Paul Ricoeurs Hermeneutical Theory And Pentecostal Proclamation

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

203 Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutical Theory and Pentecostal Proclamation Joseph Byrd* Preaching and teaching shaped the character of the early Pentecostal Movement. Preaching was essential to the spread of Pentecostal theology and the experience of spiritual renewal during the movement’s first decade. Pentecostals developed their theology and method of exegesis more through preaching than print. Recent publications demonstrate the transition of Pentecostalism from its oral theological origins to a new theological sophistication in the last two decades. The decline in charismatic activity in Pentecostal worship services, particularly in Anglo churches in the United States, and the threat of institutionalization has been well-documented.’ Given these developments, I am concerned as a homiletician for the future of Pentecostal preaching as well as for its heritage. Guidance for Pentecostal preachers is possible only after determining those elements essential to Pentecostal preaching and preserving them in a thoughtfully formulated hermeneutic. My conviction is that there is a distinct direction that Pentecostal preaching needs to pursue in order to be relevant to a new generation, while maintaining its heritage. Crucial to contemporary relevancy and to preserving the heritage of Pentecostal preaching is a hermeneutic which can define the theory and guide the method of Pentecostal homiletics. To this end, I suggest that the work of Paul Ricoeur provides one viable paradigm to shape a Pentecostal approach to interpreting a text.` Ricoeur’s method will guide our discussion but other voices of contemporary hermeneuticians will be adapted to constitute the details of our exegesis. The Heritage of Pentecostal Preaching Pentecostal church historian Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., describes the worship services at the Azusa Street Revival as including spontaneous *Joseph Byrd is Senior Pastor of the Stewart Road Church of God in Monroe, Michigan. ‘For example, see Mickey Crews, The Church of God: A Social History (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1990) and M. Poloma. The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Margaret Institutional Dilemmas (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1989). 2 Others have made similar suggestions for Pentecostals. For example, see Jean-Daniel Pliiss, “Second Naivctd: Viable Approach or Idealist in Escape? Reflections on a Hermeneutic Problem a Renewal Movement,” a paper read at the 18th Annual of the November Society for Pentecostal Theology (Lexington, KY: 10-12. Meeting 1988). Ricoeur’s hermeneutic is also part of the larger discussion of contemporary homileticians. cf. Ted Peters, “Hermeneutics and Homiletics,” Dialog 21 (Spring 1982): 121-129. 1 204 preaching which played a major role in the worship.3 Preaching was not relegated only to trained professional clergy at Azusa. A short note in the October, 1906 Apostolic Faith chastised preachers expecting salaries and described candidates for ministry: God does not need a great theological preacher that can give nothing but theological chips and shavings to people. He can pick up a worm and thrash a mountain…. He is using even the children to His A young sister. fourteen preach Gospel. years old was saved, sanctified and baptized with the Holy Ghost and went out, taking a band of workers with her and led a revival in which one hundred and ninety souls were savcd.’ A Los Angeles Daily Times reporter described the early preaching by William J. Seymour at Azusa as speaking for an hour clasping a miniature Bible in hand from which he read at intervals of one or two words. After the sermon, the congregation was invited to join in a “meeting of prayer, song and testimony.” The reporter continued, “then it is that pandemonium breaks loose.”5 Other Pentecostal meetings were similar to the Azusa meetings. Alexander Boddy described early Pentecostal worship services as including “earnest” singing, testimonies (which sometimes followed the sermon), preaching, and a culmination in a time of prayer by seekers around the “altar.”6 “Altar calls” were not the typical Evangelical call for responses to accept Christ. Altar calls would often be for “various blessings.” Operation of the New Testament gifts of the Spirit were commonplace at different points in Pentecostal services, particularly evident during these “altar calls.”‘ Congregations interacted with the preachers with responses such as “hallelujah,” or “praise the Lord!”‘ These descriptions of church meetings during the first decade of Pentecostalism indicate that Pentecostal preaching was characterized by the following four features. First, preaching was spontaneous and not relegated to professional clergy. Second, preaching participated in the overall trajectory of worship services; it was not necessarily the climax of the service. Third, the congregation participated in the sermon in terms of responding, but the sermon also allowed for participation of the congregation more fully in the “altar call.” Fourth, the sermon reached for an immediate experience for the listeners and was not characterized by a hermeneutic that spent its time exegeting a text in a ‘ Cecil M. Robeck. Jr., “Azusa Street Revival,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Nlovements, eds., Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan House, 1988), 31. ‘ “Back to Pentecost,.” The Publishing Apostolic Faith 1 (October 1906): 3. 