Kenneth J. Archer

AFTERWORD: ON THE FUTURE OF PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS

Kenneth J. Archer

Pentecostal scholars are generating a wealth of academic literature on various subjects. Hermeneutics is addressed regularly; however, the discussion of hermeneutics is almost always related to biblical interpretation. 1 Pentecostal hermeneutics has matured over the past 20 years. 2 The compilation of essays in this volume is a testimony to the growing reality that hermeneutics is an essential aspect of any discipline and should not be limited only to discussions concerning biblical interpretation, even though this is paramount for Christian communities. Hermeneutics is related to all academic disciplines, in the sense that, at its core is the concern for proper interpretation—coming to a “true” or “correct” or “legitimate” or “accurate” or “fair” understanding of the subject being observed or investigated. Hermeneutics is interdisciplinary because it is a routine func- tion of human interaction with reality, and necessary for human fl ourish- ing. 3 Bill and I hope this volume signals a concern to be more intentional about hermeneutics and its contribution to biblical, theological and various other academic disciplines. The future of Pentecostal hermeneutics will require scholars to engage with previous pentecostal–charismatic articulations of hermeneutics by

K. J. Archer Southeastern University, Lakeland , FL , USA

© The Author(s) 2016 315 K.J. Archer, L.W. Oliverio, Jr. (eds.), Constructive Pneumatological Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Christianity, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58561-5 316 K.J. ARCHER challenging, affi rming, revisioning, tweaking, and even restating certain insights, models, and methodologies. 4 This is the nature of academic study, yet it is also the nature of historical traditioning of communities. Furthermore, Pentecostals should continue to refl ect on and appreciate the ways in which their theological perspective is informed by race, sex, gender, and nationality. As long as Pentecostalism is viewed as a distinct theological tradition, she will be able to enter into dialogue with various other Christian traditions, academic disciplines, religions, philosophies, etc., as she further discovers the giftings and shortcomings of her communities. Of course, there are those scholars that really do not see Pentecostalism as a distinct Christian theological tradition. Such scholars might label themselves or their tradition as Christian, Protestant, Evangelical, Charismatic, or Renewal. 5 Whatever the label, I do believe that owning one’s identity is essential to faithful interpretation, and recognizing one’s theological communities’ formation is standard fare today. No longer can one escape fi nitude and particularity. 6 All understanding is contextualized and is always generated from some perspective. We must stand somewhere. “All human understanding and interpretation is necessarily limited, plural, partial and perspectival.” 7 As a result of being created fi nite beings, hermeneuts are embedded in a fi nite historical space-time reality. Dialogical engagement with other communities and traditions (past and present) is necessary for self-awareness and hermeneutical development. This would include appreciating the early period of Pentecostalism and the writings it produced. We must realize that there are signifi cant differences as well as deep commonalities among the Christian traditions. This is why I have always presented my work as a “local theology” and yet engaged as best as possible with various traditions of global Christianity. Contextualization is part of God’s creative purpose. To do contextual hermeneutics does not mitigate against ecumenism. 8 Engaging in current academic investigation across various theological and academic disciplines attests to Pentecostals’ desire to be informed by global Christianity and to be concerned about truth wherever it is found. Contextualized hermeneutics can be hospitable, recognizing that Pentecostal tradition is only one of the various legitimate Christian traditions. One can be both contextual and ecumenical without giving up one’s theological identity. It does not have to be “either-or” but should be “both-and.” Globalization does not necessarily bring with it a global hermeneutic, but it has fos- tered an easier means to enter into various relationships around the world. No doubt, Pentecostal hermeneuts who are multilingual and have experi- AFTERWORD: ON THE FUTURE OF PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 317 enced Pentecostalism in various local settings around the globe might be able to offer theological refl ection from rich diverse personal experiences, giving them a more global perspective. A consensus seems to have emerged concerning Pentecostal hermeneutics. What has emerged from the earlier full monograph articulations on Pentecostal hermeneutics, especially Amos Yong and myself, was a concern for the interrelated roles of the Spirit, the community, and the Scripture in the hermeneutical process for theological negotiation for meaning. 9 “A Pentecostal hermeneutic is fi rst and foremost a participatory and relational theological hermeneutic—a way of interpreting life and ultimate reality.” 10 Residing at the center of Pentecostal hermeneutics will be the Spirit, communities, and Scripture. 11 A storied theological tradition will provide the hermeneutical lens through which reality is interpreted and by which one goes about organizing and making sense out of life. In the future, various concerns associated with the triad will be addressed in constructive ways, adding to the ongoing body of academic literature addressing pentecostal–charismatic hermeneutics. As stated, Pentecostal hermeneutics will and should address a number of concerns. These areas of concern have grown out of certain critiques both within and outside of the Pentecostal communities. Some critiques are more empathetic than others. The more empathetic critiques typi- cally arise out of sympathetic outsiders who share some of the concerns being raised, 12 whereas some of the critiques that bemoan and dismiss the quest for and articulation of an authentic Pentecostal hermeneutic come from inside the community, 13 or come from those who were once identi- fi ed among the pentecostals but “now have seen the light.” I am sure as we move forward that new issues will arise, often as restatements of past concerns, sometimes centuries or even millennia old, often played to an ancient philosophical tune of the problem of the one and the many. Human experience and the narrative of life is fundamental to human maturation and understanding. Through narrative, the human mind organizes experiences, knowledge, and thinking. “Narrative imaging is our fundamental form of predicting” and also our “fundamental cogni- tive instrument for explanation.” 14 In this way, humans “frame meaning in narrative terms.” 15 Story is the means to transmit understanding and through story identity is formed and reshaped. 16 The primary stories that shape communal and, in turn, individual identity are necessary, even though such stories are always limited, and might not always be accurate. In fact, we are warned that many are fl awed perspectives. Some interpreta- 318 K.J. ARCHER tions are overturned and further refi ned. Some interpretations are sinful, masking power for the privileged. Thus we should ask, “By what stories do we make sense of the world?” 17 Pentecostals hermeneutics will fi nd narrative an ally in self-understanding and in reading/hearing the Scripture as a grand narrative. I placed narrative at the heart of Pentecostal hermeneutics, both in understanding early North American Pentecostalism and for the theological interpretation of Scripture, especially when we are trying to dis- cern what the Spirit is saying in and through Scripture. I argued that the Pentecostals’ primary story was a certain understanding of the Gospel and church history. 18 The doxological narrative convictions associated with the redemptive work of God through Christ known as the Fivefold or Full Gospel stands at the very core of the Pentecostal community. I defi ned early Pentecostalism as.

