programs (Menzies 1971,
376). The change in training methods
has led to changes in the thinking of the graduating church leaders. Through them it is changing the Pentecostal
movements. The inauguration of
credentialing of AOG ministers in 1959 was an indicator of the increasing
concern for conformity (Menzies 1971, 376).
With
an increasing interaction with evangelical churches came the adoption of their
historical- critical methods. This led
to an emphasis on the context and the pursuit of the intention of original
author of the text (Cargal 1993, 163; Fee 1991,86). This development has not been welcomed by older traditional
Pentecostals who say that it threatens the Pentecostal belief in a
post-salvation reception of the Spirit evidenced by glossolalia.
The
younger, newer graduates are also concerned.
Sheppard says that a dependence on critical exegesis challenges the
vitality and freedom that characterised traditional Pentecostalism and will
endanger its future (Sheppard 1994, 121).
He says that Pentecostals were beginning to pursue the
historical-grammatical method at a time when biblical and theological
scholarship has moved beyond this emphasis (Sheppard 1994, 121). Sheppard singles out Gordon Fee as an
example of this. Joseph Byrd suggests
that the Pentecostal emphasis on detailed critical exposition in seminaries has
produced pastors with a good knowledge of technical exegesis but lacking the
prophetic edge which characterised early Pentecostalism (Byrd 1993, 207).
The
application of scholarly methods such as that of Fee and Menzies has challenged
the distinctive Pentecostal belief that a post-salvation “baptism in the
Spirit” evidenced by tongues is the intended teaching and the normative pattern
of Scripture. When Fee’s critical
methods are used, the experiences of Jesus and the apostles are found to be so
different from those of modern day Christians that they must be considered
irrelevant (Fee 1991,94). The
Pentecostal claim to an intended pattern in Acts which can be applied to all
Christians is found to be unwarranted.
Glossolalia as the sole evidence of the Pentecostal baptism is also
found to be untenable (Fee 1991,99).
The
historical method and pursuit of the author’s intention has created an
unbridgeable historical gap which has led Pentecostal scholars in recent times
to question this approach (Cargal 1993, 163).
Many Pentecostal scholars in recent times have begun to look to other
approaches for support for the distinctive Pentecostal beliefs.
Recent
editions of the Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Pneuma,
reveal that the hermeneutical sophistication of Pentecostals has risen dramatically
over the last decade as they have begun to integrate the latest hermeneutical
practices. This is seen in the
writings of Pentecostal scholars such as Cargal (1993), Byrd (1993), Harrington
and Pattern (1994) and Arrington (1994).
These scholars have begun to point out the inadequacies and dangers of
the Pentecostal emphasis on intentionality and the grammatical, historical, and
critical context of the text. They have
looked to post-modern hermeneutical methods instead (Mclean 1984, 36).
While
it is beyond the scope of this article to evaluate post-modernism to any large
degree, it is important to consider the ways in which this influential movement
is affecting the development of Pentecostal hermeneutics in general and the
distinctive Pentecostal beliefs in particular. In recent times the ability to locate an absolute, intended
meaning within the text has been challenged by the recognition that the
interpreters of the text “cannot silence their own subjectivity, or achieve an
objective neutrality” (Thiselton 1977, 316).
Gerald
Sheppard says that both liberals and fundamentalists have perpetuated the same
false notion that the original intention of the author can be located. Both of these “left and right wing
modernist groups” are pursuing the same impossible task (Sheppard 1994,
121).
Cargal
(1993, 163) and Arrington (1994, 101) observe that most Pentecostal preachers
have been unaffected by the greater acceptance of critical scholastic
methods. Many Pentecostals have
continued the Pentecostal practise of interpreting the same text differently at
different times to meet the different needs that arise. Pentecostal readings of Acts have had less
to do with a rationalistic, inductive method of biblical interpretation and
more to do with a creative interaction with the text of Acts (Macchia 1993,
65).
Pentecostals
usually emphasise the immediacy of the text and multiple dimensions of meaning
arising from the “leading of the Spirit”.
They give scant consideration to its historical-critical context. This approach invariably leads to multiple
meanings and multiple applications the same text. At times one of these meanings can attract strong support and become
a fixed belief. The post-salvation
experience evidenced by glossolalia is an example of this.
Many
Pentecostal scholars in recent times have claimed that the Pentecostal method
has “more continuity with post-modern modes of interpretation than with
the critical-historical method” (Cargal 1993, 165; Arrington, 1994, 101). Post-modernism distinguishes itself from
modernism by the rejection of the notion that “only what is historically and
objectively true is meaningful,” (Cargal 1973, 171). However, it must be remembered that Pentecostalism and
post-modernism have different reasons for rejecting this claim.
