THE BIBLE IN THE RENEWAL MOVEMENT:

PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

Connie Dawson
1. Introduction
Pentecostals affection for the Bible has never been questioned; however, the way they interpret their
beloved book has often been suspect. In the now famous quote by Walter Hollenweger inscribed on the
dedication page of his book, The Pentecostals, he writes, To my friends and teachers in the Pentecostal
Movement who taught me to love the Bible and to my teachers and friends in the Presbyterian Church
who taught me to understand it.1 Gordon Fee believes that Hollenwegers statement Represents the
strength of Pentecostalism in general and its weakness in hermeneutics in particular. 2
Before delving into the topic, a few definitions are in order. The Renewal Movement began at the turn of
the 20th century and has continued to the present. Within these ten decades there have been several
identifiable movements: Pentecostal, Protestant Charismatic, Catholic Charismatic, and Third Wave being
the major groups. Due to the brevity of this paper, is impossible to evaluate the nuances of each of these;
therefore, I have chosen to focus on the Pentecostal movement since it is the largest and most clearly
defined homogeneous representative of the various groups. 3 For the purpose of this paper, the term
Pentecostal refers to those Christians in the Renewal Movement who espouse the doctrine of glossolalia
as it relates to Holy Spirit baptism subsequent to the conversion experience. 4 The term hermeneutics,
using French Arringtons definition, refers to the principles, rules, and methods of interpretation of
literary texts.5
Arrington identifies three time periods Pentecostalism has gone through since 1900. These periods are
definition, defense, and reflection.6 Utilizing Arrington model, my purpose is to pull together scholarly
works to present a descriptive survey of the role of the Bible in the Pentecostal Movement in each of
these periods. My procedure will be to first present the definition era by giving an overview of how
Pentecostals read and understood their Bible in the context of the early years of their movement. Second,
as they entered into the defense stage, I will present the some of the issues and oppositions the maturing
movement encountered. Third, I invite the reader to listen to the dialogue between Pentecostal scholars as
they debate the issues surrounding hermeneutics in the present age of reflection. The paper will conclude
with some observations and considerations for future research related to Renewal studies.
2. A Time of Definition: Early History of Classic Pentecostalism
While many factors contributed to the heritage known today as the Pentecostal Movement, historians
agree that the revivals in Topeka, Kansas and Azusa Street, Los Angeles at the turn of the twentieth-

1
2

Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1972), xvii.
Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,

1991), 83.
3

This discussion will not include Oneness Pentecostals or other groups who identify Holy Spirit Baptism or tongues as
a necessary sign of salvation. While it is acknowledged that the largest population of Pentecostalism is located in the greater twothirds world, for the limits of this paper, only Pentecostalism in the USA will be assessed.
4
I have purposefully made this definition somewhat ambiguous since it is acknowledged that many today who would
identify themselves with Classic Pentecostalism have reservations regarding the doctrine of initial evidence.
5
F.L. Arrington, Hermeneutics, Historical Perspectives on Pentecostal and Charismatic, in DPCM ed., Stanley M.
Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 378.
6
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 377.

Connie Dawson

century were the wombs which gave birth to modern Pentecostalism. 7 While this movement may be
traced to Charles Parhams Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas and their spiritual experience on
January 1, 1901, William Menzies states that it was not the speaking in tongues that earned Parham the
title of the father of American Pentecostalism, rather it was the fact that, for the first time in history, he
made the theological connection between glossolalia and Spirit baptism. 8 From the time he made this
connection, tongues became the hallmark of the Pentecostal movement. 9
In order to read and interpret their Bible, early Pentecostals employed a hermeneutic called the Bible
Reading Method.10 This was a common sense approach to studying the Bible which involved an
inductive method of tracing a word through the Bible with the use of a concordance, a deductive analysis
of the derived information, and finally synthesize and harmonize the data to formulate a doctrine. 11 This
Bible Reading Method was not developed by the early Pentecostals but was the commonly accepted
method of Bible reading handed down from their various holiness antecedents. Parham used this
inductive method at his Bible school in 1900-1901 when he assigned the students the responsibility of
searching the Scriptures to determine the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism. After searching the Scriptures,
they determined the evidence to be glossolalia which led them to seek experiential verification. 12 When
their experience was recognized as the biblical pattern, they concluded the experience to be normative
and available for all Christians.13 Parhams pragmatic hermeneutic from that point on was passed on by
oral tradition to the Pentecostal movement. Beyond the Bible Reading Method, the hermeneutics of the
early Pentecostals also was largely topological, and due to their lack of education, little emphasis was
placed on the historical cultural/context or authorial intent of the original biblical text. 14
Early Pentecostals were known as people of the book who revered the Word of God and were dedicated to
the priority of Scripture as is indicated in the following quote from 1909. 15
If you want fire, read the Acts. If you want teaching on doctrine, read Romans. If you want
teaching on holy living, read all the epistles. If you want to know your privileges in Christ in the
ages to come, read Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians. If you are interested in the coming of
the Lord, read Pauls letters to the Thessalonians, Jude and Revelation. 16
They were firmly rooted in literal Biblicism which led them to believe that if it is in the Bible then they
could expect similar experiences in their own lives. They recognized three sources of authority: the
Bible, doctrine, and the Holy Spirit, with the Bible being the first and primary source of authority and the
norm against which every word and experience . . . was to be measured. 17 The Bible also contained
7