diverse groups of restoration-revivalistic movements held together by a common doctrinal commitment to the Five/Four-Fold Gospel and marked by experiential-charismatic worship services. Pentecostalism emerged as a Christian missionary movement in the early twentieth century. As a Christian restoration-revivalistic movement, Pentecostalism emphasizes the continuing work of Jesus Christ through the personal agency of the Holy Spirit. The community continues the ministry of Jesus through proclaim- ing Jesus as Savior, Sanctifi er, Spirit Baptizer, Healer and Soon Coming King. Pentecostals envision themselves as a restoration of New Testament Christianity living in the last days of the Latter Rain and in opposition to the World. 19

This was an attempt to “restore” so-called New Testament Christianity, hence the early Pentecostals and many contemporary pentecostal communities are still shaped by the early and latter rain motif, and Luke-Acts. Even today, among many pentecostal–charismatic communities, the Full Gospel and variations on it can be heard in testimonies and emphasized through sermons. 20 I would like to address the notion of restoration as it relates to early formation of Pentecostal identity and theological interpretation. 21 Early Pentecostals believed they were the restoration of New Testament Christianity. This, of course, would be understood as naïve for a number of reasons. First, “New Testament Christianity” was not monolithic. Second, there were numerous spiritual renewal movements throughout AFTERWORD: ON THE FUTURE OF PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 319 church history. Third, New Testament Christianity for Pentecostals was found narrated in the Book of Acts, even though a few engaged in early Christian theological writings. Fourth, New Testament Christianity was a reference to the New Testament, not necessarily a reference to the historical period called early Christianity. Finally, early Pentecostals were paramodern, living more so on the margins of mainstream society, then formally educated in the thought world of modernity. The vast majority were not from high society and were hard working, lower income folk. They sought to “restore” pure and powerful apostolic faith and practices to what they considered to be cold and cerebral Christianity. Thus, they saw their present forms of Christianity lacking the vital outward expressions of Spirit Baptism. They were shaped by Protestantism’s quest to restore the Gospel and pietistic expressions of Christianity. Today, pentecostals–charismatics could benefi t from revisioning the early Pentecostal story with its latter rain motif and restoration stance in a critical nuanced manner. 22 Acts-Luke should still be prominent in future Pentecostal theological refl ection, yet not so much as early history of the Church but more so as a theological entrance into the canonical story of Scripture as well as a formational grounding for particular pentecostal theological vision. 23 Pentecostals should encourage a greater appreciation for the working of the Spirit throughout history, including the period between the Constantinian shift and the Protestant revolution against Roman Catholicism. 24 Without denying the importance of primitive and early Christianity, Pentecostals might fi nd the ancient-future faith paradigm, as articulated by Robert E. Weber, for example, helpful. 25 Dialogue with Radical Orthodoxy could also prove fruitful. 26 Another frontier would be to venture into “metamodernism’s” philosophical refl ection for theological reasons. Pentecostalism was born in protest to certain controlling intellectual aspects of enlightened modernity. She is not solidly “modern” or “post” modern, nor is she “pre” modern. 27 The concerns of metamodernism are more conducive to the theological identity of Pentecostalism than either modernism or post-modernism. 28 The future of Pentecostal hermeneutics must take seriously Pentecostal storied identity as its primary fi lter for engaging in interpretive activity at various levels, whether that is reading sacred texts such as the Bible or interpreting biological matter. For example, how has American popular fundamentalism, with its emphasis on a six 24-hour day understanding of the Genesis creation story (1:1–2:4), impacted Pentecostals when it comes to interpretation of biological matter? What about Pentecostal biologists, 320 K.J. ARCHER cosmologists, and physicists? Are they able to maintain Pentecostal spirituality when they may no longer adhere to a narrow understanding of creation which most likely shaped their early Christian formation? Would not a concern for the Spirit in creation offer some insights? 29 Personally, I would hope so. More so than a giving a simple nod, Pentecostals will need to take serious contextualization and wrestle with the implications that race and ethnicity, sex and gender, nationalities and Christianity, faith and science, formal education and human intelligence, globalization and secularization, etc., have upon shaping and infl uencing their interpretations both positively and neg- atively, in ways that are both revealing and concealing. 30 The quest is to get at the truth and to understand properly. The truth is always being sought from a particular place in the fi nite space-time continuum. For pentecostals–charismatics, the more pressing concern is living properly with God and others. Thus, contextualized interpretation is one of the future frontiers of hermeneutics and with it comes the validation of the importance of story for human understanding. Hopefully, the Fivefold/Full Gospel (and variations on the theme of liberation and deliverance) as a redemptive story of God for humanity will remain a formational traditioning providing deeper commonality through shared charismatic experiences among pentecostals and charismatics. Arising out of the concern not to be classifi ed either Pentecostal or Charismatic and attempt to hold everything pentecostal–charismatic under one umbrella emerged the concept of “renewal.” The renewal tradition is postulating a pneumatic hermeneutic. Kevin Spawn and Archie Wright’s edited collection of essays addressing pneumatic hermeneutics. 31 These essays exhibit a concern for utilizing the historical critical method and other methodologies from the perspective of a charismatic confessional Christianity. The essays focus on the role of the Spirit in critical interpretive methodologies. In this way, the editors want to continue “the believ- er’s criticism” tradition with a particular concern to lift up and develop a pneumatic hermeneutic as it relates to traditional historical critical and other exegetical methods. The focus is no longer on particular communities but on the Spirit and methodology. The contributors all belong to pentecostal–charismatic forms of Christianity, except for the respondents. One of three primary concerns for the volume was to address the fol- lowing question: “How does the Holy Spirit mediate meaning from the text?” 32 The question is indeed challenging. Unfortunately, the essays do AFTERWORD: ON THE FUTURE OF PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 321 not engage this question in a substantive manner. Yet, if the focus is to articulate a “pneumatic” approach, it would have been helpful to address the Spirit in the interpretive process. 33 Pentecostal and charismatic traditions which give shape to Pentecostal and charismatic interpreters should be concerned about the role of the Spirit in the interpretive process as well as utilizing proper methodologies in the interpretation of Scripture and reality. They also should be concerned with their own social location and the communities that shape them as interpreters. Methodology is important; therefore, methodologies must be employed that suit the subject of investigation. Methods are always being utilized by someone, and methods, even though used according to governing rules and scientifi c procedures, are not able in and of themselves to resolve all matters. Surely, the method should have some sense of correctness and be understood by others so as to repeat the experiment and validate the interpretation of the data. But should we compartmentalize the scientifi c methodology say from religious or faith oriented quests? Should we interpret the so-called “book of nature” differently than the so-called “book of Scripture”? No, because, at a deeper level, the method will be grounded in a theological hermeneutic and thus a pentecostal–charismatic worldview will make sense of the methodology and interpretation. Pentecostals and charismatics would want to ground everything back into their understanding of the Gospel, and interpret reality through a theological hermeneutic relationally grounded in a particular traditioned community. And yes, because methods do matter, in the sense that written texts require us to interpret them from a literary perspective, utilizing literary methods and biology requires the use of empirical methods. Particular methodologies appropriate to the fi eld of study will ultimately make sense in the worldview of the interpreter who has been shaped by her/his theological community(s). Therefore, the triadic relationship of community, Scripture, and Spirit is more conducive to developing a thorough going theological hermeneutic then a particular interpretive methodology. For Pentecostals, hermeneutics has primarily been concerned with the interpretation of Scripture. The scriptures will always hold an honored and primary place in Pentecostal Christianity. However, we cannot escape that the understanding of Scripture is always a constructed theologically interpreted understanding of a body of literature we call the Holy Bible. Pentecostals must be challenged to consider how our theological hermeneutic contributes to other disciplines and interpretive methods. We should interrogate methods as vigorously as we do material reality and our theo- 322 K.J. ARCHER logical identity. We should be ecumenical and contextual with our hermeneutical practices. Furthermore, academics who are spiritually shaped in pentecostal–charismatic communities will employ methods acceptable to their disciplines as Christians, in particular as Pentecostal or Charismatic Christians. Their spiritual formation may enable them to “see” and discover “truth” in ways that others may not. Community formation into the pentecostal story matters. It makes all the difference. In all of this, Pentecostals should foster a hospitable charitable conversational hermeneutical attitude as we engage interpretation from our particular locations. 34 The future is bright for pentecostal–charismatic hermeneutics.

