Pentecostals And Hermeneutics Texts, Rituals And Community

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

137

Pentecostals and Hermeneutics:

Texts,

Rituals

and

Community

Richard D.

Israel,

Daniel E. Albrecht and Randal G. McNally*

This article is a three

texts is the classic the field of

to

potential

understanding

the distinctive Charismatic movements. related

of of

That

expansion

of

and hermeneutics

in relation

of the Pentecostal and

part exploration

of the

importance hermeneutics for Pentecostals and Charismatics. The

interpretation

domain of hermeneutics. In the 19th century,

though,

hermeneutics broadened to include all “the human sciences”‘ in the issues relevant to its

questions.

hermeneutical

investigation

constitutes the reason for the breadth of the three domains under discussion in this article.

The reason for

discussing

Pentecostals

biblical texts needs no

special

clarification here. The reason for discussing

Pentecostals and hermeneutics in relationship to rituals is the

which

interpreting significant

selected rites offers for

spirituality

The third area of this

article, community, is

to the issue of Pentecostals and hermeneutics because community

is predicated on communication

three sections are the

developments

reflected in the work of two

writers,

Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur.’ To be

sure,

each section extends the theory

of these two

philosophers

Gadamer and Ricoeur is foundational for all

Common to all hermeneutics

hermeneutical

thought

of three discussions: the

interpretation

or communicative acts.

in the field of

Hans-Georg

in different

directions,

but the

of

texts,

the

interpretation

of

“meaningful

action” as texts, and the function of community as social

*Richard D. Israel is Associate Professor of Old Testament and Chair of

the Biblical and

Theological

Studies Division at

Bethany College

of the Assemblies of God in Scotts

Valley,

California. Daniel E. Albrecht is Professor of

Religious

Studies and Christian at

of the Assemblies of God in Scotts

Spirituality Bethany

Valley,

California. Randal G.

is Academic

Support Supervisor

and Articulation Officer in the Office of Instruction at Hartnell

Community College

in

Salinas, California.

College McNally

psychology, religion

‘ “Human Sciences” is a

rendering

of the German

Geisteswissenschaften in distinction to the Naturwissenschaften or “Natural Sciences.” “Human Sciences” is not a term which reflects well the

organization

of American education; the distinction, though. is germane, since any field of on human beings as the “object” of study must come to grips with the study focusing issues of interpretation inherent in the domain of hermeneutics. whether it be

history, anthropology, sociology,

or theology, art. literature, political science, and so forth. 2 For an extensive treatment of recent developments, see Anthony C. Thiselton New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids. MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1992), especially 313-409.

1

138

text.’ 3

In this model of

hermeneutics,

the world.

revelation–not

Rather,

part

texts are understood as autonomous

The focus of the

here is

equivalent

to a sense–of new

insight

about

entities which make a claim about the world.

hermeneutical task is not to delve into the

subjectivity

of the

author, but to

explain

the structural relations and sets of

meanings

contained in the

language

of a text and understand the claims which the text is making

about

Understanding

in a technical

theological

the world and oneself In

understanding

a

text,

one does not achieve absolute

knowledge

of another

person; namely,

the text’s author.

one achieves new

insight

about his or her own world which opens up

new

possibilities

for

living.4

Richard Israel

develops

some of the

implications

of this hermeneutical model for Pentecostals and Charismatics as interpreters of Scripture.

An

analogy

between

interpreting

texts and

interpreting “meaningful actions” constitutes the relevance of hermeneutics to rituals.5 As a texts is

explained by analysis

of the internal structural relations between the

and the

whole,

so ritual acts within Pentecostal and Charismatic communities

may

be

analyzed

to

explain

their

significance

and

generate an

understanding

of the Pentecostal-Charismatic “world.” This

analogy informs Daniel Albrecht’s

analysis

of the hermeneutical

significance

of rituals.

Randal

McNally,

in the third section of this

article, investigates

the

which the critical hermeneutics of

Jurgen

Habermas has for fostering community among

Pentecostals and Charismatics.

is used to

identify

the communicative conditions which

A

programmatic

vision is laid out for

who desire to

participate

in the

community potential

offered within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.

potential

thought

encourage

authentic

community. any

Habermas’

Pentecostals and Hermeneutics: Biblical Texts

Recent

developments implications

for a Pentecostal developments

can be traced

in the field of hermeneutics

interpretation

in two

philosophical

have

important of biblical texts. These

shifts that have

‘ When this paper was initially read at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies in 1990. Dan Albrecht and were in the dissertation Their contributions in this article Randy McNally stages of their doctoral programs.

(on ritual and

community, respectively) have been

revised in

light

of their now completed dissertations.

familiar with these issues will recognize the Heideggerian slant of the

The intent is not to mask an existential agenda. but to use language more

accessible to a broader

Paul

readership.

Ricoeur. “The Model of the Text:

and the

Meaningful

Action Considered as Text.” in Hermeneutics Human Sciences, ed. and trans. John B. Thompson (New York. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1981). 197-221.

‘ Anyone language. readilv 5 Developed by

2

139

occurred. The first shift involves the move of hermeneutics from

regional

hermeneutics to

general

hermeneutics. The second shift results from the

understanding

that the human sciences involve a domain distinct from the natural sciences and as such

require

a different approach

in their

study.

The second shift involves a discussion

lasting almost a

century,

so

only major steps

in the

development

will be highlighted.

Each of these shifts will be

explored,

and then their implications

for the manner in which Pentecostals

appropriate

texts will be considered.

‘

Issues in the

Development

of Hermeneutical

Thought

From Hermeneutics as

Principles of Interpretation

to Hermeneutics as the Science

of Understanding.

Friedrich Schleiermacher was the one who extended the domain of hermeneutics from

principles

of interpretation

for a

particular

field of texts–either classical or biblical texts–to a general theory of the

operation

of understanding involved in the

interpretation

of all texts. This

psychological

hermeneutic involved the

presuppositions

of Romanticism

regarding individuality

as well as the notion that

understanding

is a function of “mind.” The

question

of understanding

texts in Romantic hermeneutics became the

question

of understanding

an individual authors. 6

Hermeneutics and the

Methodological

Problem

of

the Human Sciences. The issue at stake here

grows

from the

question

of what it means to

study

the human sciences

(Geisteswissenschaften)

in a scientific mode. Kant had clarified the

methodology

of the natural sciences

(Naturwissel1schaftel1)

in his

Critique of

Pure Reason. The task

bequeathed

to those

studying

the human

sciences, chiefly historians,

became one of

grounding

their

methodology

in a critical scientific mode rather than

speculative analysis.’

How can one

studying human

history

describe the

meaning

of

history apart

from a speculative teleology

of history, as in Hegelian idealism for instance?

Wilhelm

Dilthey

was the

philosopher

of

history

who turned to the Romantic hermeneutics of Friedrich Schleiermacher for a model. The model of text

interpretation developed by

Schleiermacher derived the meaning

of a text from the

interrelationship

of the

part

to the whole and the whole to the

part.9 Dilthey applied

this model of text

interpretation to the

analysis

of history as a text and the mutual

relationship

between

6I depend on Paul Ricoeur?s concise summary of Schleiermacher in “The Task of Hermeneutics,” in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. ed. and trans. John B. Thompson (New York.

NY: Cambridge University Press. 1981), 45ff.

‘ For an analysis of this methodological issue, see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Vlethod. (New York, NY: Seabury Press. 1975), 194.

a Gadamer, Truth and A4ethod. 193-195.

9 Gadarner, Truth

and Afethod. 174. 197. The

exposition of which Dilthey’s thought

follows is drawn from Gadamer, Truth and ?.lethod.

3

140

hermeneutics and the human sciences commenced.’°

(i.e., sentence, paragraph,

as a text constituted

the

object

of

important.

derived

experience

of a historical

period. Schleiermacher, Dilthey attempted

For

Dilthey, history

considered

historical

investigation

which could then be studied in a scientific manner. As in a

literary

work where one derives the

meaning

of a part

or

chapter)

from its

relationship

to the whole and the

meaning

of the whole work is understood from the

meaning

of its parts, so also with

history.

The

significance

of a historical

period

can be determined

by

the

way

in which it

exemplifies

and deals with the human issues which the

study

of

history

as a whole shows to be

Conversely,

the

meaning

of

history

as a whole can be

from the

study

of what is

significant

within the collective

In

appropriating

the hermeneutic of

to

interpret history

from within

any

historical individual.” experience

rather than

inaccurate.