5 “Weird Babel of Tongues,” Los Angeles Dailv Times, 18 April 1906, 1. 6 See Boddy’s description of a meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1913 3 in Confidence 6 (January 1913): 17-18: cf. Confidence 6 January, (March 1913): 59. ‘ See Boddy’s description of the Upper Room meetings in Los Angeles. California in Confidence 4 (June 1911): 139. 8Cf Confidence (November 1912): 245 .. 2 the charisms however, context 205 focused on the does not mean, the historical historical-critical manner. Put simply, the preacher immediate meaning of a text and not primarily upon what the text meant in its original cultural context. Experiencing of biblical characters that Pentecostals must literally reproduce of the biblical characters or even their methodology of ministry. Pentecostal adherents have held that the promise given to their spiritual ancestors in the New Testament church is for them, in their age and context. In that early Pentecostals were claiming biblical experiences in the present age, their hermeneutic constantly reinforced the conviction that the spiritual and extraordinary supernatural experiences of biblical characters are possible for contemporary believers.9 Given these preaching requires a theory and a method of which facilitate a “re-experiencing” of the biblical text. would such a hermeneutic fit with the thrust of Pentecostal to Pentecostal worship which is In summary, Pentecostal by charismatic activity. to function in a participatory mode within the context worship service. Likewise, it must utilize a the immediate meaning of the text and and ministry. Discussions About Hermeneutics convictions, Pentecostal hermeneutics Not only theology, it would also correspond characterized preaching needs of the overall Pentecostal hermeneutic which focuses upon which facilitates worship A New Generation: Developing the particulars has been a point of disagreement Sophisticated of a hermeneutic suitable for Pentecostals Studies essential to Pentecostal relation between among scholars. I perceive that the among the scholars who of the Society of Pentecostal The discussion did not discussion about Pentecostal hermeneutics have gathered for the annual meetings evolved in three general segments. Early on, there was a debate about the exegesis of narrative passages which were deemed to be identity.’° During this time, the issue was the hermeneutics and theology. broaden the concept of hermeneutics theoretically nor did it prescribe a of appropriating a text for a Pentecostal community. in the discussion of Pentecostal hermeneutics methodology The second segment was a prescription of methodology. Theology (3 Spirit-baptism. Perspectives The discussion diverged from the 9 Cf. Aimee Semple McPherson, The Foursquare Gospel (Los Angeles, CA: Echo Park Evangelistic Association, 1946), 195; Ernest S. Williams. Systematic vols.: Springfield, MO: “This the discussion surrounded Gordon Gospel Publishing House. 1953), III, 41. segment of Fee’s critical analysis of the Pentecostal appeal to a narrative proof-text to establish a distinct experience of See Gordon D. Fee. “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent,” in on the New Pentecostalism, ed.. Russell P. Spittler (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1976), 120., Mark D. McLean, “Toward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic,” a paper read at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (South Hamilton. MA: November 15-17. 1984). 23; William W. Menzies, “Synoptic Theology: An Essay on Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” Paraclete 13 (Winter 1979): 20. 3 206 interpreting adequately among philosophers. While the Bible study, they did not interpreting a text for a issues of exegesis of narrative and the relation of exegesis to theology and moved toward discovering Pentecostal methods of reading and texts.” As in the first discussion, this segment did not view the larger theoretical discussion methods were appropriate for group serve the needs of a preacher monological sermon. The third segment of the hermeneutical discussion can be described as a dialogue with classical hermeneuticians.12 It provided a link for Pentecostals with theoretical hermeneutics. providing specific methodology particularly for proclamation. scholarly hermeneutics attempt to appropriate However, it lacked in for using the hermeneutical theory, preaching. After the discussion of Any hermeneutical model for Pentecostal preaching must take these discussions into consideration. I assess the next stage of evolution in the discussion should integrate theoretical dimensions of with practical methodological concerns. My analysis of Paul Ricoeur here is an attempt at such an integration as well as an a model that corresponds to the essential and identifying elements of Pentecostal Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics, I will provide a guide to implement his into a process of interpreting a text for the Pentecostal pulpit. The specific details of