Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
Presidential Address 2015
∵
Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Society for Pentecostal Theology
Reading and Hearing in One Spirit and One Accord
Kenneth J. Archer*
College of Christian Ministries and Religion, Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida
kjarcher@seu.edu
Abstract
This address engages two interrelated pentecostal hermeneutical concerns. The first section identifies an emergence of a pentecostal theological hermeneutic integrated around a holy triad—Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture, and holy community. This resulted when Pentecostals took a linguistic and postmodern turn. The second section focuses upon the significance of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (sps) as a hermeneutical community. sps is a unique and diverse interpretive community comprised primarily of Pentecostals and Charismatics.spsmust live in the tension of being and performing as an academic society committed to rigorous standards of research while being a diverse community of scholars who also maintain close relationships with pentecostal and charismatic denominations, educational institutions, and coalitions.
* I am grateful to Dr. Alan Ehler, Dean of the College of Christian Ministries and Religion, for
granting me a Faculty Course Release for Spring 2015.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03703005
1
318
archer
Keywords
pentecostal hermeneutics – interpretation – Society for Pentecostal Theology – post- modern and linguistic turn – Bible college – European university
It will probably come as no surprise that I have chosen to discuss a passion of mine, hermeneutics. My presidential address has two sections. In the first section I argue that a pentecostal theological hermeneutic has emerged as a result of Pentecostals taking a linguistic and postmodern turn. I will begin my address by defining hermeneutics, Pentecostalism, and postmodernity before discussing the emergence of a pentecostal hermeneutic integrated around a holy triad—Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture and holy community. Such a pente- costal hermeneutic resists general hermeneutics’ so-called objective and neu- tral approaches to biblical texts, or any text for that matter, and affirms the importance of the particular theological tradition and ecclesial commitments that contribute to the interpretive process.
In the second section I will focus upon the significance of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (sps) as a hermeneutical community. sps is a unique and diverse interpretive community comprised primarily of Pentecostals and Charismatics. sps must live in the tension of being and performing as an academic society committed to rigorous standards of research while being a diverse community of scholars who also maintain close relationships with pen- tecostal and charismatic denominations, educational institutions, and coali- tions. Personally, I am grateful for this community of interpreters. This com- munity has enabled me to develop over the years as a pentecostal scholar.
In modernity reason and faith are at odds with each other, but for many who have been shaped by late modernity they are often held in tension. For aca- demicPentecostals,religiousconfession andexperienceandscientific method- ology cohabit in an uneasy relationship. I think this is spiritually healthy and connects those who struggle back to the ancient Christian tradition. In the context of this academic society, most practice “faith seeking understand- ing.”
As a confessional Pentecostal, allow me to begin with a testimony. I am so grateful to my Lord Jesus Christ who is liberating me, sanctifying me, filling me with the Holy Spirit, and bringing wholeness into my life, as well as to all who make up his church, which is his body and bride. To the King who reigns now over all the nations and is coming again, be praise and glory, Amen. I think I can say such a thing here, because I am not addressing a session at the American Academy of Religion (aar) or Society of Biblical Literature
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
2
presidential address 2015
319
(sbl), where the rules of modernity reign.1 I am addressing the Society for Pentecostal Theology, where academic methodologies are the servant of the community—not its master—and where the Spirit is sought after and indeed reigns over the interpretive community.
Defining Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics, briefly defined, is the art and science of interpretation.2Herme- neutics is concerned with interpretation, communication, truth and falsehood, linguistic significance, embodied existence, spatial distance, formational expe- riences, historical distance, appropriateness of methodological procedures, epistemological issues, community formation, and personal identity. Herme- neutics enables learning, apprehension of understanding, and critical reflec- tion upon preunderstanding and the expansion of one’s own informed hori- zon of understanding.3“Hermeneutics exploresthe conditions and criteriathat operate to try to ensure reasonable, valid, fruitful, or appropriate interpreta- tion.”4
Hermeneutics is concerned with human understanding. Anthony Thisel- ton writes, “Preliminary understanding begins with what we inherit from the wisdom or common sense of the community and traditions into which we were born and educated.”5 Human understanding develops personally and communally within a socialized linguistic space-time continuum. Historical traditioning makes understanding possible because tradition develops as a result of embedded communal belonging. Our current understanding serves as
1 This may be an overstatement; however, it would be a violation ofaar/sbllanguage game for
an academic scholar to be confessional. At best, the scholar must be methodologically agnos-
tic to be taken seriously. Furthermore, there are academic societies that are confessional and
include scheduled opportunities for collective prayer and worship. For example, the Catholic
Theology Society of America has morning prayers and a certain spirituality to it: http://www
.ctsa-online.org/Convention%202015/Precis01.26.2015FINAL_CTSA2015ConvProgram.pdf
and the (Catholic) College Theology Society has a closing eucharistic liturgy: http://www
.collegetheology.org/images/stories/convention/2014/CTS_2014_Program_Final.pdf. 2 See Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, mi: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans, 2009), especially chapter 1, “The Aims and Scope of Hermeneutics,” 1–16.
3 Kenneth J. Archer, “Horizons and Hermeneutics of Doctrine: A Review Essay,” Journal of
Pentecostal Theology18 (2009): 150–156.
4 Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 4.
5 Ibid., 17.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
3
320
archer
preunderstanding. Our understanding, then, is not static, fixed, or closed, because our horizon of understanding via constant hermeneutical engage- ment is always moving, growing, correcting, modifying, revisioning, reforming, and affirming. Human “understanding is, in effect, cumulative and embed- ded in the flow of time.”6 Because of this, human understanding is necessarily limited, plural, partial, and perspectival.7 We find ourselves in and contribut- ing to various interpretive communities. As I said, we can revise and even replace our embedded preunderstanding or even reinforce it, but we can never escape embedded finite existence. Contra the Enlightenment project, there is no universal nonperspectival location. We remain in an embedded tradi- tioned horizon.8 Therefore, hermeneutics applies to all of life. In a real sense, life is a hermeneutical journey. No wonder hermeneutics is the only game in town!9
Defining Pentecostalism
Reaching a definition of Pentecostalism has become elusive and contested, to say the least.10 In fact it might be helpful just to say “Pentecostalisms.” In
6 7
8
9
10
Ibid., 217.
See Merold Westphal,Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Philosophical Hermeneu- tics for the Church(Grand Rapids,mi: Baker Academic, 2009).
See Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2d ed. (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984) and his sequel, Whose Justice? Which Rational- ity? (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988) for MacIntyre’s affirmation that all knowledge is socially conditioned, context bound, embodied by community, and expressed through dramatic narrative (story), and his proposal for rational ways to adjudi- cate between competing traditions. For how his work can be appropriated to Pentecostal- ism, see Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture, and Community (Cleveland,tn:cptPress, 2009), 128–171.
Or in the words of Stanley Fish, “interpretation is the only game in town.” Fish, Is There a Text in This Class: The Authority of Interpretive Communities(Cambridge,maand London, uk: Harvard University Press, 1980), 355.
For example, see Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. and Amos Yong, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014). “That the term Pentecostal has been or may be used to describe movements that do not always see eye to eye on all aspects of their history, theology, or praxis does not in itself disqualify them from the core realities that make them Pentecostal” (3). In the introduction the editors never define the “core realities” of P/pentecostalism. The editors allow the essayists to define it, yet they certainly believe that pentecostal and charismatic groups hold certain “core realities” in
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
4
presidential address 2015
321
The World’s Christians, Douglas Jacobsen describes four contemporary tradi- tions that comprise global Christianity today: Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Pentecostalism.11 Jacobsen presents Pentecostalism as a distinct global tradition. Many historians, theologians, and sociologists have argued that Pentecostalism is a distinct tradition, yet few have argued that it is distinct from Protestantism. According to Jacobsen, the attempt to expand the definition of Evangelicalism to include Pentecostals and Charismatics only complicated who is and who is not a Protestant. Jacobsen writes, “While it is true that Protestant Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians have much in common, most scholars and theologians would say that the two move- ments are not identical.”12 I appreciate how Jacobsen’s theological and histor- ical sensitivities have enabled him to discern the differences and similarities between the pentecostal/charismatic tradition and the other three traditions that support moving Pentecostalism out from under the umbrella of Protes- tantism and viewing it as a distinct global Christian tradition.13
Even though Pentecostalism is fluid and dynamic, I, too, understand Pen- tecostalism to be a distinct global Christian tradition.14 I agree with Jacobsen that it should be viewed as distinct from Protestantism. From my perspective, Pentecostalism is a diverse group of restoration and renewal movements held together by a common dynamic synergistic soteriology expressed doxologically through the Fivefold or Full Gospel and shared charismatic experiences.15Fur- thermore, Pentecostalism(s) has been accurately characterized as a Christian
11
12 13 14
15
common (2). It would have been beneficial to the readers of this compilation if they had identified significant core realities of Pentecostalism.
Douglas Jacobsen,TheWorld’sChristians:WhoTheyAre,WhereTheyAre,andHowTheyGot There (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001). Here Jacobson refers to the “Pentecostal/Charis- matic tradition” or Spirit-filled movement; see 8, 10, 50–61. In my opinion, he should have called the fourth historic movement Pentecostalism rather than the Pentecostal Charis- matic Tradition. For his work on early Pentecostalisms see Douglas Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement (Bloomington, in: Indiana Uni- versity Press, 2003). Here he had already argued that Pentecostalism was its own distinct movement with a distinct theology.
Ibid., 49.
Ibid., 39 and chapter 4.
See Kenneth J. Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 3 (July 2007): 301–314. I argued that an authentic pentecostal theology “can be accomplished only when ‘Pentecostal’ is taken seriously as an authentic Christian tradition with its own view of reality” (314). See Kenneth J. Archer, “Full Gospel,” in Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, ed. Adam Stewart (DeKalb,il: Northern Illinois University Press, 2012), 89–91.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
5
322
archer
tradition that celebrates transformative experiential spirituality.16 This is so because “Pentecostal theology is rooted in an experiential, oral, and lived tra- dition” and is a “theology that is sung, felt and experienced through the Holy Spirit.”17 Such a spirituality is formed narratively in worshiping communities in which testimonies, tongues, songs, scriptures, sermons, and dancing serve to motivate the faithful to worship the living God, experience God, and “discover their worth before God.”18 Pentecostalism, then, is an affective-experiential Christian tradition.19
Defining Postmodernity
I will be arguing that to embrace and participate in pentecostal religious expe- riences is to take a postmodern turn. So it will be helpful to define what I mean by postmodernism. “Postmodern thought is better understood, not primarily as a particular philosophical social agenda, but as a critique and rejection of central features of modernity and the attempt to engage in constructive dis- course in the aftermath.”20 The Enlightenment’s concern to define the human as merely a thinking thing with a particular concern for autonomous individu- ality has sent humanity adrift. Furthermore, its quest for universal reason and objective ahistorical universal principles are simply illusions.
Postmodernism rejects the reductionistic picture of human beings as merely thinking things, it also calls into question the privileging of rea-
16
17
18
19 20
See Donald E. Miller and TetsunaoYamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (Oakland, ca: University of California Press, 2007), 17–38 for a helpful overview of various types of Pentecostalism and different emphases that can be found in Pentecostalism. Pentecostal worship and music promotes “some type of encounter with the sacred, with all these other elements simply contextual variables” (38). On experience, see Peter D. Newman, “Whither Pentecostal Experience? Mediated Experience of God in Pentecostal Theology,”Canadian Journal of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity3 (2012): 1–40.
Arlene M. Sanchez Walsh, “Pentecostals,” in Handbook of Latina/o Theologies, ed. E.D. Aponte and M.A. De La Torre (St. Louis,mo: Chalice Press, 2006), 199.
Richard Shaull and Waldo Cesar, Pentecostalism and the Future of Churches: Promises, Limitations, Challenges(Grand Rapids,mi: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 146.
Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner,” 309.
John R. Franke, “The Nature of Theology: Culture, Language, and Truth,” in Myron B. Pen- ner, ed., Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views (Grand Rapids, mi: Brazos Press, 2005), 203–204.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
6
presidential address 2015
323
son and intellect as queen of the faculties. Instead, postmodernism argues that our orientation to the world is not primarily mediated intellectual perception but rather a more fundamental ‘passional orientation’ and affective comportment to the world that ‘construes’ the world of expe- rience on the basis of ‘understanding’ that is precognitive.21
Christians who have made a postmodern turn “are attempting to rethink the quest for truth in light of the contextual nature of human thought and the plurality of cultural expression.”22 This affirms a contextualized understand- ing of rationality. Language, then, is constitutive of the social nature of human existence. Learning is grounded in embedded historic traditions.23 Postmod- ernism, then, makes space for the particularity of Pentecostalism as an embed- ded historic tradition.