NOTES 1. See the editorial by Robby Waddell and Peter Althouse, “The Pentecostals and Their Scriptures” in Pneuma 38 (2016), 1–7. 2. See Lee Roy Martin, ed., Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader (Leiden: Brill, 2013) which addresses hermeneutics as it relates to the various concerns of biblical interpretation, and Kenneth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Society for Pentecostal Studies: Reading and Hearing in One Spirit and One Accord,” Pneuma 37.3 (2015), 317–339. 3. See Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009). 4. I use uppercase Pentecostal to refer to a historic diverse group of Pentecostal communities that share in a distinct Pentecostal theological tradition and have close theological affi liation with early Pentecostalism. I am using lower case pentecostal to affi rm the important diversity that exists among the various local so-called spirit-fi lled communities and denominations that comprise the various Pentecostalisms and the charismatic-pentecostal like communities. At places I will use pentecostal-charismatic for stylistic reasons to accomplish the same concern as pentecostal. I do believe that it is benefi cial to retain a defi nitional distinction between Pentecostal (those communities connected to the early classical Pentecostal movements which developed a distinct theological tradition and those latter pentecostal groups who are shaped by Pentecostal theological traditions and are still theologically more fl uid) and Charismatic (which modifi es an already exist- ing Christian tradition without necessarily creating a new tradition, such as Charismatic Catholic or Charismatic Reformed). See my “Introduction” in The Gospel Revisited: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Worship and Witness (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2011), xv-xx; and “A Pentecostal AFTERWORD: ON THE FUTURE OF PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 323

Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9:3 (July 2007): 301–314. Furthermore, I realize that the Azusa Street Revival, Los Angeles, CA (1906–1909) should not be viewed as the defi nitive origin of all the global pentecostal-charismatic communities. I do affi rm that it played and should continue to play a signifi cant contributive role for the early development of Pentecostal theologies, especially those emerging from local traditions in the USA context, and missionaries associated with this revival who went out to other nations besides the USA. In fact, I have argued that Pentecostalism’s polygenesis (or multiple origins) supports the close storied identity between the Radical Reformation and modern Pentecostalism. See Kenneth J. Archer and Andrew S. Hamilton, “Anabaptism-Pietism and Pentecostalism: Scandalous Partners in Protest” in Scottish Journal of Theology 63.2 (2010): 185–202. For the most current review of Pentecostal historiography that addresses origins, see Michael McClymond, “I Will Pour out of My Spirit upon All Flesh: An Historical and Theological Meditation on Pentecostal Origins” in Pneuma 37 (2015): 356–374. 5. The Pew Research Center used renewal to include both Pentecostals and Charismatics, see “Spirit and Power—A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals” published October 5, 2006 and accessed May 16, 2016, http://www.pew- forum.org/2006/10/05/spirit-and-power/ . Renewal is an overarching term that includes both pentecostals and charismatics. “Renewal” has been picked up by some associated with Regent University, School of Divinity. For example, see the latest systematic Pentecostal theology by Amos Yong titled Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity (Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 2014), 5–7. Yong was at Regent at the time of publication. For an attempt toward a “renewal” pneumatic hermeneutic addressing biblical interpretation, see the compilation and responses in Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Examining a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2012). The editors write, the renewal tradition “refers to global charismatic movements and scholars…who maintain that pneumatological commitments and experiences have implications for the hermeneutical project” (xvii). At the time of publication, both editors belonged to Regent University, School of Divinity. 6. See Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009) for insightful guidance on how to avoid a problematic relativism and objectivism as well as his opening chapter in this volume. 7. Kenneth J. Archer, “Listen carefully! You might learn something,” in JEPTA (2016), forthcoming. 324 K.J. ARCHER

8. On Pentecostalism and Ecumenism, see Wolfgang Vondey, ed., Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2010) and Pentecostalism and Christian Unity Volume Two: Continuing and Building Relationships (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2013). 9. Amos Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Aldershot, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002); Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture, and Community (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004). For a helpful review and constructive typology of Pentecostal hermeneutics, see L. William Oliverio Jr., Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account , Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 10. Kenneth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Society for Pentecostal Studies: Reading and Hearing in One Spirit and One Accord,” Pneuma 37.3 (2015): 327. 11. Melissa L. Archer, I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day: A Pentecostal Engagement with Worship in the Apocalypse (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2015), 45. See pages 45–54, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” for a discussion of the essential ideas associated with each of the triad and the rationale for taking the fi rst fi fteen years of Pentecostal literature into consideration for academic Pentecostal theological interpretation. 12. For one example see the chapter in this volume by Joel Green. 13. Often the concern has to do with defi nition of identity of the interpreters and the methodologies being employed, however, some are more philosophical critiques reaffi rming modern epistemology and others more theological. For example, see Jack Poirier’s chapter in this volume. 14. Mark Turner, The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), v, cited in Joel B. Green, Practicing Theological Interpretation: Engaging Biblical Texts for Faith and Formation (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Academic, 2011), 27. 15. Green, Practicing Theological Interpretation , 28. 16. Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue , 2nd ed., (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 204–225. MacIntyre speaks to social ethics, however, I am borrowing his ideas for theological purposes. 17. Green, Practicing Theological Interpretation , 28. 18. Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community (Cleveland, Tennessee; CPT Press, 2009), Chap. 5, 128–171. 19. Kenneth J. Archer and Andrew S. Hamilton, “Anabaptism-Pietism and Pentecostalism: Scandalous Partners in Protest,”Scottish Journal of Theology 63.2 (2010): 185–202, 191. AFTERWORD: ON THE FUTURE OF PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 325

