Is Pentecostalism Native to the Soil of the Age of Interpretation?
By Shane Clifton
Southern Cross College, Academic Dean
"Pentecostalism and the Age of Interpretation" is the second in a series of articles Matthew Del Nevo is writing, with the eventual goal of providing the movement with a way of understanding itself as the church of the third age. In sum, his thesis is that Pentecostalism, by virtue of its origination in the post Nietzschian era (as Matthew so elegantly observes "Pentecostalism is native to this soil"), is capable of overcoming the metaphysical constraints of the older streams of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism, and framing the gospel in a manner that coheres with the open and diverse outlook of the age of interpretation, popularly described as postmodern.
Matthew’s [1] insight takes some mulling over (we might say, some prayerful mediation), not only because it contains profound insight, but because the way in which he describes Pentecostalism appropriates a set of categories which will be unfamiliar to many. At the level of popular self-understanding, Pentecostalism has not only been pragmatic in its approach to faith and ministry, [2] but has tended to reject the philosophical categories that frame Matthew’s analysis – a point that actually supports his case! At the level of the academy, the movement has tended to align itself with evangelicalism and, thereby, unreflectively appropriate the modernist assumptions that Matthew aligns with an earlier epoch. In this respect, he would find himself in basic agreement with Walter Hollenweger, who observes that ‘for a long time Pentecostals tried to present themselves as a kind of ‘evangelicals plus’, that is evangelicals plus fire, plus speaking in tongues’ etc.. [3] But as both writers would observe, coming from very different backgrounds, that is no longer adequate. As Matthew concluded in the previous article:
Pentecostal Christians are epochally different from Protestants and (philosophically speaking) paradigmatically different. Understanding the three ages of the Church gives each pentecostal church a philosophical basis which is not founded on Protestant belief-led self-understanding or evangelical theology, which is unable to properly accommodate spiritual theology. [4]
As a Catholic academic, employed to teach spirituality in the Catholic diocese of Broken Bay, NSW, Matthew’s connection to Pentecostalism stems from his involvement with Hillsong Church. To this extent, he might be criticised, not only for presuming that Hillsong reflects the orientations and worldview of global pentecotalism but, thereafter, for his failure to engage with the Pentecostal sources that might either have supported or countered his arguments. Is it sufficient to presume that, just because the movement was birthed in the age of interpretation, it shares a spirituality reflective of and suited to that era?
It might be argued, for example, that Pentecostalism is best understood as a rejection, not only of Catholicism and Protestantism, but of modern and postmodern trends alike. In this way, the movement is not so much framed by the era of interpretation, but by its primitivist orientation which, as Grant Wacker notes, entails "the determination to return to … fundamental things" - which for Pentecostals has denoted "believers yearning to be guided solely by God’s Spirit in every aspect of their lives," [5] and has meant that traditional interpretations of Scripture, traditional theology and even church creeds have been considered suspect, as have the prevailing cultural trends of broader society.
Of course, suspicion of those broader social trends does not mean the movement will necessarily have escaped them. Indeed, Matthew’s point is that the very spirituality that drives its rejection of metaphysical traditions and creeds and stimulates its openness to new moves the Spirit is indicative of its relationship to the age of interpretation. He is not alone in this conclusion, with an increasing number of Pentecostal commentators seeking to align the movement with postmodern trends, noting particularly the way in which Pentecostal hermeneutics resists the rational and dogmatic presumptions of other movements (particularly the modern approaches of evangelicalism), and instead insists upon the place of non-rational (spiritual) and relational ways of knowing. [6]
While he might, thereby, have supported his argument by reference to this wider literature, Matthew makes his case by showing the various ways in which the movement’s spirituality can be aligned with that of Nietzsche and his interpreters – an approach that will be somewhat disconcerting to a movement more used to thinking of Nietzsche as the devil incarnate. In fact, as Matthew observes, Nietzsche’s assertion that God is dead and that religion has killed him is a critique not of the G-d (to borrow Matthew’s spelling) of the scriptures but of dogmatic categorizations of God arrived at by metaphysical speculation, and utilized by religions to shape and control the masses. Understood in this way, Nietzsche’s critique of religion shares a certain resonance with Pentecostal rejections of religious traditions and creeds. The consequent recognition by Nietzsche and his disciples that metaphysical truth, and all truth, depends upon the subjective constraints of language, so that assertions of truth can only ever be subjective interpretations, also resonates with a Pentecostal spirituality that is subjective in orientation; one that prioritises personal spirituality and creative and diverse interpretations of the Scriptures and of the voice of the Spirit.
It seems then, clear that Pentecostalism can be distinguished from Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism and, further, that it can be understood by reference to the postmodern age of interpretation. Matthew’s point is to show that this is so, and to encourage Pentecostalism to be self-conscious of the fact. For me, however, the real question is not whether this is so, but should it be so? That is to say, how far should Pentecostalism go in its rejection of the metaphysical doctrines of the earlier church, and in affirming an essential subjective spirituality?