The Reformed theologian Kevin Vanhoozer recognizes that “the spirit of Pentecostalism does appear to be radically at odds with the spirit of moder- nity.”24Why? Because “there are elements of a pentecostal worldview that res- onate with a ‘postmodern’ critique of autonomous reason.”25 Sociologist Mar- garet Poloma argues that Pentecostalism is an “anthropological protest against modernity”26 and promotes an alternative worldview to modernism by main- taining a tension between the “rational cognitive and the affective experien- tial.”27 Prior to Poloma, Gerald T. Sheppard defined early Pentecostalism as “submodern,” which he preferred to premodern or precritical, because Pen- tecostals “were acclimated to cultural values of the lower class or to racially marginalized groups and were not invited as equal partners into the modernist debate.” Yet “[t]hey participated self-consciously or unwittingly on an ad hoc basis in the modern experiment.”28 I argued that early Pentecostals were a
21
22 23
24
25 26
27 28
James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy (Grand Rapids,mi: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010), 58.
John R. Franke, “The Nature of Theology,” 203–204.
ForfurtherdiscussionsseeL.WilliamOliverio,Jr.,TheologicalHermeneuticsintheClassical Tradition(Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2012), 316–366.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Reforming Pneumatic Hermeneutics,” in Johnson T.K. Lim, ed., Holy Spirit: Unfinished Agenda(Singapore: Genesis Books and Word N Works, 2014): 19. Smith,Thinking in Tongues, 52.
Margaret M. Poloma, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas(Knoxville,tn: University of Tennessee Press, 1989), 19.
Ibid., 8.
Gerald T. Sheppard, “Biblical Interpretation after Gadamer,”Pneuma16, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 127. Sheppard further stated that “Pentecostals can be pro-modern without being mod- ernists, find positive links with premodern Christians without being ‘precritical’, see afresh
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
7
324
archer
paramodern, counterculture movement because they existed on the margins of mainstream North American society and established mainline Christian tra- ditions.29 Thus pentecostal theologians and biblical expositors that take early pentecostal spirituality seriously will speak with a “liberating voice and have a postmodern accent” because Pentecostalism is a protest against central fea- tures of modernity and offers an alternative understanding of ultimate reality and ways of understanding it.30 Pentecostal and charismatic scholars who are contributing to the contemporary development of critical-constructive pente- costal theology have moved beyond modernity without embracing nihilistic, individualistic, and pure naturalistic forms of postmodernity or uncritically promoting postmodernism as Christianity’s savior.31
The Making of a Pentecostal Hermeneutic
On November 7, 1992, D. William Faupel delivered hisspspresidential address titled “Whither Pentecostalism?” The address was a prophetic cry for Pente- costals to be, well, “pentecostal.” He informed the membership that two visions of Pentecostalism were emerging. At that time, the primary vision was that “Pentecostalism was a subgroup of Evangelicalism, sharing its assumptions, its agenda and its mission.”32 The other emerging vision “perceived Pente-
29 30
31
32
the limits of modern criticism without uncritically joining self-labeled ‘postmodernists’ who pander to a nihilism based too one-sidedly on its love-hate relationship with moder- nity,” in “Pentecostals, Globalization, and Postmodern Hermeneutics: Implications for the Politics of Scriptural Interpretation,” in Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Petersen, eds.,The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Carlisle,uk: Regnum Books International, 1999) 289–290.
Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 18, 38–46, 268.
Kenneth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect,” Journal of Pente- costal Theology8 (1996): 63–81, 81.
James K.A. Smith correctly recognizes that postmodernity, like modernity, is “character- ized by an idolatrous notion of self-sufficiency and a deep naturalism” (Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism, The Church and Postmodern Culture [Grand Rapids,mi: Baker Academic, 2006], 21), and some forms of postmodernism further intensify modernity, such as indi- vidual freedom, use of technology, and so on. I agree with him that what is significant for Pentecostals is what isdiscontinuous, such as the importance of traditioning, community, narrative, and so forth.
D. William Faupel, “Presidential Address: Whither Pentecostalism?” Pneuma 15, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 9–27 (26). I would suggest that the context of understanding Evangelicalism in his address is the United States.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
8
presidential address 2015
325
costalism to be an authentic expression of Christian Faith in its own right and not as a subgroup of Evangelicalism.” He continues, “Those holding this view feel that the initial impulse which gave rise to the Movement, must be recovered—not in a naïve sense, but in the sense of what Paul Ricoeur means by “second naiveté.” Faupel further states that those who hold such a view also “concluded that the Movement has its own mission, its own hermeneu- tic, and its own agenda.”33 I would suggest that Faupel’s timely address sig- naled that a paradigm shift was occurring within pentecostal scholarship. Since Faupel’s presidential address, publications on pentecostal hermeneutics have exploded.34
This no doubt is due in large part to the entrance of Pentecostals into for- mal academic and ecumenical discourses. Those who entered into advanced degrees at state universities or more mainline and non-conservative evangel- ical seminaries while simultaneously “drawing deep from their own wells” of spirituality produced pentecostal biblical, theological, and philosophical con- structive theology.35 Such persons tended to engage broadly across the Chris- tian theological spectrum and even with non-Christian critical theorists as they articulated pentecostal biblical readings and theology. In the usa, those Pen- tecostals who remained in conservative evangelical contexts often chose to remain conservative Evangelicals, arguing for the adoption of a so-called evan- gelical hermeneutic. They retained evangelical conservative nomenclature and generally added the pentecostal experience onto their theology. They did not tend to rework their theology from a distinctly pentecostal view.36As Bill Olive- rio points out, “A case could be made that Pentecostals who have turned toward Evangelical hermeneutics, as opposed to those who have not, have most often
33 34
35
36
Ibid., 26.
The latest publication on “pentecostal” biblical hermeneutics is Lee Roy Martin, ed., Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2013). Three monographs addressing pentecostal hermeneutics are Amos Yong,Spirit-Word-Community:Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Eugene, or: Wipf and Stock, 2002); Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, and Oliverio,Theological Hermeneutics.