Dilthey’s philosophical hermeneutics of Schleiermacher historically

history

itself No

longer

would the

speculative teleology

of the historian cloud the

analysis

of

history.

Instead

Dilthey

had

provided

an

objective basis for the human sciences

analogous

to the

objective

basis of the natural sciences which Kant’s

Critique

had established. Thus

Dilthey’s entire life’s work has been

interpreted

as a refining of this basic concern to

ground

historical

study

in a

methodology

which was

worthy

of the name scientific and critical rather than

speculative

and

subjective.

Dilthey’s

schema was not without its

epistemological problems.

For one

thing,

the

“experience”

of

history

is an abstraction from the collective

history

of the

group

under

study

and not the

experience

of

Secondly,

its claim to be rooted in concrete

in

philosophical

schemas

imposed

on

history

is

schema was, in fact, the Romantic

which took no account of the

experience,

but assumed

the

interpreter,

between

conditioned nature of psychological immediacy

between the text and the historian and his or her sources.”`

Consequently, Dilthey

remains

caught

in the

epistemological impasse of Romantic hermeneutics. An

object

in nature is not

analogous

to a text

precisely

because a

text,

unlike the natural

object,

is mediated

by its

historicity

to the

interpreter

of the text. Romantic hermeneutics assumed that the

interpreter

has an immediate

psychological

access to the author of the text. This

viewpoint

denies the essential

historicality of

experience.

Since

Dilthey,

hermeneutic

theory

has been driven to account for a fundamental difference between the human sciences and the natural

sciences,

contemporaneous

with the scientist. In the

of

study

is not a natural

object,

but an

objectification

sciences. In

the natural

the

object

of

study

is human

sciences,

the

object

through signs

10 this treatment skips over Ranke and Droysen for the sake of space (cj. Gadamer. Truth ”

and Alethod, 173ft),

12 Gadamer, Truth and A-Iethod. 198. Gadamcr, Truth and itfethod, 213.

4

by language. Moreover,

thought

Heidegger,

Hans-Georg

ontological

141

grounding

of historical

assumes that a text is a

(i.e., texts)

of other humans.

Study

of humans, then, is always mediated

in the case of ancient texts like the

Bible,

the human

story

is mediated

by

both

language

and

history.

This

linguistic and historical character of human life means that all human sciences are essentially

hermeneutical in character. The

methodological

for human

sciences, then,

is distinct in principle from the

epistemology of Kant’s

Critique of Pure

Reason.

The

epistemological problem posed by

the

phenomenon

existence for the human sciences has

generated

at least three streams of

in the

interpretation

of texts. One

approach, exemplified

in Structuralism and

Deconstructionism,

has been to

deny

that the historical

aspect

of a text has

any bearing

on its

linguistic significance. A second

approach,

such as the one

developed by

E. D.

Hirsch,

has been to

modify Dilthey’s position

while

affirming

its basic thrust. A third

approach,

observable in the

philosophical

hermeneutics of Martin

Gadamer and Paul

Ricoeur,

has been to abandon the

epistemological quest

and account for

meaning

in the

structure of the

meaning

event as historical.

The

approach

of structuralist

interpretations

in itself, a

system

of

signs

which constitutes a closed universe of

The semiotic

relationships

between the

signs

is a

purely

hence the

interpretation

of texts is a science of

signs, in

principle

ahistorical. The fundamental

problem

with this

approach

a hermeneutical

standpoint

is that it is incapable of

answering

the

question

of

understanding.

fails to address the crucial

question concerning

the

Ricoeur

points out,

a text is not

It

points

to

something,

how a text

operates,

how it

functions,

but

world

meaning. linguistic relation,

from

hermeneutical

within the

text,

but

significance

of the text. As self-referential. 13

Structuralism can

clarify provides

no

help

in

understanding about.

on a distinction between

meaning

It deals with sense relations

it is about

something.

or

grappling

with what the text

is

The second

approach mentioned,

advocated

by Hirsch,

is predicated

and

significance. Meaning

deals with the

message

of the

text,

or what we call

exegesis

in biblical

studies;

with how the reader of a text assimilates its

meaning,

hermeneutics in biblical studies. 14 By the

logic

of

as Hirsch himself

validity

of an

interpretation

significance

deals or what is now termed probability–which, certainty–the established. ”

York,

admits,

does not achieve (i.e.,

its

meaning) may

be

“Paul Ricoeur, “What is a Text?

Explanation

and

Understanding,”

in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed. and trans. John B. Thompson (New

NY: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 152-157.

“E. D. Hirsch. Jr.,

Validity in Interpretation (New Haven. CT: Yale University

27ff.

“Hirsch.

,

Validity in Interpretation,

173ff.

°

Press, 1967).

5

142

epistemological

In

response

it must be said that Hirsch does not

help

resolve the

dilemma raised

by the

advent of the human sciences for two reasons.

First,

when one has established the most valid

a

quandry regarding

its

significance

still remains. This

interpretation,

meaning

history

influences the

interpretation

by any logical system

Heidegger’s

analysis

existence,

is foundational

dilemma

character of

determination of

significance

is where the real

epistemological

lies. When

Dilthey

asked the

question

of how historical

knowledge

as a science is possible, he extended the

question

from the

meaning

of a text to the

meaning

of

history

as a text. Hirsch’s distinction between

and

significance

loses its

cogency

when it is

posed by

a historian to

history

as a text. The

question

of the

meaning

of an action and the

significance

of an action turns out to be one and the same. Either

way

the

question

is

posed,

the

participation

of the historian in

of its meaning or its

significance.

A second related

problem

with Hirsch concerns the

interpretation

of a text in light of the calculus of

probability.

Subservience to the

“logic of

probability”

is already an element of the

interpreter’s participation

in his or her own

history.

The

questions posed

to a text are

already conditioned

by

the

interpreter’s

historical location.

Consequently,

the “meaning”

of a text cannot be

separated

from the

interpreter’s

stance

which transcends

history.

At best “it is a logic of uncertainty

and of qualitative probability.”‘6

The

proposal

of Gadamer in his

book,

Truth and

Method, represents a third

approach

to the

interpretation

of texts. Gadamer uses

of the

ontological

structure of existence to

clarify the hermeneutical task.

Ontology,

the

“being-in-the-world”

for Gadamer. Before the

epistemologically problematic

awareness of

subject-object polarities

arises within human

which we

belong

and from which we can never

entirely

extricate ourselves. This

“being-in-the-world”

of human

existence,

constitutes the “horizon” of the

interpreter. The task of hermeneutics is not to abandon one’s own horizon in favor of either the horizon of the text or the horizon of the author.

Instead, interpretation

is the

experience

of

understanding

the text and

interpreter

are fused. The act of

interpretation

nor the submission of one to the

other; it is the formation of a new

understanding

consciousness,

there is a “world” to

reality

abandonment of either

horizon,

different

ways

of “being-in-the-world.”

This hurried sketch of Gadamer Ricoeur’s

thoughts

understanding.

natural

sciences,

when the horizons of

is not the

that leads to new and

on the

interdependence

Explanation

refers to the mode

while

understanding–of

derivative form–refers to the task of

has maintained this distinction in his

work, grounding understanding

16 Ricoeur. “The Model of the Text-” 212. Ricoeur. “What is a Text?,” 145.

needs to be

supplemented by

of

explanation

and

of

knowing

of the

which

interpretation

is a the human sciences.” Gadamer

in

6

143

the

ontology

of existence as

historically

mediated

experience.

His work is involved in the

explication

of “historical

belonging”

for the hermeneutical task,

falling

on the side of

understanding

rather than explanation.

He has

not, consequently,

resolved the

problem

of historical distanciation versus historical

belonging.

Ricoeur

points

out that historical distanciation has a hermeneutical function as

well,

which calls for r

explanation–a properly epistemological operation–as

well as

understanding. ”

Production of this

explanation

is the role of

exegesis

or semiotic

analysis. Reading needs to be done in two

ways,

first with an

“explanatory

attitude” which

analyzes

the text without

regard

for

anything except

the world of the text itself 19 This

explanation

is

grounded, however,

not in the natural sciences but in linguistic science. The second

way

of

reading

is to actualize the text in the world of the

reader,

called

“appropriation” by

Ricoeur.