C.M. Robeck, Jr., Azusa Street Revival in NIDPCM, ed. Stanley Burgess and Eduard Van Der Maas (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 344. Also see: J.R. Goff, Charles Fox Parham, in NIDPCM, ed. Stanley Burgess and Eduard
Van Der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 955.
8
William Menzies, The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics, in Essays on Apostolic
Themes, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 198), 2.
9
Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2001), 74.
10
D. Allen Tennison, Charismatic Biblical Interpretation, in The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the
Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2005), 107.
11
Kenneth J. Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect, JPT 8 (April 1996): 45.
12
Menzies, The Methodology, 13.
13
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutics, 50.
14
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutics, 66. Also see, Tennison, Charismatic Biblical Interpretation, 107.
15
Thomas F. Zimmerman, Truth On Fire: Pentecostals and an Urgent Missiology, in Azusa Street and Beyond, ed. L
Grant McClung (South Plainville, NJ: Bridge Publishing, 1986), 58. Also see: Russell Spittler, Spirituality, Pentecostal and
Charismatic, in NIDPCM ed. Stanley Burgess and Eduard Van Der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2002),
1098.
16
The Pentecost 1, no. 7 (June 1909): 6. (No author, no title.)
17
Arrington, Hermeneutic, 381.

Connie Dawson

information for lifes decisions. If a person had a question, they could open the Bible and expect God to
speak to them concerning their problem. 18 The Bible was their primary textbook in all educational
institutions since it was considered the only book without adulteration. 19 The negative side of this
understanding however contributed to anti-intellectualism which has plagued movement. Many even
believed in the Dictation theory.20 One first generation AG Pentecostal writes, The Bible is the written
word of God. Holy Men whom God had made ready spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost.21 Russell Spittler, a third generation Pentecostal and now Ph.D. scholar and professor at Vanguard
University said that as a child he had the impression that the Bible dropped from heaven as a sacred
meteor.22
Pentecostals have also recognized the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, but have placed less
importance on this than their Evangelical brethren. Pentecostals instead place greater relevance on the
experiences of an authoritative God in and through the Scriptures. 23 They deny the liberal view that the
Bible is a human document with human errors because such a position undermines biblical authority
because it leaves the interpreter the task of separating fact from fiction, truth from error . . . and puts the
interpreter in authority over the text instead of the text exercising authority over the interpreter. 24
However, it is also important to point out that while the authority, inspiration, and infallibility of Scripture
was important to the early Pentecostals, this was secondary to the importance they placed on the
experience of a direct encounter with God through the biblical text. 25 While Pentecostals believe that the
Bible is a closed canon, their pneumatic hermeneutic led them to believe that the Holy Spirit continues to
give revelation beyond Scripture, but they also understood that this revelation will never be contrary to
Scripture.26
For them, the Bible was not only the basis for their theology but was also the standard to which they
evaluated their experiences and practices. 27 From the beginning, the Pentecostal Movement embraced a
restorationist theology and a biblical literalism which lead to a pragmatic hermeneutic. 28 What they saw
in the book of Acts elevated their faith to believe the same was possible in their lives and they fully
expected the gift of the Spirit to be supernaturally manifest in their day. 29 For them, the second chapter of
Acts experience was not the birth of the new church but revealed the experience that was available to all
believers through out the church age.30 They embraced the Bible not just a historical account of past
actions, but it is a manual for life which could not be separated from everyday experiences. 31 Years later
18

Wacker, Heaven Below, 70.