“Drinking from Their Own Wells” was selected by the program chair Cheryl Bridges Johns as the theme for the sps 1994 meeting. Cheryl Bridges Johns’s presidential address was “The Adolescence of Pentecostalism: In Search of a Legitimate Sectarian Identity,”Pneuma 17, no. 4 (Spring 1995): 109–134. The search for a pentecostal identity was a 1990s concern; see Murray W. Dempster, “The Search for Pentecostal Identity,”Pneuma 15, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 1–8.
See Robert P. Menzies, “The Essence of Pentecostalism: Forum Conducted at the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary Chapel,” in Paraclete 26, no. 3 (Summer 1992): 1–9. Robert and Glenn Menzies are staunch supporters of understanding the Assemblies of God as
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
9
326
archer
done so because they have been educated at either an Evangelical institution or at a pentecostal institution which has embraced this hybrid hermeneu- tic.”37 Furthermore, some were convinced of modernity’s concern for the so- called objectivity of discovering the author’s intent and therefore affirmed a “confessional” historical critical method. The goal was to discover the men- tal intention of the author and thus create some sense of objectivity. They used what Oliverio calls a hybrid hermeneutic, which results when Pente- costals embrace and maintain an enlightened modernistic yet confessional epistemology and a so-called conservative evangelical interpretive methodol- ogy.
I believe those who produced constructivepentecostaltheology were able to do so because, first, the epistemological grip of enlightened modernity, which Pentecostalism had so adamantly protested, had loosened.38With such a loos- ening came an opportunity to produce pentecostal scholarship informed by both early pentecostal experiential spirituality and present participation in pentecostal and/or charismatic communities. Second, Pentecostals participat- ing in the interpretive community at sps (as distinct from ets or sbl/aar) discerned that the time had come for them to develop and articulate critical- constructive pentecostal scholarship in dialogue with the larger Christian tra- dition. For example, in the opening editorial of the first issue of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology the editors stated, “The idea for this publishing venture was conceived by the present editors (J.C. Thomas, R. Moore and S. Land) at the 1990 annual meeting of the sps.”39 The publication of this journal marked a new phase in international constructive-critical pentecostal scholarship. The first issue of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology (Issue 1, 1992) could be seen as a Pentecostal Manifesto.40 Pentecostals who have taken a linguistic and
37 38
39
40
a product of the North American Conservative Reformed Evangelical tradition, and they both support authorial intent as an aspect of historical criticism.
Oliverio,Theological Hermeneutics, see n. 6, 135.
Murray W. Dempster, “Issues Facing Pentecostalism in a Post-Modern World: An Intro- ductory Overview,” in Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Petersen, eds., The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Irvine, ca: Regnum Books International, 1999), 261–267.
Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992): 4. See also Robby Waddell, “Whence Pentecostal Scholarship? The Coming of Age of the Pentecostal Critical Tradition and a Forecast for Its Future,” in Steve M. Fettke and Robby Waddell, eds., Pentecostals in the Academy: Testimonies of Call (Cleveland,tn:cptPress, 2012): 243–259.
The editors stated that the journal is “designed to facilitate constructive theological
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
10
presidential address 2015
327
postmodern turn while drawing deeply and “drinking from their own wells” in dialogue with the broader Christian tradition and other critical theorists have contributed to the development of a distinct pentecostal hermeneutical tradi- tion.41
I am not saying that Pentecostals did not produce academic theology or scholarship prior to this shift; they most certainly did.42The early articles pub- lished in Pneuma demonstrate that Pentecostals produced academic schol- arship. But were the essays in theology really attempting to be thoroughly informed by Pentecostalism, or were they simply the recovery of the so-called baptism with/in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in an unlearned tongue? Also, I would say that if pentecostal identity was not differentiated from North American Evangelicalism, anything identified as pentecostal would have been swallowed up and recast into academic evangelical theology or some modern or postmodern version of liberal theology.43 Such options are simply inconsistent with early North American pentecostal spirituality.44
A Pentecostal Hermeneutic
A pentecostal hermeneutic is first and foremost a participatory and relational theological hermeneutic—a way of interpreting life and ultimate reality. Life is an experience birthed, formed, and framed through communal participation. Story is the only way in which we can explain the meaning of our existence in a coherent manner.45 The Christian task is interpreting lived experience theologically, thus making one’s personal life and communal existence a mean-
41
42
43
44 45
research from a Pentecostal perspective on an international scholarly level,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology1 (1992): 3.
For further discussions see Oliverio, Theological Hermeneutics, chapter 7, 316–366. The initial impulse (the spirituality) that gave rise to Pentecostalism is critically retrieved and revisioned.
See Christopher A. Stephenson, Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, and Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
The term Evangelicalism is also contested. See Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing The- ology: Method and Manner,” especially note 12. In theusa“evangelical” might function as an umbrella concept for traditions that might find some family resemblance; but it really was not so much a tradition as it is a coalition connected to the National Association of Evangelicals. Evangelicalism today is very diverse.
Faupel, “Presidential Address: Whither Pentecostalism?” 9–27, see 26.
Jörg Haustein, “Historical Epistemology and Pentecostal Origins: History and Historiogra- phy in Ethiopian Pentecostalism,”Pneuma35 (2013): 348.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
11
328
archer
ingful storied Christian journey.46From a Christian perspective, hermeneutics is a good and necessary aspect of being created finite human beings, even though humanity is fallen and corrupted.47 God saves us not from interpre- tation butthroughinterpretation. In the words of Chris Green, “God is ‘bound’ to save us in ways that make us truer interpreters.”48 Therefore, a pentecostal theological hermeneutic interprets the totality of human experience truth- fully, and that includes understanding the reciprocal relationship between God, humanity, and creation—“from a finite perspective that is specifically and explicitly grounded in a community of faith.”49 “A theological hermeneu- tic is a hermeneutics of life which proceeds ‘from the perspective of faith toward a hermeneutics of reality as a whole.’”50 Hence, the community for pentecostal theological exposition will privilege the Protestant Bible because Scripture as a grand metanarrative articulates the story of God to human- ity.
“The rubric of Scripture, community and Spirit resides at the heart of pen- tecostal hermeneutics.”51 This “threefold framework” of the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture, and a holy community of faith has become the primary rubric for dis- cussing a critical and constructive pentecostal hermeneutic.52 While utilizing
46
47
48
49 50 51
52
I am affirming a hermeneutical critical realist approach; thus the need to be accurate, fair, and honest with one’s personal story is necessary. A hermeneutic of suspicion should always be applied to one’s personal telling of history because humans tend to exaggerate their significance and dominate others.
