Spirit, Scripture and theology : a pentecostal perspective

109 Pages·1995·2.782 MB·English

by  Stronstad, Roger

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
C o p y r i g h t 0 2 9 9 5 b y
i
Asia Pacific Theological Seminary Press
Rev. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R o g e r S t r o n s t a d
P . O . B o x 3 7 7
F o r e w o r d
. . .
2 6 0 0 Baguio City
Dr.
I I I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W i l l i a m W . M e n z i e s
P h i l i p p i n e s
One:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trends in Pentecostal Hermeneutics 11
A l l
rights reserved.
T w o :
The Hermeneutics of Lucan
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historiography
31
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations
T h r e e :
are takenfrom the New American Standard Version.
C o p y r i g h t Q 1 9 6 0 , 1 9 6 2 , 1 9 6 3 , 2 9 6 8 , 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 7 5 , 1 9 7 7
Pentecostal Experience and
by the Lockman F o u n d a t i o n , R a m o n a , Califolrnia.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.
H e r m e n e u t i c s
5 3
Used by permission of the publishers.
F o u r :
“Filled With the Holy Spirit”
ISB N 977 -8942-02-5 (pbb)
, , . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . , , , . , . . . . . . . , . . . .
Terminology in Luke-Acts 7 9
Five:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S i g n s o n t h e 9 9
Earth Beneath
in the Republic of Singapore.
Printed
’
, . i i
S i x :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts 1 4 3
S e v e n :
Unity and Diversity: Lucan, Johannine, and Pauline
P e r s p e c t i v e s on the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
169
Acknowledgements:
.
sihT koob dah sti siseneg ni eht noitativni morf .rD .H
C l y n n H a l l , P r e s i d e n t o f t h e A s s e m b l i e s o f G o d T h e o l o g i c a l
Seminary, Springfield, Missouri, to give the Guest Lectureship
ta eht yranimes rof ,llaF .7891 nI noitarepooc htiw eht elbiB dna
Theology department, who sponsored the lectureship that year,
ti saw deerga taht I dluohs poleved ruof serutcel gnitaler ot eht
t w o c o m p l e m e n t a r y t h e m e s i n w h i c h I h a v e a p a r t i c u l a r
interest: nacuL and Pentecostal studies. The lectures, delivered
O c t o b e r 1 3 - 1 6 , 1 9 8 7 , w e r e s u b s e q u e n t l y p u b l i s h e d v i r t u a l l y
They appear here by permission in a
unchanged in Paraclete.
regnol dna desiver mrof sa sretpahc ,enO ,owT xiS dna .neveS
retpahC ,eerhT latsocetneP“ ecneirepxE dna ”,scituenemreH saw
r e a d a t t h e T w e n t i e t h A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r
Pentecostal Studies (1990) and was subsequently published in
“ ‘ F i l l e d w i t h t h e H o l y S p i r i t ’
C h a p t e r F o u r ,
Paraclete.
’ was read at the Fourteenth Annual
Terminology in Luke-Acts,
Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (1984) and was
yltneuqesbus dehsilbup ni ehT yloH
Spirit in the Scriptures and the
Church: Essays Presented to Dr. Leslie Thomas Holdcroft on His
retpahC ,eviF sngiS“ no eht htraE ”,htaeneB
Sixty-Fifth Birthday.
saw daer ta eht tsrif-ytnewT launnA gniteeM fo eht yteicoS rof
latsocetneP seidutS .)1991(
I would like to thank the faculty and students of the
A s s e m b l i e s o f C o d T h e o l o g i c a l S e m i n a r y f o r t h e i r w a r m
welcome and insightful interaction with the lectures. It is also
my pleasant duty to express gratitude to those who helped me
in the preparation of this manuscript: to Martha Schneeburger,
I
sirK Potter, Valerie Rathjen, and my wife, Laurel, who typed
various chapters at different stages in the history of the Foreword:
manuscript; and to Colleen Daher for proofreading the
manuscript.