the exegetical plan are gleaned from a host of hermeneuticians but organized according to Ricoeur’s methodology hermeneutic. The Hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur interpret Joseph Twentieth-century hermeneutics strive to provide a methodology to texts for the “understanding” of contemporary readers.” Bleicher describes Ricoeur’s theory as one which mediates Meeting 12 cm ” risk D. Moore offered hermeneutical principles based on Acts 15 which described the interpretation of the earliest Christians ; Rick D. Moore, God’s Word “Approaching Biblically: A Pentecostal Perspective,” a paper read at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Fresno, CA: November 16-18, 1989), J-1 – J-2. Jackie and Cheryl Johns presented their ideas in a similar vein: Jackie D. Johns and Cheryl Bridges Johns, “Yielding to the Spirit: A Pentecostal Approach to Bible Study.” a of the paper presented at the 19th Annual Society for Pentecostal Studies (Fresno, CA: November 16-18, 1989). H-21 – H-31. Richard D. Israel. Daniel E. Albrecht and Randal G. McNally, “Pentecostals and Hermeneutics: Texts. Rituals, and Community,” a paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Dallas, TX: November 8-10. 1990), A-1 – A-42. The purpose of this presentation was not to create a “Pentecostal hermeneutic,” but to discuss how the field of hermeneutics provides paradigms for Pentecostals. A revised version of this paper is found under the same title in Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 15 (Fall 137-161. 1993): “Joseph Bleicher, Contemporary Hermeneutics (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1980), 1-5. 4 207 between the hermeneutic which attempts objectively to reconstruct the meaning of a text in its original context and the hermeneutic which attempts existentially to appropriate a text. 14 The Hermeneutic Problem: Distance. Christianity has always had the problem of relating the written word to the word-event and its meaning. This difficulty arises because Christianity proceeds from proclamation through the written Scriptures which must be restored as “living word” for the contemporary hearers.” The earliest Christians wrestled with this problem in attempting to relate the Old Testament to the kerygmatic event. Ricoeur explains: The kerygma is not first of all the interpretation of a text; it is the announcement of a person. In this sense, the word of God is, not the Bible. but Jesus Christ. But a problem arises from the fact that this is itself expressed in a continually kerygma witness, in the stories, and soon after in the texts that contain the very first confession of faith in the community. These texts conceal a first level of interpretation. We ourselves are no those witnesses who have seen. We arc hearers who listen to the witnesses: longer fides ex auditu. As Ricoeur notes, the distance between the interpreter and text has been the hermeneutical problem since the time of the earliest Christians. However, this distance is greater for the contemporary interpreter living in a scientific culture. Ricoeur described the cultural difference between the text and the interpreter as “distanciation.” The interpreter is caught in a dialectic of distanciation and “appropriation” of the text. He defines “appropriation” as the interpretive act in which one makes what is alien “one’s own.” 17 Biblical Myth and Symbol. Ricoeur claims that the distanciation between text and interpreter became more visible with the critical hermeneutics of the nineteenth century. He contends that Rudolf Bultmann’s program of “demythologization” was an attempt to address the problem of the distance between the biblical worldview and the modem worldview.’8 Ricoeur understands Bultmann’s s demythologization as digging beneath the literal meaning of the text with its mythological worldview. Demythologization differs from “demystification” in that demythologization realizes “the intention of “Bleicher, Contemporary Hermeneutics, 217-218. “Paul Ricoeur, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, ed., Lewis S. Mudge (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980), 49. `6 Ricoeur, 54. “Paul Essays, Ricoeur, Interpretation Theorv: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press, 1976), 43. – – – – `8 Ricoeur, Interpretation Theorv, 56; The Problem of cj Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology: Demythologizing the New Testament Proclamation.” New Testament and lvlvthologv and Other Basic Writings, trans., Schubert M. Ogden (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 1-43. 