One thing I have learned in the years since I departed from Pentecostalism is that my hermeneutical paradigm remains far more Pentecostal than evangelical.
Seven years ago I disassociated with the Pentecostalism that introduced me to Christianity. It was the right decision, not because it was Pentecostalism, but because the sect of which I was part taught and defended particularities that I denied. I have ventured into the world of evangelicalism going to an evangelical seminary, reading evangelical scholarship, worshiping with evangelical communities, and while I have not regretted my decision to enter this strange new world I have been painfully aware of my status as the “odd man out.” I am aware that not all evangelical communities are the same, so I don’t mean to insinuate that all evangelicals make me feel like a traveler in a foreign land. This is just how things unfolded and while I met a person here and there to whom I could relate my overall experience has been someone isolating.
I remember one day sitting in a class where we were discussing the roles of women in the church. The professor had displayed the spectrum of positions on a chalk board. There were about thirty students present and one egalitarian: me.
I have talked with evangelicals who affirm the gifts of the Spirit in principle, but when I mention things like being healed of asthma as a child or speaking in tongues in my teens I receive blank stares. I know Francis Chan wrote a book called Forgotten God, but evangelicals remain skeptical of the Holy Spirit. I understand their precautions. I have seen the abuses. While I am charismatic on one end I am a skeptical modern on the other at the same time.
When evangelicals talk about Scripture I am conflicted. As I said, I am a modern and so are most evangelicals, even as they decry modernity (and post-modernity). I enjoy the historical-critical hermeneutical paradigm because my mind is inquisitive regarding historical matters. I know many evangelicals dismiss this approach to the text preferring the so-called “historical-grammatical” approach. But the “high view” claimed by evangelicals looks quite different from the “high view” of the apostolic church. The text is wooden. It doesn’t have life and it cannot adapt. God spoke (past tense) and that is affirmed, but that God speaks (present tense) seems scary.
Again, I understand the concern: evangelicals fear the Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland types.
But the very text that evangelicals want to defend directs us to be people who pray and listen for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The text that we defend against the dangers of the Spirit is the text that tells us to take a risk in listening to the Spirit. Sure, you will invite a Simon Magnus into your midst on occasion, but should you silence a gifted deacon like Philip as a safeguard? Yes, there will be people like the sons of Sceva who try to do works in the name of a Jesus they’ve never known, but should you silence Philip’s prophetess daughters?
Tomorrow I want to talk a bit about Acts 10, but let me allude to it today as well as an article by the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, George O. Wood. In Acts 10 Peter has a vision where he sees a sheet full of non-kosher foods presented to him. The voice tells him to eat. He refuses because it is against the Law of Moses. The voice replies, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy (v. 15).” Peter did not have an exegetical argument when he went to Cornelius’ house to preach the Gospel to Gentiles who had not obeyed the Law’s command of circumcision. Peter had the Holy Spirit’s voice.
It was this experience that empowered Peter to preach the Gospel to Gentiles without mention of the Law. When Peter saw the Spirit baptize the Gentiles he knew that his exegetical argument had been trumped. His fellow Jews in Jerusalem had questions and he did not have immediate exegetical answers, but he was being obedient to God.
I know what my evangelical friends are thinking: “Well, how do we safeguard against abuses, or false doctrines, or this, or that?” Good question and I don’t think there is a pat answer. But I am quite sure that the answer has nothing to do with the lyrics of the song “Hold the Fort” by W.T. Sherman. Our hermeneutic must be done in community, but it cannot ignore the contribution of experience and the voice of the Spirit to our horizon and we interact with the horizon of the text. Peter could have been an orthodox exegete while being completely disobedience to the voice of the Spirit!
In the aforementioned article by George O. Wood (which I recommend reading in its entirety) titled “Exploring Why We Think The Way We Do About Women in Ministry” he writes this important paragraph:
As Pentecostals, we intuitively approach the biblical text in a manner different from most of our evangelical brothers and yes, sisters. We factor in the element of experience as a lens through which we look at Scripture. We are criticized for that. But our evangelical compatriots essentially do the same thing, except they interpret the text from their nonexperience, which is an experience of sorts.
As a former Pentecostal in the world of evangelicals I read this as say to myself, “Apparently I read Scripture like a Pentecostal.” I have retained a Pentecostal hermeneutic where the work of the Spirit factors into how I read Scripture–or maybe the difference is that I openly admit it. When fellow evangelicals deny roles to women in the church and they don’t understand why I shrug at their arguments it has a lot to do with the reality that they have not seen women function in these roles and I have seen it. I had an associate pastor who was a woman when I was in San Francisco and she was amazing. I have talked to those engaged in foreign missions who have faced great challenges and they have seen the Spirit use women to evangelize, preach, and teach. So while the culture and the churches that some of my evangelical friends look a lot like Paul’s prohibition of women I have seen women who are like Junia the Apostle or Priscilla the teacher. As Gordon D. Fee said in an interview not too long ago (see “Effortless Egalitarianism: An Interview with Gordon Fee”): “This is a non-issue for me, because I was born and raised in a tradition where God obviously gifted people who were male and female.” At the end of the day we bring experience to the text, but we have different experiences.