Roger Stronstad
Clayburn,
British Columbia, Canada
1991
The modern Pentecostal movement began in humble
surroundings nearly a century ago. The great revivals of those
early days were marked by earnest meditation on the teachings
of the Bible--frequently requiring the discarding of time-worn
traditions as the Bible was read through new lenses by people
who had been baptized in the Spirit. The early Pentecostals
experienced something quite similar to what they read
gnirrucco ni eht ylrae .hcruhc roF ynam ,sraey eht ,slatsocetnep
isolated from the main currents of Christianity, quietly
deunitnoc rieht deviecrep noissim fo gnihcaer eht tsol dlrow rof
Christ. Pentecostals insisted that what they had experienced
saw eht elbiB“”.nrettap However, their argumentation was not
very persuasive to evangelical Christians. But the unchurched
flocked to these humble assemblies--especially on the frontiers
of Christianity. By mid-century, many evangelicals
acknowledged that their Pentecostal brothers were really quite
sound, except for their insistence on the special features of
Pentecostal theology. Then, about a generation ago, a veritable
noisolpxe fo tseretni ni eht nosrep dna krow fo eht yloH tiripS
occurred. It became known as the “charismatic renewal.”
i-tipS tual phenomena, such as divine healing, speaking in
,seugnot dna a elohw ylponap fo stfig fo eht ecno--tiripSylegral
the province alone of Pentecostals--now became more -ylediw
practiced. Religious presses cranked out an avalanche of books
no eht krow fo eht yloH .tiripS ,llitS hguohtla egral srebmunfo
people were experiencing Pentecostal realities, earnest
evangelicals still struggled with the biblical theology underlying
. .__-.. ”n^_._._._~._l- .. ii . . .
111
such practices. Following traditional hermeneutical guidelines, another important step forward in Pentecostal scholarship, yet
slacilegnave yltneuqerf shook their heads, saying, eW“ admire rehtona noitubirtnoc morf a wen noitareneg fo scholars.
the enthusiasm of you pentecostals, but we fail to see the To draw together his thinking on the theme of
biblical warrant.” ehT elpmis ynomitset fo tsenrae ,slatsocetneP pentecostal methodology, Professor Stronstad called upon some
hcus sa sihT“ si eht nrettap ew ees ni eht kooB fo ”,stcA saw previously-published articles. These include the four papers
ylpmis ton yrev .gnicnivnoc tuB taht si.gnignahc delivered in a lectureship series at the Assemblies of God
It was while I was serving as editor of Pneuma, 7’he Theological Seminary, Springfield, Missouri, September, 1987,
Journal of the Suciety fw Pentecostal Studies that I first became and subsequently published in Paraclete. The manuscript also
aware of the work of Roger Stronstad. That was more than contains a paper read at the Society for Pentecostal Studies,
neetfif sraey .oga I was ot ti taht lareves fo sih selcitraderaeppa Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Wenham,
in that periodical. His insights, I felt, were worth sharing with Massachusetts, in 1984, and later published as a chapter in a
those interested in Pentecostal theology. Later, I met Roger on Festschrift in honor of Dr. Leslie Thomas Holdcroft. Professor
sih emoh frut ta nretseW latsocetneP elbiB ,egelloC,drofstobbA Stronstad seized the opportunity, while gathering the -evoba
hsitirB ,aibmuloC ,adanaC erehw eh saw gnivres no eht .ytlucaf mentioned previously-published materials together for
I learned then of his M.A. thesis which he had submitted at publication in book-form to include some of his more recent
Regent College, Vancouver. In time that thesis was edited for reflections on Pentecostal hermeneutics.