Reading

is

interpretation

located on a hermeneutical arc which

spans explanation

and

understanding,

so that both historical distanciation and historical

belonging

are accounted for in the

reading of texts.

Summary.

The

following points emerge

as

significant

from the preceding analysis.

First,

hermeneutics can no

longer

be identified with the

principles

of

interpretation. Study

of

principles

of

interpretation

or exegetical methodology

involves

only

the

explanatory

side of Ricoeur’s s hermeneutical arc. The mutual

interdependence

of

explanation

and understanding

calls for an

equally

serious consideration of both explanation

and

understanding

within the field of hermeneutics. Second,

for Romantic

hermeneutics, transcending

the

subjectivity

of the

interpreter

to attain

objectivity

in method constituted a vicious circle. In the alternative model

explicated,

drawn from Gadamer and Ricoeur,

an awareness of the

interdependence

between

explanation

and understanding

allows one to

interpret

texts

authentically

without

being enslaved

by

the demand for

objectivity prevalent

in the natural sciences. Third,

the focus of hermeneutics is not what the author intended, but what the

text–explained

in terms of linguistic science–claims about the world and the

appropriation

of the

message

of the text

by

the interpreter

in the direction of the text itself The text

points

to a world, the

interpreter

orients himself or herself toward the claim of the text and that is where

appropriation

takes

place.

Pentecostals and the

Appropriation

of Biblical Texts

In

light

of the hermeneutical model constructed from Gadamer and Ricoeur,

a number of

questions

arise for Pentecostals who reflect on the

interpretive

task of

understanding

biblical texts.

Fundamentally

the

‘

18 Ricoeur. “The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation,

in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed. and trans. John B. Thompson (New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press. 1981). 131-144.

`9 Ricoeur, “What is a

157ff.

7

144

question

seems to

be,

“How does a Pentecostal

experience

of the

Holy Spirit impact

one’s

appropriation

of

Scripture?”

At least three implications

can be drawn out from the hermeneutical

theory

of Gadamer and Ricoeur that

help

to answer that

question.

1. The

question

of how a Pentecostal understands texts is in principle part

of the

general

hermeneutical issue of

understanding.

A preservation

of a

regional hermeneutic, specifically

devoted to the principles

of

exegesis

of biblical texts with no

participation

in the

larger theory

of

understanding,

is not broad

enough.

Calls for a

unique Pentecostal hermeneutic seem to me to be

misguided.

Such calls seem to be motivated either

by

an

ideology2′

or

by

an

epistemology

of the Spirit.

A Pentecostal

ideology

is no hermeneutic at

all;

it is the obliteration of the horizon of the text

by

the

interpreter.

What is most

disconcerting is that distortions of

language through ideology

are

typically unrecognizable by

members of the

community

because

they

are related to

power

rather than to

language

itself 21 As the various institutions of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements mature we can

expect

to find ourselves

increasingly susceptible

to the drift toward

ideology. What

originated

as an

experience

of the

Holy Spirit’s renewing

of human freedom

may

become entrenched in the domination of institutional

self-preservation.

For a

prescription

for this

dilemma,

I defer to

Jurgen

Habermas’

regulative

ideals of communicative action supplemented by

Ricoeur’s more

positive

evaluation of tradition as described

by Randy McNally

in the third

major

section of this article.

Another motivation for a call for a Pentecostal hermeneutic is an epistemology

of the

Spirit.

This view assumes that the Pentecostal experience

of the

Spirit

enables

understanding

of

Scripture by special revelation of the

Spirit

in a quasi-gnostic manner. If one is calling for a Pentecostal hermeneutic on this

basis,

one would also have to assume that

only

the Pentecostals have the

Spirit.

This belief borders on Pentecostal

ideology.

A further

question

for this

approach

would

be, why

is it

necessary?

If it is human

language,

then it is understandable within the

general

hermeneutic of

language

or more

specifically,

texts. The

epistemology

of

understanding

in the human sciences has

enough problems

without the introduction of an

epistemological

dualism into the hermeneutical endeavor.

2°Perhaps Ricoeur’s description of ideology will serve

here: “… an

allegedly disinterested

knowledge which serves to conceal an interest under

the

guise

of rationalisation …” The phenomenon sets in when self-justification replaces the pursuit

of truth. See Paul Ricoeur, “Hermeneutics and the Critique of Ideology,” in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed. and trans. John B. Thompson (New York. 21 NY: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 80.

Following Ricoeur’s

of Habermas, “Hermeneutics and the

84.

description Critique of Ideology.”

8

145

2. The

place

of the Pentecostal

experience

of the

Spirit

in the hermeneutical

enterprise

is first of all in the

ontological

locus of the interpreter

in “the world”

according

to Gadamer’s

analysis.

It is with a Pentecostal

experience

as a

part

of the

interpreter’s

horizon that one approaches

a text’s horizon. The

legitimacy

of this search for a fusion of horizons is constituted not

by

its

epistemological

validation as much as

by

its

ontological inevitability. Thus,

it is a

legitimate part

of understanding

to

bring

one’s

experience

to the

interpretive

event. It is also

legitimate

to

probe

the horizon of the text for an understanding of the

commonality

as well as

divergence

of the

experience

of God which is involved in the horizon of the text and the horizon of the

interpreter. It is part of the

“being-in-the-world”

from which a meaningful dialogue between text and

interpreter

can issue in a fusion of horizons.

3.

Appropriation

as the

goal

of

interpretation

is the other area where the Pentecostal

experience

of the

Spirit plays

a role.

Explanation

of the text 6 la Ricoeur involves

applying categories

of

linguistic

science. Understanding–interpretation

as

appropriation–is actualizing

the text in its own direction. The

driving

interest for the

exegete

is how the text may

be actualized within the constraints of its own direction or linguistic structure, yet

actualized in an

authentically

Pentecostal manner. This

interpretive process

will not

always yield

a distinctive Pentecostal

appropriation

of biblical

texts,

but it will hold

open

the possibility

of

appropriation

of

many

texts in a

uniquely

Pentecostal manner.

Two

possible

excesses can be avoided

by

this model. On the one hand, explanation

is a mode of

reading

which reins in the excesses of subjective impressions.

While

language

as such admits

multiple ways

of construing

the sense of a

text,

the senses are also constrained

by linguistic

conventions. 22 To

say

there is a variety of senses to a text is not the same as

saying

there is no such

thing

as

misunderstanding

a text. The

grounds

for

validation, however,

cannot be

pushed beyond the limits of semiotics.to the mind of the author.

On the other

hand,

the restriction of a text’s sense to what the author had in mind is shown as too narrow.

Understanding

involves the creative

capacity

of the

interpreter

to

open up

new

insights

which transcend the time-bound situation of the

original

author and the original

audience. It is at this

juncture

where creative transcendence is needed,

where the

Spirit may

indeed teach us and lead us into all truth.23

22″… If it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text, it is not true that all interpretations are equal … The text is a limited field of possible constructions.” Ricoeur, “The Model of the Text.” 213.

23 I recognize that I have not clarified how the Spirit operates in the hermeneutical process.

I

simply

wish to affirm that the

Spirit

is at work in the creative appropriation the

of biblical texts. I echo Clark Pinnock’s recent call for more work on

issue of how the Spirit works. Clark Pinnock. “The Work of the Holy Spirit in

9

146

Pentecostals and Hermeneutics:

Rituals

Ritual Studies and Hermeneutics

Pentecostals indeed

gain

a great deal of their

self-understanding

as a people

of God from their

interpretation

of the biblical

text; Pentecostals also understand themselves on the basis of their

particular

brand of spirituality,24

Pentecostal

spirituality

is rooted in

large part

in the performance

of ritual acts which

shape

the outlook and the culture of the Pentecostal

community

as a whole as well as the

identity

of its individual members.”

experience

Hermeneutics.” ” Journal

of Pentecostal Theology 2 (April 1993): 3-23.