Some
Pentecostals, such as Howard Ervin, have suggested that the post-modern
questioning of modern scientific certainties provides support for a return to
the ancient world views of biblical times (Ervin, 1981,19). Ervin’s view is a naive misrepresentation of
post-modernism. While post-modernism
recognise that reason and rationalism cannot tell us everything, it does not
claim that critical thinking is passe, but simply that it is limited
(Cargal 1993, 178).
Despite
this qualification, the “post-modern vision of reality opens up the possibility
of the transcendent virtually closed by modernity.” (Cargal 1993, 178). Therefore Cargal is able to say that
developments within post- modern methods of interpretation hold promise for
Pentecostals (Cargal 1993,187).
The
Pentecostal emphasis upon the Spirit as the source of multiple meanings of the
text is an important contribution which Pentecostalism can make to the Western
Church. Cargal says that “the
[Pentecostal] recognition of the dialogical role of the experiences of the
believer in both shaping and being shaped by particular interpretations of the
biblical text is both compatible with certain post-structuralist views of the
reader as creator of significations and an important critique of objectivist
views of the meaning of the Bible and its authority” (Cargal 1993, 186).
In
this last decade Pentecostals have recognised that the process of interacting
with biblical narratives such as Acts is “more complex and creative than a mere
historical investigation into the original intention of the author/editor”
(Macchia 1993, 67). Pentecostal
beliefs such as the belief in the sign of glossolalia did not just arise from
the biblical text, but from the larger historical and cultural texts with which
Pentecostalism was interacting.
In
recent years Pentecostal students of hermeneutics have recognised that the
study of the text needs to be broadened to include the inter-textual connection
which exists between the biblical texts, the ritual “texts” enacted in worship
and the relational “texts” of the faith community (Dempster 1993, 129; Cargal
1993, 163).
A
trans-contextual basis is needed which allows the “comparative evaluation of contextual
criteria of interpretation and indeed the purposes for which each set of
criteria gains its currency” (Thiselton 1992, 6). Pentecostals have not interpreted the text as individuals, but as
members of communities of readers who cannot be isolated from their communal
expectations. It was the expectations
of the faith community and its social setting which ultimately determined the
Pentecostal interpretation of glossolalia in Acts and not historical-grammatical
concerns.
Pentecostalism
is increasingly recognising the role of its traditions and Christian
communities in shaping its beliefs (Fee 1991,69). The text of Scripture is usually read in the light of one’s own
sociological, cultural, religious, ecclesiastical and national histories. Fee says that the Pentecostal belief in a
baptism in the Holy Spirit distinct from conversion and evidenced by tongues
“came less from the study of Acts, as from their own personal histories, in
which it happened to them in this way and therefore was assumed to be the norm
even in the New Testament” (Fee 1991, 69).
The
Pentecostal New Testament scholar, Gordon Fee, has challenged the Pentecostal
beliefs which have arisen from their traditions suggesting that they need to be re-examined on the basis of the
biblical texts (Fee 1991, 69). Some
Pentecostals see this approach as an implicit threat to the Pentecostal belief
in tongues as the evidence of a post salvation Spirit baptism (Burgess and
McGee 1988, 305).
Church
of God pastor and scholar, Joseph Byrd believes that new hermeneutical methods
such as those of Paul Ricoeur are needed if the distinctive Pentecostal beliefs
are to survive the sophisticated theological treatments by Pentecostal scholars
such as Fee (Byrd 1993,203). The hermeneutics
of Holland and Ricoeur offer promise to those who seek to preserve the
Pentecostal tradition as it acknowledges the role of the readers in projecting
their own interests, desires, and selfhood into the text (Thiselton 1992,472).
Wolfgang
Isler suggests that biblical texts are deliberately ambivalent (Thiselton
1992,517). This ambivalence has
enabling interpretations such as those of Pentecostals to meet the spiritual
needs of twentieth century Christians.
Isler suggests that the text deliberately invites the reader to place
themselves into different roles within the textual setting (Thiselton 1992,
517).
Sheppard
suggests that Pre-critical Pentecostalism should not be dismissed as
uncritical, but recognised as attuned and acclimatised to the cultural values
of the marginalised groups in which it began (Sheppard 1994, 127). Michael Foucault has shown that modern ways
of knowing have led to pre- and
post-modern values being overlooked.
