journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212
brill.com/pent
Spirit Hermeneutics or Biblical Interpretation by Any Other Name A Dialogue with Craig Keener
Robby Waddell1 Southeastern University, Lakeland, usa [email protected]
Abstract
Within the guild of Pentecostal Studies, few topics have received more attention than biblical hermeneutics. Craig Keener, F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary, makes a significant contribution to this discussion with the publication of his book, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost. Giving a priority to contextually sensitive, socio-historical methodologies, Keener attempts to define hermeneutics broadly in order to include most confessional perspectives. Indeed, he writes that Spirit Hermeneutics is Christian Hermeneutics. While such an inclusive move is admirable, it begs the question about the existence and viability of a distinctive hermeneutic for Pentecostals and Charismatics. This article reviews Keener’s argument and makes a case for a more distinctive hermeneutical theory.
Keywords hermeneutics – Craig Keener – Pentecostalism – inspiration – illumination
1 Introduction
Craig Keener, the F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies at As- bury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, needs no introduction in
1 Robby Waddell (PhD, University of Sheffield) is Professor of New Testament and Early Chris- tian Literature at Southeastern University, 1000 Longfellow Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida 33801, usa.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/17455251-02702002Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
2 Craig S. Keener, The ivp Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, il: Inter- Varsity, 2nd, rev. edn, 2014); idem, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols; Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2012–2015); idem, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2011); idem, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2009); idem, The Gospel of John (2 vols; Peabody, ma: Hendrickson; Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2003); idem, Romans (nccs 6; Eugene, or: Wipf & Stock, 2009); idem, 1 and 2 Corinthians (NCamBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2005); idem, Galatians (NCamBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming); idem, Revelation (nivac; Grand Rapids, mi: Zondervan, 2000). 3 Craig S. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost (Grand Rap- ids, mi: Eerdmans, 2016). 4 Amos Yong, foreword to Craig S. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2016), xvii. The Pentecostal Manifesto series has been discontinued.
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
2 Spirit Hermeneutics ≥ Christian Hermeneutics
Although Craig’s book was originally slotted for a series on Pentecostal theology, he decided to title the book Spirit Hermeneutics rather than Pentecostal Hermeneutics. Several reasons are given for this decision. First, it avoids the confusion of whether the book was going to be about capital “P” or lower case “p” Pentecostalism. In recent academic parlance, the former is used to describe the historical renewal movement of the early twentieth century and the classical denominations which were organized shortly thereafter,
5 Robby Waddell and Peter Althouse, ‘An Editorial Note on the Roundtable Dialogue of Craig S. Keener’s Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost’, Pneuma 39.1–2 (2017), pp. 123–25. 6 Craig Keener, ‘Refining Spirit Hermeneutics’, Pneuma 39.1–2 (2017), pp. 198–240. 7 Michael Gorman, Scripture and Its Interpretation: A Global, Ecumenical Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2017), pp. 270–83.
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
3 A Case for a Pentecostal Hermeneutic: What’s in a Name?
For me, ‘pentecostal’, when used as an adjective, is shorthand for a wide array of beliefs and practices found within the global expressions of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity, inclusive of classical Pentecostal churches, the Charismatic movement in Catholicism and Mainline Protestantism, and the mostly non-white indigenous churches worldwide. When hermeneutics is qualified with an adjective, normally this represents either a contextual reality such as liberation hermeneutics, feminist hermeneutics, African American hermeneutics and so on, or it is used to designate an ecclesial tradition such as Orthodox hermeneutics, Catholic hermeneutics, Reformed hermeneutics, Wesleyan hermeneutics, and the like. Of course, none of these categories are monolithic, though they do represent an identifiable reality. So, for me, using Pentecostal hermeneutics represents an important particularity, namely the contextualized nature of interpretation and the specific ecclesial location of interpretation in ways that the broader more generic designation – Spirit hermeneutics – lacks the capacity to do. More specifically, when I use ‘pentecostal’ as a modifier of hermeneutics, I’m imagining Walter Hollenweger’s description of the five roots of the Pente- costal movement:8 (1) the black oral root embodied by William J. Seymour, (2) the Catholic root from which the movement imported spiritual elements, (3) the evangelical root which was inspired by the American Holiness Movement along with its social and political interpretation of holiness,9 (4) the critical root, which from its origins has provided a contextualized theology, and (5) the ecumenical root, expressed in the renewal movements within Catholicism and the mainline denominations.