5 208 the text which speaks not of itself but of the event.”” Ricoeur rejects Bultmann’s definition of myth, contending that myth is more than an explanation of the world and history. Myth is not a “false explanation by means of images and fables.” Ricoeur defines myth as “a traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today and, in a general manner, establishing all the forms of action and thought by which man understands himself in his world.”2° Myths are no longer explanatory for the modern mind, according to Ricoeur, because of the rise and proliferation of the critical method since the nineteenth century. However, myths consist in “giving worldly form” to that which is “beyond known and tangible reality. “21 Biblical myths are “symbols developed in the form of narrations and articulated in a time and space” which cannot be coordinated with the data of the critical method.’2 Ricoeur provides the following example: …esile is a primary symbol of human alienation, but the history of the of Adam and Eve from Paradise is a mythical narration of the second degree, bringing expulsion into play fabulous times, and episodes. Exile is a primary symbol and not a personages, places. myth, because it is a historical event made to signify human alienation analogically: but the same alienation creates for itself a fanciful history, the exile from Eden. which. as history that happened in illo tempore, is myth.” Ricoeur posits that the interpretation of symbols is made possible by the “reenactment of the experience made explicit by the myth.”2’ Interpretation of symbols must penetrate to such experience. The language of modernity has emptied itself of symbolism in its precision and technicality. Hence, we can understand Ricoeur’s oft-noted statement, “beyond the desert of criticism, we wish to be called again.”`5 He suggests a method of interpretation that “respects the original enigma of the symbols” and “lets itself be taught by them.”‘ Understanding and Explanation. In the process of interpreting symbols, Ricoeur suggests the use of a dialectical movement between understanding (Verstehen) and explanation (Erklaren). Romanticist hermeneutics contrasted these two dimension of hermeneutics.’ 19 Ricoeur, Essays, 58. 2DPaul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, trans., Emerson Buchanan (Boston. MA: Beacon 21 Press, 1967), 5. Ricoeur, 61. :3 22 Ricoeur,. Essavs. Symbolism of Evil, 18. Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 18. Ricoeur. Symbolism of Evil, 7. ” Ricoeur. Svmbolism of Evil, 349. 26 Ricoeur, Symbolism ofEvil. 349-350. 27 Ricoeur. Interpretation Theorv, 71-72. 6 (Erklaren) 209 method for the natural Explanation is the hermeneutical sciences when external facts are present to observe. empirical encompass empirical generalizations say When there are external facts to observe, hypotheses to be submitted to verification, general laws for covering such facts, theories to the scattered laws in a systematic whole, and subordination of to hypothetic-deductive procedures, then we that we may “explain.”28 Understanding (Verstehen) was the hermeneutic method of the human sciences which deals with the “experience minds similar to our own.”19 This mode of hermeneutics Ricoeur’s of other subjects or other interprets grasping of meaning, sophisticated procedures, critical consciousness between the initial stage of understanding (second naivete). the appropriation of distanciation.3′ Ricoeur describes expressions which refer to the experience of the other mind. dialectic between explanation and understanding suggests that the interpreter moves from understanding to explanation and then from explanation to comprehension. Understanding is an initial “naive” the meaning of the text in which one “guesses” at the called the first naivete. The level of comprehension is a mode of understanding which is supported by explanatory called the second or post-critical naivete.3° Explanation or validates the interpretation of understanding and a second informed level The result in the second naivete is of meaning or symbols of the text, even in the context subjective intention meaning and objective the reader’s Lorettes Domisch outlines experience; and thus mediates curve of the author’s objective of the symbolic referent.32 interpretation of symbolic of symbols; expression of the Ricoeur’s the movement from the first naivete to the post-critical naivete in terms of a hermeneutical circle or arc. The hermeneutical arc begins with an ascending expressed in symbols which contain referents. The descending curve concludes with subjective appropriation Ricoeur’s knowledge in five stages: the experience reflection of the expression; validation of interpretation; and, post-critical “re-experiencing” Pentecostal Adaptation. At first glance, language of “myth” and “symbol” is alien to the Pentecostal view of the Bible. Obviously, Ricoeur’s critical view of the may of the symbol as a second naivete.33 it might appear that rigorous 29 23 Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 72. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 72. This view of the experience of other minds reflect the influence of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological theory upon Ricoeur. ‘° ” Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 74. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theorv, 75. ‘ 32 13 Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 80-88. Lorettes Domisch, “Symbolic System and the Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction to the Work of Paul Ricoeur,” Semeia 4 (1975): 14. 7 210 historicity of Scripture would not be embraced by many conservative Pentecostals. Yet, given the definition of myth as a collection of symbols in. narrative form, Pentecostal preaching would not be as distant from Ricoeur’s hermeneutical theory as it may initially appear. That is, while most Pentecostals understand the Bible as historically literal, their preaching generally demonstrates that they believe the biblical narratives have a symbolic nature as well as a historical nature. 