Early Pentecostal hermeneutics has focused on subjective, intuitive ways
of knowing, the validity of which needs to be reconsidered (Foulcault 1973,
217-249).
Pentecostal
hermeneutics must allow for the claim that the Holy Spirit reveals deeper
meanings of the text that allows it to be culturally relevant (Cargal
1993,174). The difficulty with this
proposal is that it easily leads to excesses and misinterpretations. The emergence of the unitarian Pentecostals
is an example of this (Synan 1997,161).
Unless other controls exist, Fee suggests that “we must abide by rules of good exegesis and exert extreme
caution in considering any deeper meanings.” (Fee 1979, 39).
In
recent times the task of hermeneutics has been widened to consider the way in
which biblical texts have been used to serve the interests of different groups
and to loosen or maintain dominating power structures and authorise values
which serve the interests of individuals or corporate entities within religious
communities (Thiselton 1992, 7). Recent
Pentecostal studies by Margaret Poloma confirm that glossolalia has provided
support for the Pentecostal protest against modernity and motivation for
evangelism (Poloma 1989, 3).
Glossolalia
has also been a symbol used to promote individual, social and racial equality,
they have been replaced by beliefs which condone organisational, sexual and
racial dominance (Poloma 1989, 3).
Poloma says that while charismata such as tongues are a factor in the
rise and revitalisation of religious movements, “it seems to depart quickly
once it has completed the task of institution building” (Poloma 1989,232).
It
is not difficult to locate reasons for the appeal of Pentecostalism in a
post-modern world. Pentecostalism has challenged
the perceived threats inherent in post-modern approaches and has provided
appealing alternatives to post-modern dilemmas. In contrast to the uncertainty arising from a complex
multiplicity in post-modernists, Pentecostalism speaks of one absolute
unchanging God who is behind all different views.
In
contrast to the post-modern perplexity in facing an avalanche of information,
Pentecostalism reduces truth to one source of information, the Bible and one
interpreter - the Holy Spirit.
Post-modernism accepts the uncertainty of past and of the future
events. In contrast to the variety of
experiences which exist in a post-modern world, Pentecostals claim the one Holy
Spirit which behind the variety of charismatic experiences. Glossolalia is still the chief Pentecostal
experience and it continues to provided evidence of a supernatural God and an
invisible world.
The
attempt by some Pentecostals to align Pentecostal hermeneutics with the popular
post-modern movement must not overlook the differences that exist between
them. While post- modernism is in
reality an extreme form of modernism, and a “misnomer for ultra modernity”
(Oden in Dockery 1995, 26), Pentecostalism is a reaction against modernity.
Post-modernism
accepts the anti-supernatural, pro-critical approaches that were important
in modernism and these would not
be accepted by most Pentecostals.
“Although the post-modernist hesitates to deny the validity of all
religions”, says Lints, “he hesitates also to assert the exclusive truth of but
one religion.” (Lints 1993, 206).
Pentecostalism, in contrast still holds to a single Christian
truth. Glossolalia is considered to
provide support for the existence of the supernatural and evidence that
Pentecostalism is the one true faith.
Pentecostals
appear to be divided between the modern, critical approach typified by Fee and
the post-modern approach of recent scholars.
One solution to this dilemma is Paul Ricoeur’s post- critical
hermeneutic (Byrd 1993, 207). Paul
Ricoeur has attempted to combine attempts to reconstruct the original meaning
of the text with attempts to existentially apply readings of the text to
contemporary situations (Bleicher, 1980, 217).
His description of the movement of the reader from a naive, intuitive
interpreter of the text to an increasingly self-critical analyst mirrors the
development of Pentecostal hermeneutics well.
This hermeneutic, which has developed from that of
Schleiermacher asks us to listen with tolerance and mutual respect and to
balance the creative with the analytical (Thisleton 1992, 4).
Ricoeur
has shown that objectivity and subjectivity need not be considered as
opposites, but two aspects of the one paradigm that exist along side each other
as “two sides of the one coin”. These
two should interact. The Pentecostal
praxis informed what was found in Scripture, while at the same time careful
study of the text has informed Pentecostal praxis (Moore 1987, 11). By combining the benefits of the
Critical-historical-literary method with the recognition that multiple
interpretations of the text exist the Pentecostal interpreter is equipped to
discover and applied the “biblical” message.