8 Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, ma: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997). 9 The evangelical root of Pentecostalism is distinguishable from both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. See Russell Spittler, ‘Are Pentecostals and Charismatics Fundamentalists? A Review of American Uses of These Catagories’, in Karla Poewe (ed.), Charismatic Christian- ity in a Global Culture (Columbia, sc: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), pp. 103–16. Cecil M. Robeck Jr., ‘National Association of Evangelicals’, in Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, (eds.), Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids, mi: Zondervasn, 1988), pp. 634–36.
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access
The critical root, in my opinion, best describes the previous work in Pen- tecostal (or pneumatic) hermeneutics, represented by numerous articles and monographs over the last forty years, many of which Craig cites judiciously. This critical tradition is multidisciplinary and contextual. Pentecostal stud- ies in general and Pentecostal hermeneutics in particular are more akin to ecclesial and contextual hermeneutics of race, gender, and geography than to the scholarly arguments that assume neutrality and make claims of so-called universal statements and propositions.10 Depictions of Pentecostal herme- neutics have at times been descriptive, for example Ken Archer’s sketch of the early Pentecostal Bible reading method, though more often discussions of Pentecostal hermeneutics have been prescriptive. Not in a magisterial type of way but more like a testimony with examples. This is how I understand the work of Lee Roy Martin on Judges, Scott Ellington’s and Meghan Musy’s work on the Psalms, Larry McQueen’s work on Joel, Rickie Moore’s and Chris Thomas’ work on various parts of the canon, Blaine Charrette’s work on Mat- thew, Martin Mittelstadt’s work on Luke-Acts, and Melissa Archer’s work on Revelation; and this just names a few of the biblical scholars in my closest cir- cles. Much more could be said and this doesn’t begin to mention theologians who are doing parallel constructive Pentecostal work in their fields. What these scholars and their scholarship have in common is not merely a commit- ment to the academic guild but also a concentrated effort to produce readings of Scripture that take serious their spiritual and ecclesial locations, listening for ways that the Spirit may be speaking to them. This should not be taken as a discrediting of non-Pentecostals or an exclusive claim of Spiritual inspiration. Pentecostal readings are Christian readings, but identifying a species within genus doesn’t detract from the higher order. I should hasten to add that I am aware of the danger of elitism and tri- umphalism when claiming to have been led by the Spirit. In the recent days since the passing of Billy Graham, I was reminded of statements I heard as a child regarding Graham’s ministry. He was, not surprisingly, respected for his commitment to evangelism and huge number of conversions at his meetings. However, there was often a tinge of regret. ‘Just imagine how many more there would have been if he were baptized in the Spirit’. I don’t know how typical such sentiments were in Pentecostal churches, but I know that I want to avoid anything of the sort. In my experience, I have not seen that level of elitism in
10 In addition to being multidisciplinary and contextual, Pentecostal studies is at times de- scriptive of Pentecostal beliefs and practices and at other times prescriptive, offering an alternative way to think and behave.
