A Distinctive Pentecostal Hermeneutic

What is Hermeneutics?

Before we begin the task of attempting to identify the distinctive features of a Pentecostal hermeneutic, we have to first define what hermeneutics is. Stanley J Grenz defines hermeneutics as the 'the discipline that studies the principle and theories of how texts ought to be interpreted, particularly sacred texts such as the scri ptures. Hermeneutics also concerns itself with understanding the unique roles and relationships between the author, text and original or subsequent readers.' Furthermore, Anthony Thiselton proposes perhaps a better and precise definition, by remarking:

'Hermeneutics explores how we read, understand and handle texts, especially those written in another time or in a context of life different from our own. Biblical hermeneutics investigates more specifically how we read, understand, apply, and respond to biblical texts.'

Thiselton and Grenz both identify that hermeneutics concerns itself with the interpretation of texts. However as noted above, Thiselton goes further by emphasising that hermeneutics explores the interaction between different contexts of the text and the reader. Additionally for Thiselton, hermeneutics does not just explore understanding but how we arrive at understanding. Thiselton argues that 'this is achieved through the use of literary, social, critical and sociological questions. of class, race, gender, or prior belief, may influence how we read.' Consequently, this implies that when approaching a text, considerations have to be made concerning any presupposed thinking.

Hermeneutics also involves as Grenz argues the 'unique roles and relationship between the author, text and original or subsequent readers.' These unique roles are important in the hermeneutical quest. For example, Thiselton argues, 'are the meanings of the texts "constructed" by the readers, or are the meanings "given" through the texts by the authors?' This is an interesting and important point in the role of hermeneutics. Indeed, attention has to be paid regarding were meaning can be attributed. If the authors construct the meaning of the text, what does that mean for the interpreters? However, if the readers construct the meaning, wouldn't this lead to subjective interpretation by the readers? For example, concerning biblical hermeneutics, Thiselton raises a question; 'can the bible mean anything we want it to mean? How can we agree about norms or criteria for the responsible or valid interpretation of scri pture?' This is an issue we shall see when we explore a Pentecostal hermeneutic. However, if the readers construct the meaning of the biblical texts, couldn't this simply lead to subjective conclusions?

To deal with this tension, Thiselton lays out a better approach to hermeneutics. He argues:

'The texts must translate us before we can translate them. The interpreter of texts is not a natural observer, on analogy of the supposed stance of the natural scientist or empiricist. Understanding in the fullest sense demands engagement and self- involvement.'

Thiselton points out the need for allowing the text to translate the reader or letting the 'text' speak for itself, prior to the reader attempting translation. To some extent, Thiselton seems to propose that readers are limited in their attempt to translate due to the fact that they are not first hand observers of the text. There is truth in this, because even before contemporary readers can attempt at translating the text, they have to consider that the reader is a second hand observer. The first hand observers are the readers that received the text when it was written. Though Thiselton does not point this out, this implies that more attention needs to be paid to how the first hand readers received the text during their time. The way they understood or translated the text will be wholly different due to context, cultural difference, technology and scientific advances. Consequently, the meaning that can be acquired from the text by the contemporary readers will be absolutely different.

Biblical Hermeneutics

As discussed above, hermeneutics is the art of how texts are interpreted. Thus, biblical hermeneutics is simply the art of interpreting the texts of scri pture. Therefore, as Thiselton argues, 'biblical hermeneutics raises biblical and theological questions. It raises philosophical questions about how we come to understand what we understand, and the basis on which understanding is possible.' Moreover, Thiselton adds that 'whereas exegesis and interpretation denote the actual process of interpreting texts, hermeneutics also includes the second- order discipline of asking critically what we are doing when we read, understand or apply texts.' Thus Thiselton shows that though hermeneutics may be the method of how to interpret the scri pture, exegesis is the actual process of interpreting. Thus it could be asserted that an appropriate or successful exegesis is dependant upon a good set of hermeneutics. In addition to this, Grant L. Lovejoy remarks, 'hermeneutics and exegesis may be distinguished but not divided; they form a seamless continuum wherein the one constantly informs the other.' Thus for Lovejoy, he notes that the relationship between hermeneutics and exegesis ought not to be divided, but should be recognised as conjugal methods.