Wacker, Heaven Below, 71.
20
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 380.
21
D. W. Kerr, The Bible, in The Weekly Evangel (Dec. 16, 1916): 3.
22
Russell Spittler, Scripture and the Theological Enterprise: View from a Big Canoe, in The Use of Bible in
Theology (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1985), 63.
23
Scott A. Ellington, Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture, JPT 9 (1996): 19.
24
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 381.
25
Ellington, Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture, 19.
26
Stephen Land, Pentecostal Spirituality (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 118.
27
L. Grant McClung, Azusa Street and Beyond (South Plainfield, NJ: Bridge Publishing, 1986), 7, 48. Land,
Pentecostal Spirituality, 74.
28
Fee, Spirit and Life, 86. Thomas F. Zimmerman, Truth On Fire: Pentecostals and an Urgent Missiology in Azusa
Street and Beyond, ed. L Grant McClung (South Plainville, NJ: Bridge Publishing, 1986), 48. Also see: Spittler, Spirituality,
Pentecostal and Charismatic, 1098; Tennison, Charismatic Biblical Interpretation, 107; Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutics:
Retrospect and Prospect, 65; Roger Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective (Baguio City,
Philippines: APTS, 1995), 30.
29
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 383.
30
William Menzies, Anointed to Serve (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 9.
31
Cheryl Bridges Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy among the Oppressed (Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993), 85.
19

Connie Dawson

however, Gordon Fee would chide the non-scientific and pragmatic hermeneutic of the early Pentecostals
saying, They obeyed what should be taken literally; spiritualize, allegorize, or devotionalize the rest. 32
3. A Time of Defense: The Middle Years
In 1947, Carl Brumbacks book What Meaneth This? emerged with a Pentecost-as-a- pattern
hermeneutic that served as a fresh way of restating what Parham and his students discovered in Topeka,
Kansas forty years before. Roger Stronstad calls Brumback an exemplar of Pentecostal hermeneutics
who never tires of asserting that the baptism or fillings with the Holy Spirit, as recorded in Acts should
likewise be the standard for believers today. 33 Furthermore Stronstad states that at this point in the
movement, Brumbacks pragmatic Pentecostal-as-a-pattern hermeneutic is simply assumed to be selfevident and self-authenticating. Brumback apparently appreciates no need to explain or discuss his
hermeneutic for it apparently had become the accepted hermeneutic for Pentecostals. 34 This pragmatic
hermeneutic prevailed through the 1970s but midway into the 1970s and 1980s a shift began to occur.
With the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, Pentecostals began to undergo
what Cecil Robeck called the Evangelicalization of Pentecostalism which hit at the very heart of how
they viewed their Bible.35 During this phase, Pentecostals began to align themselves with
Dispensationalism and the Cessation doctrine of B. B. Warfield and the Old Princeton Theology which
denied the relevancy of spiritual gifts for contemporary Christianity. 36 As Kenneth Archer points out,
Pentecostals were not like classical Protestants or Fundamentalists when it came to interpreting the
Bible. Protestants and Fundamentalist read the Bible as a past inspired revelatory document, but the
Pentecostals read the Bible as presently inspired story.37 Since Pentecostals were non-Cessationists, their
interpretation of Acts 2 created hermeneutical problems in their relationship with their new NAE
partners.38 Sheppard believes the reason the Pentecostals wed themselves to this uneasy relationship was
their attempt to find acceptance and legitimization from the dispensationalist-fundamentalist
movement.39 Arrington however believes that Sheppard has misread the circumstances and posits that
this union rather stems from the Pentecostal self identity. Pentecostals have seen themselves as an
eschatological community . . . and Dispensationalism provided a comprehendible, systematic approach. 40
During the first fifty years of the movement the term Pentecostal scholar would have been considered
an oxymoron. Of those Pentecostals who were fortunate enough to receive a Bible college education, few
advanced to the seminary level. At that time there were no Pentecostal/Charismatic seminaries in
existance; therefore, those who did achieve higher education received their academic training in
Evangelical institutions steeped in the Reformed tradition. 41 In the 1970s and 1980s, a second challenge
of this era came when Pentecostal scholars began to emerge with newly discovered hermeneutic skills
acquired in Evangelical institutions. The struggle now became, how to incorporate Evangelical
32

Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 86.

Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This?: A Pentecostal Answer to A Pentecostal Question (Springfield, MO: Gospel
Publishing House, 1947), 198.
34
Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture, and Theology, 17.
35
Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., National Association of Evangelicals, in NIDPCM ed. Stanley M. Burgess (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2002), 924.
36
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 385. Also see: Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Metuchen, NJ: The
Scarecrow Press, 1987), 25.
37
Archer, Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation, 37. (Emphasis added.)
38
Gerald T. Sheppard, Pentecostals and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: The Anatomy of an Uneasy
Relationship, PNEUMA (Fall, 1984): 5.
39
Sheppard, Pentecostals, 5.
40
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 385.
41
Timothy B. Cargal, Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a
Postmodern Age, PNEUMA 15, no. 2 (Fall 1993): 170.
33

Connie Dawson

hermeneutics steeped in scientific-critical methods into the Pentecostal tradition and still remain true to
their Pentecostal heritage.42 The struggle to deal with this conflict caused some scholars to raise a critical
question regarding the need for a uniquely Pentecostal hermeneutic.
4. A Time of Reflection: The Pentecostal Hermeneutic Debate
This section will attempt to bring a representative group of contemporary Pentecostal scholars together in
dialogue to provide an overview of the challenges facing Pentecostal hermeneutics today.
a. The Use of Narrative Genre to Establish Doctrine
Gordon Fee identifies the two critical issues for Pentecostals as being their distinctives of subsequence
and initial evidence. These distinctives, derived solely from the narrative, non-didactic passages in the
book of Acts lie at the heart of Pentecostal hermeneutics. Fee specifically argues that didactic biblical
literature should take precedent over historical genre and that descriptive history may not be extrapolated
into a normative experience for the ongoing church. 43 Beyond his concern for the use of narrative genre,
Fee makes two additional observations regarding Pentecostals. First, hermeneutics has simply not been a
Pentecostal thing; and second, they tend to exegete their experience and then they look to Scripture for
validation. Fee believes the way Pentecostals utilize scriptural pattern, narrative genre, and incorporate
their personal experiences has led them to conclude that the Pentecostal experience is normative for all
Christians.44 He makes the following recommendations to improve the way Pentecostals interpret their
Bibles: (1) The interpreter must acknowledge the distinctive role of narrative genre. (2) Historical
narratives may establish normativeness only if it can be proven that the author wrote with the intent to
teach. (3) What is incidental may not become primary. (4) It is never appropriate to establish
normativeness with the use of historical precedent. (5) Historical narratives may only serve to illustrate
and establish patterns.45 Regarding Pentecostalisms two key doctrines of subsequence and initial
evidence in light of the foregoing corrective to their hermeneutical methods, Fee suggests that the
accurate biblical interpretation renders their charismatic experience as normal but not normative based on
a repeatable pattern in Acts, and he further locates the experience in conversion rather than subsequent. 46
Based on the biblical evidence using his recommendations for biblical interpretation, Fee states that
Pentecostals may not say one must speak in tongues; however, they have an equally valid reason to ask,
Why not speak in tongues? It does have a repeated biblical precedent. 47
Regarding Fees critique, Stronstad calls Fee an iconoclast who is guilty of tearing down the
hermeneutical pillars upon which the structure of Pentecostal doctrine is built. He goes on to say that
while Fee remains a Pentecostal experientially, and even advocates the probability of speaking in
tongues . . . his hermeneutic is no longer Pentecostal in any normative sense . . . for he has positioned the
Spirit with conversion rather than with vocation.48
While William Menzies agrees with Fees hermeneutic requirement of proper acknowledgement of
narrative genre, he sharply disagrees with his conclusions. Utilizing redaction criticism, both William and
Robert Menzies posit that Luke is both a historian and a theologian who wrote history for theological
purposes; therefore, the Luke/Acts narratives may be used to formulate doctrine without submitting Luke
42

Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture, and Theology, 17.

Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 85.
44
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 86.
45
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 89-96.
46
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 99.
47
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 99. (Fees emphasis.)
48
Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture, and Theology, 23-4.
43

Connie Dawson

to Pauline theology.49 W. Menzies, speaking from a theological perspective, advocates a holistic