Sometimes I don’t have the energy to debate with evangelicals over matters where I don’t think I can change their mind through exegesis alone. That said, I can’t have my mind changed on some matters either. When you’ve seen someone pray for you for healing and you’ve been healed it is hard to deny that work of God. When you’ve seen a woman preach the Gospel empowered by the Spirit it is hard to deny the work of God. We may want to pretend like experience is a bad word, but if we are honest it is a intrinsic part of our hermeneutical methodology. On this topic I am a Pentecostal through and through.
the archives near Emmaus 
I was raised Pentecostal as well, so I resonate with much of what you’ve written. Experience can and should inform our hermeneutic. It seems like there must be a limiting principle, however, to “experience confirms it”. It seems incredibly flippant to say, “I don’t care what your careful exegetical arguments say. I know from experience that I’m right.” After all, even experience must be interpreted and how do we interpret our experience of the Spirit’s work apart from careful study of His Word?
John
Agreed, that is why Gordon D. Fee and Craig Keener are the types of Pentecostal exegetes that I respect the most. But as you are aware at the end of the day two good exegetes can come away from the same text with radically different interpretations. Often those “careful exegetical arguments” are far from objective, text-only readings. No one does that.
Does the fact that careful exegetes come to different conclusions make both conclusions equally valid, though? Or are we lost on a sea of subjectivity? Can we ever come to any solid conclusions about anything? (Honest question, I don’t know the answer.)
John
Obviously I think there are interpretations that are more faithful to the authorial intent of the text than others, but I don’t think this is a black-and-white matter as much as it is a matter of degree of accuracy. Also, there is the question of whether authorial intent automatically equates to strict, literal application. In the case of the Sabbath I think we are hard pressed to find biblical support for Paul’s reinterpretation of this practice, yet his relativistic approach to the Sabbath makes great sense, especially missionally, especially in the Gentile context. But the authorial intent of the Ten Commandments seems pretty straight forward that the Sabbath is to be obeyed because God is God and God rules. Hermeneutics can be slippery.
The egalitarian-complementarian debate seems to me to mirror the debate over homosexuality in many ways. In both cases, the attitudes of OT authors and Paul are reasonably clear. In both cases, church teaching was uniform until quite recently in church history. In both cases, however, progressives argue that the attitudes of the authors are not authoritative for us today, and in some cases that there is a “trajectory” of liberation in the text that we should follow, and that the Spirit is leading us into new truth.
Using the hermeneutic that you have suggested in this post, wouldn’t a Christian who has experienced powerful ministry through a practicing homosexual have grounds to reject the Scriptural witness in favor of what “the Spirit is doing”? Or is that too simplistic an understanding of what you’re saying?
John
It is possible that the same arguments can be used, and I am willing to listen, but I think William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals does a fantastic job of arguing through a “redemptive hermeneutic” that presents the trajectory of Scripture as supporting a move away from slavery and patriarchy as the ideal while confronting a culture that seemed to be somewhat flippant about homosexual eroticism. Webb’s thesis is that society was harsher on slaves and women than Paul (especially Paul’s words that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, male nor female) while (overall) it was not quick to confront homosexuality while the trajectory of Jesus and Paul remains in conflict with culture. It is an argument that has shaped me thus far.
How would you respond to someone like Wayne Grudem when he says that the concept of a trajectory compromises the authority of Scripture by moving the locus of authority from Scripture itself to our imagination of where the Scripture was heading? Isn’t the Word God gave us a sufficient guide for faith and practice?
I’d say Grudem does the same thing if he doesn’t give holy kisses, or if his wife wears make-up and jewelry, or if she doesn’t wear a head veil in worship (or cuts her hair, depending on how one reads 1 Corinthians 11)…i.e., there are dozens of hermeneutical decisions we all make, even if one has a more fundamentalist, literalist approach like Grudem. And, of course, I’d say what I said in this post: Scripture itself invites us to be in dialogue with the Spirit over how the narrative of Scripture applies to the contemporary mission of the church.
Just a sidenote: Grudem has addressed such objections to his views: http://www.monergism.com/Headcoverings%20by%20Wayne%20Grudem.html
But what does “dialogue with the Spirit” actually mean? Recognizing Spirit-empowered giftedness, as your post suggests? According to Jesus, such giftedness is not even necessarily evidence of salvation (Matt. 7:22-24). Can we really use giftedness as a means of disregarding 1 Tim. 2? After all, prizing “anointing” over all else seems like a peculiarly Pentecostal temptation…
John
I am sure Grudem addresses these objections (he addresses everything, does he not?), but that moves to the heart of my final paragraph: I am not so dense to think that someone like Grudem will change his mind or that someone who thinks highly of Grudem’s work will change their mind. If you or Grudem think that a church can “work” with women being limited to “gender specific roles,” and the women in those churches have no objection, all is well!
