Spirited Conversation About Hermeneutics

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

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

Spirited Conversation about Hermeneutics A Pentecostal Hermeneut’s Response to Craig Keener’sSpirit Hermeneutics

Kenneth J. Archer

Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida

kjarcher@seu.edu

Abstract

Thisarticleprovidesacriticalassessmentof CraigS.Keener’sSpiritHermeneutics:Read- ing Scripture in the Light of Pentecost. It raises concerns regarding Keener’s commit- ment to grammatico-historical exegesis and questions whether pentecostal hermeneu- tics would not be better served by deconstructing the objective/subjective dichotomy that is prevalent in evangelical hermeneutics. A hermeneutical theory free from this dichotomy would coalesce nicely with postcolonial readings and with Keener’s own anecdotal testimonies of pentecostal and charismatic experiences. Lastly, the practice of principlizing the text is interrogated.

Keywords

Craig S. Keener – pentecostal hermeneutics – grammatico-historical exegesis – evangelical hermeneutics – objectivity – subjectivity – principlizing – postcolonial

…

Majority World biblical scholars should continue to feel free to forge their own ways based on their own convictions and communities of interpretation, not beholden to anyone else’s consensus, including that of groups within the Academy.

craig kenner1

∵

1 Craig S. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03901007

1

180

archer

I am honored to offer a personal response to Craig Keener’s important book SpiritHermeneutics. I recall an experience I had with Craig at an academic gath- ering. I was invited to join a group of scholars to pray for and with Craig. I am not sure if he requested prayer, or whether someone discerned he needed prayer, but regardless, we laid hands on him and prayed for him (with understandable tongues and ecstatic tongues), and he graciously participated. Even though I do not know him all that well, I have deep respect for Craig, not just because of his scholarship (which is quite impressive, to say the least) but more so because of his gracious character and passionate commitment to Jesus and the Church.2I consider Craig to be a colleague in theological education and a brother in Christ who cares deeply about the renewal of Christianity. He not only longs for peo- ple everywhere to be able to understand what a passage of Scripture would have meant (what he calls the original meaning)3 but also desires people to apply that understanding for faithful living today (what he calls application).4 For Keener this is only possible through personal experiences with the Holy Spirit, hence his defense for a charismatic experiential-dynamic reading cou- pled with proper exegetical practices (87).5

In the opening paragraph, Craig Keener makes clear to his readers the overall concern of the monograph when he states:

Spirit hermeneutics is primarily designed to function as a biblical the- ological reflection supporting a dynamic, experiential reading of Scrip- ture. At the same time, a genuine sensitivity to the Spirit’s voice in Scrip-

mi: Eerdmans, 2016), 294. References to this work will be made parenthetically in the text by

page number.

2 This is evident even if one only has brief interaction with Craig. For more autobiographical

information about him, see Craig S. Keener and Médine Moussounga Keener,ImpossibleLove:

The True Story of an African Civil War, Miracles and Hope against All Odds(Bloomington,mn:

Chosen Books, 2016).

3 Keener is aware of the complexity of understanding the ancient/original sense; see 20, 68, 99–

101, esp. 330 n. 60, 339 n. 1, 340 nn. 6 and 9. He has clearly modified E.D. Hirsch’s understanding

of authorial intent (150), yet he uses authorial intent in various places, which the casual reader

informed in evangelical circles might assume is consistent with that of E.D. Hirsch, Jr.; see

Hirsch,Validity in Interpretation(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).

4 For example, he makes many study helps available free of charge, craigkeener.com, and

has contributed primarily to thentnotes of thenivCultural Backgrounds Study Bible(Grand

Rapids,mi: Zondervan, 2016) as well as numerous other publications.

5 For Keener application is where the Spirit is most needed. Application is possible as long

as one uses Scripture in an analogous manner and discovers the principles in the pas-

sage.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

2

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

181

ture should welcome deeper understanding of the historical and cultural milieu in which the Spirit shaped Scripture’s form as we have it, a sen- sitivity against which some proponents of experiential and theological reading have sometimes overreacted.

1

Consequently, Spirit Hermeneutics has two foci—dynamic spiritual reading and the necessity of the social cultural context of the text for establishing the original meaning. Therefore, Spirit Hermeneutics is not “a manual addressing basic principles for basic Bible interpretation” (understanding what a text meant) or application (discerning what a text means).6 Nor is it “an advanced philosophical discussion of hermeneutics” (2). Keener defines “Spirit herme- neutics” as “believersreading the text asScripture” (3, 4, 41, 288) and interpreting the Scripture the way in which “Scripture itself” desires to be interpreted (1, 4, 190).

The main question guiding his reflection on biblical interpretation is, “How do we hear the Spirit’s voice in Scripture?” (2). For Keener, the test is simple— the Spirit will not contradict Scripture and will be consistent with Scripture.7 He argues that the grammatico-historical method is all one needs to under- stand Scripture (thus a non-Christian can come to a proper understanding of the original understanding/meaning), yet he maintains that a certain level of relational experiences with God and “theological understanding” is necessary to discern how to hear the Spirit today. Furthermore, a renewed mind enables better application and a more dynamic experiential reading. Thus, Craig is paddling into theological hermeneutics, yet seems not to realize it or at least acknowledge it. I would argue thatSpirit Hermeneuticsfalls into the new genre called theological hermeneutics.