hermeneutic with three levels of biblical investigation: inductive, deductive, and verification. The
inductive level goes beyond the simple word study method utilized by early Pentecostals to incorporate
all the tools and skills of scientific interpretation to ferret out the meanings and intention of the biblical
writers. The inductive level also has three levels of listening. The first form of inductive listening is
declarative which acknowledges overt biblical assertions such as Jesus saves. The second is
implicational listening which represents areas of Scripture that simply imply theology such as the
doctrine of the Trinity. The final step is that of descriptive listening where narratives are utilized by the
biblical author to establish theology, and it is here, Menzies concedes, that the battle of hermeneutics is
being fought.50 Second of Menzies three levels of biblical investigation is deductive. This is where the
contemporary reader attempts to makes sense of what the biblical author is saying within the historical
context of the written text. This level has direct implications on Pentecostal theology based on the
Luke/Acts narratives. The last hermeneutical application is verification. It is here that Pentecostals
have come under the sharpest criticism and where Fee levels the charges of exegeting their experiences. 51
Menzies acknowledged that exegeting experience is a dangerous practice employed by early Pentecostals;
however, he asserts that it is equally dangerous to formulate a theology from non-experience. 52
Verification, Menzies points out, is what the apostles did when they experienced the outpouring of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost and made the connection between their present experience and biblical data,
and as a consequence said, This is that! Menzies concludes that, Acts itself is the precedent for
holistic theology . . . with exposition and testimony flowing together throughout. 53 Based on his
inductive, deductive, and verificational methods, Gordon Anderson believes Menzies has made a strong
argument for the validity of narratives in the formation of theology. Anderson goes on to say that although
many evangelical scholars argue that propositional literature in the Bible should have priority over the
narrative, a good Pentecostal hermeneutic recognizes that narratives are equal to didactic literature for
the use of defining theology.54 Regarding the question of repeatable patterns in the narratives, Anderson
agrees with both Fee and Menzies saying,
If the Bible says something happened, then it did, and from that we have at least a minimal piece
of theology that must of necessity be drawn from it, i.e., that God did a certain thing at least once.
From this one event we may not be able to conclude that He always acts this way, but on the other
hand, it is not appropriate to immediately conclude that He acted this way on only that one
occasion. In fact, it would be better to conclude that, since God acted in a certain way at some
time, He always acts this way, until it can be conclusively demonstrated that the event in question
was truly unique. The assumption should be that what God did, God does, until it is proven
otherwise.55
b. The Concern for the Role of the Holy Spirit in Biblical Interpretation
Howard Ervins article, Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option was presented at the second quinquennium
of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal dialogue and is frequently referenced in academic papers related
to the subject of Pentecostal hermeneutics. Because Ervin believed the role of the Holy Spirit was being
marginalized by Pentecostals in their desire for acceptance by the Evangelicals, he became the first person
49

Menzies, The Methodology, 10-12. Also see: William and Robert Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of
Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000).
50
Menzies, Methodology, 5-6.
51
Menzies, Methodology, 12. Also see: Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 86.
52
Menzies, Methodology, 12.
53
Menzies, Methodology, 13,
54
Gordon Anderson, Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part II, Paraclete 28 no. 2 (Spring 1994): 16.
55
Anderson, Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part II, 17.

Connie Dawson

to suggest the possibility of a distinct Pentecostal hermeneutic. 56 Ervin chides the western culture for
accepting reason and sensory experience as the two ways of knowing. He posits that a theology that
limits itself solely to these will be faced with an unresolved dichotomy between faith and reason. 57 His
solution is pneumatic epistemology and pneumatic hermeneutics. His concern centers on the recent
trend among Pentecostals to ignore the role of the Holy Spirit in the interpretative process. Ervin in no
wise approves of an anti-critical interpretation of the Bible, but strongly emphasizes that there is no
hermeneutical integrity apart from critical, contextual exegesis and that grammatico-historical
exegetical tradition is indispensable to hermeneutical methodology. 58 On the other hand, he equally
argues that there is no hermeneutic unless and until the divine hermeneutes (the Holy Spirit) mediates an
understanding because it is not possible to penetrate to the heart with the message of the Scriptures
apart from the Holy Spirit.59 Ervin goes on to say, The qualitative distance between the Creator and the
creature, although it is bridged [by the new birth], it is not erased. This distance renders the word
ambiguous until the Holy Spirit, who searches even the depth of God (I Cor. 2:10), interprets it to the
hearer.60 Ervin believes that the contribution Pentecostalism has made to the renewal of the church is
their insistence upon the experiential immediacy of the Holy Spirit. 61
Arrington affirms Ervins assessment saying, Pentecostals have understood that the Scriptures can be
interpreted properly only through the agency of the Holy Spirit and it is out of this understanding that
Pentecostal hermeneutics and [their] theology has emerged. 62 According to Arrington, the methodology
used by Pentecostals to interpret the biblical text has three components: pneumatic, experiential, and
historical narratives. These three components seem to essentially define the parameters of the battle field
where the issues of Pentecostal hermeneutics are currently being fought. Arrington emphasizes that the
Holy Spirit, who is the divine author of the biblical text, can alone bridge the historical and cultural gulf
between the text and the reader.63
While Timothy Cargal and Gordon Anderson agree in part and principle with Ervin and Arringtons
pneumatic emphasis, they attempt to offer a corrective. Cargal disapproves of Ervins assertion that the
Scriptures cannot be understood apart from the Holy Spirit. He believes that what Pentecostals are
referring to with regard to Holy Spirit illumination is the inspiration to obtain a deeper significance of
the biblical text.64 Anderson agrees with Cargals assessment saying that it is wrong to assert that the
human mind, unaided by the Holy Spirit, cannot intellectually grasp the revelation of Scripture, rather
the nonbeliever and believer both can understand the basic claims of the biblical text. 65
Cargal and Anderson make a valid point; however, according to the Final Reports of the Roman Catholic
and Pentecostal dialogue, Ervin and Arringtons understanding of pneumatic illumination better
represents both the Catholic and Pentecostal position on the role of the Holy Spirit in the interpretative
process. The Final Report in The Dialogue states, Both Pentecostals and Roman Catholics agree that
Scripture, inspired by the Spirit, can be properly interpreted only with help of the Holy Spirit. So also no
one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God because spiritual things are spiritually
56