We could go in circles on this. “What about this verse? What about that verse?” John, I understand you are committed to the complementarian worldview. If you are married and that works well for your wife, fine. Do I think 1 Tim 2 should just be “disregarded?” No, I think Paul is addressing a very contextually specific problem, and I find that Paul is very flexible with how he applies and interprets Scripture (remember when he said Hagar and Sarah were an allegory?!), but I think this is hard to swallow for those who are more or less literalist–just like it would have been hard for some to swallow the cultural subjectivity of the Sabbath or circumcision.
By the way, let me add, it isn’t that there is not a good exegetical response to how complementarians interpret 1 Tim 2. Rather, people like Fee have already written responses that are far better than anything I can write and I know they are easy to find. So I don’t want to recreate the wheel.
Brian,
Love the hat tip to Fee in your titling of this post.
Fee will always be one of my favorite biblical scholars!
Excellent work sir!! 🙂
I love how Wood says it here:
When texts have been thrown against us–such as 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 and 1 Timothy 2:11—15–our experience told us that these texts must be interpreted in light of Joel 2, Acts 2, and Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Thank you Brian F.!
But Brian, aren’t *all* of Paul’s letters situational and contextual? Even his statement to the Galatians that “there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus” is written to people embroiled in a specific situation. As Tim Keller has pointed out, “Everything Paul teaches is to a specific situation. To distinguish between ‘timeless’ and ‘temporary’ is to set up a ‘canon within a canon,’ and one based on your own opinion.”
Keller goes on to say that “if the ordination of women is a ‘justice issue,’ then surely to preclude women from speaking or having authority in even one church would be horribly wrong.” And “Paul was wrong” is exactly what most egalitarians seem to want to say. But what tool can we use to critique Scripture but Scripture itself? And if Paul’s canonical words to Timothy are in error, by what standard do we deem his canonical words to the Galatians to be truthful?
Keller’s full essay is here: http://www.upc-orlando.com/resources/written/doctrines/doctrine06.html
John
I agree that his statement was contextual. Also, I have no qualms with admitting a canon within a canon. Functionally, we all have a canon within a canon, but few of us are honest about it. I don’t think Paul was wrong for his contextual application of the creation narrative. It was the right argument at the right time, but it does appear to be inferior to his ideal in the Gospel: neither male nor female. It does seem to contradict his appreciation for women like Priscilla and Junia. So no, Paul wasn’t wrong in making his pastoral decisions at that point just as it wouldn’t be wrong to avoid installing a woman as pastor in Afghanistan.
Most egalitarians don’t want to say “Paul is wrong” just like most abolitionist don’t want to say “Paul was wrong” about slavery. We understand that his ideals couldn’t always be realized: Where do freed Christian slaves go if they take their equality in Christ seriously enough to escape (e.g. the problems created by Onesimus)? Where do young women with no education and little vocational experience go if they take their equality in Christ seriously enough to inform their husbands (in a society that embraced patriarchy)? There are no options and Paul knew this. But he didn’t tell Priscilla to be quiet and he didn’t deny Junia’s apostolic authority.
I love hearing one of my seminary profs tell about sitting in a class with Fee doing exegesis of the Greek, and then when the formal study was over, Dr. Fee led a healing service in the classroom. A true Pentecostal scholar.
As far as my response to “Scripture interpreting Scripture,” let me quote Wood extensively:
I referred earlier to Galatians 3:28 as providing a pattern to help us understand the text and experience brought to bear upon the text. Galatians 3:28 deals with three great cultural divides: (1) Jew and Gentile, (2) slave and free, (3) men and women.
As regards salvation, the distinction between each of these was clearly abolished from the start of the Church. Salvation was equally available to both Jew and Gentile, slave and free, men and women.
As regards status, the Holy Spirit worked developmentally within the Church as it became a model to the outside unbelieving world.
For example, the first issue the Spirit tackled from Galatians 3:28 was the Jewish/Gentile issue. Gentiles were to be included without first becoming Jews. However, to accommodate cultural sensitivities of believing Jews, the Gentiles were told not to eat blood or things strangled. Over time, how an animal was killed or whether a person ate his steak rare ceased to become an instrument of division. The meat issue constituted a temporary, but not a permanent concession to cultural sensitivities.
