PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 60
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to
Pentecostal Hermeneutics:
Thirty Years Later
Bradley Truman Noel
When one thinks of Gordon Fee, hermeneutics may come to mind as easily as New Testament studies per se, for throughout his career Fee has engaged the problems of interpretation and exegesis as readily as he has specific issues of biblical theology. For Pentecostals, most significant have been his efforts to spark discussion on the hermeneutics behind two of Pentecostalism’s most cherished doctrines, subsequence and initial evi- dence. The year 2002 marked the thirtieth anniversary of this debate, which essentially was begun by Fee with a 19721 presentation on histori- cal precedent. This paper seeks to first examine Fee’s contribution to the discussion, and then to survey the Pentecostal response.
When assessing Fee’s understanding of a given subject, we must first delve into the hermeneutical guidelines he has set for himself. It will become apparent that with Fee, it is somewhat impossible to separate his theology from his hermeneutics, for in each instance, his theological stance has come from following his own interpretive principles.
General Hermeneutical Principles of Gordon Fee
Gordon Fee has been influenced by many of the recent trends in herme- neutics, from the work of Paul Ricoeur2 to that of Anthony Thiselton.3 Although he has preferred the approach of the older historical-critical
1
Gordon Fee’s “The Hermeneutics of Historical Precedent” was originally written for the 1972 annual meeting of the Society of Pentecostal Theology. It was later published in Russell P. Spittler, ed., Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976).2
Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press, 1976).3
Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Bible Reading (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997); and The Two Horizons (Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1980).
© 2004 Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., Boston pp. 60–80
1
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 61
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
method and E. D. Hirsch’s focus on authorial intent,4 his work nonetheless shows an awareness of the variety of modern approaches to hermeneutics, such as the New Hermeneutic’s emphasis on relevance. His willingness and ability to apply these hermeneutical approaches to Pentecostalism has been a hallmark of his work. He declares that “one does nothing more important in the formal training for Christian ministry than to wrestle with hermeneutics: the meaning and application of Scripture.”5
The Inherent Ambiguity of Scripture: A Hermeneutical Challenge
Fee maintains that the specific hermeneutical issues faced by evangeli- calism lie within its doctrine of inspiration. He notes that the evangelical commitment to seeing Scripture as both divine and human creates its own set of tensions. The intersection of the divine with the human produces far more ambiguities than some feel comfortable with.
The buck stops there, at the text and its intent, as to what is infallible. God did not choose to give us a series of timeless, non-culture-bound theological propositions to be believed and imperatives to be obeyed. Rather he chose to speak His eternal Word this way, in historically particular circumstances and in every kind of literary genre. God Himself, by the very way he gave us this Word, locked in the ambiguity.6
In the debate between the natural unity and diversity of the text, Fee opts for what he terms the “radical middle.” Our doctrine of inspiration suggests that Scripture inherently contains ambiguity, accommodation, and diversity, each to varying degrees. Since God chose to give us his word in this manner, our task is to hold each end of the spectrum—historical par- ticularity and eternality—with equal vigor. While we cannot generate the absolute certainty so sought by the fundamentalists, we can nonetheless move toward a higher level of commonality. The way toward this higher level is found at the crucial point of authorial intentionality, both human and divine. The task of the exegete and theologian is to discover and hear the word in terms of God’s original intent. Only then may we begin to ascertain its meaning for our own historical setting.7
4
E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).5
Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 25.6
Ibid., 33. In quotations of Fee, all italics are by Fee. See also George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), 12.7
Ibid., 35-36.
61
2
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 62
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
The Crucial Issue: Authorial Intentionality
Fee details why authorial intent is such a crucial issue, although it causes him the greatest problems when dealing with Pentecostal distinc- tives and generates the most tension among evangelicals. An insistence on authorial intentionality provides several benefits. It serves as a corrective, limiting the possible meanings a text might be given.8 Authorial intent gives us a way forward to construct our theologies in a truly biblical fash- ion. It will teach us that apparent contradictions in the text need not always be resolved or harmonized, but may stand together in healthy tension. Unity is found in the diversity.9
Intentionality and Particularity/Eternality
Fee does not refrain from tackling perhaps the most difficult hermeneu- tical issue of all. The question is: Since God spoke his word in historically particular circumstances, how much of the particularity itself is a part of the eternal word? If the texts call us to practice hospitality, do we agree that washing feet (the particular) is a part of the eternal (showing hospital- ity)? It is obvious from the outset that this question is one of the harder for which to proscribe systematic solutions.