Ervin, Hermeneutic, 34. Also see: Veli-Matti Krkkinen, Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the Making, JEPT 18,

(1998): 83.
57
Howard M. Ervin, Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option, in Essays on Apostolic Themes, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), 23.
58
Ervin, Hermeneutics, 25.
59
Ervin, Hermeneutics, 27. Ervin explains that, The English noun hermeneutics is derived from the Greek
hermneia meaning interpretation.
60
Ervin, Hermeneutics, 28.
61
Ervin, Hermeneutics, 34.
62
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 376.
63
Arrington, Hermeneutics, 382-4.
64
Cargal, Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, 174-5.
65
Anderson, Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part II, 14.

Connie Dawson

discerned (I Cor. 2:11,14).66 When recognizing the role of the Holy Spirit, the question is inevitably
raised concerning error and subjectivity. Time and space does not allow the discussion of John Thomas
excellent use of Act 15 as the biblical model in which the interpretative process comes under the
leadership of the Christian community in order to rightly divide the Word. 67
c. The Challenge or Opportunity of Post-Modernity
As Paul Lewis points out, since 1993 numerous articles have been published by Pentecostal scholars
related to Post-modernity.68 A quick reading through this literature reveals mixed reviews. Some scholars
recognize the affinity Pentecostalism has with Post-modernity and encourage the inevitable recognition of
their similarities. Others take a less than positive view. The following discussion between Cargal and
Robert Menzies provides a sample of the concerns Pentecostal hermeneutics face regarding this topic.
Cargal suggests that the world of post-modernism is more akin to Pentecostal biblical interpretation than
the traditional Evangelical critical methods. 69 He points to Pentecostal scholars such as Fee, William and
Robert Menzies, and others who attempt to operate within a philosophical paradigm dominated by
historical concerns during a period in which Western society more generally is undergoing a paradigm
shift away from the historical paradigm of meaning typical to modernism. 70 In Cargals opinion, these
pre-critical methods of biblical interpretation which lends itself to multiple meanings within the text
have more in common with post-modern modes of interpretation than do the critical interpretations of
Pentecostal biblical scholars.71
Robert Menzies responds critically to Cargals proposal and urges Pentecostals who are tempted to jump
on this post-modern bandwagon, to jump off! In Menzies view, Cargals idea that Pentecostals should
shed themselves of their Fundamentalist and Evangelical shackles and enter into the postmodern age
is to court disaster.72 He attributes the current trend of Pentecostals to embrace post-modern methods to a
knee-jerk reaction of a sterile biblical criticism which had so emasculated the text that it had nothing of
significance to communicate.73 While agreeing that Pentecostal experience and pragmatism lends itself
to post-modernism, he believes that to cast off the restraints of critical methods would circumvent
ascertaining the historical meaning and intent of the original author and replace it with subjective multiple
meanings imposed by the contemporary reader.74 Menzies believes that the global growth and acceptance
of Pentecostals afford tremendous opportunities for Pentecostals to enter into dialogue with the larger
Evangelical and non-Evangelical world and now is not the time to jump on the postmodern bandwagon. 75
66