Admittedly, the term “spirituality” itself is ambiguous. Sandra Schneiders notes that it

may refer to “(1) a fundamental dimension of the human being, (2) the lived

which actualizes that dimension, and (3) the academic discipline which studies that

experience” [“Spirituality in

the

Academy.” Theological Studies 50 (December 1989): 6781. Anne E. Carr claims that, “In its widest

meaning, spirituality can be described as the whole of one’s spiritual or one’s religious experience,

beliefs, convictions, and patterns of

to or to

thought, one’s emotions and behavior in respect

what is ultimate, God.” Carr’s definition continues. “Spiritualiw is holistic. encompassing all one’s to all of creation–to the self and to others, to

society and nature.

to work relationships and leisurc–in a fundamentally spiritual or religious

orientation.

Spirituality

is broader than a

theology

or set of values precisely because it is so all-encompassing and pervasive. Unlike theology as an explicit pattern of cognitive or intellectual positions, spirituality reaches into one’s s and convictions about the

physical, psychological,

and

religious depths,

touches those surest human

feelings

way things really are. And while it shapes behavior and attitudes,

spirituality is more than a consciously chosen moral code. In a perspective, in relation to God,

it is who one really is. the deepest self, not

religious accessible to the most

entirely

thoughtful self scrutiny and reflection” CA:

(San Francisco. & Row

[Transforming Grace,

Publishers,

For a

Harper 1988), 201-202J.

survey of other definitions and

see Jon

development

of the connotations of the term spirituality Alexander, “What do Recent Writers Mean

32

by Spirituality?,” Spiritualitv Today (September 1980): 247-257; Sandra Schneiders, and “Theology

Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?,” Horizons 13 (Fall 1986): 256-267: Philip Sheldrake. Spiritualitv and History: Questions of Interpretation

and Method (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), especially 32-56.

Russell P. Spittler noted that,

native to Pentecostal tradition. Pentecostals more

“spirituality as the gestalt of piety is. however. not the

easily use the adjective ‘spiritual’

than

they

do the abstract noun” Pentecostal and Charismatic,”

in

Dictionary of

Pentecostal and Charismatic

[“Spirituality,

Nfovements, ed. Stanley

M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids. MI: Zondervan

Publishing House,

1988). 804].

For a discussion

dealing specifically

with Pentecostal spirituality

see Steve Land, “Pentecostal in the in Christian Spiritualitv (Vol. 3, World Spirituality Series), ed. Louis Dupre and Don

Spirituality: Living Spirit,” Saliers

(New York.

NY: Crossroad

Publishing

House, 1989). 479-499;

Spittler, “Spirituality,

Pentecostal and Charismatic,” 804-809; Walter

“Pentecostals and the in The

Hollenweger,

Charismatic Movement.”

Studv of Spirituality.

ed. Cheslyn

Jones. Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yamold (New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 1986), 549-553.

10

Understanding reflecting goes

enactments, toward

understanding

Then,

understanding

Ritual

Text,” argues parallel

147

of ritual in

understanding ritual actions as a text to be

functions of ritual

the

spirituality

of a

and creative

essay

the role that these various rituals

play

in forming and

a Pentecostal

spirituality

is an

important theological

task that

to the core of what it means to be Pentecostal. To demonstrate the illuminative

power

of a hermeneutics

Pentecostal

spirituality,

we will

1) present

interpreted, 2)

consider some of the

primary

and

3)

offer an

approach

to ritual as a heuristic device

a culture and

particularly

subcultural

group.”

we will draw out the

implications

of our hermeneutical

approach

to ritual studies for a Pentecostal

of spirituality.

as Text. Paul

Ricoeur,

in a

provocative

entitled,

“The Model of the Text:

Meaningful

Action Considered as a

that the constitutive features of a written

literary

text are

to what he calls

“meaningful

action. ,2′

Following

Max

Weber, Ricoeur assumes that the

object

of the social or human sciences is the meaningful action(s)

of human

beings.

Ricoeur

aptly

demonstrates that the

methodology

of the human sciences is similar to the

procedures

that he has elaborated for the

interpretation

discuss further in the section on

“community. ,2′ Here,

thought

our

conceptualization

are one instance of Ricoeur’s

category

or the other.

Wuthnow’s outlook on cultural

analysis,

with its

emphasis

on the

dimension of human

behavior,

is complementary to Ricoeur’s

understanding

of meaningful human action as text. Ritual as a cultural element can be

approached,

in part, through a cultural

analysis, an

analysis

that seeks to

examine, explain, interpret,

understand and appropriate meaningful

action in ways analogous to the hermeneutical

at work in understanding a literary text.3` Wuthnow’s

approach

portion

community

question

creates, continues and recognizes as ways of behaving that express appropriateness given the situation. When speaking of Pentecostal ritual we will most often be referring to the corporate worship service. When we use the term rite we refer to a or

part of the service, or a particular practice or specific enactment or set of actions

recognized by

a faith

community as

a

legitimate part

of their overall

ritual. Thus, we would call a sermon, and a service rites, as we would a

song

prayer time. the taking of an offering, the laying on of hands, or an altar call.

Each of these is a rite and generally they are configured as a part of a ritual

larger

(e.g. a service).

30 See

worship

especially Robert Wuthnow, Nleaning and Aforal Order: Cultural Explorations in

Analysis (Berkeley. CA: University of California Press, 1987) and Robert Wuthnow, et. al., Cultural Analysis (New York. NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984). ”

While Wuthnow brushes aside some of the issues of hermeneutics

(e.g.

the problem of meaning)

in his

treatment,

he presents an

appealing, well-informed strategy for doing “cultural analysis,” and particularly, ritual study. Thus, we have chosen to

use his insight to inform the approach presented below, yet we engage the

of meaning rather than avoiding it.

32 A goal of Wuthnow’s approach is to enhance the of the

of while

interpretive perspective

culture,

Ricoeur aims to relate the notion of

actions to the task and

process

of hermeneutics. Both

purpose

to accomplish

their

projects by seeking

to make the

analysis/interpretation

more observable. In other words, both assume that culture is at least in some dimensions observable in and through its constituent elements

acts,

(e.g. gestures, utterances. and objects.

events). These elements can be seen, recorded, classified, etc.. as can their relational

patterns

or structures. Empirical data, then, are potentially available to the analyst/interpreter. These data can be conceived of as text and thus are “fair

sociological investigation meaningful

12

149

focuses attention on some of the functions of ritual within a

culture, subculture,

or faith

community.

Some Main Functions

of

Ritual.

communities

regulate

larger society. They sharpen moral order

by sending signals

ambiguities

especially

within

that their

structured

Meanings may

Apart

from

any

instrumental

obligations,

also

others

may

communicate be communicated that are

unintentional. communicate

messages.

These social

messages, affirm the collective

community’s

Victor Turner’s

function that ritual

process change,

a vehicle

community

purposes accomplished by meaningful behavior,

rituals

play

at least three

primary

roles,

each of which invites hermeneutical

interpretation: to maintain moral and social

order,

to communicate

meanings,

and to effect

change

in the

community

and its members. Intrinsic to ritual is its role in

maintaining

the moral/social order and the structure of various

and institutions.33 Rituals

accomplish

this task as

they

and define the social

relationships

within a community and the

and

help

to maintain the boundaries of the

about definitions of

particular positions and

relations,

while collective ceremonial

practices

also remind

people of their common relations.

Together

these

operations

deal with

and uncertainties

by helping

to

establish,

maintain and/or redefine the identities of

persons, groups

and other cultural elements and

by clarifying

social

relations, including

fundamental

the

community

A second function of ritual is its characteristic communication of meanings.35

To

say

that rituals communicate is not

necessarily

to

say

communications are

always

conscious or that

they

are intentional. While some rituals are at least to some extent

consciously

in order to

communicate,

unconsciously.

For

example,

a ritual

may

intend one

meaning only

to

another. In fact, ritual as

symbolic

communication

speaks at several levels and

thereby

is

capable

of

expressing

various social

other

things,

function to

values and

help

to

align, regulate

and

shape

the

activities as well as at times to transform them.

groundbreaking

can

play as

of

transformation,

for individuals and for a ritual

as a whole. Turner

recognized

among

work demonstrated the third

an efficacious medium of

in the ritual

process

of

game” 33

for the hermeneutical dimension and process.

Moral order can be defined as “a set of definitions about what is proper to do and what is reasonable to expect.” See Wuthnow, Afeaning and A/oral Order, chapter 1. For a consideration of the relationship between ritual and moral order, see and

Aleaning

Aforal Order, chapters 3 and 4, Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1982); and. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger

(New York, NY: Ark Paperbacks, 1984).