(Arrington 1994, 101). The dual
recognition of the objective and the subjective leads to the acknowledgement
that the differing understandings of the glossolalic references in Acts have
been shaped by the differing contexts in which they were formed. Modern hermeneutics
can no longer a search for the “true” or “historical” meaning. It must examine the effect of the text and
investigate the processes which the text creatively produces and sets in
motion.
The hermeneutics of Ricoeur stresses the creative effect of symbols,
metaphors and narratives on religious imagination and thought. This method encourages an
awareness of the diversity of meanings that the text will present to diversity
of readers (Byrd 1993, 211). When
applied to the interpretation of the glossolalic passages in Acts this method
would suggest that Pentecostal and non Pentecostal interpretations exist side
by side as alternative readings of the text.
The
recognition that symbols within the text will be re-experienced by succeeding
communities and generations in different ways builds greater tolerance and
understanding of the ways in which beliefs such as that concerning glossolalia
change. New generations of
Pentecostals will not be expected to have the same experience of the text’s
symbols as the first generation of Pentecostals (Byrd 1993, 211). They must be allowed to develop their own
views which are appropriate to their own times and situations.
Professor
of Sociology, Margaret Poloma suggests that it is not the glossolalic
experience alone which makes Pentecostalism distinctive, but the expectant
social reality in which it occurs (Poloma 1989, 184). Malony and Lovekin say that the charismatic group, and not the
individual’s experience determine the effects of glossolalia upon a person
(1977, 383). Poloma says that the
Pentecostal experience must involve the unexpected and be constantly renewed if
it is to survive the pressures of typification, patterned role expectations and
institutionalization (Poloma 1989, 185).
Consequently,
an exciting new wineskins for biblical scholarship is the emerging hermeneutic
of Pentecostalism which challenges the historical-critical approach, and
invites the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture to interpret it to the faith
community and to individuals within that community.
Arrington
F.L. “Hermeneutics”, in Burgess
S.M. and McGee G.B. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic
Movements, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1988.
Byrd, J. 1993. “Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutical Theory and
Pentecostal Proclamation.” Pneuma:
The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 15, No 2: 203-215.
Cargal, T.
B. 1993. “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals
and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society
for Pentecostal Studies 15, No 2: 163-188.
Dempster,
M. W. 1989 “The Church’s Moral Witness: A Study of Glossolalia in Luke’s
Theology of Acts,” Paraclete, 23:11-7, Winter.
Dempster, M. W.
“Paradigm Shifts and Hermeneutics: Confronting Issues Old and New”, Pneuma:
The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 15, No 2: 129-136.
Dockery,
D. S., ed. 1995. The Challenge of Postmodernism: An
evangelical Engagement. Wheaton: Victor.
Ervin, H. M. 1981. “Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option,” Pneuma:
The Journal for the Society for Pentecostal Studies 3, Fall.
Fee, G. D. 1991.
Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody,
Massachusetts, Hendrickson, (Second edition, 1994).
Hollenweger, Walter J. 1972. The Pentecostals : the charismatic movement
in the churches. Minneapolis:
Augsburg.
Hyatt, E. L. 1996. 2000 Years
of Charismatic Christianity. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Hyatt Ministries.
Poloma,
Margaret. 1989. The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads:
Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas, Knoxvile: University of Tennessee.
Johns,
D. A. 1991. “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Clasical
Pentecostalism’s Doctrine of Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence, ed.
G. B. McGee. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Macchia,
F. D. 1992. “Sighs too Deep for Words: Toward a Theology of Glossolalia,” Journal
of Pentecostal Theology, No. 1,
October, 1992, 47-73.
Malony, H. N. & Lovekin A. A.
1985. Glossolalia Behavioural
Science Perspectives on Speaking in Tongues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Menzies, W. 1971. Anointed to Serve: The Story of the
Assemblies of God, Springfield: Gospel Publishing House.
Moore,
R. D. 1987. “Approaching God’s Word Biblically: A Pentecostal Perspective,” Seminary
Viewpoint 8, November.
Sheppard,
G. T. 1994. “Biblical Interpretation After Gadamer”, Pneuma: The Journal
for the Society of Pentecostal Studies. 16:121.
Synan, V. 1997. The Holiness- Pentecostal Tradition:
Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids:
Michigan: Zondervan, 1992.
White,
J.F. 1983. Sacraments as God’s Self-Giving, Nashville: Abingdon.
© Renewal
Journal #15: Wineskins (2000:1) www.renewaljournal.com
Reproduction is permitted so long as the
copyright acknowledgement remains intact with the text.