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
Pentecostal scholarship. I hope I haven’t misrepresented any of my fellow Pen- tecostals in this description. Perhaps I should speak for myself. When I offer a reading of a biblical text and claim that it is a Pentecostal reading, I’m not claiming that this is how all Pentecostals have read or should read. I realize that as an individual scholar with one foot in the academy and another in the church that I may be an unre- liable Pentecostal, though I am a Pentecostal nonetheless. I share my research in hopes of providing a reading from a Pentecostal perspective. The extent to which others – Pentecostal or otherwise – find those readings helpful is not up to me. To the extent that they are found helpful, the credit goes to the Spirit. The shortcomings are all mine. My calling is to pray, read, teach, and write. I would be remiss not to mention the efforts of the Regent School to reframe the discussion theological identity with the moniker renewal theology or renewal Christianity. Popularized by Charismatic theologian J. Rodman Williams and championed by various scholars at Regent University, the term renewal has been used as an alternative to Pentecostal in hopes of being more inclusive, especially for those in the academy who want to focus on the role of the Spirit in interpretation but who are not themselves part of a classical Pentecostal community. In discussions on hermeneutics, the renewal scholars seem to have preferred the phrase pneumatic hermeneutics. I commend the motivation behind this effort, and it appears to be gaining traction beyond Virginia Beach. Note the sessions at sbl/ibr led by Archie Wright and others. If I may, let me take a different tack. While I remain convinced that con- textual and ecclesial milieus require more specific language rather than more general language, I couldn’t agree with Craig more regarding the role of distinc- tives vis-à-vis a complete hermeneutical theory. Focusing solely on distinctives is reductionistic. Contextual/ecclesial readings are inevitably going to overlap with other academic methodologies. Thus, Pentecostal hermeneutics and Pen- tecostal identity for that matter are not reducible to their uniquenesses, but rather contain a mixture of beliefs and practices that are shared with a variety of other Christian communities. Steven Land’s litany of comparative descrip- tors illustrates this point well. He writes:
[Pentecostalism] is more Armenian than Calvinist in its approach to issues of human agency and perseverance. It is more Calvinist than Lutheran in its appreciation of the so-called ‘third use of the Law’ to guide Christian growth and conduct. It is more Eastern than Western in its understanding of spirituality as perfection and participation in the divine life (theosis) … [it] is more Catholic than Protestant in emphasizing sanctification-transformation more than forensic justification, but more
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access
Protestant than Catholic in the conviction that the Word is the authority over the church and tradition for matters of faith, practice, government, and discipline. In its origins, Pentecostalism was more Anabaptist than the magisterial Reformation in its concern for peace and a covenanted believers’ church where discipleship and discipline are essential features of congregational life. Pentecostalism has a more Holiness-evangelical hermeneutic than the fundamentalist-evangelical tradition in terms of its actual use of Scripture and understanding of the role of reason.11
At best, reductionistic theories fail to appreciate the rich and thick diversity of the movement, and at worst, they have the effect of calcifying the tradition into a short list of embattled shibboleths. Appreciation of the ecumenical and historical context along with an awareness of the evolution that takes place within movements are vital for the continued health of any tradition. Accord- ing to Alasdair MacIntyre, ongoing arguments are essential for living traditions. He writes, ‘A living tradition is an historically extended, socially embodied ar- gument, and an argument precisely in part about the goods which constitute that tradition’.12 When a tradition becomes fixed or static, ‘it is always dying or dead’.13 Thus, an ongoing discussion about Pentecostal hermeneutics is a nec- essary part of the living tradition of Pentecostals. This dialogue needs to take place not only in-house but also in the wider ecumenical setting of Christian interpretation. Furthermore, the discussion will be impoverished without dia- logue partners in the larger guild of biblical and theological studies.
4 Interpretative Methods: The More the Merrier
Spirit hermeneutics, according to Craig, may involve a variety of methodol- ogies, though he is insistent that the original cultural context and genre be respected as a primary contributor to the textual meaning. Although various methods may be employed, Craig suggests that some are more conducive to Spirit hermeneutics, especially those that focus on the final form of the text. Although he is well known for his expertise in ancient cultural backgrounds and despite the fact that he privileges the historical setting over contemporary settings with regard to the determination of textual meaning, Craig’s literary
11 Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, pp. 29–30. 12 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 3rd edn, 2007), p. 257. 13 MacIntyre, After Virtue, p. 257.