“The

importance of a ritual’s

function in clarifying social structures and dealing with ambiguities of identity can be more clearly seen during transitional periods or

of crisis. A rite of passage, for example, reduces uncertainty by redefining

relations, and behavioral options.

“This function was recognized by the social sciences at least as early as Emil Durkheim’s work on primitive ritual.

periods status,

13

150

particular rites,

such as a rite of passage, an inherent

dynamic

or

power. Thus, for Turner, ritual functions as more than a

symbolic-expression of meanings; its most vital work is to effect

change.36 The impact

of this insight

is of inestimable value to the field of ritual studies and it is particularly significant

to the

study

and

interpretation

of Pentecostal spirituality

and

self-understanding.

Afr Interpretive Approach

to Ritual. Given the

particular

functions of ritual

performance,

a

study

of

spirituality by way

of ritual studies needs to

approach

ritual with a

sensitivity

for at least three dimensions: structural, dramaturgic,

and transformative. The

question

of access

to, and

understanding of,

rituals and other

meaningful

actions within their social context lies at the center of the field of ritual studies. Here

again the so-called

post-structuralists,

such as Robert Wuthnow and

Mary Douglas,

can inform an

approach

that seeks an

adequate explanation and

understanding

of ritual. 31 The structural dimension of the

approach focuses on

patterns

and

relationships among

rites and other cultural elements themselves. It seeks to

identify orderly relations,

rules and structures that

give

culture coherence and

identity by maintaining symbolic

boundaries and

asserting

distinctions

among

the

rites,

rituals and other

components

of the culture.

In the structural dimension of our

approach,

culture is treated as a relatively objectified entity,38

Rather than

being

associated with the individual,

culture’s elements are

regarded analytically

as constitutive elements,

as

relatively

observable cultural

components,

such as

writings. especially

)6 For examples of works that deal with the efficacy of ritual, see Victor Turner’s

Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca. NY: Cornell Press, 1974), Barbara Myerhoff. Number our Davs (New York, NY: Touchstone University Books/Simon and Schuster,

1978),

and Tom F. Driver. The of Ritual:

Our Need

Afagic

for Liberating

Rites that

Transform Our Lives and Our Communities

(San Francisco. CA:

& Row Publishers, 1991), 131-191. For a short

explication

of

Harper

the

Pneuma: The Journal

“consequences”

of

ritual,

see Daniel E.

Albrecht, “Pentecostal

Spirituality,” of

the

Society for

Pentecostal Studies 14 (Fall 1992): 120-25.

37 “Post-structuralists.*’

Wuthnow’s term, also includes theorists such as Habermas and Michel Foucault. Post-structuralism

Jurgen

implies a distinction from and connection

to the source of structuralism and his adherents, Levi-Strauss. Post-structuralist,

in the tradition of Levi-Strauss, take seriously the structure of culture. On the other hand, they attempt to correct the limitation of the structuralist that has often lacked a to the relations between culture and other factors

broader social

sensitivitv

conditions). Generally

in structural culture is examined

(e.g. approaches,

internally

to determine the nature of its own

organization. Post-structuralists

give

more attention to the connection between the cultural elements and the surrounding social-historical conditions. Thus, culture is not cut off as a

purely

autonomous

entity.

It is considered within a broader

scope of analysis.

‘$ This is not to suggest that culture is simply “out there” like an object that can be

without need of interpretation. Rather, it means that culture is separated analytically from the internal. subjective states of the individual approached positivistically

participant.

14

151

gestures, utterances, discourse, objects,

acts and events. Each of these components

can be

seen,

heard or read, and

consequently, recorded, classified and

analyzed

as a text. This structural dimension of the approach

to ritual

interpretation corresponds closely

with the explanatory

realm of Ricoeur’s hermeneutical arc.

In addition to the structural

dimension, sensitivity to

the communicative dimension of culture and its rituals also is needed. Ritual has a

dramaturgic

function

whereby

it

symbolizes meanings inherently important

to the culture.39 When we

interpret

ritual dramaturgically,

we are not

only

concerned with

understanding

the individual

subject’s experience,

but

perhaps

more with

understanding the culture as an

expressive

dimension of social relations. From an interactional

perspective,

culture in

general

is the

symbolic-expressive dimension of social

structure;

culture communicates and dramatizes information, including

what is

expected

or what is

morally binding

for its

participants.

In

turn,

culture is influenced

by,

and becomes the embodiment

of,

the structure of these

obligations.

The

dramaturgic capacity

of rituals

emphasizes

its

power

to dramatize,

for

example,

the nature and situation of a faith

community, including

its

organization,

human interaction and

perhaps

human-divine relationships.

The

dramaturgic

dimension focuses more on

messages that are

implied

than on information that is

straightforwardly transmitted.

Implicit

communications are

conveyed

in ritual enactments so that what is “given”

may

be less

significant

than what is “given off.” Implicit

or

explicit,

the ritual communications

together

constitute a “conversation,”

one that communicates about and dramatizes the issues of the

community’s

life including elements of its spirituality.”

39The dramaturgic approach can be traced historically to Emile Durkheim’s work with ritual. But contemporary anthropologists such as Victor Turner and Clifford Geertz insist that rituals act as a particular form of cultural performance, “offer a special vantage point,”

a window for observing the “most important processes of cultural life.” ” This

vantage point

allows the observation from the would-be

See Victor Turner. From Ritual to Theater (New York, NY: Performing Arts Journal

interpreter.

Publications, 1982), 82 and Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation Culture (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973), 113-114 as cited

Practice

by

Catherine

of

Bell, Ritual

Theory, Ritual (New York, NY: Oxford 1992). 27-29,

41. Wuthnow also stresses the

University Press,

dramaturgic approach, he roots his work on the 40 thought of Michel Foucault, Mary Douglas and

and associates

Jurgen Habermas.

Sociologist Robert Bellah portray a society as a conversation. David

Tracy adroitly

uses the

metaphor of conversation in

his

presentation

of hermeneutics. For

Tracy

the hermeneutical

process

is a conversation. This conception

is suggestive for the study of spirituality through ritual interpretation, for the

interpreter can enter into the conversation with the text (the culture and its In

symbolic-expressive, meaningful practices).

the case of the vital ritual expressions

of a contemporary faith community, the hermeneut may “listen” to the community’s preexisting, on-going

ritual conversation. He or she may even enter into the conversation as a participant and thereby move toward an understanding of the ritual text. See Robert Bellah. et. al.. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and

15

152

study qualities

express

applying

it to the subculture hermeneutic of Pentecostal

Implications Pentecostal

we can

through

a and

understand,

in a

Rituals for

Understanding

approach

Finally,

we would

suggest

a third dimension to the

approach

to the

of ritual and

spirituality

that takes

seriously

the transformative

of enacted rites. We have noted Turner’s

insight

about a ritual’s

potentially

efficacious

dynamic.

To

ignore

this

potential

would be to miss much of the life of a spirituality. A living

spirituality

does not remain

static,

nor is it contained in

unchanging

rituals that

merely

an immutable

community. Rather,

vital rituals

express

the life of a

community

while

helping

to

shape

and transform that

community and its members.

Thus,

an

adequate approach

to a ritual

study

that aims at

understanding

a faith

community’s spirituality

must be

sensitively aware of the transformative

potential

that certain enacted rites within the

community possess. By following

the

approach

outlined above and

of

Pentecostalism,

rituals,

both

explain

Ricoeurian

sense,

the

spirituality

of Pentecostals.

of a

Study

of Pentecostal

Spirituality.

Pentecostalism is

fraught

with characteristic

that are

meaningful

to its

participants.

of

settings.

All are

hermeneutically significant

in

understanding nature of Pentecostal

spirituality. However,

for the sake of

illustration, the rituals and other constitutive subcultural elements of

typical Pentecostal

worship

services will

provide

an

appropriate

focus to

the hermeneutic of ritual as text. 41 A close look at the

particularly light analogous

way

to texts,

reveals

actions,

rituals and rites These actions occur in a

variety

the

expressions,

behaviors and

meaningful

actions of Pentecostal

worship,

the distinctive Pentecostal

practices

in a worship

service,

in

of the ritual studies

approach

which

interprets

those actions in an

the

structural, dramaturgic

and transformational character of PentecostaUCharismatic

spi1-ituality.’