34 Pentecostals are obviously not unique in accepting the symbolic nature of the Bible. However, Ricoeur’s method of interpreting biblical symbols is a viable hermeneutical option for Pentecostals who hold to both a historical and a symbolic nature of Scripture. In the first naivete, the Pentecostal preacher views the biblical narrative as historical record. However, simply preaching what happened to characters in their historical context in the first naivete, does not reflect the hermeneutic required for Pentecostal preaching. The text ‘s symbols must be re-experienced Ricoeur suggests that in order for the contemporary hearers to appropriate the meaning of the symbols in the biblical narratives, critical method must not be avoided. In fact, re-experiencing or appropriating the text’s symbols requires “explanation” or critical consciousness.35 The interpreter “wagers” that her or his interpretation of the text is correct; however, this interpretation must be validated in the stage of critical consciousness. The validation is a matter of probability, not empirical certainty.36 The stage of critical consciousness or explanation requires a structural analysis of the text which leads from the naive interpretation of symbols to the ultimate “referent” of the text. 37 The structural analysis includes expressing the interpreter’s experience with the referents of the symbols in the text and the reflection on that expression. Structural analysis among Pentecostals will maintain the historical reality behind the text. No doubt, some form of historical criticism and literary criticism will be involved in this analysis. When the interpreter feels confident of an interpretation, the interpreter may appropriate the symbol with the meaning for her or his own existence in the second na:ivet6. Ricoeur explains: The second immediacy, the second naivete that we are after, is accessible only in hermeneutics; we can believe only by interpreting. This is the modem of belief in of modernity’s distress and cure modality symbols; expression for distress …. I believe that being can still speak to me, no longer indeed in the precritical form of immediate belief but as the second “For one example in print see Ted Gray, “The Fire That Could Not Bum,” The Pentecostal Jvlinister: Sermon Resource Alanual, I, ed., Floyd D. Carey and Hoyt E. Stone (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1987), 174-175. 36 Ricoeur. Interpretation Theory, 80-81. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theorv, 78. “Ricoeur, Interpretation Theorv, 87. 8 211 immediacy that hermeneutics aims at. It may be that this second naivete is the postcritical equivalent of the precritical hierphany.’? Ricoeur’s method is significant for Pentecostalism because it provides a hermeneutical structure for interpreting Scripture relevantly for second and third generation Pentecostals, as well as future generations yet to come. Second and third generation Pentecostals, according to some church leaders, have particular needs and maintain a more cynical posture than their predecessors, 39 Pentecostalism has been progressing intellectually and rising socio-economically since its origin.” Its progression among the later generations of believers has cultivated a more critical and less simplistic worldview. The socio-economically and intellectually developed Pentecostal generation needs a personal re-experience of the biblical text and the Pentecostal tradition. In short, the Pentecostal experience must become the experience of the later generations, it must be “their” experience. Ricoeur’s hermeneutic provides a personal means to re-experience the biblical text. His hermeneutical process climaxes in the interpreter reenacting the text or appropriating the meaning of the text “as one’s own.” Because Ricoeur’s hermeneutic focuses upon symbol in the text, “images” for the sermon can be more easily drawn from the text. The hermeneutical objective is not to provide “the meaning” of a text, but “a meaning” of the text, for as Ricoeur notes, texts potentially have different horizons of meaning, 41 Ricoeur explains: The secondary meaning, as in the case of the horizon, which surrounds perceived objects, open the work to several readings. It may even be said that these readings are ruled by prescriptions of of meaning belonging to the margins potential meaning surrounding the semantic nucleus of the work. But these prescriptions too have to be guessed before they can rule the work of interpretation. 42 Sermonic exegesis must aim with greater intentionality at the appropriation of the text, rather than just making generalized applications about “humanity.” For example, individuals within the congregation will relate in a specific way to the symbol of “disease” in a text of a healing narrative. The Pentecostal sermon must facilitate the listeners ability to identify and feel the experiences in a text. A hermeneutic which focuses only upon what the text meant or one that 38 Paul Ricoeur, Conflict of Interpretations, ed., Don lhde; trans., Dennis Savage (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. 1974). 298. “For e;ample, see Elwood P. Jensen, “Pentecostal Preaching to Second and Third Generations,” 1968 Alumni Lectureship at LIFE Bible College, Los Angeles, CA. 1-16. 