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
14 Keener, ivp Background Commentary, p. 14. 15 Keener, ‘Refined Spirit Hermeneutics’, p. 216.
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access
5 A Text without a Context is a Pretext for a Prooftext
Despite the disparity of methodologies in play in Pentecostal studies, the axi- om – a text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext – can likely be affirmed by all Pentecostal scholars. The question is: ‘What context matters the most?’ The historical-cultural context? The literary context? The contemporary con- text (whether cultural or ecclesial)? The methodology employed by a particu- lar interpreter will largely depend on which context they prioritize. With all due respect to Gadamer, the concept of two horizons, in my opin- ion, has been appropriated too simplistically in biblical hermeneutics. In a basic summary, the first horizon represents the author, the author’s intent, the cultural background, and the ancient semiotics at play in the text, and the second horizon represents a contemporary reader or readers and their presup- positions and cultural context. The challenge is that neither the ancient hori- zon nor the contemporary horizon are monolithic. This may seem obvious in regard to contemporary horizons and the variety of readers that occupy them, but it is also true of ancient horizons. The author and the text are not simply part of the same horizon. Notwithstanding overstatements of New Criticism, it has been demonstrated that a text’s autonomy is not reducible to the in- tentions of its author(s)/editor(s). Craig, I should note, is too sophisticated to make such claims. Moreover, Craig makes the astute point that Wimsatt and Beardsley’s ‘Intentional Fallacy’ was never intended to apply to all texts but to literary texts (e.g. poetry), but then how much of Scripture is stories, songs, poems, parables, prophecies, and allegories? The gospels are more proclama- tion than documentation, and creatively constructed stories with theological implications require a more nuanced hermeneutic than simply recounting historical events in context. My point is that rather than simply identifying two horizons, interpreters should imagine at least three – each with its own plurality – the horizon behind the text, the horizon within the text, and the horizon in front of the text.16 Critical methodologies may be grouped into one of these categories, each prioritizing and emphasizing different aspects of the texts production and reception. In Pentecostal terms, allow me to share a bit of the testimony of my jour- ney into biblical studies because it traces these three major horizons. I com- pleted my undergraduate studies at King College – a Scottish Presbyterian school – where I learned the historical-critical method and a lot of Ancient Near Eastern history; my seminary days were at the Church of God School of
16 W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 3rd edn, 2008), passim.
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
Theology where I learned the ways of narrative analysis and Pentecostal the- ology; and my doctoral studies were at the University of Sheffield at a time when poststructuralism and deconstruction where in vogue. In my own work on Revelation, I have certainly appreciated the historical-cultural reality of Rome and the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature; however, I focused my attention on intertextual connections between Revelation and various texts in the Hebrew Bible as well as connections between all these texts and my reconstruction of a Pentecostal community. Earlier in my career, I was more dismissive of the historical-critical method, though less so of cultural back- ground studies. However, I’ve changed. I’ve grown to appreciate the so- called ‘higher criticisms’ such as source criticism, form criticism, history of religions, and the like. To be clear, my appreciation of the historical-critical methods is not uncritical. The historical reconstructions they provide lack the level of precision they claim. A great demonstration of the shortcom- ings of historical-critical methods is provided by David Clines, who was the chair of the biblical studies department at Sheffield when I was there. If you haven’t read his satirical piece on the documentary hypothesis, then I would highly recommend it (‘New Directions in Pooh Studies: überlieferungs- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Pu-Buch’).17 Clines applies source criti- cism to A.A. Milne’s classic, and without varying from the method’s accepted treatises he ‘proves’ that the Pooh literature is a composite. So, although I don’t strictly adhere to jedp, I do think we have fragmentary texts that exhibit signs of editing. This doesn’t mean that I have forsaken methods that assume literary unity and focus on the final form. Hans Frei’s classical critique of historical criticism is still quite compelling for me. Rather, I mention this to make a point. Con- cerns of source and form are of little interests for scholars who are focusing on narrative readings and reader-center interpretations. However, if cultural background is highly valued for interpretation, then such concerns come to the fore. For example, when reading Daniel, what cultural background is en- visaged? A sixth century Babylonian context or a second century, Hellenized, Palestinian context. Likewise, what about Job? Is the cultural context antedilu- vian, or is it late Israelite wisdom literature? As a proponent of intertextuality, I often find myself asking which texts or contexts are echoing in the minds of readers, and how might an interpretation change if this text or that context was given more weight. What about the second half of Isaiah? Should it be un- derstood as a pre-exilic piece of literature or is its context the Persian empire?