The Pentecostal

worship

service contains

many

subcultural

elements,

a wide

variety

of

symbolic-expressive

behaviors that we have defined above as rites.

Here,

when we

speak

of Pentecostal rites we are

including

“Along

of Religion. 1987).

“Spirituality.

Spiritualitv: Looking Through

Commitment in American Life (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, and

1985)

David Tracy. Plurality and

Ambiguity: Henneneutics, Religion, Hope (San Francisco. CA: Harper & Row. Publishers, 1987).

with Steven Land, Russell

Spittler,

Robert Anderson and others. we believe that the worship service setting is at the heart of Pentecostalism and that the rites within this context portray the character and nature of Pentecostal Robert M.

spirituality.

Anderson, “Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity,” in Encvclopedia

vol. 11. ed. Mircea Eliade (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co.,

229-235, claims that the “heart” of Pentecostalism is the worship service. Land asserts that Pentecostal spirituality should be understood through an of

analysis

its ritual

practices,

in “Pentecostal

Spirituality.” 484;

also

see, Spittler, i2

Pentecostal and Charismatic.”

For an example of such a study, see Daniel E. Albrecht, Pentecostal/Charismatic

the Lens ofrittial

(Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley. CA: Graduate Theological Union. 1993). ,

16

153

referring

to such

things

as

prayer rituals;

collective oral

prayer

and praise; proxy prayer;

use of music as

ritual; testimonies; forms of exhortation; confessions; other

utterances

including preaching; healing and

anointing rituals; laying

on of hands and other actions of

touching; raising

of

hands;

dancing

in the

Spirit; falling

under the

power; exorcism;

altar calls and altar

services;

oral

expletives; and,

the

practice of the various Pauline charismata

including speaking

in tongues.43

The structural function of rituals alerts us to

approach

the

worship service as a “macro” ritual of sorts and the various

symbolic-expressive actions within that

worship

service context as

particular

rites. This hermeneutical distinction would focus the search for

significant patterns and

relationships among

the rites. These

patterns

reflect boundaries that help

to define the service

itself,

the local faith

community,

and the broader

spirituality

of Pentecostals. As patterns of rites

begin

to surface they may

be classified and studied in their constellations

As we

recognize

the

patterns

of rites, we discover how these

patterns function to maintain order–order within the

worship

service itself and order

throughout

the

larger community

of faith. While a Pentecostal worship

service

may appear

chaotic to an

“outsider,”

the

orderly relations and rules

among

these rites and other elements

experienced by the

participants help

to

give

their

spirituality

a sense of coherence and identity.

The rituals function to maintain

symbolic

boundaries of what it means to be

Pentecostal,

while at the same time the rituals

distinguish between the members of the

community

and the “outside.” The hermeneutic of ritual as text

points

out a

potentially

dark side of Pentecostal

spirituality.

Rituals

may

serve as

sectarian, self-righteous and

legalistic boundary

markers. On the

positive side,

a hermeneutic of rituals discloses the

potential

of Pentecostal

worship

to create a sense of

solidarity

within the

community

and a celebrative

participation

in the Christian faith.

Another

important aspect

of a hermeneutical

approach

to rituals is the attention it draws to the communicative role of Pentecostal

worship ritual. Of

course,

we need to note the most

obvious, consciously intended

meanings

of the rites. For

example,

the rite of

praying

for the sick is intended to

symbolize

God’s concern and care of the

community for the

physically

infirm. A hermeneutic of rituals would also be

43 For a brief treatment of some of these rites within the context of Pentecostal ritual and spirituality see Albrecht, “Pentecostal Spirituality,” 107-125. For a cataloging of Pentecostal rituals and rite see Albrecht, Pentecostal/Charismatic

Spirituality, especially Appendices

44

A and B.

Some examples of such patterns of rites contained within the macro ritual of the worship

service are: the patterns of congregational responses (e.g. various altar calls), kinaestheic movements and gestures (e.g. lifting hand. dance),

forms of speech

acts and utterances

(e.g. preaching/teaching, testimonies.

verbal

gift ministries),

forms and patterns of prayer and praise. healing and purification rites. patterns

of rites of

passage (e.g. conversions, baptism. spirit baptism)

and potentially many

other forms and patterns might emerge.

17

154

interested in

understanding

the

implicit messages

that are transmitted through

the

symbolic-expressions. Knowing

that the rites can function as

expressions

of the social

arrangement

within the

spiritual community,

we can understand what the rituals dramatize about the nature of these social

relationships.

For

example,

while the rite of praying

for the sick is intended to communicate a

redemptive

concern for the

physical body,

it

might

be enacted

by pastors

and elders anointing

the

needy

with oil. In such a case, the rite could

symbolically express, intentionally

or

not,

a

hierarchy

of ecclesial

roles, a notion perhaps

in tension with other fundamental themes native to Pentecostal spirituality. So,

the

question

of how and what values are

being

affirmed by

the

worship

ritual and its

attending

rites is a crucial hermeneutical issue.

Of

course,

we need to attend

very closely

to the transformative role of the rites within the Pentecostal

worship setting.

Victor Turner’s insight

that a ritual’s vital work is its

potential

to effect

change

is especially important

to the Pentecostal

interpretation

of the

Holy Spirit’s power

of transformation

through

their

worship

rites. Pentecostals,

in fact,

actively pursue transformation; they

meet

together in

worship

to be

changed

and

they disperse

in order to

change

the world.

They

seek conversions and transformations of individual persons,

communities of

faith,

and “the world.” These rites of transformation and the other

meaningful

actions of the

worship

ritual constitute a text which narrates the

story

of Pentecostal self-understanding

and

spirituality.

The hermeneutical

study

of ritual

process

as a

symbolic, expressive, transformative dimension of Pentecostal

spirituality

is one of the most accessible, rich, “textual” resources for interpreting

the

spirituality

of Pentecostals. A hermeneutic of rituals as text has

great potential

to give Pentecostals a

heightened self-understanding,45

a

self-understanding

of the nature of their

spirituality

and also of the kind of

community they seek to be.

Pentecostals

and Hermeneutics:

Community

Pentecostals function

hermeneutically

when

they explain

and appropriate

the biblical

text;

Pentecostals function

hermeneutically when

they

ritualize their action in

appropriating

a

divinely-generated spirituality;

and Pentecostals function

hermeneutically

when

they

claim that God continues his work in the

community

of faith. Paul Ricoeur’s

4S David Tracy suggests a “hermeneutical urgency” motivated by the need for self understanding

in the midst of cultural crisis. During such periods. Tracy asserts, “we need to find new of interpreting ourselves and our traditions.” And in such times “we

may

even find ourselves ways

compelled to reflect on the very process of understanding

as interpretation.” Pluralitv and Ainbiguijv, 8.

18

155

notion of

meaningful

action as social text

may

be used to look at community

as a

meaningful

text.

Jurgen

Habermas also has made a significant

contribution to the field of critical hermeneutics that has special bearing

on

understanding community.

One

major assumption

about

community

needs to be unearthed

up front: the

study

of

community

cannot be

successfully accomplished from a

purely objectivist point

of view. As Parker Palmer

argues, because

objectivism begins

with a

premise

that there is some distance between the knower and the

known,

between the researcher and the data, community

cannot be

effectively

studied from an

objectivist perspective.*

The

study

of

community implies participation.

It is participation

in the relational

life, rituals,

and texts of a community that makes one a member of that

community

and

provides

for a meaningful life. The

community

cannot be studied

completely

without the participative knowledge

that comes from

being

a

part

of the community.

Parker Palmer

eloquently

makes this

epistemological

claim within the framework of an academic

community:

If we believed that knowing is a process in which subjective and interact

objective

(as some new epistemologies tell us), we would create a different kind of education. Students and would meet in ways that allow our

to be

tempered by

facts and subject the facts to be warmed up, made fit for human habitation, by passions. In this kind of education we would not passions

merely

know the world. We ourselves, our inner secrets, would become known: we would be brought into the community of mutual knowing called truth. But such an

epistemology is is. rarely conveyed by

our

teaching; instead.

…the so-called objectivism

community of scholars consists largely of individuals checking up

on the findings of other individuals. In objectivism, there is no rationale for community, no imperative for a mutual, interactive quest to know and be known.

.