Keener frequently affirms an inductive methodology associated with the grammatico-historical exegesis as foundational for proper understanding of a text (31). He does privilege the literary context over the historical context

6 For a discussion on the definition of meaning, see Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 123–124. He

follows the modern Protestant method of exegesis associating “meaning” with the original

contextual sense and application for appropriating the past meaning into a contemporary

context.

7 See Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 109–111, where he offers some helpful advice on discerning,

but the Scripture is the measuring rod. He affirms the law of non-contradiction; hence

Scripture will not contradict itself, yet he grapples with historical challenges, discrepancies,

and differences found in Scripture.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

3

182

archer

without separating the two because the literary genre has been shaped in a particular past sociocultural context (97). He is not a historian but a biblical scholar who advocates for historical concerns related to the biblical text. The Spirit, although affirmed as necessary in all stages of interpretation, is espe- cially needed in application. The illuminating work of the Holy Spirit enables readers to identify a universal principle and recontextualize the principle for their current context in new ways (12, 73, 75, 69, 97).8Exegesis and application are further shaped by reading Scripture through a theological lens provided by Acts 2 and one’s “personal experience” of Pentecost.9 The charismatic expe- riences and the theological lens provide the reader with an experiential con- nection to the text, a relational missional identity with early Christianity, and an eschatological perspective. The current global church, especially the church in the Majority World, should also be included in the dialogue because they see things Westerners may have missed (87, 97). On the one hand, he recog- nizes that method is sufficient to produce an acceptable understanding of a text; yet, on the other hand, he affirms that human experiences contribute to how a reader understands the text. Furthermore, even though the text is stable, readers shaped by different cultural and religious experiences may see things in the text, adding important insights for both exegesis and application missed by other exegetes (67, 87). These insights into original meaning are not new per se, just overlooked or forgotten. The newness is how the community recontex- tualizes a principle or appropriates the moral message embedded in the text (75).

The reader will encounter Keener’s reflection on current pentecostal-charis- matic conversations of biblical interpretation and hear his repeated disap- pointment about the abuse of texts and practices by Charismatics and Pente- costals due to “unbridled” or “extreme” subjectivism (5, 11, 22). His concern for historical criticism is fueled by what he perceives to be a dismissal and down- playing of the original sense of the text by pentecostal scholars (99). As a result of these concerns, he repeatedly affirms thenecessityof interpreting a passage in its grammatico-historical cultural context (116). The literary context is also

8 On p. 3, Keener explicitly states: “during or once we have done responsible exegesis, how may

we expect the Spirit to apply the text to our lives and communities?” Then on p. 260, he writes

“A pure exegete can find many intellectual treasures in Scripture; but only a truedisciplecan

experience the fullness of those treasures in his or her life.”

9 See Keener,Spirit Hermeneutics, 8. He makes the argument that even cessationists are charis-

matic to a degree for they affirm charismatic gifts, the so-called more natural gifts of the Holy

Spirit.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

4

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

183

essential (117, 141–145), but historical criticism coupled to experiential reading is the sustained focus of the work.10

This monograph is Keener’s critical reflection on biblical interpretation with his main interlocutors being academic Pentecostals who primarily advocate for a pentecostal hermeneutic. They understand Pentecostalism as a distinct tradition that puts the Spirit, Scripture, and communities in a dialectical and dialogical relationship for negotiating meaning.11Methods are utilized that are more in keeping with the spirituality and intuitive sensibilities of pentecostal communities. Methodologies that encourage an affective-narrative approach to Scripture are preferred. Keener will affirm a previous generation of pen- tecostal scholars (such as R. Spittler, G. Anderson, and G. Fee) as sensible voices calling for Pentecostals to use the Protestant Reformers’ historical crit- ical method for making sense of a text. Thus, Keener follows in the steps of those academically trained Assembly of God pentecostal scholars who have called Pentecostals and Charismatics to followEvangelicalsin using the histor- ical grammatical exegesis from a noncessationist perspective as the method for interpreting Scripture.12What he adds to the evangelical method is the pente-

10

11

12

See John J. Collins, The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2005), chapter 1 and 2 for an explanation of the development of historical criticism. According to Collins, “Historical criticism of the Bible developed pri- marily as an enterprise of Protestant Christianity, within the context of the Christian churches … It was not until the 18th century and the enlightenment that biblical criticism began to emerge in its modern form, and it developed hand-in-hand with critical histori- ography in that 19th [century]. The principles that guided this criticism were articulated most insightfully by the German theologian and sociologist of religion Ernst Troeltsch” (4–5).

See Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, Spirit, Scripture and Community(Cleve- land, tn: cpt Press 2009); Lee Roy Martin, ed., Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader (Lei- den: Brill, 2013). For a helpful explanation of the triad as being used by Pentecostals and Charismatics, see Melissa L. Archer, “I Was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day: A Pen- tecostal Engagement with Worship in the Apocalypse” (Cleveland, tn: cpt Press, 2015), 45–54.

Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 17, states, “I studied under a number of Pentecostal schol- ars … I understood that as a Pentecostal I belong to the broader evangelical tradition but our Pentecostal perception was that we offered a special contribution that cessation- ists (in name or in practice) did not.” I would say he understands his theological iden- tity as evangelical and his spirituality as pentecostal. See Eerdmans Podcast, Episode 16: Craig Keener. This is consistent with the comment that he was “faithful to his own Pente- costal evangelical tradition” (Spirit Hermeneutics, 18). His Baptist ordination in an African American church was about reconciliation not pentecostal practice (Spirit Hermeneutics, 15).

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

5

184

archer

costal practice of entering the canon of Scripture through Acts 2. He is follow- ing the first-generation Pentecostals’ restoration approach, yet he does so with a more nuanced theological understanding. He agrees with Gordon Anderson’s concern raised decades earlier that if Pentecostals and Charismatics would use the proper exegetical method of Evangelicals, most heretical beliefs and practices associated with the prosperity gospel and Word of Faith teachings would be shown to be false because they are based on a misunderstanding of the biblical text.13Keener has picked up the mantle of the previous generation of academic Pentecostals, who focused on proper method in order to dampen experiential subjectivism and to produce proper biblical theology and prac- tice. Furthermore, he affirms an ecumenical sensibility and underscores that meaning is contextualized. There is no ahistorical non-contextualized mean- ing. Thus, Keener typifies what Bill Oliverio calls a “Contemporary Evangelical- Pentecostal Hermeneutic.”14 Keener believes that his Spirit hermeneutic is the Christian hermeneutic:

Ultimately a Pentecostal hermeneutic—a hermeneutic from the vantage point of Pentecost—is simply a Christian hermeneutic—a hermeneutic of hearing in the text the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ. And ulti- mately a Christian hermeneutic is no less than a spirit hermeneutic—an approach that humbly recognizes that it is God’s voice rather than our own, that we must hear in his word. If not all Christians—including not all Pentecostals—currently do experience God’s living voice in Scripture, we can recognize that Scripture now invites us to even greater treasures of knowledge and revelation about God.

288

Keener’s work is a polemic for the necessity for modern historical criticism as well as a defense for reading Scripture experientially. He argues for a nonces- sationist understanding of salvation history and contemporary miracles and experiences associated with the gifts of the Holy Spirit—all of which are overtly supported by modernistic epistemology yet differentiated from the “enlighten- ment” project associated with naturalistic presuppositions such as those held

13

14

See Gordon Anderson, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Part 2” in Paraclete 28, no. 2 (Spring 1994): 13.

SeeL.WilliamOliverio,TheologicalHermeneuticsinClassicalPentecostalTradition:ATypo- logical Account (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 133–184. See my critique of the evangelical method in A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, chapter 5.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

6

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

185

by Hume.15 He believes that neutral unbiased historical investigation is possi- ble (15).16

What I find most interesting in this work is not his description of a Spirit hermeneutic, although that is important to the current discussions concerning pneumatic hermeneutics, but his anecdotal comments, which run throughout the main text and footnotes. These personal testimonials serve as illustrations and function more as affirmations of the importance of being in an experi- ential relationship with the Holy Spirit as one reads Scripture. Further, they demonstrate that he is a Charismatic Christian. He has been shaped both the- ologically and spiritually through Assembly of God pentecostal education at his undergraduate and graduate levels (15, 17). In this work, Keener currently self-identifiesasa Charismatic(5, 188)and asaBaptist (15).He testifiestospeak- ing in tongues on average an hour a day (15). He learned traditional exegesis from “Scripture itself” as a result of reading forty chapters of the Bible a day over a period of time (128). For Keener, a Spirit hermeneutic does not displace exegesis but enhances it. He is not afraid to share the difficulties he has had with practicing interpretive methods according to the rules of the academy. He relates that there were times when the critical distancing and agnosticism required for modern academic historical and scientific method had a nega- tive effect upon him; nevertheless, he worked through these difficulties (41–42, 163). Excessive subjectivism generates faulty interpretations of Scripture. He is especially concerned with the teachings of the Word of Faith and prosper- ity preachers, and he believes the grammatico-historical method would help remedy the problem. According to Craig, God called him to be a prophet and bring back to Christianity an experiential-dynamic subjective reading along with the grammatico-historical method—a paradigm shift, if you will, to cur- rent academic and popular biblical interpretation (44, 128–129). If the apostle

15

16

He rejects “enlightened modernity” but really does not deviate from modernism, but instead modifies it with a believer’s critical argument grounded in presuppositions. Thus, the problem is the presuppositions and not the epistemology or methods. For example, “a neutral starting point would not presuppose the action or inaction of a deity, but Hume simply presupposes divine inaction. If on other grounds one has reason to affirm theism, then what we call miracles might even be expected … We might expect such unusual acts [miracles] to occur at times” (Keener,Spirit Hermeneutics, 93).

The words objective, subjective, and ideal run throughout his text with neutral and pure appearing in a few places. Human experience is subjective, the experience of the Holy Spirit is subjective, and yet Scripture is objective. Keener’s concern for universal truth is found in the Scriptures’ so-called principles or moral message, which are always the same regardless of context.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

7

186

archer

Paul called himself “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” then Craig Keener might call himself “a Charismatic of the Charismatics!”