17 David Clines, On the Way to Postmodern (JSOTsupp 293; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), ii, pp. 830–39.
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access
For the most part, Craig seems to me to be advocating strongly for cultural- historical background but not so strongly for historical-critical methods; but to be clear, Craig has a qualified appreciation of historical criticism. Without a doubt, cultural-historical studies would be more readily palatable to a typical Pentecostal congregation than historical-critical studies, though it’s really impossible to do justice to the former without also giving credence to the latter. Walter Hollenweger called for exactly this type of development in Pentecostal hermeneutics at the sps meeting in 1999, published the following year in Spirit & Church.18 I remember hearing Hollenweger’s paper in person. I had just presented a paper on the role of the Pentecostal hermeneutics that had been met with mixed reviews for being too friendly with postmodernism. All I could think was: ‘At least I didn’t claim that Pentecostals needed to preach that Jonah was allegory’. To summarize my thoughts, historical-cultural backgrounds are important and historical-critical methods can be useful, but they are insufficient tools when the task is Spirit hermeneutics.
6 History is not Enough
Craig writes, ‘Historical information enriches and is often necessary for our full understanding of the text; the point is simply that analysis of historical questions by itself is not equivalent to understanding, welcoming, or embrac- ing a text’s message’ (p. 11). I fully agree. I would want to add that the original readers/hearers of the biblical texts, despite being in close proximity, speaking the same language and living in the identical culture, were also faced with task of discerning significance and interpreting meaning. Awareness cultural and backgrounds may overcome certain lacunae, but it cannot overcome the basic limitations of human finitude.19
18 Walter Hollenweger, ‘The Contribution of Critical Exegesis to Pentecostal Hermeneutics’, Spirit & Church 2 (2000), pp. 7–18. 19 James K.A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 2000) is helpful on this point. Jamie argues that due to human finitude, the act of interpreta- tion is and will always be necessary. It’s neither overcome in the present by the Spirit, as some evangelical theologians have argued, nor will it be eliminated in the eschaton as other theologians have suggested. Agreeing with Heidegger and Derrida, Smith argues that mediation is an essential part being human; however, based on a reading of Augus- tine, Smith argues (contrary to Heidegger and Derrida) that mediation necessarily pro- duces violence. Beginning with the Christian assumption that creation is good, Smith
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
There are a host of valuable resources that I would endorse at this point – works that develop a theology of Scripture and provide a framework for read- ing biblical texts as Scripture. Along these lines, Craig cites Joel Green’s work approvingly, which I agree is very good. I would also recommend an article by Gerry Sheppard, one of the early contributors to Pentecostal hermeneu- tics. Gerry gave high praise for the level of philosophical sophistication being employed by Pentecostals, though he had two major caveats. First, he high- lighted an implicit racial bias, evidenced by a lack of engagement with African American or Latino/a Pentecostalism. He warned in 1994 that ‘the absence of adequate concern about the hermeneutics of racism, while acknowledging the positive significance of racial-cultural differences, will distort our interpreta- tion of salient features in the Pentecostal experience’.20 Although progress is being made, this warning still needs to be heeded.21 Secondly, Gerry questioned whether the general hermeneutics of Ricoeur, which had been advocated by some, is sufficient for Pentecostal hermeneutics, recommending instead the work of Michel Foucault. More to our point, he sketched a theology of Scrip- ture that drew on Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, and Brevard Childs, and he appealed to Pentecostals to develop a special hermeneutic for Scripture to complement the general hermeneutics they were already employing. I don’t have the time or space to offer further explications on this point, but I would highly recommend David Steinmetz’s article ‘The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis’.22 Reacting against what he saw as the bankruptcy of the historical-critical method and its fascination on the singular (historical) mean- ing of a text, Steinmetz makes a compelling case for the early churches under- standing of multiple-levels of meaning. Likewise, Francis Watson, building on Hans Frei and Brevard Childs, provides a sustained argument for a theological hermeneutic in his book, Text, Church, World. (On a side note, Professor Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield wrote his book Whose Bible is it Anyway?