Why is all this important for biblical hermeneutics or for even a Pentecostal hermeneutic? As discussed, hermeneutics is concerned with how texts are interpreted. Thus, this is important for the simple fact that all Christians partake in hermeneutics in one form or another. Hence, questions are raised regarding how interpretation ought to occur, or we arrive at meaning and understanding? In addition, Lovejoy states, 'the process of discovering the 'meaning' of a written utterance has three foci: the author, the text and the reader. A satisfactory model of exegesis should take account of the "trilogue" among the biblical author, the scri ptural text, and the contemporary reader.' These questions are important for Christians attempting at interpreting the texts. The quest for all Christians as Thiselton argues should be to understand what the text is trying to relay to the Christian community. He remarks: 'Understanding is not just simply scrutinizing a text as an object of enquiry: it is more akin to listening to, and thereby coming to understand, a friend. The interpreter must step out of his or her own frame of reference and try to place himself or herself in the position of the author.'

Thiselton draws the attention back to the fact that the focus for hermeneutics ought to be on engaging with the text. However, this alone is not enough and should be accompanied by the revelation of the Spirit. William Olhausen in Craig Bartholomew's book, After Pentecost, argues that 'without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the word can do nothing.' This is response is significant, if we are to hold that the scri ptures are holy and inspired by Spirit, then the method of interpretation has to involve a pneumatic method too. Olhausen further adds, 'biblical hermeneutics will be best served by moving beyond philosophical models of meaning, especially referential types.' Olhausen to disagree with Thiselton's approach towards hermeneutics and insists instead that 'Thiselton would benefit from a more incorporated approach to the work of the Holy Spirit.' Olhausen's point is intriguing and challenging to Thiselton's approach to biblical hermeneutics. The insistence for the place of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics implies the invitation for God to be involved in interpreting the scri ptures. With this intention, hermeneutics would not just be reliant on philosophical interpretations or social attributions but there would be a spiritual dimension to it aswell.

Pentecostal Hermeneutic

Having defined the terms hermeneutics and biblical hermeneutics, we can now progress to identifying the distinctive features of a Pentecostal hermeneutic. Firstly, is there such a thing as a Pentecostal hermeneutic? Gordon Anderson quoting Richard Israel states, 'calls for a Pentecostal hermeneutic seem to me to be misguided.' By this Anderson notes that the intention would be based on 'ideology', which simply assists interpretation. Consequently, beginning with an ideology would simply form biases and would thus lead to a subjective reading of the text. However, it is impossible to separate biases from the reader. Duncan Ferguson remarks, 'whenever anyone attempts to hear what the text has to say, that person inevitably hears or identifies the sounds from within a prior structure of experiences or preunderstanding.' Additionally, Anderson points out that 'there is no such thing as presuppositionless hermeneutics. This would amount to an "empty headed" interpretation.' Both Anderson and Ferguson note the fact that it is impossible to separate a person's bias prior to encountering a text. However, though these presuppositions may be inherited to the readers, the preconceived notions should not determine the outcome of the interpretation. The issue with this is that the method of interpretations would be subject to being manipulated by presuppositions. With all this in mind, the possibility of a Pentecostal hermeneutic for Anderson is possible.

Experience

One of the distinctive features of a Pentecostal hermeneutic is the emphasis on experience. Pentecostalism by nature has been rooted in a rich history of experience. Michael Bergunder asserts, 'in short, the movement (Pentecostalism) seeks the very nature of spiritual experience behind the Christian faith specifically and the very essence of religiosity generally.' The experiential emphasis in Pentecostalism also transmits into its hermeneutic. Gordon Anderson observes, 'all interpreters intentionally or inadvertently incorporate personal experience in their hermeneutics, but Pentecostals do so consciously, intentionally, and critically.' Additionally, Andrew Davies argues:

'The average Pentecostal does not read the Bible for educational purposes, or even particularly out of a sense of obligation to religious observance, but fundamentally to encounter God's presence in the text. They believe that they do that at two levels: ultimately by seeing the person of God himself as he is revealed through the sacred page, but actually in the first instance by experiencing the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit, who makes that epic divine encounter possible in that he illuminates and elucidates the biblical truths.'