‘

In

fact, objectivism, with its fear of subjective bias.

is set

against community;

if one

person’s prejudices are

bad. how much worse the conventional pedagogy is

multiplication

of the prejudices in the ferment of

not

corporate life! So the

only noncommunal. but anticommunal….

It is no wonder that many educated

into and create in the

people lack the capacity to enter

help community world, that they carry the habit of

into all their relations with life. If we believed that knowledge arises from the commitments of communities (as some new

competition

tell

epistemologies

us)

we would create classrooms where community is fostered, not feared. °’

In concert with this

epistemological assumption,

this section will provide

an overview of

Jurgen

Habermas’

theory

of communicative competence

and of Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutic of textual fulfillment, and then

suggest ways

for Pentecostals to enable

community.

46 Parker Palmer, To Know as We are Known (San Francisco. CA: Harper and Row, Publishers. 1983), 25ff.

41Palmer, To Know as

are Known, 36-37.

19

156

Jurgen

useful critical hermeneutic necessary

condition

Competence competence provides

a

A

that the

reaching interlocutors are

Jurgen

Habermas and His

Theory

of Communicative

Habermas’ notion of communicative

paradigm

for the

study

of

community,

of communicative

competence

is that interlocutors involved in communication must be “oriented toward

understanding.” Understanding requires

self-reflective and have the

ability

to

process

information in order to move from technical

knowledge (to

know

that)

to reflective

knowledge

know

how).49

is also sometimes called universal

(to

Communicative pragmatics,

and

competence in the

chapter,

develop

suppose

Habermas enumerates the communicative

truthful. Factual statements distortion of the

conversation,

“What is Universal

Pragmatics?,”

aimed at

reconstructing

writes,

“I shall

must,

in raise universal

validity

(or

redeemed:

in

manipulation

Habermas defines it

as,

“the research

program

the universal

validity

basis of

speech.””

Habermas

the thesis that

anyone acting communicatively

performing any speech action,

claims and

that

they

can be vindicated

Habermas identifies four

validity

claims that must be “redeemed” order for

understanding

and communication to take

place.

validity

claims which demonstrate

competence

as follows. First, the

speaker

must make an utterance that is understood in the technical sense

by

the other

person. The actual discursive statements must be

intelligible

to one

another; that

is,

the

participants

must be able to make sense out of the conversation.

Secondly,

the statements made must be factual and

eliminate or

purposive

and truthful statements avoid

deception. Thirdly,

there must be a level of

sincerity

and trust between the speakers.

The

speaker

must be believable. validates the claim made in the content of the communication.

participants–if they

have been oriented toward

legitimation,

conversation and communication. The

legitimation

claim

implies

that the

participants

have discovered shared values which result in the establishment of an

interpersonal relationship

based on the

of one another.52 As Habermas

explains,

understanding–may

reach

understanding

mutuality

Credibility

Lastly,

the

reaching

mutual or have a

legitimate

The goal of coming to an understanding (Perstandigung) is to bring about an

agreement (Einverstandis)

that terminates in the

intersubjective

of

accord with one another. reciprocal

understanding, shared knowledge, mutual trust, and

Agreement

is based on

recognition

of the

claims of comprehensibility. truth. truthfulness, and

corresponding validity

Beacon 48 Jurgen

Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society (Boston. MA:

Press, 1976).

‘9 Habermas, Communication, 13, 14.

“Habermas, Communication, 5.

–

2.

Habermas. Communication, Habermas, Communication, 2.

20

157

rightness…. Coming to an understanding

is the process of about an

bringing

agreement on the presupposed basis of validity claims that can be

In

everyday

life we start from a

consensus

mutually recognized. background

pertaining

to those

interpretations

taken for

As soon as this consensus is shaken, and the presupposition

granted among that certain participants.

validity

claims are satisfied

(or

could be

vindicated)

is suspended,

the task of mutual interpretation is to achieve a new definition of the situation which all participants can share.”

This movement from

simple agreement

to

understanding

is important to the

study

of

community.

The

goal

in

creating community

is not to form consensual

bonds, resulting

from each

person compromising

or giving up

a little of what he or she wanted in order to have

agreement. This

type

of

compromise

arrives at an

agreement

in which no one is satisfied.

Participants

in communal life can

develop

communicative competence by surfacing important

issues for authentic conversation. From this conversation, truthfulness,

meaning,

trust and

legitimation can

emerge.

As a

result, every person

involved in the communication process

is satisfied that the solution reached is best for the

good

of the group,

whose members now feel an intersubjective connection.

Habermas also

distinguishes

communicative action from

strategic action.

Strategic

action is sometimes referred to as

purposive-rational action.

Purposive-rational

action is

technically

based. It has

specific rules for

decision-making

and the results are said to be

“quantifiable and measurable.”

Generally,

this

type

of action is lacking a background consensus;

the

history

of the situation is not taken into account. Strategic

action

presupposes

certain norms to which each

person

must conform. It is based on rules and

regulations,

not on

forming

an intersubjective

world. As a

consequence,

the motivation to conform is different from that of a communicative action. Here,

conforming

is dictated

by an externally imposed paradigm.

Communicative action, on the other hand, establishes norms intersubjectively.

Each

person

in the conversation has certain expectations

that

may

be

reciprocated

in the other

party(ies).

It relies on

phroneses

or

practical

wisdom. It

suggests practical

solutions to practical problems

as

opposed

to techne or the

application

of technical solutions to

practical problems.

One of the most

significant

elements in

moving

toward

creating community

is conversation.

Community requires

that

people

come together

to

dialogue.

Out of those

conversations, relationships

are kindled and

strengthened.

Conversation allows

people

to discover in each other similar values,

viewpoints,

areas of

concern, histories,

and goals.

If the

underlying

condition for communicative

competence

is an orientation toward

reaching understanding,

then the

participants

need

53 Habermas, Communication, 3.

21

158

to do two

things. One, they

need a desire to reach a new

understanding on a

particular

matter.

Two, they

need a desire to enter into a relationship.

Habermas

writes,

“I shall

speak

of the success of a speech act

only

when the hearer not

only

understands the

meaning

of the sentence uttered but also

actually

enters in the

relationship

intended

by the

speaker.”54 Reaching

an

understanding

with others is a co-result of communicative

competence

and the establishment of

personal relationship.

The establishment of relationship creates an

intersubjective world of shared

meaning.

In

praxis,

Habermas’

theory

of communicative

competence

seems to hang

on the

validity

claim of trust. Trust is the most difficult of all the validity

claims to redeem. Trust is the most difficult element to cultivate and it is also the claim that is most

easily destroyed.

What can be destroyed

in a matter of

seconds, may

take

years

to rebuild. Without trust,

there can be no authentic

communication,

no vulnerability, and no legitimation.

Paul Ricoeur’s Notion of Hermeneutics as Textual Fulfillment in Present

Speech

Ricoeur’s contribution to hermeneutics is also

significant

for the

study

of community. In his intellectual

journey,

Ricoeur makes the shift from a concentration on existentialism or existential

phenomenology

to a reflective hermeneutics or reflective

philosophy.

The reason for such a shift in

methodology

and framework was that reflective

philosophy allows him to add the dimension of critical reflection on the

past

to his inquiry.

Reflective

philosophy

allows the

interpreter

to

explain causality and also allows the inclusion of values and

meaning–including

those values and

meaning

embedded in a

community–in making interpretations

and

applications.55

Ricoeur defines hermeneutics

as,

“the theory

of the

operations

of

understanding

in their relation to the interpretations

of texts. So the

key

idea will be realisation of discourse as a text….,56 On the basis of this

definition,

Ricoeur

argues

that the hermeneutical framework established

by

structuralists like L6vi-Strauss and Althusser is in need of examination. Ricoeur affirms the need of incorporating

structuralist method into a hermeneutic but claims that method needs to be

part

of a more inclusive

interpretive paradigm which can

bring understanding

into the

interpretive process.

Claude

L6vi-Strauss,

in Stnlctural

Anthropology,

cites an

example that we can use to illustrate this difference between

understanding

and explanation

in Ricoeur’s

theory

of hermeneutics. L6vi-Strauss uses the Oedipus myth

and the natural divisions within the text. The reader can classify

events in the

myth according

to “overrated blood

relations,” “underrated blood

relations,” “monsters,”

and

“proper

names.”

Having

” “Habermas.

Communication. 59.