argues that mediation and the necessity of interpretation are also good because they are distinctives of being a creature. 20 Gerald T. Sheppard, ‘Biblical Interpretation After Gadamer’, Pneuma 16.1 (Spring 1994), p. 124. 21 Significant work has been done on Pentecostal-contextualized theologies, though less work has focused specifically on contextualized hermeneutics. For a recent example see Rodolfo Galvan Estrada iii, ‘Is a Contextualized Hermeneutic the Future of Pentecostal Read- ings? The Implications of a Pentecostal Hermeneutic for a Chicano/Latino Community’, Pneuma 37.3 (2014), pp. 341–55. 22 David Steinmetz, ‘The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis’, Theology Today 37.1 (1980), pp. 27–38.
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access
7 Possible Pentecostal Contributions to Spirit Hermeneutics
I would like to conclude with a list of theological perspectives that Pentecos- tals have published regarding hermeneutics, which I didn’t see in Craig’s book, but I think would be beneficial for Spirit hermeneutics. Note: these perspec- tives are not unique to these scholars, though they do seem to be shaped by their theological/spiritual ethos. I could have, in fact, started with these points had I not been so self-indulgent and waxed on about my own reflections in- spired by Craig’s book.
7.1 Spirit-Word Similar to many works on biblical hermeneutics, Craig writes about the rela- tionship between the Spirit and the Word, though ‘Word’ in this case refers to the scriptures or the Bible and not to Jesus. Theologically, this is problematic. Although it is common parlance to refer to the Bible as the ‘Word of God’. This can be imprecise when speaking of divine revelation. (Granted this is a Bar- thian move, though one that many Pentecostal theologians have made). In let- ters that were exchanged between Rickie Moore and Frank Macchia after the sps meeting in 1999 (which were later published in jpt), Rickie asked Frank if solus spiritus rather than sola scriptura might not be a better mantra for Pente- costals. In response Frank wrote:
I would only want to qualify ‘Spirit alone’ with ‘Word and Spirit alone’ in order to make this fully trinitarian. But I would hasten to add that ‘Word’ here is primarily the living Christ who was anointed and directed by the Spirit and now bestows the same Spirit upon us to serve God in Christ-like ways. In this light, ‘Word’ is not simply identifiable with ‘Scrip- ture’, but Scripture is subordinate to Word and participates in Word only through the Spirit (hence a place for [Moore’s] ‘Spirit alone’).23
Given that we are at the joint meeting of the sps and the wts, I might add that I found a video produced by Asbury Theological Seminary (Craig’s present
23 Frank D. Macchia, ‘A Reply to Rickie Moore’, jpt 17 (2000), p. 18. Another theologian who argues along these same is John Webster. See his Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
institution) very helpful as I reflected on the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. While reflecting on the five solas, a Wesleyan appropriation was offered that expanded the statements to say: ‘Faith alone, though with works; grace alone, though with the law; Christ alone, though with the Spirit; scripture alone, though with tradition, reason, and experience; and glory to God alone (this one was not qualified)’. Pentecostals and Wesleyans do have much in common, some of which they share with wider Christianity and other bits which are unique to them.