The second issue related to slaves and free. Within the church there was to be no distinction between master and servant–each was equal at the foot of the Cross. However, as an accommodation to culture and to prevent massive social upheaval and persecution of believers–slave and free–the full-scale liberation of slaves was not advocated. Slaves were to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5—8; Colossians 3:22—25; Titus 2:9,10; 1 Peter 2:18—20), even more so to their believing owners (1 Timothy 6:1,2). Surely no one now would advocate the foregoing texts as an argument for slavery today. We recognize these texts as interim until the full force of Galatians 3:28 could be applied.
The gospel is like tree roots growing underneath the sidewalk. Sooner or later, the liberating power of the gospel–for Gentiles, slaves, and women–breaks through the repressive concrete of cultural mores and norms that discriminate and oppress.
The third issue of Galatians 3:28 relates to “neither…male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Our evangelical friends who are opposed to the ordination of women or women as pastors agree with us that Galatians 3:28 clearly makes salvation available without distinction to each of the three groupings listed by Paul. They agree with us over the status issues of Gentiles and slaves. For example, no one would argue that we interpret Galatians 3:28 in light of the slave passages listed above. We interpret Ephesians 6, Colossians 3, Titus 2, and 1 Peter 2 in light of Galatians 3:28. Neither Gentile nor Jew, neither slave nor free–that is the permanent and enduring law of the gospel as related to both salvation and status.
Why are women left out? Arguing that Galatians 3:28, in regards to the status of women, should be interpreted in light of 1 Timothy 2:11—15 is no different than arguing that Galatians 3:28 should be interpreted by the slave passages.
Parenthetically, why do our Southern Baptists friends–and other evangelicals who agree with them–not equally insist on the enforcement of the veil (1 Corinthians 11:3—6) along with the enforcement of “silence” for women? Why this selectivity in the text? By their own hermeneutic, wouldn’t this failure to enforce the veil amount to a capitulation to “liberal culture” and “tinkering with the words of God”?
Brian R.
That is impressive (and it scares evangelicals to death)!
Brian,
I wouldn’t say evangelicals are “skeptical” of the Holy Spirit . I’d say we are simply assuming ( rightly or wrongly) that specific gifts were for the Apostolic era only. Paul raised a man from the dead, that was unique to that era, IMO. I have had people argue with me that the dead are still being raised bodily, but, it’s hard to believe.
Patrick
Of course, all such miracles are hard to believe for the modern mind. What we have done is invent a cessationist idea so that we can have our modernist cake while eating it too.
I should clarify that I don’t think resurrection was any easier to accept for ancients than moderns. Even ancients knew the dead stay dead. That said, I think our cultural climate is more opposed to such ideas and many Christians want to be accepted in this regard while maintaining a high view of the biblical narrative.
Brian, this is a bold argument you make – that the Holy Spirit is still at work, and I agree.
I once made the claim (in conversation) that the Holy Spirit continues to provision (as in nurture) scripture today. The person I was conversing with rejected that notion vigorously – accusing me of conveying a ‘new Gospel’ that justified corruption of the word of God; further saying that there is nor has been anything new in the ‘word of God’ which has not changed since it was first handed down.
So I asked them what version of the Bible they preferred. They replied ‘ESV’. I asked them when the ESV was first published (first published in 2001). ‘Recently’ was the reply. I asked them if the ESV () read like the ‘King James’ or the NIV and they agreed it did not, but argued it said ‘the same thing’. So I asked them – “if it says the same thing, why we needed it then; why say the same thing using ‘different’ words’?”. They replied “The language had changed”. But I argued if language has changed than clearly it cannot say the ‘same thing’ since it uses ‘different language’. The different words may express ideas, but not in the same way.
More to the point, if we read the bible in some language other than Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, there is some process that converts the meaning behind the words into a completely different language. If we do not believe that the Holy Spirit plays a role in this process then we should not be trusting non-original language bibles (such as English bibles) since they are not the original text, but shadows and echos of it, created through a process devoid of the ‘hand-of-God’.
On the other-hand, if we place stock in the idea that English bibles reasonably reflect the original languages, (are believable, and authoritative) we must believe the Holy Spirit still plays a role in bible transmission today (at least) or we can have little reason to have faith in the book at all.
One quote I very much like that summarizes this is this:
“It is difficult to follow an early church example when we value a book they did not have more than the Holy Spirit they did.
It is not the FATHER, SON and HOLY BIBLE.” Attributed to Bill Johnson at the Open Heaven Conference in Bethel
Andrew
Indeed, English is not Greek and Hebrew, so the nuance of the words will be altered with every translation to some degree, yet we believe that God can speak through a translation. I believe God speaks through his church and through the gifting of the Spirit as well. I think efforts to say God has spoken (past tense) with no continual speaking are efforts to play it safe, but this ends of denying the very Word spoken in the past which presents us with a Spirit who continues to speak.
I agree. Just as the Spirit speaks through His people, the Spirit also equips the hearer to discern true from false words. We just need the faith to recognise this.
Here, here.