If one was a modernist psychiatrist, psychologist, or evangelical cessationist, his testimonial comments might raise red flags, suggesting Keener is either mad, delusional, deprived, demon-possessed, or a combination of sorts.17 But, as a pentecostal who has had some similar charismatic experiences, I am pleased to read his testimonials. The anecdotal comments most certainly spice things up for the reader and serve as illustrative lessons of his concerns for an experiential reading of Scripture. Keener has most certainly demonstrated that he is a Pentecostal (not simply a Charismatic) who has been shaped by the early pentecostal story and charismatic experiences associated with the Full Gospel. I would argue that Keener’s spirituality is more in tune with Wesleyan Pentecostalism and its concern to integrate the head and hands into the heart, which only an affective-narrative hermeneutic can provide. His concern to read/hear Scripture in its original sociocultural context is so that he and others will better understand the Bible and be able accurately to discern the voice of the Spirit in order to apply Scripture to their lives.

Before focusing on a few concerns, I want to say that there is much that I like and can readily agree with in his book. It is refreshing not to see “inerrancy” used in the text. The Bible is authoritative and inspired, and he rightly points out that Pentecostals do have a high view of Scripture. I appreciate his testi- monials. I wonder if such an academic work would have been published by Eerdmans ten years ago. Perhaps this is a sign of the impact of pentecostal scholarship upon the evangelical academy. I agree that on many levels, whether popular or academic, readers may not show a text the proper respect neces- sary to hear/read it as a separate voice, thus distorting understanding in ways that are unsubstantiated by the intention of the text. People project onto the text without taking time to listen to or observe the text on its own terms. People do misunderstand passages as well as the overall message of Scrip- ture. I affirm the sociocultural and literary contexts as helpful guardrails in enabling the text to complete its communicative intent. I affirm the need for the Global South’s contribution to current understandings of the sacred Scrip- ture, hence understanding is always contextualized. Readers/hearers, however, do more than simply discover understanding and recontextualize a past uni- versal principle or past moral message grounded in original meaning/sense. Readers come to new understandings of the text on both a macro and micro level, yet these understandings are still tethered to the text. Human under-

17

See Archer, “The 3-D View of Pentecostalism,” in A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 30–38.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

8

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

187

standing is an organic development that generates levels of comprehension and involves moral formation.

I would suggest that we need critical postcolonial readings, not simply read- ings from those in the Majority World who have been tutored in the gramma- tico-historical method. Without serious critical reflection associated with a hermeneutic of suspicion and critical theory, many Westerners will not be lib- erated from nationalistic, imperialistic, and capitalistic dispositions and will continue to impose these on the Scripture and the Global South. We do need the Majority World to help us see just how the growing euro-white national- ism arising among the Anglophones in the United States and other places is domesticating Scripture. Craig discusses some of this specifically in appendix bin which he treats postcolonial approaches.

I agree with Craig that words often carry a lot of meaning. As one linguist and Bible translator points out:

There are various levels of meaning: word meanings (whether lexical or contextual), phrase meanings, sentence meanings, and discourse mean- ings. The worst comes when linguists insist that the meaning of a sen- tence is not merely the sum total of the meanings of the words comprising the sentence and, similarly, that discourses are not a matter of sentence meanings strung together. Reading a text involves far more than reading words and sentences. This implies that a primary reading of the text is not necessarily the ‘correct’ reading in terms of the original author’s inten- tion.Itismerelyreadingthatcorrespondstowhatthesyntactic(including micro and macro structures) and semantic features (extending to all pos- sible semiotic signs) of the text allow within a particular setting.18

Interpretation, even when the focus is the linguistic “world of the text,” is a very complex process. And when you add that there is no understanding of a text until someone reads or hears it, you have further expanded the semiotic understanding to include readers/interpretive communities—the so- called “world in front of the text.” I appreciate Craig recognizing this as a reality, yet he does not really address it in his main text beyond stating the importance of Majority World contributions. I would say our horizon does more than close off potential understanding thus creating restriction of sight, but also, and even more important, opens up new understanding of the text,

18

J.P. Louw, “Reading a Text as Discourse,” in Linguistics and New Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Broadman Press, 1992), 17–18.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

9

188

archer

which expands the horizon of the respective hearers. One must take seriously the interpretive communities and the narratives that shape them. Reading a text involves multiple concerns that are taking place simultaneously and even subconsciously. This is true even if one is focusing on what Craig Kenner calls the original sense.19J.P. Louw states:

at least three major sets of features condition the reading [of a text]:extra- linguistic features such as time and place, typography, format, meeting up presentation, and background and history of text; para linguistic fea- turessuch as punctuation, intonation, pause, speech acts, genre (e.g., epic, lyric, drama, conversation, parable), discourse types (narrative, exposi- tion, description, dialogue, lists), communication functions (informative, imperative, emotive, Phatic, etc.); and linguistic features such as word order, embedding, normalization, levels of language, style, and, in par- ticular, the discrepancy between syntax and semantics. All these features are part of the structure of a text.20

All these have to do with what philosophical hermeneutics calls the “horizon of the text.” In biblical interpretation, however, the historical-cultural concerns have more to do with the world behind the text than the text itself. I think it would have been helpful if Craig had mentioned what is now common practice in biblical hermeneutics, that methods generally align themselves with one of three worlds: The world behind the text, which relies on diachronic methods associated with tradition historical criticism; the world in the text, which relies upon synchronic and literary methods; and the world in front of the text, which is concerned with the readers and utilizes existential theological methods.21 I agree with Michael Gorman that texts have historical, literary, and theological dimensions.22Craig mentions these in passing, but his staunch commitment to the grammatico-historical methodology creates an impasse that cannot be eas- ily overcome because of his insistence that the grammatico-historical method

19

20 21

22

See Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 99–100, 245–246 for a succinct definition. The goal is to seek to recognize the implied author’s intentional design of the text.