7.2 Spirit as Canon for Scripture In most evangelical hermeneutics and also for Craig (as far as I could tell), the scriptures are the final canon. The Spirit inspired the canon and now illumi- nates its reception. There have been Pentecostal theologians, philosophers, and biblical scholars who have called for a nuanced perspective on this point. According to Jn 16.13, the role of the Spirit is to lead believers into all truth, which could be understood as guidance for appropriate interpretations of the scriptures vis-à-vis Jesus. Though, is the Spirit’s role limited to illumination? Steve Land writes, the Spirit ‘speaks scripturally but also has more to say than Scripture’.24 Yet, I would say (and I think Craig would agree here) that Scrip- ture is not simply one of many testimonies. Rather, it holds a unique position over and against the community but not over and against the Spirit. Borrowing some words from Rickie Moore, the goal of a Spirit-inspired interpretation is to maintain the dialogical relationship between ‘a law so righteous’ (the inscrip- turated revelation) and the ‘God-so-near’ (charismatic revelation).25 Or, more radically stated by Jamie Smith,
The canon – that which keeps our weaving straight – I would propose, is the Holy Spirit, not a collection of writings. The Spirit of Christ is the norm or standard of the faith, and that Spirit stands in authority over both Scripture and prophecy. It is not Scripture that is the ultimate norm, but Christ. As such, prophecy is not subject to the standard of written Scripture but rather the kanon of the Spirit as it operates in the discern- ment of the community.26
24 Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (JPTSup 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), p. 100. 25 Rickie D. Moore, ‘Canon and Charisma in the Book of Deuteronomy’, jpt 1 (1993), p. 92. 26 James K.A. Smith, ‘The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and the Sacred Writings’, jpt 11 (1997), p. 68.
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access
I doubt that Jamie’s articulation would receive a favorable hearing in most evangelical settings (or many Pentecostal ones for that matter). However, this idea does express at least a Pentecostal hermeneutic that would add a perspec- tive to an ecumenical discussion at the species level.
7.3 Inspiration vs. Illumination Related to the previous point regarding the Spirit’s relationship to scripture is the nomenclature that is regularly used regarding the Spirit’s role in the production, canonization, and reception of the biblical texts. Traditional doctrines of Scripture, which Craig follows, include an understanding of inspiration which is reserved for the writing of Scripture; conversely, the act of reading is described as an illumination enabled by the Spirit – suggesting that there is a qualitative difference between the divine participation in the act of writing and the divine participation in the act of reading. Clark Pinnock argued, and I tend to agree, that the word ‘inspiration’ serves well to describe both dynamic experiences of writing and reading.27 Chris Thomas says something similar: ‘Scripture cannot be properly appreciated apart from divine inspiration’.28
7.4 Reading Texts of Terror One last example. Craig mentioned that it was his study of backgrounds that led him to embrace an egalitarian position – a decision that put him at odds with parts, though not all, of the evangelical community. Chris Thomas makes a similar move. He too makes the case for egalitarianism, though arrives at this conclusion through a combination of experience and narrative analysis. Thus, various methods might lead a reader to a similar interpretation. Some texts are more troubling and require a different hermeneutical approach. In particular, I would note Casey S. Cole’s article, ‘Taking Hermeneutics to Heart: Proposing an Othopathic Reading for Texts of Terror via the Rape of Tamar Narrative’.29 She opens her article with a testimony of her experience teaching biblical studies at a Pentecostal university. When asked, ‘Why read the Bible?’, her students respond with three common answers: (1) to know what to believe, (2) to know how to behave, and (3) for personal comfort. She proceeds to read them the
27 Clark H. Pinnock, ‘The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics’, jpt 2 (1993), p. 3. 28 John Christopher Thomas, Ministry & Theology: Studies for the Church and Its Leaders (Cleveland: Pathway Press, 1996), p. 16. See also John Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Car- lisle: Paternoster Press, 1994), pp. 257–60. Webster, Holy Scripture. 29 Casey S. Cole, ‘Taking Hermeneutics to Heart: Proposing an Orthopathic Reading for Texts of Terror via the Rape of Tamar Narrative’, Pneuma 39.3 (2017), pp. 264–74.
journal of pentecostal theology 27 (2018) 196-212Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 08:52:11PM via free access
In Closing
I would like to thank Craig for his book. As I said in my introduction, many of my comments were inspired by my reading more than direct questions or com- ments about the book. It’s an honor for me to have the opportunity to respond to Craig, and I’m grateful to be a part of the same society. He raises our profile. In my opinion, the future of Pentecostal/pneumatic hermeneutics is bright. I don’t believe that Christian hermeneutics is monolithic, though I do believe that reflecting on the topic is valuable.
journal of pentecostal theologyDownloaded from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2018) 196-212 08:52:11PM via free access