20. Kenneth J. Archer, “Full Gospel,” in Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity , ed. Adam Stewart (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern University Press, 2012), 89–91. 21. According to Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Examining a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2012), the early Pentecostal narrative that I wanted to revision, which includes restoration, is arrogantly “triumphalistic” and “needs to be revised to preserve collegiality in both scholarly and ecumenical dialogue.” Furthermore, they felt that I diminished “the historical, cultural and literary dimensions of the Scripture”(15). I fi nd that such a mis -reading of my overall monograph, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), was helpful in the promotion of their “believ- ers criticism” and privileging modern historical critical methodologies for the interpretation of Scripture. 22. This is what I set out to do in the sixth chapter of my book, check this cite A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement 28, London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), which takes into consideration the contrition’s of Spirit, Scripture (and particular methodologies for interpreting it), and community in the negotiation for meaning. 23. For example see Amos Yong’s chapter in this volume. Yong has consis- tently argued for the importance of Lukan hermeneutic for his theological work. 24. For one example see Stanley M. Burgess, ed., Christian Peoples of the Spirit: A Documented History of Pentecostal Spirituality from the Early Church to the Present (New York and London: New York University Press, 2011). 25. See his Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999). 26. See Yoon Shin’s chapter in this monograph. 27. Kenneth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Society for Pentecostal Studies: Reading and Hearing in One Spirit and One Accord,” Pneuma 37.3 (2015): 322–324. 28. Concerning metamodernism, see the collection of essays in Germanistik in Ireland: Jahrbuch der/Yearbook of Association of Third-Level Teachers of Germen in Ireland 6 (2011) and the blog site “Notes on Metamodernism” which was founded in 2009 by Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker, http://www.metamodernism.com/about-2/ . In an interview titled “Notes on Metamodernism,” Tank Magazine (February 23, 2012) asked Timotheus Vermeulen to explains metamodern. Vermeulen stated that “meta signifi es an oscillation, a swinging or swaying with and between 326 K.J. ARCHER

future, present and past, here and there and somewhere; with and between ideals, mindsets, and positions. For us, the prefi x meta indicates that a person can believe in one thing one day and believe in its opposite the next. Or maybe even at the same time. Indeed, if anything, meta intimates a constant repositioning: not a compromise, not a balance, but an at times vehemently moving back and forth, left and right. It repositions itself with and between neoliberalism and Keynesianism, the “right” and the “left”, idealism and “pragmatism”, the discursive and the material, web 2.0 and arts and crafts, without ever seeming reducible to any one of them.” http://www.metamodernism.com/2012/02/23/tank-interviews- timotheus-vermeulen-about-metamodernism/ , accessed May 18, 2016. Luke Turner, Metamodernism: A Brief Introduction , writes, “Whereas postmodernism was characterised (sic) by deconstruction, irony, pastiche, relativism, nihilism, and the rejection of grand narratives (to caricature it somewhat), the discourse surrounding metamodernism engages with the resurgence of sincerity, hope, romanticism, affect, and the potential for grand narratives and universal truths, whilst not forfeiting all that we’ve learnt from postmodernism,” http://www.metamodernism. com/2015/01/12/metamodernism-a-brief-introduction/ , accessed May 18, 2016. 29. See James K. A. Smith and Amos Yong, eds., Science and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Engagement with Science (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2010) and Amos Yong, The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011). 30. See Daniel Castelo’s essay in this volume. Although historically speaking, Pentecostalism comes after Western European colonialization, postcolo- nial interpretive methods would be helpful. For a recent example see Rodolfo Galvan Estrada iii, “Is a Contextualized Hermeneutic the Future of Pentecostal Readings? The Implications of a Pentecostal Hermeneutic for a Chicano/Latino Community,” in Pneuma 37, 3 (2014): 341–355. 31. Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (London: T & T Clark, 2012). According to Wright, “the goal of this volume was to offer several essays that would present various ideas of the role of the Holy Spirit (God’s Spirit) in hermeneutics: a pneumatic hermeneutic ” (175). For a helpful review see Andrew Davies, “Book Reviews,” Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., review of Spirit & Scripture: Examining a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (London: T&T Clark, 2012) in Pneuma 35 (2013): 268–269. 32. Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture , 18. AFTERWORD: ON THE FUTURE OF PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 327

33. From my perspective, one of the more helpful essays that actually addresses a “Pneumatic Hermeneutic” in Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (London: T & T Clark, 2012) is Mark J. Cartledge’s short response titled, “Pneumatic Hermeneutics: A Reply to Respondents,” 186–188. 34. Contrary to some who have mistaken my call to be Pentecostal and claim that Pentecostalism is a distinct theological tradition as triumphal, I do not believe that Pentecostalism is the Christian tradition. I have made the postmodern turn to the particularity. Thus the argument for a perspectival hermeneutic. I would venture to say, however, that most confessional scholars do believe that the tradition in which they are currently embedded is an authentic particular restoration or expression, and or continuation of primitive Christianity, and thus an acceptable form of Christianity. Here I want to say thank you to Spawn and Wright, for they have caused me to give greater consideration to the notion of restoration and implications for contemporary Pentecostalism. NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Kenneth J. Archer (Ph.D., University of St Andrews, Scotland) is Professor of Theology and Pentecostal Studies at Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida and an Ordained Bishop in the Church of God, Cleveland, TN. He served as the President of the Society for Pentecostal Studies in 2015. He is active in ministry and has co-pastored three churches with his spouse, Melissa Archer, and served with Melissa for nine years as college and career ministers at Woodward Church of God. He has presented papers at international conferences, taught in various Pentecostal colleges in Central and South America, as well as the Philippines. Besides his published essays on theology, hermeneutics and peacemaking, he has authored, The Gospel Revisited: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Worship and Witness and A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community . David R. Bundrick (Ph.D., University of Missouri) served 31 years as a professor and university administrator prior to retiring from his dual post as Dean of the School of Theology and Church Ministries at Evangel University and Academic Dean at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. His dissertation research, focusing on the historical interaction between science and theology in American higher education, resulted in his developing the “Science—Faith Paradigm Scale,” a noted and utilized metric concerning Pentecostal attitudes on faith and science. With Steve Badger, he served as general editor of the Proceedings of the Inaugural Faith and Science Conference and Genesis and Genetics .

