Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Robert P. Menzies’ “Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon” critically assesses Timothy Cargal’s assertion that Pentecostal hermeneutics must embrace postmodernism to maintain relevance in contemporary discourse. Menzies contends that Cargal’s “triumphalistic assessment” of postmodernism, particularly its implications for biblical interpretation, is misguided and ultimately detrimental. While acknowledging the lucidity of Cargal’s argument, Menzies specifically challenges the postmodern paradigm’s dismissal of historical inquiry and its elevation of reader-oriented subjectivity, advocating instead for a continued commitment to Evangelical hermeneutical principles. Menzies frames his critique by examining Cargal’s perception of the past, present, and future in relation to biblical hermeneutics. Regarding the “past,” Cargal critiques Evangelical approaches for their “historical concerns,” urging Pentecostals to reject the notion that meaning is rooted solely in objective historical truth. He aligns postmodernism’s skepticism toward historical reconstructions with a perceived historical disinterest among Pentecostals regarding precise historical meaning. Menzies, however, views this ahistorical stance as an extreme form of epistemological skepticism leading inevitably to relativism. He argues that while absolute certainty of authorial intent may be elusive, the pursuit of historical meaning allows the text to genuinely confront and transform the interpreter’s pre-understanding, thereby providing a crucial criterion for evaluating interpretations and safeguarding against interpretive license or the imposition of personal ideologies. He further underscores that the Christian faith is fundamentally tied to historical redemptive events, making the historicity of biblical texts a non-negotiable concern. In addressing the “present” and the quest for relevance, Menzies critiques postmodernism’s shift of meaning from the author/text to the reader, evident in Cargal’s emphasis on the interpreter’s experience and the generation of multiple meanings. While acknowledging the admirable desire for contemporary relevance, Menzies expresses concern about the extreme subjectivity inherent in certain reader-oriented methodologies, such as deconstructionism. He views these approaches as a logical, albeit problematic, successor to a “sterile biblical criticism” that had effectively stripped the text of its inherent significance. Menzies argues that Evangelical critical methods are employed not to dissect the text into “kernels” but to enhance understanding of the text in its final form. He stresses that the distinction between the original meaning of a text and its contemporary applications is vital to prevent distortion, a distinction that postmodernism, in its embrace of multiple meanings, regrettably loses. Finally, Menzies offers an alternative vision for the “future” of Pentecostal identity, diverging sharply from Cargal’s call for Pentecostals to shed their Evangelical heritage and embrace postmodernism to avoid irrelevance. Menzies posits that the assimilation of the Pentecostal movement into the broader Evangelical world is a positive development, providing strength through shared legacy while also allowing for unique Pentecostal contributions, such as insights into gifts of the Spirit and an experiential understanding of God. He challenges Cargal’s implicit assertion that Evangelical scholarship is waning, contending that interest in hermeneutics remains robust. Menzies concludes by firmly asserting that abandoning a commitment to historical meaning and textual authority in favor of postmodern relativism would be a significant weakness for Pentecostalism, rather than a path to meaningful engagement or increased authority.
