The Chinese University of Hong Kong Divinity School of Chung Chi College
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Chinese University of Hong Kong Divinity School of Chung Chi College A study on Pentecostal hermeneutics and a critical discussion of a Pentecostal's criticism of Bultmann's program of demythologization Instructor: Prof. Tobias Brandner Student: Lung Chun Ming (100903030) A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Divinity Graduate Division of Theology • The Chinese University of Hong Kong JULY 2012 The Chinese University of Hong Kong holds the copyright of this thesis. Any person(s) intending to use a part or whole of the materials in the thesis in a proposed publication must seek copyright release from the Dean of the Graduate school. Abstract 不少五旬宗學者認為有建構一具五旬宗特色的設釋方法的必要,而這觀點 主要源於他們對於現代性所高舉的看法的反對,以及對於現代證釋方法的不認 同。他們認為,五旬宗人仕有著與別不同的認識論,尤其對於相信聖靈在世上 的工作,以及神蹟奇事的彰顯。由於五旬宗人仕認識他們同時分享著新約信徒 的世界觀。故此,他們對於聖經的證釋因而會與沒有分享這世界觀的人不同, 因而他們有必要建構一套具五旬宗特色的證釋方法。 本文主要關注於五旬宗證釋學的研究。本文主要分為兩大部份。首先,對於 上述五旬宗觀點的形成,本文分別對數位初期五旬宗的領袖的觀點,以致近代 數位五旬宗學者的觀點進行分析,以讓能對上述觀點的建構有一較為清楚的了 解。 除此之外,本文主要欲處理一個由五旬宗學者E「vin在論證要建構五旬宗設 釋學時對Bultmann的去神話化所提出的一個批判。本人認為E「vin對於 Bultmann去神話化的批判理據不足,而這不足的原因是由於他對去神話化的 理解不夠深入。本人在文中透過引用了 Ricoeur對於Bultmann去神話化的分 析作為上述論證的框架,以指出En/in所提出的批判只是源於他對去神話化的「 部份理解」。故此,本人雖不反對建構具五旬宗特色的證釋方法,但在論證有上 述建構的必要時,宜先對現代證釋方法作出更深入的認知與理解。 Pentecostals hermeneutics strongly reject theological hermeneutics, especially Rudolf Bultmann's demythologization. One of the reasons is because the Pentecostals strongly rejects the impact of Modernity, and they regard Bultmann's program of demythologization is somehow an adaptation to the impact of Modernity. Because of such kinds of disagreement, some of the Pentecostals start to develop a hermeneutic program coherent with the epistemology of the Pentecostals. There are lots of discussions among the Pentecostals. Such kind of discussions started from the early 80s. However, ii we have to clarify one very important question on this issue, that is, is Bultmann's program of demythologization really incompatible with the Pentecostalism? Or, Bultmann's program of demythologization misunderstood by the Pentecostal hermeneutics? The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, I will study the early Pentecostal experience, which gives us an understanding about the background of the contemporary development of the Pentecostal hermeneutics. And at the same time, since Ervin only represent one of the contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutic point of view, so in the second part of this paper, I will study on the main stands that contemporary Pentecostal scholars holds. Second, I will particularly focus on Ervin's criticism to Bultmann's program of demythologization. I argue that Ervin's understanding to Bultmann's demythologization not only in a shallow level, but also have some misunderstanding. With an in-depth explanation of both Bultmann's demythologization and its Pentecostal criticism, we will see how the latter one misunderstands the former. To do this, I will give an analysis on how the Ervin criticizes Bultmann's demythologization. Then, I will give a detailed analysis to Bultmann's demythologization by going deep into two important writings, one written by Rodulf Bultmann himself regarding the concept of demythologization, and the other a commentary writing to such concept written by Paul Ricoeur. After that I will critically discuss the criticism from the Ervin and the concept of demythologization. I will use the framework as suggested by Ricoeur and try to show to what extent Pentecostal hermeneutics are correct and how he misunderstand Bultmann's demythologization. iii Table of Contents ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION 6 Definition of the terms 8 1 EARLY PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 9 1.1 Charles Fox Parham lo 1.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO CHARLES FOX PARHAM II 1.2 PARHAM'S VIEW ON PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 12 2 William J. Seymour i6 2.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO WILLIAM JOSEPH SEYMOUR I6 2.2 SEYMOUR'S VIEW ON PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 17 3 G. S. Cashwell 19 3.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO GASTON BARNABAS CASHWELL 20 3.2 CASHWELL'S VIEW ON PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE 21 4 Conclusion 24 2 CONTEMPORARY PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS 26 2.1 Menzies's view point to Pentecostal hermeneutic 28 2.2 Stronstad's view point to Pentecostal hermeneutic 29 2.3 Lewis's view on Pentecostal hermeneutic 3i 2.4 Conclusion 32 3 CRITICISM OF BULTMANN'S PROGRAM OF DEMYTHOLOGiZATION FROM A PENTECOSTAL PERSPECTIVE 33 3.1 Criticisms of Bultmann's program of demythologization from Howard m. ervin 33 3.1.1 BRIEF ACCOUNT TO HOWARD M. ERVIN 33 3.1.2 FIRST CRITICISM: WORLDVIEW OF MODERN MAN NO LONGER HOLDS 34 3.1.3 SECOND CRITICISM: DEMYTHOLOGIZATION IS ONLY A TASK OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. DEMYTHOLOGIZATION NEGLECTS DIVINE HERMENEUTICS DURING INTERPRETATION 35 3.2 Analysis of Bultmann's program of Demythologizing 36 3.2.1 BULTMANN'S VIEW ON DEMYTHOLOGIZATION 37 IV 3.2.2 RICOEUR VIEW'S ON BULTMANN'S DEMYTHOLOGIZATION 39 3.3 A CRITICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS AND BULTMANN'S DEMYTHOLOGIZATION 44 3.3.1 RESPONSE TO FIRST CRITICISM 44 3.3.2 RESPONSE TO SECOND CRITICISM 45 3.4 CONCLUSION 46 CONCLUSION 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 BOOKS AND JOURNALS 48 ONLINE RESOURCES: SO V Introduction Pentecostals hermeneutics strongly reject theological hermeneutics ^, especially Rudolf Bultmann's demythologization.