Mark J. Cartledge (Ph.D., University of Wales) is Professor of Practical Theology and Director of the Center for Renewal Studies at Regent University School of Divinity. He is ordained in the Church of England and has been active in Christian ministry. He teaches and researches at the intersection of theology and Pentecostal and charismatic studies, and is co-editor of the Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies book series. His most recent books are The Mediation of the Spirit: Interventions in Practical Theology and Scripting Pentecost: A Study of Pentecostals, Worship and Liturgy (co-edited with A.J. Swoboda). His current research is part of an Arts and Humanities Research Council funded project investigating the social engagement of megachurches in London. Research from this project is expected to be published in a book entitled Transforming the City . Daniel Castelo (Ph.D., Duke University) is Professor of Dogmatic and Constructive Theology at Seattle Pacifi c University. He works in the areas of divine attribution, practical theodicy, pneumatology, the theological interpretation of Scripture, the intersection between Wesleyan and Pentecostal theologies, epistemic and cultural contextualization, and Latino/a studies. A winner of the John Templeton Award for Theological Promise, he has authored or co-authored seven books. David Daniels III (Ph.D., Union Theological Seminary) is the Henry Winters Luce Professor of World Christianity at McCormick Theological Seminary, having joined the faculty in 1987. He is the author of over 50 essays, academic articles, and chapters in books edited by scholars such as Cornel West, Ogbu Kalu, Vinson Synan, Estrelda Alexander, Craig Dykstra, and Dorothy Bass. He publishes on topics related to Black Church history, Pentecostal Studies, and World Christianity. He has served as a member of research projects funded by various foundations, including the Eli Lilly Endowment, the Luce Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trust. Daniels has served as the President of the Society for Pentecostal Studies and as the co-chair of the Reformed-Pentecostal International Dialogue. He serves on the editorial board of Journal of World Christianity, having previously served on the editorial boards of Conversations in Religion and Theology and Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. Christopher C. Emerick (Ph.D., Regent University) is adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Strayer University and adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Grand Canyon University. He is also QA Specialist and Manager of the welding and nondestructive testing programs for a defense contractor in Norfolk, VA. He has presented conference papers NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 331 and published articles on philosophical pneumatology and philosophical hermeneutics. Chris E.W. Green (Ph.D., Bangor University; D.Min. Oral Roberts University) is Associate Professor of Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary in Cleveland, TN and Teaching Pastor at Sanctuary Church in Tulsa, OK. He is the author of Foretasting the Kingdom: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Lord’s Supper and Sanctifying Interpretation: Vocation, Holiness, Scripture . Joel B. Green (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen) is Dean of the School of Theology and Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author or editor of more than 45 books, including Conversion in Luke-Acts: Divine Initiative, Human Cognition, and the People of God ; Why Salvation? ; and Wesley, Wesleyans, and Reading Bible as Scripture . Green edits the New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) and the series Reframing New Testament Theology. He is the editor-in-chief of Journal of Theological Interpretation , and serves on the editorial boards of Theology and Science and Science & Christian Belief . Jacqueline N. Grey (Ph.D., Charles Sturt University, Australia) is an associate professor of Biblical Studies at Alphacrucis College, the national college of the Australian Christian Churches. Her publications include Them, Us & Me: How the Old Testament Speaks to People Today , Raising Women Leaders , and Three’s A Crowd , as well as numerous journal articles and book chapters. She is an ordained minister in the ACC and is committed to the mission of higher education in the church by working with Pentecostal colleges and groups in developing contexts. Grey is the current President of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. Her research interests include hermeneutics, prophetic literature, and feminist readings of scripture. Donald A. Johns (Ph.D., St. Louis University) is an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God and is Professor of Biblical Interpretation and Theology at Evangel University in Springfi eld, Missouri. In addition to previous faculty roles at Global University, Central Bible College, and the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Don also served for 13 years with the American Bible Society, beginning as a full-time Bible translator for the Contemporary English Version, and completing his service there as Director for Scripture Translation. William Kay (Ph.D., University of Reading; Ph.D. and D.Div., University of Notthingham) is Professor of Theology at Glyndŵr University and 332 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Honorary Professor of Pentecostal Studies at the University of Chester. He is a former Senior Lecturer in the Department of Education and Professional Studies at King’s College, London. He has published widely on religious education, often using empirical methods to verify or challenge contemporary orthodoxies. Similarly, he has used empirical methods in conjunction with the study of Pentecostalism. He edits The Journal the European Pentecostal Theological Association. He has published widely on Pentecostalism including Pentecostals in Britain and Apostolic Networks in Britain . His most recent book is Pentecostalism: A Very Short Introduction . His most recent research, funded by a Templeton grant, was on Pentecostal-style church growth in South-east Asia. He is currently working on a biography of George Jeffreys. Duane T. Loynes, Sr. (Ph.D. Cand., Marquette University) is an Assistant Professor of Theology and the Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, MI. His primary research interests are the philosophical foundations for Christian engagement with culture. His work involves apologetics, philosophy of religion, and athe- ism, as well as the way that Christian theology deals with cultural issues such as race and gender. Glen W. Menzies (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) serves as Research Projects Coordinator of the Museum of the Bible’s Scholars Initiative. Previously he taught for twenty-six years at North Central University in Minneapolis. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota is in Ancient Studies, and he is an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God. He has written a number of articles on a variety of subjects, particularly in New Testament and Pentecostal studies. Bev (B.K) Mitchell (Ph.D., University of New Brunswick) is Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Canada. He was an active researcher (insect neurobiology) for more than 30 years, a teacher at all post-secondary levels, and he served seven years in depart- mental level administration. He spent several extended research periods at universities in Holland, in the UK, and in the USA. In the years before retirement, he was actively involved in restructuring the undergraduate program in one of the largest biology departments in Canada and served as Associate Chair of Undergraduate Studies where he was heavily involved in interdisciplinary collaboration involving Christians working in the life sciences. NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 333