40 Cf Anton T. Boisen, “Religion and Hard Time: A Study of the Holy Rollers,” Social.4ction 5 41 (15 March 1939): 24-25. 42 Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 78. Ricoeur. Interpretation Theorv, 78. 9 212 focuses upon the distance of the text, will not satisfy the requirements of a Pentecostal sermon. The symbol must be discovered in the text and appropriated by the members of the contemporary audience. An Example of Appropriating Ricoeur’s Hermeneutic I developed a guide for students in a course I taught in hermeneutics at the Church of God School of Theology in Cleveland, Tennessee. The guide was designed to help students move through the stages of Ricoeur’s arch. After the students had defined the parameters of a pericope, three sets of questions provided a grid to guide their exegesis. Each set of questions was entitled accordingly–Interpreter, Text, and Audience. Below is a summary version of the Ricoeurian guide for exegesis. INTERPRETER (first naivete) 1. Briefly relate your past experience with this text. What are your prejudices about, and what is your pre-understanding of, this text? 2. What are the “typical” accepted interpretations of the focus or intention found in this text? That is, what has the Church believed about this passage? What have Pentecostals believed about this passage? How does this text fit into the larger analogy of faith? (is it crucial? peripheral? irrelevant?) TEXT (critical consciousness) 1. Identify and describe the literary genre. 2. Outline the passage according to its literary structure. 3. List, describe and discuss specific important language found in your text. metaphors, imagery and 4. Is there a climax or a focus to your text. What is the theological “point” that the text is trying to make? 5. Discuss the text’s context. Identify the author, recipients, and Sitz im Leben. What is the significance of what is being said to the recipients of your pericope? 6. What words or particular actions in the text do you need to have a literary, historical, social or theological context in order to understand properly? 10 213 AUDIENCE (second naivete) 1. Describe the community for which you plan to interpret your text. a. Describe cultural setting. b. Describe social setting. c. Describe educational level. d. Describe the worship/ministry setting. e. What is your relation to this group? f. What is the significance of this text to them? g. How does important vocabulary “sound” in their ears? h. Do they care about the issue in your text? i. Should they care about the issue in your text? 2. Determine the existential elements (e.g. fear, joy, guilt, etc.) in your ‘ text. How does your specific group relate to these elements at the present time? 3. How will you communicate this text? List the sorts of vocabulary, stories from life, and images (worldview as well as illustrations) which parallel those in the text that you can use to communicate this text. This process of exegesis deliberately moves the interpreter from an initial understanding, through critical reflection, to culminate in presenting a text to a specific audience for the purpose of that audience “understanding” and appropriating the text. Imagery and symbolism in the text and those used in communicating the text are crucial for the appropriation of the text. The hearer’s ability to re-experience the text is directly proportional to their ability to identify existentially with the images in it. Assessing the effectiveness of sermons which follow this sort of hermeneutic is difficult at the present. My own use of this method of preaching has been successful at least in the fact that it has given me as a scholar a comfort zone in communicating to a larger diverse audience. At some later date, I hope to engage in quantitative research in Pentecostal churches–including those where some of my former students serve as pastors–where some concrete evidence may be found in support of my suggestion of adapting an exegetical plan which corresponds to Ricoeur’s theory. In the interim, I can note one complaint that I have heard of seminary-trained Pentecostal preachers. It is said that their content stresses detailed exposition with technical language, always adding a sprinkle of “in the Greek this means ….” Pentecostal listeners who complain about such preaching note that seminaries produce “scholars . 11 214 and teachers,” not “preaching pastors.” I am sure that this complaint is partially a result of preaching courses which focus upon the traditional deductive sermon outline.43 However, I also believe that it is due to our failure to train our students how to make an ancient and culturally-alien text meaningful to a twentieth-century Pentecostal church. To fail to convey the message of the biblical text to contemporary listeners is not only to fail at communication, it is to lose the Church’s prophetic voice in an age in which it is most seriously needed. Proclaiming the Word of God in a Pentecostal church must be prophetic–Pentecostal identity and heritage demand it. 43 I have dealt with this in more detail in my dissertation, Formulation of a Classical Pentecostal Homiletic in Dialogue with Contemporarv Protestant Homiletics (Ph.D. Dissertation; Louisville. KY: The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1990). 12