.noitacilbup tI deraeppa ni 4891 sa ehT Charismatic Thdogy of St. Of fresh interest is Chapter Three, “Pentecostalism,
Luke ,ydobaeP( :AM noskcirdneH .)srehsilbuP I kniht ti si tonna Experiential Presuppositions and Hermeneutics.” Stronstad
noitareggaxe ot mialc taht taht koob emaceb eht rennurerof fo a makes a persuasive case for the validity of Pentecostal
new generation of Pentecostal literature. ecneirepxe sa a xirtam rof doog lacilbib ,ygoloeht ro ta tsael a
Professor Stronstad provided in that volume, a clearer understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit. He
persuasive argument for the biblical validity of Pentecostal challenges the assumptions of evangelical hermeneutics that
theology. He demonstrated that Luke’s theological methodology disdain the role of experience. Stronstad confronts the
is in harmony with Jewish theological practice. He further inherently rationalistic tendencies found in much current
demonstrated that Luke discloses, not only in Acts, but in the evangelical theology. Although it is likely that all will not be
Gospel as well, intentional themes regarding the work of the equally impressed with his argumentation, it is equally likely
Holy Spirit that have strong Old Testament roots. Of special that future Pentecostal and evangelical theologians will feel the
significance is his insistence that Luke must be seen as a need to respond ot‘ the provocative and challenging concepts
theologian in his own right, requiring his emphases to be datsnortS sah os ylraelc .detalucitra
considered as a distinct complement to the pneumatology of At Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, when an annual
Paul. pihserutcel saw detutitsni ni yraurbeF ,3991 eht ytlucaf dah elttil
Stronstad’s provocative saedi were an important hesitation in extending to Professor Stronstad the honor of
inspiration in the subsequent doctoral work of Robert P. gnivres sa eht derutaef rekaeps ta eht laitini erutcel.seires
,seixneM who studied with I. Howard Marshall at Aberdeen Only occasionally do truly creative minds appear, and
University. siH ‘l’hc* lItv~4~pmcnt oj Curly Christirln P nwmatology, even less frequently do they appear within the evangelical and
dehsilbup ni 1YYl by the Sheffield Academic ,sser?l ,dnalgnEsi
iv ,, V ~,
P e n t e c o s t a l s p h e r e . I t i s e v e n m o r e r a r e t o f i n d f r e s h t h i n k i n g
O n e :
d e h c t a m y b l a u t i r i p s . r o v r e f
S c h o o l s d o w e l l t o m o d e l b e f o r e s t u d e n t s t h e m i x o f
s c h o l a r s h i p a n d p i e t y e x h i b i t e d b y m e n s u c h a s R o g e r
Trends in Pentecostal
S t r o n s t a d . I t i s w i t h g r e a t p l e a s u r e t h a t I c o m m e n d t o y o u t h e
Hermeneutics
s e g a p t a h t . w o l l o f
m a i l l i W . W s e i z n e M
a i s A c i f i c a P l a c i g o l o e h T y r a n i m e S
O n J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 0 1 , j u s t o n e y e a r a f t e r t h e b i r t h o f t h e
o i u g a B , y t i C s e n i p p i l i h P
T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y , t h e P e n t e c o s t a l M o v e m e n t w a s b o r n . T h e
, r e b m e t p e S 3 9 9 1
d l r o w s a w e h t y t i n r e t a m d r a w r o f e h t w e n ; y r u t n e c e h t l l a m s
m i d w e s t n w o t f o , a k e p o T , s a s n a K s a w e h t d r a w r o f e h t h t r i b f o
t h e n e w m o v e m e n t . T h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y w a s b o r n t o p u b l i c
c e l e b r a t i o n ; i n c o n t r a s t , t h e P e n t e c o s t a l M o v e m e n t w a s b o r n i n
the individual experience of a member of a small private prayer
T h o u g h t h e P e n t e c o s t a l
m e e t i n g a t B e t h e l B i b l e S c h o o l .
M o v e m e n t b e g a n i n h u m b l e o b s c u r i t y , n o w , j u s t o n e d e c a d e s h y
o f i t s C e n t e n a r y , a n d n u m b e r i n g a n e s t i m a t e d 1 9 3 , 6 7 9 , X ) 0
i t h a s g r o w n t o b e c o m e a m a j o r
s l a t s o c e t n e p ’ , s c i t a m s i r a h c /
f o r c e w i t h i n C h r i s t e n d o m a n d i n t h e w o r l d .