L. William Oliverio, Jr. (Ph.D., Marquette University) is Pastor of Immanuel Church (Assemblies of God) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Lecturer in Theology at Marquette University, and adjunct faculty for Pentecostal Theological Seminary and the School of Urban Missions. He is the author of Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account and other writings at the intersection of hermeneutics, Pentecostal theology, philosophy, and culture. Jack Poirier (D.H.L., Jewish Theological Seminary of America) has published scholarly articles in the areas of New Testament, Old Testament, Judaism, church history, and hermeneutics. He is the author of The Tongues of Angels: The Concept of Angelic Languages in Classical Jewish and Christian Texts , and co-editor (with Jeffrey Peterson) of Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis . He is currently working on several projects, including a critique of the understanding of Wittgenstein within the fi eld of theology. Yoon Shin (Ph.D. Stud., University of Aberdeen) is Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Ethics and Coordinator of Graduate Studies at Southeastern University. He is doctoral work in Divinity at King’s College—University of Aberdeen focusing on theological epistemology. His main research interests are on the topics of and intersection between postmodernism, epistemology, and apologetics. Michael Tenneson (Ph.D., University of Missouri) is Professor of Biology and Chair of the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences at Evangel University, where he has taught for nearly 30 years. Initially trained as a fi eld behavioral ecologist, he has done fi eld research on birds, frogs, por- cupines, lizards, and snails. His current research examines attitudes and beliefs of people related to science and theology. Tenneson has authored or co-authored numerous papers and presentations, along with several essays in edited volumes. He has led conference planning teams for three well-attended Faith and Science Conferences in 2011, 2014, and 2016. Jared Vazquez (Ph.D. Stud., University of Denver/Iliff School of Theology) has scholarly interests in bodies, sexuality, identity, culture, language, and religious experience. His primary fi elds of study include continental philosophy, cultural and queer theory, Latino/a studies, and Pentecostal studies. He has been a fellow at the Human Rights Campaign Summer Institute of the Religion and Faith Program and the Hispanic Theological Initiative at Princeton. 334 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Merold Westphal (Ph.D., Yale University) is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Fordham University. His bachelor’s degree is from Wheaton (Illinois) and his doctorate from Yale. He has held regular appointments at Yale, Hope College, and Fordham University, with visit- ing positions at Juniata, Loyola (Maryland), Villanova, Fuller Seminary, and Harvard Divinity School. He has served as President of the Hegel Society of America and the Soren Kierkegaard Society, and as Executive Co-Director of the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP). He has lectured widely in the United States and Europe as well as in China and Brazil. He is editor of the Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion. His books include two on Hegel, four on Kierkegaard; God, Guilt and Death , Transcendence and Self-Transcendence , Overcoming Onto-Theology , and Whose Community? Which Interpretation? , an interpretation of philosophical thinking related to biblical interpretation. Amos Yong (Ph.D. Boston University) is Professor of Theology and Mission and Director of the Center for Missiological Research at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. A series editor for the CHARIS Series, he is a leading global and Pentecostal theologian whose work has ranged from theology of religions to pneumatology to metaphysics, and from political theology to theology of disability, he has authored or edited over three dozen volumes including Spirit-Word- Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective , The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology , In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology and Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace . INDEX

A Aquinas, Thomas, 122, 137n8 Acts, 9, 25–8, 40, 42, 44n6, 52, 53, Archer, Kenneth J., 12n13, 77n5, 55–60, 63, 72, 73, 78n12, 84–5, 157n11, 165, 172n7, 194n26, 90, 93–7, 99n2, 100n34, 105, 315–27 122–4, 125, 126, 130, 131, Archer, Melissa, viii 133–5, 139n29, 140n35, 144–56, Arrington, French L., 12n10, 241 157n14, 164, 179, 180, 183, Asian American, 8, 177–95 184, 186–8, 191n13, 193n24, Augustine, 2, 30n7, 105, 115n14 198, 200, 201, 214, 216, 217, autonomy , 78n10, 160, 161, 166 220, 221, 225, 230, 237, 242, 243, 280, 288, 304, 318, 319 African American, 192n17, 215, B 217–20, 230, 233, 235, 236 Bakhtin, Mikhail, 220, 226n16 Albrecht, Daniel, 133, 139n23 Barth, Karl, 199, 246n38, 252 Althouse, Peter, 265n9, 322n1 Basil of Caesarea, 170 American, 134, 181–3, 203, 204, 217, Beardsley, Monroe, 84, 285, 293n20 218, 229, 230, 232, 233, 236, Being , 33–65, 104–6, 112, 122, 123, 262, 290, 319, 329, 331 130, 139n28 analogy, 8, 28, 39, 85, 87, 93, 104, being-in-the-world, 8, 36, 39, 49n50, 117n44, 122, 138n13, 263 63, 108, 121, 129 application, 7, 34, 35, 42, 46n23, 73, Bellah, Robert, 203, 204, 209n11 88, 93, 149, 151, 152, 268, 280, Blount, Brian K., 234, 246n25 281, 293n16 Browning, Don, 262, 266n18, appropriation, 37, 97, 127, 262 266n19

Brueggemann, Walter, 149, 150, Davies, Oliver, 7, 33, 47n34, 157n19, 157n21, 157n23 49n47, 209n20 Davis, Rex, 127, 140n39 Dawson, David, 105 C Derrida, Jacques, 1, 11n2, 23, 25, 27, Calvin , 19, 30n4, 95 31n19, 31n25, 52, 57–62, 65n21, Chan, Simon, 122, 127, 131, 132, 65n23, 65n25, 65n29–n35, 286 136, 140n38, 141n59 Descartes, 22, 76, 122, 137n5 Classical Pentecostal, 3, 4, 7, 95, 261, dialectic, 6, 17–32, 165, 235 266n22, 322 distantiation, 161, 166 Cleveland School, 8, 190n3, 193n25 Dove, Stephen, 127, 140n41 communal , 1, 2, 99n2, 134, 164, 206, Dunn, Robert, 311, 314n33 237, 295n59, 317 communities, 1, 5, 8–10, 29, 68, 77n4, 97, 128, 130, 134, 136, E 144, 145, 147–56, 157n17, Eco, Umberto, 7, 83, 89, 100n18, 162–5, 167, 180, 198, 203–6, 119n61 211, 213, 216, 220, 224, 231, ecumenical-Pentecostal 233–5, 237, 238, 240–2, 253, hermeneutic, 4, 7 258–60, 263, 274–76, 295n59, ecumenism, 98, 316, 324n8 298, 315–18, 320–22, 322n2 Edwards, Jonathan, 108, 116n35, Cone, James. H., 233, 234 192n17 contextual, 4, 9, 97, 146, 197, 198, embodiment , 39, 121–42, 204–7 202, 274, 282, 316, 322 epistemology, 1–3, 56, 122–5, 132, contextual-Pentecostal hermeneutic, 136, 138n16, 188, 199, 201, 3, 4, 274 245n15, 247n48, 259, 269, 274, conversation, 7, 22, 23, 25, 30n16, 324n13 33–50, 85, 105, 112, 122, 125, Espinosa, Gastón, 222, 226n15, 227n22 132, 135, 136, 138n20, 180, ethnicity, 150, 224, 320 184, 186, 191n13, 198, 246n38, European, 236, 243, 253, 326n30 252, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, Evangelical–Pentecostal 299, 310, 312n8, 330 hermeneutic, 3, 7 culture , 9, 18, 22, 35, 117n40, 146, exegesis, 2, 23, 25, 26, 28, 89, 94, 147, 150, 152, 155, 156, 178–80, 163, 166, 170, 211–27, 233, 234 187, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, experience, 3, 5–8, 10, 34, 36, 38, 44n, 217, 220, 229–48, 254, 258, 45n14, 46n20, 51, 52, 56, 61, 63, 259, 282–4, 287, 288, 291 95–8, 108, 109, 125–7, 133, 135, 144–56, 158n27, 159, 163–6, 171, 177, 178, 181, 182, 184–6, D 187, 193n24, 198, 203, 204, 206, Dabney, D. Lyle, 5, 9, 13n17, 213, 218, 220, 231, 234, 236, 198–201, 203, 205, 208, 208n3 239–44, 251–66, 275, 284–6, 288, Daniels, David D., 211–27, 230 291, 298, 307, 317, 320, 323n5 INDEX 337