I agree wholeheartedly with James K.A. Smith, who argues that hermeneutics is not post- lapsarian but found in Eden as good. Hermeneutics is not an evil or a violence (Derrida), but a part of creation and human life. James K.A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation: Philo- sophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic(Downers Grove,il: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 22.
See Chris E.W. Green, Sanctifying Interpretation: Vocation, Holiness, and Scripture (Cleve- land,tn:cptPress, 2015), 39, my italics.
See Amos Yong,Spirit-Word-Community, 6, my italics.
Oliverio,Theological Hermeneutics, 5, citing Yong,Spirit-Word-Community, 7. Melissa L. Archer, I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day: A Pentecostal Engagement with Wor- ship 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 member of the triad.
Lee Roy Martin, “Introduction to Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Pentecostal Hermeneu- tics, 9. See John Christopher Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals, and the Bible: An Experi- ment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994): 41–56. For a reflection upon and interaction with the triad see his later publication “‘What the Spirit is Saying to the Church’—The Testimony of a Pentecostal in New Testament Stud-
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
12
presidential address 2015
329
various interpretive methodologies, there is a clear concern to remain faith- ful to the Gospel and the emancipatory impulse of the Spirit of life as heard in early pentecostal spirituality. Furthermore, there is a concern to discern the meaning of Scripture from a theological redemptive narrative understanding of God’s involvement with humanity while avoiding relativism and objectivism, whether modern or postmodern.53
From and around this triad, important interpretive strategies have emerged that are better fitted to the spiritual ethos of the pentecostal movements and their story and that seem better suited to the Scripture itself as the Church’s book.54Such a theological hermeneutic has moved from simply locating mean- ing behind the biblical text (into the author’s mind), to locating meaning in the world in the text (literary criticism) and in front of the text (advocacy/reader response criticism).55 While eschewing the privilege of the historical-critical method of modernity,56 a critical pentecostal hermeneutic does not necessar-
53
54
55
56
ies,” in Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Examining a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (New York: t&t Clark International, 2012), 115–129. Also see Ken- neth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Story: The Hermeneutical Filter for the Making of Meaning,” Pneuma26 (2004): 36–59.
Pamela M.S. Holmes, “A Never Ending Canadian Pentecostal Challenge: What To Do with the Women,” in Harold D. Hunter and Neil Ormerod, eds., The Many Faces of Global Pentecostalism(Cleveland,tn:cptPress, 2013): 264–285.
Chris E. Green,Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Lord’s Supper: Foretasting the Kingdom (Cleveland,tn:cptPress, 2012), 183. See also Joel B. Green,Practicing Theological Interpre- tation:EngagingBiblicalTextsforFaithand Formation(Grand Rapids,mi: Baker Academic, 2011).
The discussion of the location of meaning and the interpretive methods associated with the location of meaning is standard information in contemporary discussions of bibli- cal hermeneutics. For example, see Randolph Tate’s Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2014). Tate was one of the first to argue for an integrative approach that appreciated all three locations. Also see “Introduc- tion: Trajectories in Biblical Hermeneutics,” by Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell in BiblicalHermeneutics:FiveViews,ed. Stanley E.Porterand Beth M.Stovell(DownersGrove, il:ivpAcademic, 2012), 9–20.
Joel B. Green recognizes the value of the social cultural location of the production of Scrip- ture. What he rejects is the traditional academic historical criticism in which the biblical scholar functions as a historian who is concerned first and foremost with the reconstruc- tion of an accurate account of past events (hc1), and secondly with the “excavation of traditional material in order to explain the process from historical events to their textual- izing in biblical material” (hc2). This includes the methods called “traditional criticism, form criticism, source criticism and redaction criticism.” What he affirms is the “study of
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
13
330
archer
ily endorse any one method; thus various methods are utilized that include insights drawn from advocacy approaches and postcolonial concerns.57 How- ever, the biblical text in front of the reader will be the most crucial for the understanding of theological meaning. For these Pentecostals, “a hermeneutic must function both to explain a text and to activate the reader’s participation in the world portrayed in the text.”58Furthermore, given the global diversity of Pentecostalism, ethnically formed experiential perspectives are welcomed as part of the pentecostal hermeneutic.59Methods that emphasize a close reading and hearing of Scripture and the contribution of the readers to the interpretive process are being utilized in productive ways.60 Many of the methods being adapted have been influenced by more postmodern literary theory and incor- porate insights drawn from pre-critical methodology (before the Reformation), post-critical theology, and liberation advocacy strategies.61 Such approaches tend to be at odds with modernistic Protestantism, whether it be Liberalism
57
58
59
60
61
historical situations within which the biblical materials were generated, including the socio- cultural conventions that they take for granted.” He affirms that this kind of historical crit- icism (hc3) is hospitable to theological interpretation (his italics). Thus genre criticism, new criticism, and rhetorical criticism may be beneficial to theological hermeneutics. See Green, Practicing Theological Interpretation, 44–45. I suggest that Pentecostals like myself who reject modernity’s historical-critical method are rejecting what he identifies as hc1 andhc2, but would affirm with himhc3.
Estrelda Alexander, “When Liberation Becomes Survival,”Pneuma32 (2010): 337–353. See Lisa P. Stephenson,Dismantling the Dualisms for American Pentecostal Women in Ministry: A Feminist-Pneumatological Approach (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2012). Also see Sammy Alfaro,DivinoCompañero:TowardaHispanicPentecostalChristology(Eugene,or:Pickwick Press, 2010).
Murray W. Dempster, “Paradigm Shifts and Hermeneutics: Confronting Issues Old and New,”Pneuma15, no. 2 (Fall 1993): 132.
Darío López Rodríguez, The Liberating Mission of Jesus: the Message of the Gospel of Luke (Eugene,or: Pickwick Press, 2012).
Two important recent contributions that focus upon the common laity in community are Jacqueline Grey,Three’s A Crowd: Pentecostalism, Hermeneutics, and the Old Testament (Eugene, or: Pickwick Press, 2011) and Esa J. Autero, “Reading the Bible across Contexts: Luke’s Gospel, Socio-Economic Marginality, and Latin American Biblical Hermeneutics” (PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2014).