The problems with the age of interpretation are well documented, and beyond a detailed analysis in this response to Matthew’s argument. For our purposes, the first issue is the presumption that metaphysical assertions need to be overcome. Matthew presumes that they should or, more importantly, that they already have been overcome in the epistemological conclusions of the broader society. For this reason, he does not feel the need to do explain why this should be so but, rather, merely describes what has happened. For him, the case has been made (the argument against metaphysics is self-evident; a fait accompli), but it seems to me problematic to presume that continental philosophy is necessarily correct (or, rather, the better interpretation) and, thereby, that the church should just move on and leave behind its metaphysical history. As a Catholic professor of mine once observed, if you are going to reject two thousand years of church tradition, you had better have a "bloody good reason."
As is well known, Pentecostals have never felt this restraint, but it should not go without comment that one of the consequences within the movement has been a series of what could be labelled heterodox theologies (such as oneness Pentecostalism). Of course, in the age of interpretation the label "heresy" is seen to be divisive and a result of the sort of dogmatic exclusivism that denies unity in the pluralism of faith, and that has led to the divisions that have come to frame denominationalised Christianity. Yet for all the need to accept diversity and to be slow to judge others, there surely comes a point at which the church needs to stand for something for more than just an interpretation, asserting its believe that the truth of God is revealed in Jesus, as set out in the Scriptures and understood according to the metaphysical analysis of the church?
I am presuming, at this point, that knowledge of truth is possible, a position that Matthew rejects – all we have, he notes, are truths (or interpretations), which cannot be adjudicated between because there is no contact with reality (facts) that can decisively countermand one interpretation in favour of another. From this perspective, no "method" is sufficient – indeed, "method" is itself a form of interpretation. Yet is this view adequate? In fairness, Matthew does assert, following Nietzsche, that not all interpretations are equal (they differ in rank). Yet to suggest that hermeneutics is always limited to perspective – that it is circular or, rather, spiralling – is to assume that no level of objectivity is possible. But is method necessarily constrained by subjectivity? Do objectivity and subjectivity need to be conceived of as polar opposites, such that the latter can never hope to reach for the former? Or is Bernard Lonergan closer to the truth when he asserts that "genuine objectivity is the fruit of authentic subjectivity"? That is to say, while we must reject the myth of the "empty head" (the capacity to know impassively) it is, nevertheless, possible for the subject to transcend her own perspectives by being authentic in the search for truth – being attentive, being intelligent, being reasonable and being responsible (what Lonergan describes as transcendental method). [7]
The question then is how much should we concede to the thinking of this present age? It is one thing to assert that we need to be humble about our claims that we "have the truth" and to argue for generous appreciation of diversity. It is another thing altogether to assert that truth claims, especially truth claims about God, cannot or should not be made – that all we have is interpretation and perspective. Such a position seems not only illogical (given my comments above), but antithetical to the heritage of Christianity that has always asserted that the truth of God (of God’s love for us) is revealed in Jesus Christ.
This is not the place to resolve this epistemological debate. Yet in the context of Pentecostalism, the problem of the prioritising of subjectivity and the rejection of doctrine and tradition is not so much heterodoxy as it is the tendency to ignore the value of systematic methodological thinking altogether. The result of such rejection can be either insipient fundamentalism or syncretistic, naïve and shallow formulations of Christian faith (such as Word of faith, prosperity theology). I would not want to claim that pentecotalism as a whole has fallen pray to such thinking, although it is sometimes in danger of doing so. For this reason, I would also argue that Pentecostalism and postmodernism do not (or should not) go hand in hand.
Having said this, what I think Matthew is arguing for is a brand of Christianity that is spiritual, open to diversity, and oriented to things that are more important than dogmatic theological categories, and in this sense one that is uniquely suited to proclaim the gospel in the age of interpretation. At its best, the Pentecostal movement can satisfy this ideal. It is, by virtue of its origins and growth, at home in the present environment. Yet if it is to do more than just align itself with the contemporary culture, it will need to both appropriate and challenge contemporary ways of thinking. This will require the movement to balance its openness to change with an appreciation for Christian heritage – even an appreciation for the metaphysical tradition of the church.
[1] Matthew is a colleague and friend, so I will refer to him using his first name. In taking this more informal approach, I am making it clear that my response to his article is not without a personal bias (i.e. I am interpreting his work from the perspective of friendship).
[2] Grant Wacker suggests that "the genius of the pentecostal movement lay in its ability to hold two seemingly incompatible impulses in productive tension, … the primitive and the pragmatic." Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (London: Harvard University Press, 2001)
[3] Walter Hollenweger, ‘Critical Tradition of Pentecostalism’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 1 (1992): 7-17, p.8.
[4] Matthew Del Nevo , "Pentecostalism and the Three Ages of the Church," Australasian Pentecostal Studies, 10 (2006/7): XX.
[5] Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture, London: Harvard University Press, 2001, p.12.
[6] See, for example, Gerald Sheppard, ‘Biblical Interpretation after Gadamer’, Pneuma, 16 (1994): 121-141, Gerald Sheppard, ‘Pentecostals, Globalization, and Postmodern Hermeneutics: Implications for the Politics of Scriptural Interpretation’, The Globalization of Pentecostalism: a Religion Made to Travel, Dempster, Klaus & Peterson (eds), (Carlisle: Regnum Books, 1999); Jackie D. Johns, ‘Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 7 (1995): 73-96; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, "Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the making: On the Way From Fundamentalism to Postmodernism", Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 18 (1998): 76-115. .
[7] Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Method in Theology (London: DLT, 1972) .