J.P. Louw, “Reading a Text as Discourse,” 18.

See Michael J. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers(Peabody,ma: Hendrickson, 2001).

For a helpful approach that realizes the importance of all three worlds and attempts to integrate them see W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2011). He does not address the Spirit’s role; it is assumed that Scripture is inspired, and it is authoritative when properly interpreted.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

10

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

189

isthemethod,amethodhetracesbacktoScriptureitself.Hisapproachisreduc- tionistic to a detriment. Attempting to overcome this, he develops his experien- tial reading. This component adds nothing to the original meaning because the pure exegetical method alone discovers the original meaning. The experiential reading is what enables one to live out the message of the text. Furthermore, he undermines his argument for the grammatico-historical method when he writes, “Majority World biblical scholars should continue to feel free to forge their own ways based on their own convictions and communities of interpreta- tion, not beholden to anyone else’s consensus, including that of groups within the Academy” (288). I wholeheartedly agree! Maybe the western preoccupa- tionwithmodernity’scommitmenttohistoricalcriticismasascientificmethod should also give way without eclipsing the world in which the text emerged.23

I believe it would have been beneficial for Keener to differentiate traditional historical criticism from his understanding of historical studies. Wesleyan bib- lical scholar and theologian Joel B. Green recognizes the value of the sociocul- tural location of the production of Scripture. What he rejects is the traditional academic historical criticism in which the biblical scholar functions as a histo- rian who is concerned first and foremost with the reconstruction of an accurate account of past events (hc1), and second with the “excavation of traditional material in order to explain the process from historical events to their textualizing biblical material” (hc2). This includes the methods called “traditional criticism, form criticism, source criticism and redaction criticism.” What he affirms is the “study of historical situations within which the biblical materials were generated, including the sociocultural conventions that they take for granted.” Green affirms thatthiskindof historicalcriticism(whathelabelsashc3)ishospitabletotheo- logical interpretation. Thus genre criticism, new criticism, rhetorical criticism, reader-response, and other critical analytical approaches may be beneficial to theological hermeneutics.24

Keener seems to think that if you affirm a unique “pentecostal” hermeneu- tic and/or so-called postmodern “method,” then you have given up on the sociocultural context of a text as a control for understanding the message the author intended (91, 141). This is simply not the case for the Pentecostals he engages with in his monograph.They may all reject the literary arguments asso- ciated with E.D. Hirsch, Jr.’s understanding of authorial intent as the means to achieve as close as possible an objective reading of the one meaning of a

23

24

See A.K.M. Adam, Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World (Min- neapolis,mn: Fortress Press, 2006).

See Joel B. Green, Practicing Theological Interpretation: Engaging Biblical Texts for Faith and Formation(Grand Rapids,mi: Baker Academic, 2011), 44–45.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

11

190

archer

text (something that Keener himself moves away from even though he uses author intent), and yet find literary methods and methods associated with crit- ical theory beneficial in understanding texts. Many have found postmodernity to be a more suitable epistemological environment for Christianity; however, I am not aware that any of the Pentecostals he engages denies the value of the sociocultural context in which a text was produced. All human languages are concerned with referential signification. Andrew Davies, with whom Keener seems particularly vexed, may indeed have called for the displacement of the grammatico-historical method (126), but Davies does so because the method may not address the theological aspects of a text. This concern is something that even Craig acknowledges. From my perspective, sociocultural context informs the understanding of a passage, but it does not necessarily determine the meaning of the text alone (readers are needed), nor does it move easily into appropriation. Appropriation of a passage (application) requires a theological sensitivity to the overall understanding of the canon as a biblical narrative (a metanarrative). How one is formed in communities to understand that nar- rative does more to “determine” the meaning for today than does the actual passage and so-called original meaning. Traditional exegesis sheds important light by providing guardrails, but, if one is not careful, it can create a whiteout25 blinding one to what the text is actually trying to communicate on multiple levels. Ironically, while working on this essay, I received my copy of the niv Cultural Background Study Bible for which Craig Keener was primarily respon- sible for its New Testament study notes. Thus, I too appreciate thesociocultural milieuandcommunitiesas a nexus for generating possible understandings of a text, including that of the text (the first horizon) and that of the readers/hear- ers in communities (the second horizon). It is not the method that produces understanding; rather, it is the person shaped by interpretive communities who arrive at understanding. In the end, communities, not individuals, establish acceptable or unacceptable interpretations. Some communities get it wrong, and this might be disastrous. But to say that Craig or Ken has the correct inter- pretation is still recognizing that they are connected to interpretive commu- nities, for they cannot interpret without formation. They are not islands unto themselves, nor are they blank slates, but finite fallible humans who must be formed in communities and exist in communities.