In the late 1960s and early 1970s pentecostal theologians embraced Latin American, African American, and feminist concerns, especially in the area of ethics. Other advocacy hermeneutics that address oppression and perceived social injustices will undoubtedly be used as well in the future. Pentecostals have used critical methodological insights without entirely endorsing the method. They tend to modify the methods in light of their pentecostal spirituality.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
14
presidential address 2015
331
or Evangelicalism.62 Once again, those Pentecostals who utilize literary and reader response methods will want to remain true to the Gospel and the eman- cipatory impulse of the Spirit of life while avoiding relativism, whether modern or postmodern.
Pentecostal interpretation is a contextualized theological hermeneutical activity. As Christians we are called not only to interpret Scripture in a proper manner but also to embody Scripture in a holy dynamic mode of relational existence. We are concerned with moral truth as embodied holy living. A pentecostal hermeneutic will be concerned with the liberating redemptive message of Jesus Christ and the emancipatory sanctifying working of the Holy Spirit, if it is to remain true to its own spirituality. In this way our communities become living embodied letters and our communities become the sacramental redemptive presence of Christ in the world.
The pentecostal communities must discern rightly what the Spirit is say- ing in and through the Scriptures. The community must discern what the text means and how that meaning is to be lived out in the community. Certain inter- pretive methods and particular interpretations of Scripture will become more normative for the community than others. Not all interpretations are equally valid; some are simply wrong. The interpretive community will decided which are and are not acceptable based on various factors, one being the soundness of the method, but more important will be the theological acceptability of the interpretation. The moral decision-making process is imperative for Pente- costals because pentecostal interpretation includes an act of intentional obe- dient response to the meaning of Scripture.63
62
63
See Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, chapters 1–5; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Hermeneu- tics: From Fundamentalism to Postmodernism,” in Amos Yong, ed., Toward a Pneumato- logical Theology: Pentecostal and Ecumenical Perspectives on Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Theology of Mission (Lanham, md: University Press of America, 2002): 4–5. Also see his “Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the Making: On the Way from Fundamentalism to Post- modernism,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association18 (1998): 76–115. See also James K.A. Smith, “The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and the Sacred Writings,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (1997): 49–71; and Mark J. Cartledge, “Text—Community—Spirit: The Challenges Posed by Pentecostal Theological Method to Evangelical Theology,” in Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Examining a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (New York: t&t Clark International, 2012), 130–142, and his “Pneumatic Hermeneutics: A Replay to Respondents,” in Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Examining a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (New York:t&tClark International, 2012), 186–188.
See Stephan E. Parker,Led by the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discern- ment and Decision Making(Sheffield,uk: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
15
332
archer
The pentecostal theological hermeneutic encourages a close reading and hearing of the biblical text with a concern to understand the text and encounter the Spirit in and through the text for ongoing sanctified living in the world and empowerment to change the world. More important than proper use of methods is the spiritual formation of Jesus-shaped and Spirit-filled pentecostal virtuous communities. Hermeneutics, then, is “a spiritual, communal, interpre- tive art. It can be safely, wisely and fruitfully exercised only by those whose minds and hearts have been soaked in and shaped by the Gospel itself—within the Christian community’s reflection, devotion and worship.”64
To summarize this section: A pentecostal hermeneutic has emerged that takes seriously the Holy Spirit, Scripture, and the pentecostal community. The community must faithfully interpret Scripture as she discerns the voice of the Spirit.65 Scholars who are embracing Pentecostalism as an “authentic expression of Christian faith in its own right”66 have taken both a linguistic and postmodern turn. They are engaging in critical dialogue with various Christian traditions and secular theorists and producing pentecostal theology and biblical readings. As a result, they are bringing more than just “relish” to the Christian banquet; they are providing a hearty and nourishing dish worth being sampled by other Christian traditions.67
Society for Pentecostal Theology (sps): A Diverse Hermeneutical Community
The importance of the sps for North American Pentecostalism is captured in the following words of Russell P. Spittler, who wrote in 2001 for the thirtieth anniversary of the Society: “We are witnessing the emergence of the pente- costal mind. Perhaps more than any single force in that development has been the impact of the Society for Pentecostal Theology founded in 1970.”68 In 2002,
64
65
66 67
68
Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, il: Inter- Varsity Press, 1998), 195.
See Mark J. Cartledge, “Pentecostal Theology,” in Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. and Amos Yong, eds.,The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 255–258.
Faupel, “Whither Pentecostalism?” 26.
Terry Cross, “The Rich Feast of Theology: Can Pentecostals Bring the Main Course or Only the Relish?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology16 (2000): 27–47.
Russell P. Spittler, “The Dawn of the Pentecostal Mind,” inCommemorating Thirty Years of Annual Meetings (1971–2001), ed. Mark E. Roberts (Society for Pentecostal Theology, 2001),
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
16
presidential address 2015
333
he further stated: “about to conclude its first generation, the sps faces a deli- cate balance between its growing acceptance among scholarly and ecumenical circles and its mixed reception on the part of classical pentecostal establish- ment.”69The tensions generated as a result ofsps’s nature as an academic and ecumenical society involved with the “classical pentecostal establishment” has led to occasional firestorms with casualties.
The stated purpose and mission of the Society is posted on the official sps website under the link “Who we are.” I encourage you to revisit it. The first few sentences read:
The Society for Pentecostal Theology is an organization of scholars dedi- cated to providing a forum of discussion for all academic disciplines as a spiritual service to the kingdom of God. The purpose of the Society is to stimulate, encourage, recognize, and publicize the work of Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars and scholars of Pentecostalism; to study the implications of Pentecostal theology in relation to other academic dis- ciplines …70
spsexists primarily for the reign of God as it serves the one body of Christ with particular concern for the pentecostal and charismatic communities. In order to fulfill its mission sps addresses three audiences: the Church, the academy, and the public square or the “global village.”71Our annual meetings should be a
69
70
71
2. Spittler further states, “After a wobbling start during which the Society was unofficially reckoned to be the research arm of the Pentecostal World Conference (a loose federa- tion of major global Pentecostal denominations), the Society welcomed membership and scholarly contributions from persons of differing beliefs or none at all. Today the Soci- ety’s annual meeting still attracts scores, sometimes hundreds, of scholars; and probing inquiries are made surrounding the remarkable growth of the Pentecostal movement— surely a leading religious phenomenon of the twentieth century, one that crosses virtually all denominations and outnumbers by far Protestantism itself” (2).CommemoratingThirty Years can be found on the Society for Pentecostal Theology website at: http://sps-usa .org/#/home/bylaws-and-history. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
Russell P. Spittler, “Society for Pentecostal Theology,” in Stanley Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas, eds., The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Move- ments(Grand Rapids,mi: Zondervan, 2002): 1079–1080, 1080.