F 258–60, 288, 298, 304, 306, feminist, 252 307, 309, 318, 320 fi rst philosophy, 137n5 Honig, Bonnie, 9, 211–14, 216, 223, 225n1 Hoopes, James, 72, 79n17 G Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 1, 6, 11, 30n12, 33, 43n2, 73, 77n2, 214 I Gilroy, Paul, 224, 227n25 intention , 7, 26, 34, 40, 61, 67–81, glossolalia, 52, 55–7, 63, 64, 126, 83–6, 89, 90, 95, 99n2, 117, 148, 217, 218, 220, 222, 255 275, 282, 284, 285, 287, 289 Goldman, Ronald, 273 interdisciplinary, 5, 10, 11, 267, 315 Gould, Stephen Jay, 289, 296n63 interpretation, 1–4, 7–10, 17–32, 34, grammatico-historical exegesis, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 46n20, 52, 25, 26, 28 63, 64, 71–3, 75, 78n9, 84, Grau, Marion, 211, 214, 226n5 86–94, 97, 103–19, 123, 124, Green, Chris, 8 126–8, 143, 147, 148, 154, Green, Joel, 324n12 157, 159–70, 177–95, 198, Gregory the Great, 113, 119n60 212, 215, 231–3, 235, 236, Gutiérrez, Gustavo, 166, 172n12, 243, 255, 268, 272–5, 279–96, 238, 247n50 315, 316, 318–22 interracial, 9, 211–27, 230, 231

H Hanby, Michael, 299, 312n6 J Harvey, Paul, 220, 226n18, 227n18 Jacobsen, Douglas, 12n9, 13n15, Hegel, George W.F., 19, 20, 334 79n14, 192n17, 218, 226n13, Heidegger, Martin, 11, 30n12, 51 230, 245n2, 247n45 hermeneutical circle, 21, 246n22 Jeanrond, Werner, 214 hermeneutics, 1–14, 21, 23–8, John of the Cross, 109 30n12, 30n13, 33–50, 52, 63, Johns, Cheryl Bridges, 13n14, 172n7, 64, 67–81, 83–9, 92–8, 255 108, 121–45, 148, 149, 153, 156, 159–73, 177–95, 198, 205–8, 211–27, 229–48, 251–78, K 280, 282, 286–9, 297–314, Kant, Immanuel, 10, 19, 20, 240, 269 316–22 Keesey, Donald, 282–4, 293n16, Hirsch, E.D., 3, 24, 25, 69, 73–5, 293n26, 294n28–30, 294n32–5, 78n9, 80n33, 81n34, 83–100 294n37 Holy Spirit, 3, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 54, Kenotic, 35, 41, 42 66, 94, 97, 109, 124, 126, Kierkegaard, Søren, 18, 19, 31n20, 135, 148, 164–6, 186, 193n24, 31n31, 334 200, 205, 206, 240, 255, King, Jr., Martin Luther, 238, 247n49 338 INDEX