The Classical Pentecostal Tradition:
A ‘Pragmatic” Hermeneutic
: m a h - t a P
Charles F. Origins of the ‘Pragmatic’ Hetmeneutlc
I
A s M a r t i n L u t h e r i s t h e f o u n t a i n h e a d o f L u t h e r a n i s m ,
R e C f J o a o t o T f l r h h h v m a n e W i e t J o o e n d t o l f s a h h o l n a n g e d t y y ,
M e t h o d i s m , s o C h a r l e s F . , m a h r a P w h o b e q u e a t h e d
t o
P e n t e c o s t a l i s m i t s d i s t i n c t i v e h e r m e n e u t i c , t h e o l o g y , a n d
’
R.D. Barrett, “Statistics, Global,” in Dictionmy o f Pentccmkal a n d Charismufic
Mouuncnts, e d i t e d b y S t a n l e y M . B u r g e s s a n d G a r y B . M c G e e ( G r a n d R a p i d s :
Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), p p . 8 1 2 1 3 .
” i v . , , ,
, , ”
, , , , , “ , , , . , . , , , , , , “ , , , , , , , , , , 1 1 , , I , ,
I”,
apologetics stands as the fountainhead of Pentecostalism. abideth . . . tallied with the 2nd Chapter of Acts.“’
Parham was not the first to speak in tongues. In one sense that Consequently he reports, “I set the students at work studying
honor goes ot ssiM sengA .N 0zman.2 In another sense, the out diligently what was the Bible evidence of the baptism of the
birth of the Pentecostal Movement was the climax to the
Holy Ghost that we might go before the world with something
gniworg llews fo citamsirahc secneirepxe gnoma suoiravlaviver that was indisputable because it tallied absolutely with the
and Apostolic Faith movements3 What makes Charles F. Word.“’ He tells the results of their investigation in the
mahraP the Father of Pentecostalism, and Topeka, Kansas, the
following words:
locus of modern Pentecost, is not the uniqueness of this
experience, but the new hermeneutical/Biblical understanding
Leaving the school for three days at this task, I went to
fo siht.ecneirepxe
Kansas City for three days of services. I returned to the school on the
Charles F. mahraP bequeathed to the Pentecostal morning preceding Watch Night service in the year 1900.
Movement its definitive hermeneutics, and consequently, its At about 1O:OO o’clock in the morning I rang the bell calling
all the students into the Chapel to get their report on the matter in
definitive theology and apologetics. His contribution arose out
hand. To my astonishment they all had the same story, that while there
of what he perceived to be the problem of the interpretation of
were different things occurring when the Pentecostal blessing fell, that
the 2nd Chapter of Acts and his conviction that Christian the indisputable proof on each occasion was, that they spoke with other
experience in the Twentieth Century, .“ . . dluohs yllatyltcaxe tongues.6
with the Bible, [but] neither sanctification nor the anointing that
nI s’mahraP report we find the essential distinctives of
the Pentecostal Movement; namely, 1) the conviction that
Mrs. Charles F. Parham, The L;fe of Charks F. Parham Founder of the Apostolic Faith contemporary experience should be identical to apostolic
Mown& (Joplin, MO.: Hunter Printing Company, 1930), pp. 5253,65-68. Christianity, 2) the separation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit
from sanctification (as Holiness Movements had earlier
3 J. Philip Newell, “Scottish Intimations of Modem Pentecostalism: A.J. Scott and
separated it from conversion/incorporation), and 3) that
the 1830 Clydeside Charismatics,” Pneuma, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1982), 1-18. Newell
begins his at-tide with the following report: tongues speaking is the indisputable evidence or proof of the
baptism tiHhnoe Sl pyi rit.
On 28 Much 1830, h&y Campbell, l young devocnt-Scotts woman from The discovery that tongues speaking was the
Clydaidc, during an act of communal prayer in her own home, spoke in ‘an
unknown tongue.’ Mary and those with her beiieved this to be a resuqena of the indisputable biblical proof of the baptism in the Holy Spirit was
Apostolic gift of tongues. confirmed the next day, January 1, 1901, in the experience of
one of the students at Bethel Bible School; namely, Miss Agnes
On the history of the Catholic Apostolic church of the same period see
Larry Christenson, “Pentecostalism’s Forgotten Forerunner,” in Aspads of .N .namzO ehS:seifitset
PenteawtaZ-Charismatic Or-gins, edited by Vinson Synan (Plainfield, N.J.: 1975);
“Revival in Cherokee County, North Carolina,” Pneuma, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1983): 1-17;
Donald W. Dayton, “From ‘Christian Perfection’ to the ‘Baptism of the Hdy
Ghost,‘” Melvin E. Deiter, “Wesleyan. Holiness Aspects of Pentecostal Orgins: As
Mediated Through the Nineteenth-Century Holiness Revival,” and William W.