Keener dismisses a pentecostal hermeneutic for two reasons: 1) he finds Pen- tecostalism difficult to define; and 2) he argues that the only contribution of Pentecostalism is the restoration of the charismatic gifts that are now readily

25

For explanation of white and whiteness see http://ucalgary.ca/cared/whiteness.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

12

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

191

practiced in global Christianity. To dismiss the existence of pentecostal theo- logical communities because they are hard to define is not helpful. As Keener points out, even “Baptist” is a difficult term to define, yet he uses it of himself. However, I am sure the Southern Baptists would have some serious difficul- ties with his theological perspectives. Just because Pentecostalism is difficult to define does not mean it cannot be identified to some degree. To reduce Pente- costalism’s contribution to the restoration of thecharismatais to be dismissive of other gifts she might offer to global Christianity, such as Keener’s concern for experiential reading.26

I strongly disagree with Keener’s assertion that what Pentecostals and Charismatics need is the best of evangelical exegesis (9)! Keener writes, “[I]f we miss the point of the text, it no longer offers an objective anchor for our subjective application and experience by the Spirit. Some err on the side of subjectivity without an anchor and others on the side of objectivity without an experience; the ideal is for both to work in tandem” (289). Accordingly, Keener believes that the best way to bring the Word (the objective meaning of the Scripture) and the Spirit (subjective personal experience) together is using “the best of evangelical exegesis of the text combined with the best of charismatic power to embrace and carry out its message” (289). Even though Keener affirms “subjective experience” as essential to “Spirit hermeneutics,” he repeatedly states that the grammatico-historical exegetical will tamper such “unbridled subjectivism.” I will now lay out my objections to this argument.

First, Keener introduces this western binary dualism early in the mono- graph.27Inwesternusage,thefirstpartof thedualismispositiveandthesecond part is negative. The first term is preferred, such as “thinking” as opposed to “feeling.” Keener writes, “While careful study of Scripture will counter unbri- dled subjectivism of popular charismatic excess, study that does not lead to liv- ingoutbiblicalexperienceintheeraof theSpiritmissesthepointof thebiblical

26

27

See Bobby L. Lynch, Jr. and Kenneth J. Archer, “Listening to the South: Quichua-Ecuador Contributions to an Affective Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Vinson Synan, Amos Yong, and Miguel Alvarez, eds., Global Renewal Christianity: Spirit, Present, and Future, vol. 2, Latin America(Lake Mary,fl: Charisma House, 2016), 187–200.

In western culture, binary dualisms, such as white race/black race, positive/negative, western world/ Majority World, male/female, rational/irrational, objective/subjective, thought/experience, are defined completely in relation to its opposite. Thus is it is better to be part of the white race, to be rational, to think, to be a male, and so forth, which is why certain critical theories such as feminist and postcolonial readings are so important, for they will challenge such dualisms as hierarchical preferences and language patterns that perpetuate such oppressive understanding.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

13

192

archer

texts” (5). About Scripture, he writes that it “offers an objective anchor for sub- jective application and experience by the Spirit” (289). Objectivity is connected to Scripture and subjectivity is connected to experience. To be fair, he wants both in “proper balance” (268), but he privileges objectivity over and in oppo- sition to subjectivity while maintaining throughout that both are necessary for a Christian hermeneutic (162, 238). He consistently attaches subjectivity to Pentecostals-Charismatics and objectivity to Evangelicalism. For example, “Key Pentecostal emphases [subjective experiences] draw on genuine bibli- cal emphases, just as Anabaptists on caring for the poor, evangelical emphases understanding Scripture … each contribute some genuine biblical insights to the rest of the church” (6) (my italics). He writes, “Pentecostal emphasis on the Spirit could combine with evangelical emphasis on the Word” (9). Later, he returns to his concern that “extreme subjectivism of some charismatics” encourages cessationism to continue; thus “evangelical emphasis on careful biblical teaching is crucial” (11). Toward the end of the introduction we read that he values “Scripture above tradition” (18). In the middle of the monograph, in the conclusion to the seventh chapter, Keener states, “Imagine what can hap- pen when we bring together the best of charismatic experience with the best of evangelical attention to biblical exposition” (118). Near the end of the book, we read, “In the early Twentieth century, one might distinguish as two ideal poles of evangelical diversity the highly educated, ‘elite east coast Old Princeton’ and ‘the lower-class west coast Azusa Street’ with its roots in Methodism and the holiness movements.We have something to learn from both” (266). A few pages later he states that “[o]n average, one will get better Bible exposition from tradi- tional evangelical media preachers than from many charismatic media preach- ers … because the former usually focus on Bible exposition, whereas the later often focus on instant cures for felt needs” (270). Keener notes that there are some “significant exceptions who do seek to provide sound teaching” and he considers these charismatics his “friends” (270). Finally, on the last page in the final paragraph of the main text, Keener readdresses his concern of bringing Word (Scripture) and Spirit (experience) back together and how this can be accomplished. He states, “I would envision as the best of evangelical exegesis of the text combined with the best of charismatic power to embrace and carry out the message.” And when this happens, “‘we shall see the greatest move the Church of Jesus Christ has ever seen’” (289). Thus evangelical exposition set afire by charismatic experience functions as theinclusio, and this reiterates his dual foci ofSpirithermeneutics—evangelical historical method/exposition and experiential charismatic reading.

