Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
115
Jumping
Off
the
Postmodern
Bandwagon
Robert P. Menzies
The
postmodern bandwagon
is
racing
into the future. And
so, Timothy Cargal explains,
if we do not want to be rendered “irrelevant” and left
behind,
we had better
jump
on.’ In the
following essay,
I would like to
explain why
I
disagree
with
Cargal’s triumphalistic
assessment of postmodernism, especially as it
pertains
to biblical
hermeneutics,
and why my
counsel
concerning
this
bandwagon is,
if already
on,
to
“jump off.”
Although
I was
given
the invitation to
respond
to
any,
or to
all,
of the four articles on Pentecostal hermeneutics
published
in the Fall 1993 issue of the
journal,
I have chosen to
respond
to
Cargal’s
article because it was
lucid, insightful,
and
ultimately disturbing.
After a barrage
of Ricoeurian rhetoric it was
refreshing
to read an article not laden with
jargon. Cargal’s
skills are evident and I commend him for communicating
his
postmodern
vision of the future in such a clear and compelling way.
I must also admit that I do not find it
particularly flattering
or
illuminating
to be called a “text,” so the articles
steeped
in this dimension of Ricoeurian
analysis
held little interest for me.
Cargal, by way
of
contrast, spoke directly
to the issue of biblical hermeneutics.
Building upon
three characteristics of Pentecostal hermeneutics as described
by French Arrington (an emphasis
on
pneumatic illumination, the
dialogical
role of
experience,
and biblical
narratives),’ Cargal
seeks to show affinities between the hermeneutic of traditional Pentecostalism and that of
postmodernism.
In
Cargal’s view,
all that is needed for Pentecostals to enter into the
postmodern age
is for them to throw off their Fundamentalist and
Evangelical
shackles. More
specifically, Cargal challenges
Pentecostals to
reject
their concern to root
meaning in history in favor of the more
dynamic
and reader-oriented
postmodern approach.
Pentecostals are called to
recognize
the
subjectivity
inherent in all
interpretation
and use this
insight
to their
advantage,
to revel in the
multiple meanings
of the text which the
Spirit may
illuminate. Indeed,
this
path
is not
only open
to Pentecostal
scholarship,
it is a path which Pentecostals must take if
they expect
to communicate to the postmodern
world.
.
‘ Timothy
B.
Cargal, “Beyond
the Fundamentalist-Modernist
Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age,” PNEUMA: The Controversy: Journal the
of
Society for Pentecostal Studies 15 (Fall 1993): 163-187; quote, p. 187. 2 French L. Arrington, “Hermeneutics, Historical Perspectives on Pentecostal and Charismatic,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley
M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 376-389.
1
116
What shall we make of Cargal’s brave new world? I shall answer this question
with reference to
Cargal’s perception
of the
past, present,
and future.
The Past and the
Quest for Meaning
Cargal’s
article
represents
a
critique
of
Evangelical approaches
to Scripture
and a call to embrace the
postmodern interpretative paradigm. Specifically, Cargal
chides Pentecostal scholars for
working “within a
philosophical paradigm
dominated
by
historical concerns.”3 He calls for Pentecostals to follow
postmodernism
in its rejection of the notion that
“only
what is
historically
and
objectively
true is meaningful.,,4 Cargal’s
call
directly impinges upon
two
significant Evangelical
concerns.
First, Evangelicals
have
generally
insisted that
ascertaining
the historical
meaning
of a text is the central
goal
of hermeneutics. This concern for historical
meaning
is evident in the excellent textbook on hermeneutics
recently penned by
three
faculty
members of Denver Seminary.
The authors define textual
meaning
as “that which the words and
grammatical
structures of that text disclose about the
probable intention of its author/editor and the
probable understanding
of that text
by
its intended readers.”5
Here, reconstructing
the
past
is a crucial dimension of the
quest
for
meaning.
Postmodernists are
quick
to criticize this historical focus.
Attempted reconstructions of the
past
are deemed
illusionary
and
ultimately irrelevant because
they
are never
objective, always
colored
by
the interpreter’s pre-understanding.
Intellectual
honesty
demands that we move
away
from this
epistemologically
flawed
emphasis
on the
past. Cargal
notes that in
practice
Pentecostals have never been
overly concerned about historical
meaning.
Thus the move to
postmodernism should not be too difficult.
My
own fear is that
Cargal’s analysis
of Pentecostalism and its
potential
for
being significantly
influenced
by the postmodern paradigm is correct.
Certainly postmodernism
has much to contribute to those who will listen. As a result of recent
trends, Evangelicals
are more aware of their lack of
objectivity,
the nature of their
pre-understanding, and the need to listen to those with whom
they might disagree.