^ Bradley Truman Noel, for example, says that, ‘[a]s Pentecostals, we must not only refuse to "demyth" Scripture's supernatural accounts, we must emphasize... the supernatural'.^ He further explains that hermeneutical method proposed by Bultmann (that is, demythologization) aims to remove the supernatural elements. Because of such kinds of disagreement, some of the Pentecostals start to develop a hermeneutic program coherent with the epistemology of the Pentecostals.^ There are lots of discussions among the Pentecostals. Such kind of discussions started from the early 80s. Among them, Howard M. Ervin, French Arrington, Timothy B Cargal, William Menzies, Roger Stronstad and Paul Lewis are some of the most influential Pentecostal scholars.^ However, we have to clarify one very important question on this issue, that is, is Bultmann's 1 In this paper, theological hermeneutics refers to the hermeneutics that developed in the twentieth century, starting from Martin Heidegger, Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth etc. For details, please refers to Werner Jeanrond, "The Development of Theological Hermeneutics (II): Barth, Bultmann, and the New Hermeneutic" in Theological Hermeneutics (London: SCM, 1991), 120-58. 2 This is because the Pentecostals strongly rejects the impact of Modernity. While we regard Bultmann's program of demythologization is somehow an adaptation to the impact Modernity. For the details of why the Pentecostal rejects the impact of Modernity will be discussed in Section 2 of this paper. 3 Bradley Truman Noel, Pentecostal and Postmodern Hermeneutics: Comparisons and Contemporary Impact (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Pub., 2010), 97. 4 Noel, Pentecostal and Postmodern Hermeneutics, 103. 5 Ervin suggests that the epistemology of the Pentecostals are different from the theological hermeneutics, so it is not possible for the Pentecostals to accept the way in interpreting the bible like Bultmann, Eberling and other theological hermeneutics ("new hermeneutics" in some of their expressions). More details to Ervin's argument will be given in the following part of this paper. 6 A more detailed account to above figures will be given in next session. 6 program of demythologization really incompatible with the Pentecostalism? Or, Bultmann's program of demythologization misunderstood by the Pentecostal hermeneutics? The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, I will study the early Pentecostal experience, which gives us an understanding about the background of the contemporary development of the Pentecostal hermeneutics. And at the same time, since Ervin only represent one of the contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutic point of view, so in the second part of this paper, I will study on the main stands that contemporary Pentecostal scholars holds. Second, I will particularly focus on Ervin's criticism to Bultmann's program of demythologization. I argue that Ervin's understanding to Bultmann's demythologization not only in a shallow level, but also have some misunderstanding. With an in-depth explanation of both Bultmann's demythologization and its Pentecostal criticism, we will see how the latter one misunderstands the former. To do this, I will give an analysis on how Ervin criticizes Bultmann's demythologization. Then, I will give a detailed analysis to Bultmann's demythologization by going deep into two important writings, one written by Rodulf Bultmann himself regarding the concept of demythologization, and the other a commentary writing to such concept written by Paul Ricoeur. After that I will critically discuss the criticism from Ervin and the concept of demythologization. I will use the framework as suggested by Ricoeur and try to show to what extent Ervin is correct and how he misunderstands Bultmann's demythologization. 7 Definition of the terms In order to prevent misunderstanding, I am going to define some of the important terms that will use in this paper first. By Pentecostals, I am referring to classical Pentecostals, who trace their roots to the turn of the twentieth century and the Azusa Street Revival. Essentially, Pentecostals believe that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the 120 believers at Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2,should be normative for all Christians. Further, the key sign associated with this Spirit Baptism is glossolalia, as it was