This objective/subjective dualism that is assigned to Evangelicals/Pente- costals and Scripture/experience, however, is not the same as affirming the

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

14

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

193

Protestant concern for the primacy of Scripture, even though it underscores Keener’s concern to interpret experience in light of what the Bible teaches by subjugating experience to Scripture. He emphasizes this dualism through- out and simply wants to keep objectivity and subjectivity in a heathy tension, or in balance, so as to overcome what he sees as overreactions that manifest in extreme experiential subjectivity and rational distant objectivity. Keener is aware of the hierarchical binary that privileges objectivity. He writes, “Those schooled in the modern Western intellectual tradition tend to marginalize the role of subjective experience in terms of certainty or knowledge. This tradition has certainly influenced my own thinking for better or (often, I find) worse” (161). I believe he thinks he is restoring subjective experience back to objec- tive rationalistic thought for Christians (25, 36). Hence, subjective experience is necessary but must be in keeping with objective Scripture (112, 117). He is not able to keep the dualism in balance because he does not undermine the hierarchal opposition of the dualism itself. He maintains it, thus giving pref- erence to “objectivity” as the means to control and interpret “subjectivity,” for subjectivity can only conform to objectivity to be true experience (158). What he should do is reject trying to balance a Kantian hierarchical dualism, while maintaining the primacy of Scripture. In order to overcome the antagonistic relationship, one must deconstruct the binary and then articulate an integra- tive understanding of humanity. To do this one must move beyond modernity. Because he does not do so, what emerges is that Evangelicals are moreobjective for they “think” and Pentecostals and Charismatics are moresubjectivefor they “feel.” The application of this dualism diminishes the humanity of those who embrace pentecostal /charismatic experiential spirituality. Although I am sure he would deny the implication, Keener suggests that Pentecostals and Charis- matics are not ontologically suited or functionally gifted for cognitive/intellec- tual exegesis because they are better suited for subjective experience, whereas Evangelicals are better suited for exegesis. The extremes are simple: ignorance on fire, or intelligence on ice.

Second, Evangelicalism today, like Pentecostalism, is anything but a mono- lithic community even if one argues that Evangelicalism includes more for- mally educated ministers and academics stemming from the Reformation.28 Are the Evangelicals he wants to endorse only those who advocate the gramma- tico-historical method that “is the usual way of writing and reading texts”

28

Stanley, J. Grenz, “Nurturing the Soul, Informing the Mind: The Genesis of the Evangelical Scripture Principle,” in Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm, eds., Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics(Downers Grove,il:ivp Academic, 2004).

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

15

194

archer

(117)?29 He does affirm other theological approaches in passing, but he does not spell out in detail what these might be. Since the 1970s Evangelicals have employed various methods besides historical criticism. For one contempo- rary example, see Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. Here we have five different evangelical authors all advocating for a particular methodological approach to interpreting the Bible. It opens with “The Historical Critical/Grammatical View” by Craig L. Blomberg. I would say this is similar to the method Keener is advocating, for he cites Blomberg favorably. This is followed by four other views: “The Literary/Postmodern View,” “The Philosophical/Theological View,” “The Redemptive-Historical View” and “The Canonical View.”30 These Evan- gelicals all adhere to the same goal—to understand what the text is saying— yet they have some significant methodological differences in arriving at the understanding. The question arises, then: do you have to use the grammatico- historical method to be considered an Evangelical?

Third, what I find more problematic is linking “intellectual Evangelicalism” with Old School Princeton theologians and their theology. Even if they were using what they claimed was a historical-scientific method from an objec- tive and neutral perspective, surely Craig is not suggesting that Pentecostals embrace their theology or their interpretations. Keener believes that a histori- cal-cultural method can help him overcome passages that clearly regulate slav- ery and the subjugation of women (currently known as complementarianism today). Since he shares a methodology similar to theirs it is important to point out that they would disagree with Keener on slavery and female subordina- tion to males. First, Old School Princetonians are all patriarchal hierarchalists. Additionally, Charles Hodge, using the historical scientific method of moder- nity, argued that God created the world with divine order, and even humans have a prescribed order. Thus, slavery is not necessarily a sinful institution (but can become one) and is morally acceptable (but not necessary) to God’s order if practiced according to the Scripture.31 Hodge wrote, “If the present course of the abolitionists is right, then the course of Christ and the apostles was wrong.”32 Not only are they cessationist, their Calvinistic and academic fundamentalist theology (an anti-liberal theology yet thoroughly immersed in modern epistemology) undermines and distorts pentecostal spirituality and

29 30

31

32

Keener is discussing the literary context.

Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (Downers Grove,il:ivpAcademic, 2012).

Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism (Downers Grove, il: ivp Academic, 2002), see chapter 10, 215–233. For Charles Hodge see 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, and 253. Quoted in ibid., 229.