Retrieved February 2, 2015 from http://sps-usa.org/#/home/who-we-are. See sps Bylaws, which contains the 7 sub-points: http://storage.cloversites.com/
societyforpentecostalstudies/documents/sps_bylaws.pdf.
Term coined by Marshall McLuhan; see his The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typo- graphic Man(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962).
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
17
334
archer
hospitable place for the dialogical interaction of scholars. We should recognize and celebrate that our members are contributing to the production of scholarly pentecostal and charismatic studies as well as popular-level writings. sps also provides mentoring for future pentecostal and charismatic scholars.
Over the past few years we have had to work through some growing pains. Along the way, we have also experienced some “tension” among the members of the Society. As a hermeneutical community we are struggling with how best to serve our mission in relationship to our three audiences. Some members want to embrace a more European-influenced research model. Others want a confessional academic Bible college model. The first model maintains neu- trality and academic freedom as essential to quality research and academic integrity. Speakers and presenters must meet minimal academic requirements in order to demonstrate the intellectual integrity of the Society. Sometimes, if the person has a religious faith commitment, it will be viewed as a hindrance to objectivity. The research model primarily serves the modernistic (secular) academy. The second model holds to the necessity of being a confessional society, which often implies that sps is an educational auxiliary of a classical pentecostal denomination. The Bible college model carries with it a concern to regulate who may speak at university campuses that host the sps annual meeting and investigates members who may affirm a doctrine or practice that would be inconsistent with the pentecostal establishment. Both models have made important and beneficial contributions tosps. We do want vigorous aca- demic research and scholarship. We also appreciate times of worship—most of our members are confessing pentecostal and charismatic Christians, and many of our members would want to engage in research as practicing pentecostal or charismatic educators. Neither of the two models should become the exclusive model for sps. As argued above, Pentecostalism is neither modern liberalism nor modern North American Evangelicalism, and this is a strength.
The Society’s annual meeting is special time, a unique space carved out dur- ing the year for a diverse group of scholars and developing academics to gather and engage in pentecostal and charismatic studies. The Society serves various academic and educational purposes and provides scheduled opportunities for spiritual formation.72I think both the diverse spiritual activities and the diverse academic interests are important strengths ofsps. We are concerned about his- tory, but we are not merely a historical society. We are concerned about the interpretation of the Bible, but we are not purely a biblical studies society. We
72
For example, sps opens with a worship service as a segue into the first plenary address, and we schedule morning devotionals during the meeting.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
18
presidential address 2015
335
are concerned about theology, but we are not solely a theological society. We are concerned about ecumenism, but we are not limited to ecumenical conver- sations. The same could be said about any of the interest groups that currently exist in the Society. The challenge forspsis to maintain the important aspects of being an academic society while simultaneously providing opportunities for participating in pentecostal-charismatic spirituality. As a result, sps is experi- encing pushback from two of its audiences, the pentecostal establishment and the Academy.
Pushback has come from administrative personnel and other so-called sec- ular academic societies, such as the Society of Biblical Literature, who question whether or not sps is even an academic society.73 For our members who only participate at sps, this may hinder their advancement in rank, their ability to secure tenure, or their ability to secure faculty development funding. I would hope that the diverse interest groups, the research methodologies employed, the academic quality of papers, and our publications in our journal Pneuma would help our members in their battle to get funding and academic recogni- tion for their participation in the Society. Pushback has also come from pente- costaldenominationalleaderswhomayquestionthespiritualfitnessofpresen- ters or the appropriateness of the issues being addressed atsps. Such concerns have also been expressed by members of the Society, and this resulted in a debate about whether the membership should adhere to a confessional state- ment to ensure thatspsdoes not become a liberal or secular academic society. These concerns reflect the influence of the Bible college model upon the Soci- ety.
spscertainlydoeswelcometheinvolvementofecclesiasticaldenominations and is very grateful for the hospitality of denominational universities that host the Society. Most of the Society’s members are credentialed clergy of classi- cal pentecostal denominations, and many teach at Christian universities and seminaries that require them to affirm certain doctrinal beliefs and behavioral practices. The pentecostal establishment does have a vested interest insps.
73
For example, see http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/an-afternoon-with-the-society -for-pentecostal-studies/41496. I was the moderator of this sbl session. See also https:// scotteriology.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/hendel-and-sbl-the-real-issue/ and http:// members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=4&ArticleID =9. The issue for these individuals involved with sbl is that you cannot be both an academic biblical scholar and a confessional Pentecostal.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
19
336
archer
Definingspsas an Academic and Spiritual Hermeneutical Community Working in One Accord
sps is an academic hermeneutical community. As an academic society we appreciate the research model.74We want critical academic integrity expressed both by appropriate methods and by serious engagement with the subject mat- ter. Fairness, clarity, coherence, and competency are necessary skills of the scholar’s craft. Academic methodological procedures are important. Presenters areencouragedtoutilizevariousinterpretivemethodsthatrelatetovariousdis- ciplines associated with the interest groups of the Society. All methodological procedures require interpretive analysis. These methods arise from interpretive communities. The scholar’s narrative tradition guides the methodological criti- cal analysis and shapes the interpretive presentation. The interpretive commu- nities provide the context in which moral reasoning, along with its interpretive practices, are understood.75 Because Pentecostals believe that the Spirit has more to say than simply quoting a Scripture, and that the Spirit is working everywhere, the Society has been reluctant to require a person to agree with a statement of faith in order to be a member of the Society. We need to hear from those who are studying Pentecostalism who are not pentecostal and not even Christian. They may see and hear things that others have missed. Such a person might be used by God to speak to the Society in a prophetic way. Furthermore, in the context of being an academic society, elected leadership should be open to members who may not agree with our current confessional statement. Because the membership elects the officers, should we not have confidence in the discerning of the community? Are not character, academic contribution, and ability more important than agreeing to a confessional state- ment?
