Charismatic/Pentecostal Hermeneutical Paradigm

The Pentecostal and Charismatic renewal movement has come a long way since Dr. G. Campbell Morgan’s condemning comments concerning the 1906 Azusa Street revival. As one of the most respected preachers of the twentieth century, he called the Pentecostal movement “the last vomit of Satan.”[1] Since that time to this, the movement has been a catalyst for lively discussions whether in the church pew or in the halls of higher education. Its paradigm continues to engender a clarion call to both the church at large and its own members for a more developed model of its numinous beliefs, values, and practices. One such discipline that has received much consideration has been its hermeneutic. In fact, here lies one of its great anomalies. As such, French L. Arrington states, “The real issue in Pentecostalism has become hermeneutics, that is, the distinctive nature and function of Scripture and the roles of the Holy Spirit, the Christian community, grammatical-historical research, and personal experience in the interpretive process.”[2] Notwithstanding, the hermeneutical process is a subject that highlights the issue of contextualizing the gospel with modern culture so that each of us can understand God’s Word and will. We will need the Spirit to enable us to bring Jesus’ message into effective expression. However the discussion on the role of the Spirit in the interpretative dynamic has been few. Fred H. Klooster posits, “The illumination of the Holy Spirit is regularly mentioned in theological literature; yet detailed discussion of this subject is rare.”[3] Art Lindsley adds, “The Holy Spirit’s work [of illumination] has not been given the prominence it deserves.”[4] Perhaps this subject matter, as Pinnock points out, is not so much neglected as misplaced.[5] The purpose of this posting is to explore and assess the key aspects of the Pentecostal hermeneutical position.

The Pentecostal’s identity is directly related to its hermeneutic. For the Pentecostal/Charismatic, the Bible is much more than a cold book containing theological insights. Instead of objectively studying and analyzing the text, they seek to be drawn into the text and the life it gives. Far from a purely mental discipline which seeks a theology that is taught and studied without faith, their hermeneutic is a ‘shared experience.’ Being acutely attentive of the similarities between their own experience and that of the apostles, prophets, and even Jesus, they are drawn into an awareness of being participants in the biblical drama.[6]

Facilitating this shared experience which helps define their identity with the history of the early church and the biblical text is the role of the Holy Spirit. In 2 Cor. 3.14-18 Paul contrast the understanding that one gains from the Bible before and after one turns to the Lord. Before one turns to the Lord, the mind is veiled; but after one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed and understanding and meaning is forth coming. The message seems clear enough---the Spirit enables one to read and to encounter the text with new clarity that was not possible without his aid. Hence,‘re-experiencing’ the biblical text suggest that Pentecostals do not view the Bible as a past ‘deposit of static truth,’ but as a present ‘primary source book for living the Pentecostal life.’[7] Consequently Pentecostals tend to be more literal in their interpretation of Scripture. They emphasis the Bible and understand it at face value, and place a premium upon the immediate meaning of the text. For them, there is no historical distance between themselves and the text as they believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and thereby wholly reliable. Their paradigm embraces the belief that spiritual and supernatural experiences are possible for contemporary believers, and it rejects any hermeneutic that overemphasize an enlighten, rationalistic system that downplays the role of the Holy Spirit. It does not completely reject grammatical-historical research, but understands that an experiential presupposition transcends a rational, scientific exegesis. Their focus is not only what the original inspired author meant or intended for the first century believer but asserts that “the spiritual and extraordinary supernatural experiences of biblical characters are possible for contemporary believers. Given these convictions, Pentecostal preaching requires a theory and a method of hermeneutics which facilitates a ‘re-experiencing’ of the biblical text.”[8]

However, a common complaint is that Pentecostal’s emphasis upon their experience of the text tends toward eisegesis--- interpreting their experience into the text. Notwithstanding, William Menzies contends that any hermeneutical process should use personal experience. He states, “If a biblical truth is to be promulgated, then it ought to be demonstrable in life. This is precisely what the modern Pentecostal revival has been reporting to the larger church world.”[9] Roger Stronstad contends that while it is valid to assign to Pentecostal experience a certification or verification function, it is “an inadequate or incomplete description of the place of experience in Pentecostal hermeneutics for . . . experience also enters the hermeneutical enterprise at the beginning of the task; that is, as a presupposition, and not merely as a certification/verification.”[10] It is not just a sound biblical theology but a New Testament experience which testifies to an ethical-spiritual encounter with Jesus Christ in our world today. Hence, experience is the Pentecostal’s ‘pre-understanding’ for Scripture. Clark H. Pinnock concurs with this understanding. He writes: “We cannot consider Pentecostalism to be a kind of aberration born of experience excesses but a 20th century revival of New Testament theology and religion. It has not only restored joy and power to the church but a clearer reading to the Bible as well.”[11]
To sum up, whether we are considering biblical studies, systematic theology, historical theology, or any other aspect of biblical scholarship, the Pentecostal emphasis upon ‘re-experiencing’ the text forms a significant portion of their identity, and this legitimate experiential presupposition gives their possessor a better understanding of the Bible. Pentecostals have concluded that “Scripture given by the Holy Spirit must be mediated interpretively by the Holy Spirit. The illumination of the interpreter by the Holy Spirit is a vital part in elucidating the contemporary meaning of a biblical text.”[12] It is the role of the Holy Spirit in the interpretive process that we now consider in our next posting.


[1] Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), 146.
[2] French L. Arrington, “Feedback: Pentecostal Hermeneutics, The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals,” Pneuma 16/1 Spring (1994) 101.
[3] Quotes from Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, editors E.D. Radmacher and R.D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 451.
[4] Ibid., 487.
[5] Clark H. Pinnock, “The Role of the Spirit in Interpretation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36/4 December (1993) 491.
[6] John McKay, “When The Veil Is Taken Away: The Impact Of Prophetic Experience On Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994) 26.
[7] Kenneth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8 (1996) 66.
[8] Joseph Byrd, “Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutical Theory and Pentecostal Proclamation,” Pneuma 15/2 Fall (1993) 205.
[9] William Menzies, “The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics,” in Paul Elbert (editor), Essays on Apostolic Themes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 13.
[10] Roger Stronstad, “Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics,” Paraclete Winter (1992) 16.
[11] Clark H. Pinnock, “Forward,” to The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, by Roger Stronstad (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984), viii.
[12] French L. Arrington, “The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals,” Pneuma 16/1 Spring (1994) 104.