56 Ricoeur. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 2. Ricoeur. Hernreneutics and the Human Sciences. 43.

22

159

classified the events and

relationships

in the

myth,

the

myth

has been structurally explained.5′

Yet in Ricoeurian

terms,

the text has not been interpreted

in the sense of

construing

its

meaning.58 According

to Ricoeur,

a “… text is not closed in on itself but

opens

out onto other things.

To read

is,

on

any hypothesis,

to

conjoin

a new discourse to the discourse of the text….

Interpretation

is the concrete outcome of conjunction

and renewal.”59 The text is

open

in front of itself

So,

in terms of our illustration from

L6vi-Strauss,

the

myth

of Oedipus is free of

Sophocles’ original

intent–as Freud well understood–and

presents new

possibilities

of interpretation for

contemporary

readers.

By bridging

the chasm between

explanation

in the natural sciences and

understanding

in the human

sciences,

Ricoeur in effect elevates the importance

of

values, tradition,

and

community

in the

interpretive process

of

construing

the

present-tense meaning

of texts. Ricoeur explains:

We can as readers. remain in the suspense of the text, treating it as a worldless and authorless object; in this case, we explain the text in terms of its internal relations, its structure. On the other hand, we can lift the suspense

and fulfill the text in

speech. restoring

it to

living communication; in this case, we interpret the text. These two possibilities both belong to reading, and reading is the dialectic of these two attitude.’

The first

way

of

reading

tries to understand the text as a historical artifact. It tries to find the

relationship

of the text to its

surrounding world. It is

explanatory.

The second

type

of

reading

is

interpretive. When a text is fixed in writing, the

subjective

intentions of the author are released. The text is free or autonomous. The text itself now has its own

reality

and is

subject

to

interpretation by

the reader.

And,

the reader is a social and historical

interpreter

who seeks to understand the meaning

of a text

through present day

discourse. In the hermeneutical act,

the text is

thereby

transformed from an artifact of

history

into a living

document. As a

consequence,

Ricoeur

emphasizes

that a text may

have more than one

interpretation, polyvalency, just

as words in language

have more than one

meaning, polysemy.6′

But an interpretation

aims to fulfill the text in

present speech.62 Appropriation is Ricoeur’s term for

taking

a text and

making

it one’s own. Appropriation

is the antithesis of

distanciation,

the distance between the world of the text and the world of the

present day interpreter.

” Claude Levi-Strauss. Structural Anthropologv. trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf (New York. NY: Basic Books. 1963).

58 Ricoeur. Hermeneutics and the ffuman Sciences. 154-155.

‘9 Ricoeur. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. 158.

6′

Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 152.

Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. 145-146.

bz Ricoeur,

Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 158.

23

160

Distanciation can be overcome in the

interpretive

act of

moving

from explanation

to

present day application.63

In

describing

Ricoeur’s hermeneutical

agenda,

D. Gordon notes that Ricoeur “… is attempting to

develop

a hermeneutics that allows us to maintain a crucial distinction–that between

(1)

the

meanings

of text and

(2)

the

meanings

a text has for a

particular persons And,

in so doing,

we

might

add that Ricoeur’s hermeneutic

incorporates community

into the

interpretive process

in two

important ways. First, community

is

present

as a context for

interpreters. Construing

“the meanings

a text has for a

particular person” necessarily

involves the recognition

that

particular persons belong

to

particular

communities that

provide

a context for

interpretation.

A

community

context provides

a set of

concerns,

a network of relationships, a core of values, a tradition of beliefs and a reference

range

of

language

in which the meaning

of a text for a

particular person

makes sense.

Second, community

is

present

as a

goal

for

interpreters. Construing

“the meanings

a text has for a

particular person” necessarily

involves the recognition

that the

meaning

of the text needs to be appropriated

by the community

of which the

interpreter

is a

part. Community

is both a context and a goal of hermeneutical

activity.

The

Significance

of Community for Pentecostal Hermeneutics

Habermas’ communicative

competence provides

a useful model for Pentecostals to use in

creating community.

The first

validity

claim of language may

be redeemed in the Pentecostal

community by recognizing

that the

texts, rituals,

and

relationships

that form a distinctly

Pentecostal

identity provide

a way “to

language

our world” in the same

way.

The

meaning

that Pentecostals attribute to biblical texts and other

documents,

to rituals and to

relationships provides

the basis for common

identity

in the Christian

community.

The second

validity claim of truth needs to be

accomplished

in the Pentecostal

community in two

ways.

The

first,

and most

important,

is for Pentecostals to be faithful and committed to the

Truth,

God Himself The second

way

is to strive

always

to

speak

the

truth,

without

any

form of

deception,

and to communicate

correctly

the external facts.

Living by

truthful

speech brings

to a

community

a sense of

integrity

because the

meaning attributed to biblical

texts,

rituals and

relationships

are

being appropriated

into the

very

fabric of the

community.

Truth is the

overriding concept

involved in

creating

an authentic Pentecostal

community. Participants

in

any community

must be obedient to the truth. There is a distinction, however, between

being

in conformity

to the truth and

being

in fidelity to the truth. Parker Palmer

zu Paul Ricoeur. Interpretation

Theory : Discourse and the Surplus of Aleaning (Fort Worth. TX: Texas

Christian University Press, 1976). 80-88.

64 D. Gordon. “Education as Text: The Varieties of Educational Hiddenness.” Curriculum Inquire 18 (Winter 1988): 433.

24

161

observes that

conformity implies

an

obligation

from an outside source. Fidelity implies

an internal motivation and

obligation.” Fidelity

to the truth arises out of a relationship between the members of a community, and in

turn,

serves to

strengthen

a

relationship

of

fidelity

within the community.

The third claim of trust is

dependent

on satisfaction of the second claim, truth. Without the accurate communication of the truth between members who make

up

the Pentecostal

community

and a common fidelity

to the

truth,

trust

may

never be established. Truth must be communicated

openly

and

honestly

without fear of retribution or without

any

hidden

agendas

if trust is

going

to

provide

the

glue

that binds the

community together. Having

satisfied the first three

claims,

the Pentecostal

community may

move on to

legitimation

or

living

out the shared values that arise from its

particular interpretation

of

texts, rituals and

relationships.

A Pentecostal

community grounded

in truth with a common

purpose

has a

legitimacy

to exist. Because its legitimacy

is tied to its truthful

appropriation

of biblical texts and of rituals and

relationships

as social

texts,

the Pentecostal

community needs to allow for free

expression

of ideas. It also needs to

develop autopoetic

mechanisms that allow it to

incorporate

new members and adapt

to new conditions. In the context of

legitimate community, Pentecostals can

experience

true freedom and

genuine growth. Legitimate community provides

the

necessary

framework or structure for the hermeneutical

exploration

of the

meaning

of

texts,

rituals and relationships.

Paul Ricoeur and

Hans-Georg Gadamer,

in our

judgment,

have changed

the

way

in which Pentecostals need to think about hermeneutics. Pentecostals need to break

away

from the notion that hermeneutics is the search for a

unique

set of

principles

which Pentecostals use in their biblical

interpretations. They

also need to move

beyond

the notion that the

province

of hermeneutics is the search for the

proper procedures

to translate the one

exegetical meaning

of a biblical text into its many implications for

today.

A Pentecostal

hermeneutic,

as we have

argued

9 la Ricoeur and Gadamer,

is the

interpretive activity

in which Pentecostals search for an understanding

of themselves. A Pentecostal hermeneutic

requires

a skillful and

integrative reading

of these texts: the social text of Pentecostal

relationships

in order to understand the texture of Pentecostal

community,

the ritual enactments of Pentecostal

worship

in order to understand the nature of Pentecostal

spirituality,

and the biblical text in order to understand the

way Scripture

is

appropriated into the formation of Pentecostal

identity.

Pentecostals and hermeneutics is a subject that

requires

an understanding of texts, rituals and

community.

‘5 Palmer, To Know as W’e are Known, 89-91.

25

PentecostalTheology .com

Be first to comment Click here to cancel reply.

Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

GET our app-STAY rapture READY

Most Talked About Today

Most Shared Today

Pentecostals And Hermeneutics Texts, Rituals And Community

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

Be first to comment Click here to cancel reply.

Cancel reply

Striking Bargains and Cutting Deals with God

Haber oku tuzla evden eve nakliyat