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

16

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

195

theology in significant ways. Why encourage Pentecostals and Majority World believers to read it or to see it as beneficial and in keeping with their spiritual- ity? It is one thing to broaden the horizon of understanding of those you are educating to appreciate and understand different perspectives; it is another thing to affirm certain theological traditions as compatible theology for Pen- tecostals and Charismatics, for they simply are not. Evangelical theology is diverse and even contradictory; however, some streams are detrimental to pen- tecostal spirituality.

Fourth, I find that Keener’s sentiment that Anglophone Evangelicals are the objective intelligent thinkers and Pentecostals and Charismatics are scandalous subjective emotional feelers fuels long-standing stereotypes. We need not per- petuate false hierarchy that devalues one group (Pentecostals-Charismatics) and elevates the other (Evangelicals). To recognize that experience plays an important role in pentecostal and charismatic spirituality and that such expe- riences may be so-called “unbridled subjectivism” does not mean that Pente- costals who are involved in charismatic experiences need help from the gifted intellectual Evangelicals to contain the wildfire, restrain the wildfire, or quench the subjective wildfire, let alone interpret the Bible for them. I am not saying we should stop dialoguing, praying and worshiping, or reading Evangelicals’ com- mentaries or theology. In fact, Pentecostals and Charismatics can learn much from various Christian traditions. We can also learn from atheists and even find critical theory methodologies beneficial tools as long as we remember that the methods as tools, as well as interpreters themselves, are never neutral. This is why we must practice a “hermeneutic of suspicion” because humans are sinful, yet such a hermeneutic must also be grounded in our relationship of trust with the holy and loving God.

Next, I am concerned with Keener’s affirmation of principlizing. He says that nt writers have recontextualized many principles that were in the ot. I find this very difficult to accept. First, principlizing is not the same as affirm- ing the moral value of lessons found in Scripture or using portions of Scripture as examples. We can use passages as case studies or as analogies. The stories, I would argue, do not teach moral lessons, the stories are the lessons! The Law or Torah is just that,instructivebut notinstructions, for those who follow Jesus as Messiah. The early followers of Jesus are already negotiating the meaning of their Scripture (ot) and in doing so are generating Scripture (nt). Why do we need to argue that Scripture rests upon general universal principles? What is authoritative and inspired—the Scriptures or the principles? Is the princi- ple the inspired soul that animates Scripture, whereas the signs (words) are the fleshly body? Craig may answer yes, but I would say no. The principles are not signifiers themselves; thus they cannot be signified. They must be rea-

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

17

196

archer

soned from the text. We may draw out some points, but these points are not inspired principles embedded in a text. Often they are beliefs consistent with the theology of the community. The Scripture is authoritative; the Scripture is inspired. Scripture not only conveys information, it also provides a means of sanctifying grace. Scripture is first and foremost concerned with soteriology. Questions of epistemology associated with Scripture come later.33 The reduc- tionistic concern to get to a principle requires one to do violence to God’s holy and sacred Scripture. One popular evangelical hermeneutical work maintains that the exegete must break the “cultural husk” that is the Scripture passage in order to get to the “nut” that is the principle hidden in the text.34 Instead of principlizing, what is needed is an affective theological narrative canonical approach. This is important because character formation and human identity are formed through story rather than by cognitive timeless universal princi- ples, enabling readers to appropriate passages in light of the overarching bib- lical story. Such an approach makes room for an elevated spiritual sense of the text.35

In my concluding comments I would like briefly to discuss a pentecostal hermeneutic. In my own PhD work, I did the very thing Craig calls on the Major- ity World to do: “Majority World biblical scholars should continue to feel free to forge their own ways based on their own convictions and communities of inter- pretation, not beholden to anyone else’s consensus, including that of groups within the Academy” (294). I and others set out to articulate a pentecostal hermeneutic that was based on early Pentecostals’ “own convictions and com- munities of interpretation, not beholden to anyone else’s consensus, including that of groups within the Academy” or Evangelicals. Furthermore, we have affirmed the important contributions of global Pentecostalism. A pentecostal hermeneutic rejects verbal deism and affirms the necessity of the community’s commitment to discerning the Spirit’s voice, which speaks in continuity with the teaching of Jesus, as they negotiate meaning for their community. A pente- costal hermeneutic will affirm the importance of affections, the need to inte- grate the head and hands into the heart, for, as James K.A. Smith so rightly has

33

34

35

Chris E.W. Green, Sanctifying Interpretation: Vocation, Holiness, and Scripture (Cleveland, tn:cptPress, 2015).

William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 174–175.

For an evaluation of early Christian exegesis and a concern for a spiritual sense, see Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 2002).

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

18

spirited conversation about hermeneutics

197

argued, humans are desiring beings, not thinking things.36More than methods, we needvirtuous hearerswho can only be shaped and formed invirtuouscom- munities, who can “read closely Scripture” and “discern the voice of the Spirit” as they dialogue with other interpretive communities.

A pentecostal hermeneutic affirms an experiential, dynamic reading of Scripture. Such a reading happens when the Holy Spirit is called upon to help us in the spiritual practice of patient listening to the sacred Scriptures, which enables us to be more focused on attentively discerning the voice of the Spirit so that we canrightly obeythe Word of God.

36

James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy, Pentecostal Manifestos (Grand Rapids,mi: Eerdmans, 2010).

PNEUMA 39 (2017) 179–197

19