Yet the ahistorical stance and
epistemological skepticism
of
postmodernism
is extreme and
inevitably
leads to relativism. While it is evident that we cannot achieve
certainty concerning
authorial intent of historical
texts, we can
gain knowledge.
The hermeneutical circle is not
entirely vicious; it is in reality a
spiral.6
And it is the concern for historical
meaning
that
Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” 164. the Fundamentalist-Modernist
‘ Cargal, “Beyond
W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction
Controversy,” 171. ‘William
to Biblical 6
Interpretation (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1993), 133.
See G. R Osbome, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Dovtmers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
2
117
allows the text to confront and transform our
pre-understanding, thereby making
the
spiral (or development
in
understanding) possible. If we loose the
meaning
of a text from its historical
moorings,
how shall we evaluate various and even
contradictory interpretations?
How shall we
keep
our own
ideologies
and
prejudices
from
obliterating
the text?’
Cargal
is silent
here,
for in the
postmodern paradigm
he describes there is no criterion
by
which to evaluate an
interpretation.
His call to embrace
multiple meanings
reflects this
reality:
all readings are valid.8 A philosophical paradigm
and a hermeneutical method which cannot distinguish
between truth and
falsehood,
valid and invalid interpretations,
will hold little attraction for most Christians. As Allan Bloom
notes,
“Historicism
[the
view that all
thought
is
essentially related to and cannot transcend its own
time]
and cultural relativism actually
are a means to avoid
testing
our own
prejudices.”9
The
postmodern paradigm challenges
a second
Evangelical perspective: Evangelicals
believe that the Christian faith is
intimately connected to the
key redemptive
events of salvation
history
recorded in Scripture. Therefore, Evangelicals
are concerned with
Scripture’s record of
past
events
(i.e.,
the
historicity
of the
text).
This hermeneutical
principle
is not to affirm that
only
that which is historical is true or
meaningful:
the
parables, though
not records of historical events,
are
meaningful
and
convey
truth.
Rather,
it is to affirm that we must take
seriously
the biblical authors’ intentions
concerning
how their texts should be
read,
whether as
history, fiction,
or some
blending
of the
two; and, furthermore,
that the
meaning
and truthfulness of those texts
purporting
to be historical cannot be divorced from their historicity.
It mattered to Paul whether the resurrection
actually happened (1
Cor.
15:12-19).
How can it be different for us?
In
short, Cargal
is
probably right: Pentecostalism,
because of its pragmatic
and
experiential focus, may
be
easily
attracted to the ahistorical vision inherent in
postmodern thought.
This however is a weakness,
not a
strength. Although,
as
Cargal notes, postmodernism “provides philosophical space
in which it is
meaningful
to
speak
of an encounter with transcendent
reality,”‘°
we must
ask,
at what
price? Postmodernism
may
allow Christians to
speak
about such
encounters, but not with
authority:
we are but one voice in a
cacophony
of unintelligible sounds.
Press, 1991), 379-380, 397-415 and Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation,
114.
‘Klein, Blomberg,
and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 135: “We can apply interpretative controls only if we seek as our primary goal the that would have made sense to the
meaning
original writer and readers.”
Cargal might object to our use of “all,” but it is not clear how he would judge any reading 9 Allan
invalid.
Bloom,
The Closing of the American Mind
(New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster, ‘° 1987), 40.
Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” 179.
3
118
The Present and the
Quest for
Relevance
Cargal’s postmodernism
not
only
diminishes the
place
of historical investigation
in the
interpretative enterprise,
it also minimizes the role of the text itself The locus of meaning shifts from the author/text to the reader. This shift is evident in the
way Cargal emphasizes
the
“shaping influence of
[the interpreter’s] experience”
and the
multiple meanings which it yields.”
This focus on the reader reflects an admirable concern for contemporary
life.
Indeed,
this concern for relevance has led to the rise of numerous reader-oriented
approaches
to biblical
interpretation.
Yet in
spite
of noble
aspirations,
there is cause for concern. While
many forms of the new
literary criticism,
when used in conjunction with more traditional
methods,
have much to
offer,
the extreme
subjectivity
of some reader-oriented
methodologies-such
as
reader-response criticism and deconstructionism-is
disturbing.
These
approaches
strike me as the
logical
successors of a sterile biblical criticism which had so emasculated the text that it had
nothing
of
significance
to communicate. At some
point,
the
question
had to be
asked:. why
bother with all of this? The solution to this dilemma was obvious: if
significance
cannot be found in the
meaning
of the
text,
then it must be
imported
from outside the text.