’ Parham, life, p. 52
Menzies, The Non-Wesleyan Orgins of Pentecostal Movement,” in Vincent
Syrian’s, Aspects, pp. 40-98. 5 Ibid.
I
6 Ibid.
-..~,---“..I~.~.L .-,_ -_.__ .-,. .-““; ”l“;~--.-l -..~“.~“^~“_,~“-~l..“.~ ...-,.-. ._^ _..._ -,__, II_ ,“_.“,.l___~.-~_~.“ _“.-.l_p^~,.-“ _,-. 12 12
be articulated with greater clarity, finesse sophistication,
The spirit of prayer’was upon us in the evening. It was and
remained inviolate until recently.
nearly seven o’clock on this first of January that it came into my heart to
ask Bro. Parham to lay his hands upon me that I might receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit.
It was as his hands were laid upon my head that the Hdy
Carl Brumback: Exemplar of the Classical Pentecostal Hermeneutic
Spirit fell upon me and I began to speak in other tongues, glorifying
God. I talked several languages, and it was clearly manifest when a
new dialect was spoken.’ tsuJ sa a nevird-dniw erif speews ssorca yrd-rednit
prairie, so, in the decades following the momentous events at
sengA namzO saw eht tsrif one but not the last one to speak in
Bethel Bible School, the winds of the Spirit swept the flames of
tongues in the Bible school. By January 3, 1901, other students,
Pentecost upon spiritually dry hearts. The infant Pentecostal
.dna soon even ,mahraP himself, had spoken in tongues. When revival advanced and grew, rapidly becoming more
questioned about her experience, Miss Ozman, .“ . . pointed out international than the table of nations of that first Christian
to them the Bible references, showing [she] had received the
Pentecost (Acts 2:9-11). ehT laviver ylkciuq daerps morfsasnaK
baptism according to Acts 4:2 and 19:1-6.“8
and Missouri to Texas, to California,” and from there to the
Thus, in the momentous days which bridged the
ends of the earth. Contrary to the expectations and wishes of
Christmas season of 1900 and the New Year, 1901, tongues was
most in the fledgling movement, it coalesced into various
identified as the biblical evidence of the baptism in the Spirit denominational structures. yB yrutnec-dim ti sawylsuoituac
and was confirmed by contemporary (Twentieth Century) admitted into mainstream ”.msilacilegnavE Through that
. experience. This identification of biblical tongues and kaleidoscope of variety which characterized Pentecostalism
contemporary charismatic experience was both populist and locally, nationally, and even internationally one aspect stood
pragmatic. This pragmatic hermeneutic passed into the infant constant-the pragmatic hermeneutics which looked to
Pentecostal Movement as “oral tradition”.’ This tradition was Pentecost as the pattern for contemporary experience.
subsequently “received” by church councils and codified in Writing about midway between the beginning of the
doctrinal statements. As a result of this codification of s’mahraP
Pentecostal Movement and the present, one expositor declares:
hermeneutics and theology for the majority of its brief history,
Pentecostal hermeneutics has existed in an analytical vacuum.
. . . we believe that the experiences of the one hundred and twenty in
In fact, Pentecostal hermeneutics has relied on exposition rather
Acts 24 - “And they were all filled with the Hdy Ghost and began to
than investigation and analysis. Nevertheless this pragmatic speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” - is the
hermeneutic became the bulwark of Pentecostal apologetics, Scriptural pattern for believers of the whole church age.”
and the pillar of classical Pentecostalism, which, though it might
lo William W. Men&s, The Revival Spreads to Los Angeles [1901-19061,” ch. 3,
’ Ibid., p. 66. in, Anointed 7’0 Scm (Springfield, MO: 1971), pp. 41-59.