Final Report of The Dialogue between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church
and the Leaders of Some Pentecostal Churches and Participants in the Charismatic Movement within Protestant and Anglican
Churches, 1972-1976, quoted in, Veli-Matti Krkkinen, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, (Finland: Luther-Agricola-Seura, 1998), 102.
67
John Christopher Thomas, Reading the Bible from Within our Tradition, in Between Two Horizons (Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 117-118.
68
For an excellent overview of the subject of Pentecostalism and Post-modernity see: Paul W. Lewis, Post-modernity
and Pentecostalism: A Survey and Assessment, African Journal of Pentecostal Studies 1, no. 1 (2002): 34-55. Also see: VeliMatti Krkkinen, Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the Making, 76-115; Hannah Harrington and Rebecca Patten, Pentecostal
Hermeneutics and Postmodern Literary Theory, PNEUMA 16 (1994): 109-14; Jackie Johns, Pentecostalism and the
Postmodern Worldview, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 7 (1995): 73-96; Gerald Sheppard, Pentecostals, Globalization, and
Postmodern Hermeneutics: Implications for the Politics of Scriptural Interpretation, in The Globalization of Pentecostalism ed.
Murray Dempster, Byron Klaus, and Douglas Peterson (Irvine, CA: Regnum), 289-312; and Ralph Del Colle, Postmodernism
and the Pentecostal-Charismatic Experience, JPT17 (2000): 97-116.
69
Cargal, Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, 165.
70
Cargal, Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, 164.
71
Cargal, Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, 164.
72
Robert Menzies, Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon, PNEUMA 16, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 115-6.
73
Menzies, Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon, 118.
74
Menzies, Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon, 118.
75
Menzies, Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon, 119.

Connie Dawson

5. Where do we go from here?

While the jury is still out among Pentecostal scholars as to the need for a uniquely Pentecostal
hermeneutic, there are questions and issues that demand attention. The brevity of this paper precludes an
exhaustive study of all the various topics. The goal has been was simply to present a precursory overview
highlighting the of history and present issues related to Pentecostal hermeneutics which is situated within
the overall Renewal Movement in America.
In closing, this paper identifies four major concerns related to biblical interpretation which also represent
areas for research in the future in the field for Renewal Theologians. These are:
1. What is the proper use of narrative genre for determining doctrine? Pentecostals have traditionally
based their distinctives on the Luke/Acts historical narratives. While traditional Evangelicalism
advocates superiority of didactic literature over narrative, recent Pentecostal scholars have effectively
argued the equal value of narrative genre. In 1993, Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, evangelical professors
from Denver Seminary authored the textbook, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Regarding the
Acts narrative they write, We have already stated that narrative often teaches more indirectly than
didactic literature without becoming any less normative. Thus, we reject Fee and Stuarts highlighted
maxim that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or
described can never function in a normative way. This acceptance of narrative genre to establish doctrine
reveals that the voice of Pentecostal scholars in the academy is not only being heard but understood.
While much has been accomplished, there is more work to be done in this area.
2. What role does the Holy Spirit play in the interpretive process? Some, like Anderson, argue that the
Holy Spirit gives no special insight into the interpretation for Scripture but the text is open for believer
and non-believer alike to understand. There are others however, like witnessed in the CatholicPentecostal dialogue, believe Scriptures can only be understood with the aid of the Spirit. One of the
challenges before us today is to determine how and to what extent the Holy Spirit participates in the textreader encounter and then forcefully articulate this position to the larger Christian world.
3. How will Pentecostalism deal with the issue of Post-modernity? Concerning this issue, Ralph Del
Colle writes, Postmodernism is simply the recognition that this plurality of perspectives is now the
predominant situation arising out of Western culture. 76 Involvement with Post-modernity is not an option
for Pentecostals, but how and to what degree will it be advantageous to incorporate this contemporary
Zeitgest is the question we must grapple.77
4. What hermeneutical tools will we bring to the interpretative enterprise? Rather than reject traditional
hermeneutical and exegetical methods, would it not be possible and wiser to incorporate these into the
interpretative process? How and to what degree needs to be assessed.
There are other challenges which this paper was not able to address or only briefly mention that promise
fruitful areas of future research in Pentecostal hermeneutics. Some of these areas include the role of
experience; presuppositions; sensus plenior; definitions of authority, meaning, inerrancy, and inspiration;
and the role of community in the interpretative process.
[End]

76
77

Del Colle, Postmodernism and the Pentecostal-Charismatic Experience, 98.

Lewis, Post-modernity and Pentecostalism, 55.