Perhaps
this hermeneutical dilemma is
why many postmodernists
so vehemently
attack traditional
approaches:
these critical methods are vestiges
of a dark and
meaningless past. Cargal
is more restrained than most, though
he too
lampoons
the
quest
for “`kernels’ discovered
by critical, objective
historical reconstruction.”‘2 Yet this
critique
of the historical-critical
method,
at least as employed by Evangelicals, appears to be
misguided.
For
example,
source and redaction criticism are employed,
not to
get
behind the text to some
pristine
and authoritative ‘kernel’;
but
rather,
so that we
might
better understand the text itself (in
its final form no
less).
For the
Evangelical,
critical methods
help uncover textual
meaning.
This
quest
is
important
and relevant because the
Scripture
is God’s word to us.
Of course a focus on the
original meaning
of the text does not solve all of our
interpretative problems.
We still have to
appropriate
the message
for our culture and
age
in a
way
that is faithful and relevant. And,
as a missionary, I am all too aware of the
complexity
of this task. However,
the distinction between the
meaning
of the text and the numerous
applications
or
significances
it
may
have for various situations and cultures is
necessary
if we are to restrain ourselves from distorting
the text.
Unfortunately,
this distinction is lost in the postmodern paradigm.
Clark Pinnock
speaks forthrightly:
“I
repudiate the idea so
prevalent today
that the human
standpoint
acts as a sort of 11
12 Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist -Modernist Controversy,” 181-182. Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” 168.
4
119
lens or
grid
on the basis of which we can understand the Bible. When this
happens,
one is not
interpreting
the Bible but
judging
and
rewriting it. “13
The Future and the
Quest for
Pentecostal
behind. But
sexism, racism,
modem Pentecostal exciting
Pentecostals Evangelical heritage.
Identity
If Pentecostals can free
promoting
the may
be
hope.
Pentecostals
are mediated
by
Pentecostals
Twenty years ago would find such
openness forward,
understanding
of
Spirit baptism today
Pentecostals
hermeneutical
than ever before to Pentecostal virtue of Pentecostalism’s as an
important bridge non-Evangelical
world.
Cargal’s
brave new world has little
space
for modem
Evangelicalism, mired as it is in Enlightenment
thinking. No, Evangelicalism
will be left
what of Pentecostalism?
themselves from those who seek to enslave them-those
Evangelicalization
of Pentecostalism-there
must also
recognize
that not all of their
interpretations
the
Spirit
and thus free themselves from “the insidious influences of
and c1assism.”14 Of
course,
how Pentecostals are to make such
judgments
and achieve this liberation is never articulated.
My
vision of the future is
quite
different. I see the assimilation of the
movement into the broader
Evangelical
world as an
and
positive
event.
Looking
back over the
past fifty years;
can affirm the
strength they
have found in their
This
legacy
from
Evangelicalism
has been especially helpful
with
respect
to biblical
interpretation.
can also
rejoice
in their own
positive
contributions to the
larger body.
who would have
thought
that
today
Pentecostals
concerning gifts
of the
Spirit? Looking
I see the
potential
for additional
theological
contributions to the
larger Evangelical
world and Christian
community.
The Pentecostal
is
important
is this
regard. Indeed,
find themselves with
many opportunities.
The
climate within
Evangelicalism
is more conducive now
experiential
between
theological
contributions.”
And, by
focus,
Pentecostals
might
serve
other
Evangelicals
and the
may
be rendered irrelevant if
In view of the
waning
Of course, as
Cargal notes,
Pentecostals
they
do not
hop
on the
postmodern bandwagon.
the
vigor
of
Evangelical scholarship,
interest in structuralism and
“Cargal, “Beyond
any
Scripture explicitly
“Clark H. Pinnock, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,” Journal
of Pentecostal Theology 2 (April 1993): 15-16.
the Fundamentalist-Modernist
for the comments on Acts in
Controversy,” 187.
note
example Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation,
349-250: “We have
already
stated that narrative often teaches more indirectly than didactic literature without
less normative. Thus, we reject Fee and Stuart’s maxim that ‘unless becoming
tells us we must do
highlighted
something, what
is
merely narrated or described can never function in a normative
way. “‘
See also their comments
the different ways in which Luke and Paul describe the activity of the
“these descriptions are complementary rather than
contradictory. A doctrine of
proper
Scripture will not allow Acts to be subordinated to Paul” (351).
concerning Spirit:
5
120
particularly
in the field
of hermeneutics, is true.
I would
argue
that the
opposite
6