” Ibid. “Cooperation: From Isolation to Evangelical Identification,” ch. 9, pp. 177-
a Ibid.
227.
9 William G. MacDonald, “Pentecostal Theology. A Classical Viewpoint,” in
I2 Carl Brumback, “Whaf MUX&I This.7” A Pmtamstal Answcr to a Pmta;ostd
Pmpedives on the New I-‘entecmtulism, edited by Russell P. Spittler (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book blouse, 1976), p. 59. Question (Springfield, MO.: Gospel Publishing House, 1947), p. 192
,..51
IA
sihT noitamriffa saw dennep yb lraC ,kcabmurBmohw
Conceding that there are opposing views to the
I selected at random as an exemplar of Pentecostal
meaning of these promises Brumback, nevertheless, insists, .“ . .
31.scituenemreh This affirmation of Pentecostal hermeneutics,
that the do not say the purpose of the baptism
however, could have been written in any decade of the primary (we only)
at and since Pentecost was and is the enduement of believers
Movement’s history, or by anyone within the Movement. This with “power from on high.“” This gift of power, of course, is to
is because Pentecostal hermeneutics is traditional, and,
enable and /or empower the witness or service of believers.
therefore, essentially both timeless and anonymous.
This brief survey of Brumback’s Pentecost-as-pattern
nI si h,koob tahw“
Meuneth This? “: A Pentecostal Answer cituenemre5 is an example of Pentecostal hepeneutics at the
Brumback never tires of asserting this
to u Pentewsful Question, tnidpoint of the Movement’s history and is a restatement of the
Pentecost-as-pattern hermeneutical stance. For example, .“ . .
citamgarF s cituene mfroeh eh tstneduts fo s’mahraP lehteBelbiB
the baptisms or fillings with the Holy Spirit, as recorded in As with s’mahraP
loohc5 erom* than a generation earlier.
Acts,” he writes, “should likewise be the standard for believers
I tudents there is the same conviction that the experience of both
today”; furthermore, .“ . . m’ apostolic days speaking with cilotsop: and contemporary Christianity should be identical,
tongues was a constant accompaniment of the baptism with the
hat the baptism is for service and for neither salvation
nor
Holy Ghost, and should be in these days as well”; moreover,
and that tongues is eht invariable initial evidence
zanctification,
“speaking in tongues demrof eht nrettap rof yreve ralimis
t he baptism with the Holy Spirit.
‘jf
baptism or charismatic enduement”; and, finally, “the tongues of
One striking peculiarity of Brumback’s discussion to
Pentecost . . . set the pattern for future baptisms in the Holy
esoh: who read it forty years later is that this pragmatic
Spirit.“”
?entecost-as-pattern hermeneutic is simply assumed to be -fles
For Pentecostals, then, tongues is normative for their
evident and self-authenticating. Nowhere does he analyze or
experience, just as it was normative in the experience of the
explain this hermeneutic; he simply asserts it. Nowhere does he
apostolic church, as recorded in Acts. Though normative, betray any self awareness that, in a book of Pentecostal
tongues is not the purpose of the baptism. For Pentecostals
apologetics, he needs to discuss, defend and justify his
generally, and Brumback, in particular: Jesus established dt
hermeneutical base for developing “a contemporary Pentecostal
purpose of the baptism or filling with the Spirit in Luke 94:42 -
” answer to that ancient Pentecostal question.”
. . . but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with Up to the 1970s classical Pentecostals have remained
power from on high.” niagA ni stcA 1:8 eH ,dias “. . . but you confidently, if not always quietly, impervious to criticism of its
shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.”
pragmatic Pentecost-as-pattern hermeneutic. While it remains
confident, classical Pentecostalism is no longer impervious to
the hermeneutical debate. In the 1970s and ’80s Pentecostals
3l have begun to address the hermeneutical issues and to
For example, compare the following two expositions of Pentecostal theology
articulate new hermeneutical approaches while, at the same
Frank Linblad, 7%~ Spiril Which Is Fran God (Springfield, MO.: 1928), and L.