Connie Dawson

10

WORKS CITED
Ahn, Yongnan Jeon. Various Debates in the Contemporary Pentecostal Hermeneutic. The Spirit &
Church 2, no 1. (May 2000): 19-52.
Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
Anderson, Gordon. Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part I. Paraclete 28, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 1-11.
__________. Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part II. Paraclete 29, no. 2 (Winter 1994): 13-22.
Archer, Kenneth J. Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect. JPT 8 (1996): 63-81.
__________. Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation. JPT 18 (2001): 32-70.
Arrington, F.L. Hermeneutics, Historical Perspectives on Pentecostal and Charismatic. In Dictionary of
Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, 276-389.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1990.
Bridges-Johns, Cheryl. Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy Among the Oppressed. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Brumback, What Meaneth This?: A Pentecostal Answer to a Pentecostal Question. Springfield, MO:
Gospel Publishing House, 1947.
Cargal, Timothy B. Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics
in a Postmodern Age. PNEUMA 15, no. 2 (Fall 1992): 163-187.
Dayton, Donald. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Metuchen, MJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1987.
Del Colle, Ralph. Postmodernism and the Pentecostal-Charismatic Experience, JPT 17 (2000): 97-116.
Eim, Yeol Soo. Penteocstal Hermeneutics: The Critical Task of Pentecostalism for the 21 st Century.
The Spirit & Church 2, no.1 (May 2000): 1-5.
Ellington, Scott A. Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture. JPT 9 (1996): 16-38.
Fee, Gordon. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1991.
Goff, J.R. Charles Fox Parham. In NIDPCM ed. Stanley Burgess and Eduard Van Der Mass, 955-7.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2002.
Hollenweger, Walter J. The Contribution of Critical Exegesis to Pentecostal Hermeneutics. The Spirit
& Church 2, no. 1 (May 2000): 7-18.

Connie Dawson

11

Krkkinen, Vali-Matti. Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the Making: On the Way from Fundamentalism to
Postmodernism. JEPT 18 (1998): 76-115.
__________. Spiritus ubi vult spirat: Pneumatology in Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (19721989). Finland: Luther-Agricola-Seura, 1998.
Kerr, D.W. The Bible, The Weekly Evangel (Dec. 16, 1916), 3.
Klein, William W., Carl Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard. The History of Interpretation. In Introduction
to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 1993.
__________, Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the Making: On the Way from Fundamentalism to
Postmodernism. JEPT 18 (1998): 76-115.
Macchia, Frank. The Spirit and the Text: Recent Trends in Pentecostal Hermeneutics. The Spirit &
Church 2, no. 1 (May 2000): 53-65.
Martin, George. Reading Scripture as the Word of God: Practical Approaches and Attitudes. Ann
Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1982.
McClung, L. Grant. Azusa Street and Beyond. South Plainfield, NJ: Bridge Publishing , 1986.
McLean, Mark D. Toward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic. PNEUMA (Fall 1984): 35-56.
Menzies, William. The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics. In Essays
on Apostolic Themes, ed. Paul Elbert, 1-14. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985.
__________. Anointed to Serve. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971.
Menzies, William and Robert. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
Land, Stephen. Pentecostal Spirituality. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Lewis, Paul. Towards a Pentecostal Epistemology: The Role of Experience in Pentecostal
Hermeneutics. The Spirit & Church 2, no. 2 (May 2000): 95-125.
__________. Postmodernity and Pentecostalism: A Survey and Assessment. African Journal of
Pentecostal Studies 1, no. 1 (2002): 34-55.
Quebedeaux, Robert. The New Pentecostals II: How a Christian Renewal Movement Became Part of the
American Religious Mainstream. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1983.
Robeck, Cecil M. Jr. Azusa Street Revival. In NIDPCM ed. Stanley Burgess and Eduard Van Der Maas,
344-50. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2002.
Sheppard, Gerald T. Pentecostals and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: The Anatomy of an
Uneasy Relationship. PNEUMA (Fall 1984): 5-33.
Spittler, Russell. Spirituality, Pentecostal, and Charismatic. In NIDPCM, ed. Stanley Burgess and
Eduard Van Der Maas, 1096-1103. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2002.

Connie Dawson

12

__________. Scripture and the Theological Enterprise: View from a Big Canoe. In The Use of the Bible
in Theology: Evangelical Options, 56-77. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1985.
Stronstad, Roger. Spirit, Scripture and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective. Baguio City, Philippines:
Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, 1995.
Synan, Vinson. The Century of the Holy Spirit. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
Tennison, D. Allen. Charismatic Biblical Interpretation. In The Dictionary for Theological
Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 106-8. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics,
2005.
The Pentecost 1, no. 7 (June 1909): 6.
Thomas, John Christopher. Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: A Pentecostal
Hermeneutic as Test Case. In Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and
Systematic Theology. Ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner, 108-122. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.
Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2001.
Zimmerman, Thomas F. Truth On Fire: Pentecostals and an Urgent Missiology. In Azusa Street and
Beyond, ed. L Grant McClung, 56-61. South Plainville, NJ: Bridge Publishing, 1986.