Davies relays a key point here; Pentecostals are more concerned about encounter and experiencing God. Hence, the reason they do not stress the educational or religious observances. Rather, when they read the scri ptures, they read it as Kenneth Archer states, 'through Lukan eyes, especially with the lenses provided by the book of Acts.' Lukan eyes give Pentecostals the reference point to which they can relate the experiences of the disciples and apostles and then relate them into their own context. Davies further adds, 'ordinarily Pentecostals read the bible not to learn the history of Israel, the development of the earliest theology or even of the life of Christ, but to meet God in text, and provide an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to speak in our spirits.' Hence, Pentecostals place themselves in the context of the biblical texts and interpret through narrative. In doing so, the reading of the scri pture becomes more than just descri ptive but experiential.

The importance of experience is a distinctive feature of a Pentecostal hermeneutic. The experiential lens allows the Pentecostals to approach biblical interpretation with an awareness and expectancy that the scri ptures will transform them. Roger Stronstad states that, 'the Christian who has experienced the miraculous, whatever his theological tradition might be, will understand the biblical record of the miraculous better...' For example, a Pentecostal with a testimony of experiencing healing will appreciate the understanding of the healing accounts in the New Testament more than perhaps someone who has never experienced healing. Thus, the recipient who has experienced healing would be able to recall and connect a similar event in the bible. Another example would be the connection a Pentecostal baptised in the Spirit would make with the day of Pentecost. The Pentecostal would recognise the event in Acts 2 and believe that those experiences are still attainable now. Stronstad reveals this better; he notes that 'Pentecostals bring positive presuppositions to the interpretation of these texts (Luke-Acts) and other relevant texts.' Stronstad shows that Pentecostals approach relevant scri ptures with positive experiential presuppositions. As a result, since they have experienced or can relate to some of the events recorded, they are inclined to approach these positively rather than negatively.

Additionally, Pentecostals will also link their experiences as a sign of the authority of the scri ptures and the inspiration of the Spirit. Scott Ellington comments, 'Evangelicals use 'proofs' for inspiration to try to support a sagging argument for biblical authority, while Pentecostals begin with an authoritative encounter with God and then seek to describe biblical inspiration in the terms available to them, those of conservative evangelicalism.' Ellington adds further, 'biblical authority in Pentecostal church rests, in part, on experiences of God in and through the scri ptures which constantly intrude on the realm of 'daily life'.' Thus as Ellington reveals, the Pentecostal claim of the authority of scri pture will be fundamentally based on experience rather than doctrine. The strength means Pentecostals do not have to concern themselves with defending the authority of scri pture with doctrine. Ellington remarks, 'doctrines may be challenged and even overturned without striking at the very heart of Pentecostal faith because the central emphasis of Pentecostalism is not a teaching which must be believed or a proof which can be deduced and defended against all challenges, but a God who must be reckoned with in direct encounter.'

This experiential hermeneutic not only encourages encountering God and the authority of scri pture but also advocates transformation. The purpose of reading the text through the lens of experience is that it calls for transformation in the Christian. The scri ptures are read to empower and transform the individual. Andrew Davies captures this well remarking, 'the bible unread is the bible powerless, devoid of transformative influence. If we do not encounter God within, it is little more than a cultural artefact of principally antiquarian significance- interesting but ultimately meaningless.' The transformative power of the scri ptures is only made possible when the bible is read but when God is also encountered. However, Davies here could be accused for down playing the bible as being an "artefact" when encounter in reading has not occurred. The biblical text becomes subject to the experience. But does this mean every time a Pentecostal reads the scri ptures there has to be an encounter in order for the scri ptures to have power? Indeed, Pentecostals seldom hold that their understanding of the biblical text is shaped by their experience. Gordon Anderson argues 'this does not elevate experience above the text. It simply means that as an expression of Christianity which emphasizes and appreciates the personal and experiential dimension of a relationship with God.' Similarly, Anderson does not fully show what he implies by experiencing God in relationship, but however, he leaves room to preserve that experience does not take the place of the text.

It could be argued that this experiential approach does have its weakness. How would Pentecostals respond in circumstances were they are unable to harmonise their experiences and their knowledge of the scri ptures? Davies argues, 'a straight forward placing ourselves into the biblical context does not quite work in that context.' Thus this leaves a vacuum for criticisms against this Pentecostal hermeneutic. However, one response that could perhaps assist would be the role of the Holy Spirit in the Pentecostal community.

In summary, this section has shown that one of the distinctive features of a Pentecostal hermeneutic is experience. This feature is distinctive because it enables Pentecostals to approach biblical interpretation in an entirely different way. The emphasis on encountering God in scri pture also reveals that for Pentecostals, reading the bible is not duty but desire to meet God in their lives through the scri ptures...