Thomas Holdcroft, The Holy Spirit: A Pen tam&d Intqrefation (Springfield, MO.: time, attempting to remain true both to their experience and to
Gospel Publishing House, 1979), coming from the same publisher as Brumback”s, their tradition. lareveS srotcaf fo gniyrav ecnatropmi evah
“whuf Mea&h This?...”
.pp
” Brumback, “What Meundh This?, ” U&87,198-u)o. ” p.
Ibid., 197.
16 .,, ,, ,,, ,, ,,“ 1 7 ~, ,“ ,, ,,” ,_ ,-,
produced this new attitude. First, the movement itself has
matured; it is no longer a young movement struggling to shape Gordon D. Fee: A “Genre” Hermeneutic
its identity and to survive in a hostile world. Second,
Dr. Gordon Fee has moved to fill the analytical vacuum
Pentecostalism is now eTom widely accepted and is fully
of classical Pentecostalism with perhaps Eom rogiv nahtyna
integrated into mainstream Evangelicalism. As a result, it is less
other contemporary scholar. His analysis of Pentecostal
defensive than it was in earlier generations. Third, the
hermeneutics and his proposals for new directions in
1atsocetnePoen or Charismatic movement has shown classical
hermeneutics are found in several articles, including the
slatsocetneP a yteirav fo evitanretla hemeneutics, worship and
:gniwollof “Hermeneutics and Historical’ Precedent - arojaM
life styles. Finally, Pentecostal leadership, at least in its Bible
Problem in Pentecostal 61“,scituenemreH st cA“ - The Problem of
colleges and seminars, is now seminary and university trained.
Historical Precedent,“” and “Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The
As a result, this leadership is trained in critical methodology
Issue of Separability and ’l“.ecneuqesbuS sA a nos foeht
and skilled in scholarly dialogue. Consequently, the classical
Pentecostal Movement and a scholar of international reputation,
Pentecostal Movement has now brought its pragmatic
s’eeF credentials are impeccable. His primary contribution to
hermeneutic to the intellectual market place, to buy and to sell.
the hermeneutical debate is to advocate a “genre” hermeneutic
The market place is fraught with tazng regnad rof ehtyrawnu
as an alternative to the pragmatic hermeneutic of classical
merchant, but also promises great spiritual gains for the wise
Pentecostals.
merchant.
When discussing the pragmatic hermeneutic of classical As a general principle Fee advocates “It should be an
axiom of biblical hermeneutics that the interpreter must take
Pentecostals, because one is discussing the exposition of a
into account the literary genre of the passage he is interpreting,
,noitidart eno nac esoohc tsomla yna ralpmexe morf yna egasa
along with the question of. text, grammar, philosophy, and
representative of the movement. When di&ussing the current
”“.yrotsih So with the Acts, upon which Pentecostal theology is
debate, however, because one is no longer discussing a
tradition, one must look at individuals and their particular based: .“ . . iti s ton an epistle, nor a theological treatise. Even if
one disregards its historical value, he cannot, indeed must not,
contribution to the debate. In the 1970s and ’80s the work of
disregard the fact that it is cast in the form of historical
three Pentecostal scholars demands attention: Dr. Cordon D.
Fee, professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver,
B.C., Dr. Howard M. Ervin, professor of Old Testament at Oral
Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Dr. William W. ” Gordon D. Fee, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent - A Major Problem in
Menzies, pmsident, Asia Pacific Theological ,,oyiruagnaiBmeS Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Peqwdivrs on chL weN PenttxosMism, edited by
Philippines. In contrast to the pragmatic hermeneutic espoused llessuK P. Spittler (Grand Rapids, ML: Baker Book House, 1976), pp. 118-132
by classical Pentecostals, these scholars espouse a genre, ” Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, “Acts - The Problem of Historical
,citamuenp dna citsiloh uenemreh ,cit.ylevitcepser I’recedent,” in How to Read the BiMcfbr All its Worth: A Guide to Undmdanding du
Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI.: ZONDERVAN GNIHSILBUP ESUOH 1982), . pp ,78
.201
” Gordon D. Fee, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and
Subsequence,” Pneuma, Vol. 7, NO. 2, (1985): pp. 87-99.
” Fee, “Hermeneutics,” p. 1%.
81
I Q