Kline, Meredith, 128, 129, 140n46, Meier, John, 160, 171n3 140n48, 140n52, 140n53 Metamodernism, 26n28, 319, 325n28 Kuhn, Thomas, 2, 10, 11n2, 30n9 metaphysics, 20, 34, 37, 46n25, 125, 201, 288 method, 22, 28, 37, 47n26, 119n59, L 144, 148, 154, 155, 162, 183, Lakatos, Imre, 2, 10, 294n39 186, 188, 236, 240–2, 253, 254, Lamoureux, Denis O., 286–8, 262, 264, 267, 274, 276, 280, 290, 294n40, 295n41, 282, 286–9, 290, 291, 311, 295n42, 296n71 313n12, 320–2, 326n30, 332 language, 1, 5–8, 20–2, 24, 34–43, Miller, John, 127, 140n40 44n8, 49n48, 51–7, 61–4, 70, Mittelstadt, Martin, 220, 226n16, 74, 76, 80n24, 84, 89, 99n1, 226n17 107, 127, 139n31, 179, 180, modernity, 122–4, 166, 170, 319 185, 186, 188, 190, 199, 200, Moltmann, Jürgen, 199, 208n1, 204, 218, 220, 223, 238, 243, 209n15 255, 258, 262, 282–4, 286, 305 multi-culturality, 179 Latino/a , 197–209 Leithart, Peter, 112, 118n57 Levenson, Jon D., 302, 304, 305, N 313n14, 313n18 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 22, 25, 46n25 Levinas, Emmanuel, 52, 61, 65n31 liturgy, 121–42, 187 Lonergan, Bernard, 234, 246n24 O Long, Charles H., 235, 246n29 objectivity, 24, 25, 28, 282 Lorde, Audre, 232, 245n13 Oliverio, Jr., L. William, 1–14, 74, Luther, Martin, 19, 27, 30n5 241, 267, 324n9 ontological, 5, 18, 33, 36, 37, 39, 44n14, 46n20, 78n12, 106, M 107, 123 Macchia, Frank, 13n14, 117n42, 126, ontology , 33–50, 122–5, 131, 132, 139n33, 139n35, 158n27 136, 138n19, 140n35, 199 Marshall, I. Howard, 87, 99n12 Origen, 103–5, 107, 110, 112 Martell-Otero, Loida, 205, 209n16 Martin, David, 140n39, 256, 265n9 Martinez Bonati, Felix, 75 P meaning , 2, 7, 21, 23, 24, 26–8, 35, Parham, Charles, 217, 218, 230 40, 43, 48n45, 64, 67–81, 83–8, Paris, Peter J., 239, 247n54, 249n59 92–5, 97, 98, 99n2, 106, participants, 12n12, 34, 35, 107, 131, 109–12, 114, 118n54, 124, 162, 143, 151, 168, 256 164, 181, 184, 185, 231, 235, participation, 122, 124–6, 128, 130, 255, 257, 258, 260–2, 273–5, 133–6, 138n19 282–5, 287–9, 317, 320, 325n22 Penney, John, 130, 141n55 INDEX 339 perichoresis , 18, 29, 29n3, 258 Scotus, Duns, 122–4, 136 Piaget, John, 267 Scripture, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 17–19, 26–8, Pinnock, Clark H., 74 42, 43, 50n55, 56, 72, 86, 89, pneumatology, 194n33, 200, 94–6, 98, 103–19, 128, 134, 201, 207, 208 140n35, 143, 144, 147–9, Polanyi, Michael, 2, 10, 11n2 152–6, 159–71, 183–8, 190, 201, Polkinghorne, John, 294n39, 308, 205, 206, 218, 222, 224, 231, 312n9, 314n28 233, 234, 240, 241, 252, 258, postmodern, 4n14, 138n14, 179, 259, 276, 282, 285–7, 297, 298, 274, 327n34 304, 307, 317–19, 321, 322n1 post-Pentecost-al, 177–95 semiotics, 2, 80n24, 89, 93, 97, 126, pragmatic, 72, 132, 189, 241 129, 195n36 prejudice, 17–32, 69 Seymour, William J., 209n19, 217, 219, 222, 224, 229, 241, 248n72 sign , 35, 40, 42, 69, 70, 72, 89, 126, R 128, 139n33, 189, 206, 237, 242 race , 9, 215, 220–4, 229–48, 320 signifi cance, 71–6, 87–9 realism, 74, 240, 241, 268, 292n6, Smith, James K.A., 2, 52, 56, 64n2, 294n34 124, 138n19, 298, 312n2, reason, 5, 19–22, 60, 68, 73–6, 87, 314n29, 326n29 91, 95, 98, 122, 123, 129, 136, Smith, Steven, 199 154, 170, 182, 188, 201, 202, Solivan, Samuel, 194n33, 206, 204, 232, 236, 238, 252, 259, 209n17, 209n18, 209n21 261, 271, 286, 291, 299, 305, Sonderegger, Katherine, 112, 118n54, 318, 319, 322n4 118n55 relativism, 24–6, 29, 80n28, speech acts, 26, 27, 72, 73, 199 140n35, 323n6 Spinks, Christopher, 72, 73, 79n18, reproduction/production, 23 79n19, 79n20 Ricoeur, Paul, 23–5, 30n12, 31n18, Spinoza, Baruch, 19, 20, 30n6 31n25 Steiner, George, 106, 107, 110, 111, Robeck, Jr., Cecil M, 226n12, 116n25, 116n26–8, 116n33, 229, 245n1 118n50 Russell, Robert John, 286, Stephenson, Christopher A, 12n9, 292n7, 294n38, 296n75 13n14, 240, 241, 246n19, 248n65 Stithatos, Nikitas, 112 S Suurmond, Jean-Jacques, 220 Sarisky, Darren, 170, 173n15 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 89, 199, 201, 235, 236, 238, 240, 246n35 T science, 2, 9, 10, 22, 155, 156, Taylor, Charles, 5, 11n1, 13n20, 81n38 169, 177–95, 253, 255, 262, Thomas, John Christopher, 8, 13n13, 274, 279–99, 310, 312n8, 144, 156n1, 156n7164, 172n7, 313n12, 314n31, 320 193n24, 193n25 340 INDEX

Todorov, Tzvetan, 9, 211–14, 216, W 225n1, 226n2–4, 226n10, Waddell, Robby, 118n51, 322n1 226n14, 227n19 Ware, Frederick L., 232, 233, tongues , 51–65, 126–8, 133, 135, 245n16 148, 157n18, 186–8, 217, 240, Wariboko, Nimi, 222, 227n21 241, 243, 244 Wesley, John, 30n7, 140n44, 141n72, tradition, 1–14, 22, 23, 25, 27, 34–8, 169, 170 46n20, 46n25, 48, 95, 96, 98, Wesleyan, 8, 159–73, 297 134, 136, 143–60, 163, Westphal, Merold, 6, 17–32, 73, 164, 166, 168, 170, 77n2, 323n6 179–82, 184–6, 188, 193n25, Williams, Rowan, 109, 115n14, 198, 199, 201, 215, 220, 239, 118n46, 118n47 241, 242, 256, 257, 260–2, Wimsatt, W. K., 84, 293n20, 294n27, 266n22, 276, 279, 286, 316, 294n31 317, 320, 321, 322n4, 323n4, witness, 19, 56, 58, 103–5, 109, 327n34 130, 145–7, 179, 180, 184, Trinitarian, 7, 33–50, 113, 183 185, 188–90, 206, 231, 234, Trinity, 33–50, 108, 165, 305, 307 244, 259 truth, 7, 18, 21–3, 29, 31, 32n36, Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1, 78n11 45n11, 51–6, 64n3, 85, 105, Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 25–7, 31n25, 107, 108, 110, 114, 123, 125, 31n26, 31n28 147, 162, 167, 171, 232, 258, worship, 8, 13n27, 29, 51, 54, 62, 271, 273, 284–6, 291, 292n6, 105, 121, 122, 125–8, 131–6, 294n39, 298, 299, 316, 320, 322 140n35, 141n65, 143, 146, 149, Turner, James E., 238, 245n15, 247n48 163, 187, 203, 217, 219, 230, 241, 261, 298, 309, 318, 322 Wright, N.T., 27, 31n30, 293n18 V van der Ven, Johannes A., 254, 264n2, 264n3 Y Vandevelde, Pol, 73, 74, 77n8, 79n22, Yong, Amos , 8, 11n4, 13n14, 158n27, 79n22, 80n24, 80n25 171n1, 177–95, 220, 226n16, 244, Vanhoozer, Kevin, 2, 11n2, 12n6, 248n81, 288, 289, 292n7, 295n51, 47n26, 48n40, 72, 77n2, 79n18, 295n53–8, 296n60–2, 298, 299, 79n21, 80n33, 115n13, 282, 305, 306, 310, 312n3, 312n5, 293n18, 293n19 313n21, 313n22, 314n26, 314n29, voice , 7, 18, 20, 22, 23, 28, 39–41, 317, 323, 323n5, 324n9, 43 48n41, 56, 61, 75, 80n32, 325n22, 325n23, 326n29 90, 95–7, 104, 105, 150, 165, 166, 202–5, 232, 238, 244, 255, 258, 287 Z Vondey, Wolfgang, 13n14, 13n18, Zabala, Santiago, 7, 33, 37–8, 46n20, 226n16, 324n8 46n24, 46n25, 47n28