One of the more important services we may offer global Christianity as an academic society is future opportunities to engage in ecumenical dialogues, especially between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals. As David Reed notes, “As op [Oneness Pentecostalism] approaches its centenary, it has produced thriving communities of faith throughout the world. However, almost univer- sally they do so in isolation from the wider Christian community and some- times from each other … As they grow in numbers, as they surely will, there is an urgent need for greater mutual understanding, trust and hopefully cooper-
74
75
See Cheryl Bridges Johns, “Athens, Berlin, and Azusa: A Pentecostal Reflection on Schol- arship and Christian Faith,”Pneuma27, no. 1 (2005): 136–147.
See note 12.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
20
presidential address 2015
337
ation.”76 Reed offers several suggestions for bridging the gulf. One suggestion is encouraging qualified Oneness persons to present papers and participate in research projects at academic societies. The goal is to develop deeper appre- ciation and understanding between Oneness and Trinitarian Christianity and come to see “how global expressions of embodied Oneness theology may prove to be more ecumenically fruitful than western speculative approaches.”77Reed writes, “Academic societies are neutral spaces for dialogue without requiring ecclesiastical participation.”78 Unlike the North American Evangelical Theo- logical Society, sps has not restricted Oneness Pentecostals from membership by adopting a Trinitarian statement.79 Why? The reason is simple. We share a similar history and spirituality, thus a close kinship bond remains between the Oneness and Trinitarian communities. Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals do blur theological boundaries while maintaining doxological confessions of the Full Gospel. This has been a strength ofsps, something worth celebrating.
We realize how important academic freedom is to the exploration of study. spsmust be open to papers and presenters that address current issues faced by the global village. I do not have to agree with or be persuaded by the presenta- tion, but surely our Society needs to create space for dialogue around contro- versial issues. The issues of imperialism, nationalism, materialism, militarism, sexism, racism, globalism, pluralism, and other suchismsare affecting our pen- tecostal and charismatic communities. We need to hear academic papers that engage these topics. What I am calling for is the moral responsibility of our Society to allow such papers to be presented without threats to the presenters or the Society as a whole. This is the tension we must maintain.
sps is a spiritually formative hermeneutical community. I may find a group of people who gather for worship ataar/sbl, but those academic societies will not be opening the official meeting with a charismatic worship service. We gather as a community to fellowship, to worship, to study, and to encourage one another in our vocational callings. I was in my PhD program and I had just begun attending sps meetings when I heard the personal testimony of Hispanic pentecostal theologian Samuel Solivan. His testimony influenced me,
76
77 78 79
David A. Reed, “Then and Now: The Many Faces of Global Oneness Pentecostalism,” in Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. and Amos Yong, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 52–70, citation 64–65.
Ibid., 65.
Ibid.
See http://etsjets.org/, retrieved February 21, 2015 and (http://etsjets.org/ about/constitution#A3, retrieved February 21, 2015).
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
21
338
archer
challenged me, and encouraged me. Along with a room full of people, I was overwhelmed by the presence of the Spirit. On another occasion, I had the opportunity to room with A.G. Miller, who teaches at Oberlin College. We spent a significant amount of time discussing race and ethnicity and the challenges faced by African Americans in u.s. society. He shared with me some personal experiences that I, as a white male living in theu.s., would never face. The time spent with A.G. helped me as a pentecostal educator to become more sensitive to subtle and systematic forms of discrimination and the need to be proactive. As a result, I better understand why “Black lives matter.”80I have seen on more than one occasion members like Chris Thomas leading a group in prayer for a brother or sister. There have been a few sessions interrupted with prophetic moans and tears, such as Cheryl Bridges Johns’ plenary presentation in 2014. Some sessions even ended with opportunities to pray for one another—a kind of altar call if you will. The opportunities to gather and discuss important concerns in smaller groups at dinner or in the hotel lobbies were beneficial in many ways. This can happen at other societies, but it has been at this Society that I have found support and strength as a pentecostal journeying through my second naiveté. I could say more, but these are just a few experiences that have shaped me as a result of being a participant in this hermeneutical community over the past twenty years. I may be overly appreciative ofsps, but I cannot think of another society that encourages pentecostal and charismatic spirituality and academic integrity in North America. This is what happens when Pentecostals gather—they testify, they protest, they worship, and they encourage one another in the Lord. We value the formational concern of the Bible college model, yet we are not an educational auxiliary of any pentecostal denomination, nor, for that matter, of the church. We exist for the reign of God, and as such, sps members have both priestly and prophetic roles. Further, the membership of the Society has the hermeneutical responsibility of discerning what the Spirit is sayingoutsideof the church and through those who may not even be Christian.
For sps to continue in its mission, the Society should continue to forge a third way—a way that is in keeping with early pentecostal spirituality. The path would simultaneously embrace the practices of an academic society and create opportunities for authentic pentecostal and charismatic spirituality to manifest. From my perspective, the opening worship service is key. Sensitivity to the Spirit is paramount, for the Spirit has mysterious ways of breaking into
80
I must also mention Estrelda Alexander, who has had significant influence on me and serves as a “mother” in ourspscommunity.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
22
presidential address 2015
339
our sessions, surprising us, rebuking us, overwhelming us, and healing us. It is through our worship that non-Christian members more clearly see and hear our spirituality and have opportunity to encounter the living God. Our worship is our theology! I believe that the tension generated by trying to maintain a third way is productive. Such tension becomes destructive when one model, either the Berlin or the Bible college, takes over. Surely we want both sound academics and sensitivity to the Spirit. sps must continue to be an academic priestly and prophetic society servicing God’s reign as it address the three audiences—global village, academy, and church. Priests and prophets have always valued worldly sages who spoke the truth, for surely all truth is God’s truth, no matter where it’s found or from whom it originates. But such truth must be morally discerned by a hermeneutical community. We must embrace academic societal practices that open us up to the scrutiny of others (both Christian and non-Christian) while maintaining our priestly and prophetic responsibilities. In order for sps to accomplish this, we must resist becoming either a “modern” academic society or a closed confessional Christian society.
In the words of the famous country singer Loretta Lynn, “we’ve come a long way, Baby!” sps as a hermeneutical community has contributed in significant ways to the ongoing development of critical and constructive pentecostal and charismatic scholarship. The growing pains presently being felt in our society are necessary for its continuing maturation. Let’s continue to move forward in forging a third way without compromising academic integrity and freedom or loss of our spiritual sensitivities. The Society’s identity has been and must continue to be shaped by its commitment to a pentecostal and charismatic spirituality that resists being co-opted by either model. We will do a disservice to our three audiences if we are not a hospitable place for serious academic scholarship set aflame by the Spirit.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 317–339
23