When faced with passages in Acts in which the eternality of the partic- ulars is difficult to determine, Fee holds to what he believes is the purpose and overall point of the passage. Many hermeneutical difficulties lie in the manner in which one acknowledges, or fails to acknowledge, the immense role played by denominational tradition and presuppositions in the inter- pretation of Scripture.10 Fee believes that the selectivity of hermeneutics is for the most part related to tradition, not to exegesis. Tradition may lead us to ask specific questions of the text that are not otherwise legitimate. These questions then lead us toward the kind of hermeneutical posture to which we are predisposed. For example, to inquire of Acts, “What is the evidence
8
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 43. As an example, he cites B. B. Warfield’s interpretation of “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 as referring to the canon of the New Testament. Since neither Paul nor his audience could have possibly understood the text in this way, it cannot be considered the “meaning” of this text.9
Ibid.10
One need only refer to Rudolph Bultmann’s now famous essay on whether it is pos- sible to do presuppositionless exegesis and his resounding “No” to that question. See “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith, Shorter Writings of Rudolph Bultmann (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1960), 289-96.
62
3
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 63
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
of Spirit baptism?” may be asking a question of the text that it was not written to answer. The answer found, of course, can scarcely be the proper one.11
Summary
Fee opts for the radical middle in the hermeneutical challenge associ- ated with an inherent ambiguity of Scripture. This middle ground is the determination of authorial intent, both human and Divine. With this is his insistence on a Spirit-centered approach to New Testament imperatives and a constant awareness of the impact of tradition upon one’s hermeneu- tics. These three principles are the foundation for Fee’s reflection on Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology.
Hermeneutics and Pentecostal Theology
With Fee’s hermeneutical principles in hand, we are now prepared to examine his theology on Spirit baptism, particularly as it relates to his own denomination, the Assemblies of God. For, although Fee claims to be Pentecostal in every regard, he nonetheless takes considerable exception to the stated form of two of their key (some would argue distinctive) doc- trines: the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent act following con- version, and the declaration that the evidence of such baptism is speaking in tongues.12
11
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 75.12
For those who may not recall the official wording of the AG position, it is stated as follows in Articles 7 and 8 of the “Statement of Fundamental Truths,” Minutes of the Thirty- Fifth General Council of the Assemblies of God (Miami Beach, FL, August 12-16, 1973), 102:
7. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost
All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise
of the Father, the baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire, according to the command of our
Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian
church…This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new
birth (Acts 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9)….
8. The Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost
The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physical sign of
speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4). The
speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (I Cor.
12:4-10, 28), but different in purpose and use.
63
4
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 64
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent
Pentecostals admit to basing their theology of subsequence and initial evidence on historical precedent as found in Acts. With specific regard to Pentecostal theology, we must take the genre of the book seriously. Acts is historical narrative, and it was within this arena that much of the scholarly debate with Pentecostalism first took place. Many have argued that one must distinguish between didactic and historical portions of Scripture, and that the didactic portions have primary importance for the formation of Christian doctrine.13 It has been declared that what is clearly descriptive history in Acts must not be translated into normative experiences for the ongoing church.14 Fee does not deny that theology abounds in Luke’s work. Rather, he simply pleads for one to remember that Luke cast his theology in historical narrative, and for anyone concerned with good hermeneutics, this must be taken seriously.15 The key to determining what may be didactic within a framework of historical narrative is, for Fee, the role of authorial intent.
Although Luke’s “broader intent” may be a moot point for some, it is a defensible hypothesis that he was trying to show how the church emerged as a chiefly Gentile, worldwide phenomenon from its origins as a Jerusalem- based, Judaism-oriented sect of Jewish believers, and how the Holy Spirit
13
For example, Donald Guthrie declares, “We may observe at once that this evidence from the book of Acts does not provide us with any reflection on the theology of the Spirit. It is wholly concerned with his activity…. The theological exposition of the doctrine of the Spirit did not fit into Luke’s purpose in Acts, but comes to fuller expression in the epistles.” Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1981), 548.14
See, e.g., Clark Pinnock and Grant Osborne, “A Truce Proposal for the Tongues Controversy,” Christianity Today 16 (Oct. 8, 1971), 6-9; John R. W. Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1964), 8; and Anthony Hoekema, Holy Spirit Baptism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), 23-24.15
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 90. Pentecostal scholars are quick to point out that there is renewed recognition of Luke as a theologian. I. Howard Marshall’s Luke: Historian and Theologian, Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970; rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998) has been called “an important shift in evan- gelical thinking.” See R. P. Menzies, “The Distinctive Character of Luke’s Pneumatology,” Paraclete 25, no. 4 (1991): 20. Also significant is Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998). Marshall writes, “Luke was entitled to his own views, and the fact that they differ in some respects from those of Paul should not be held against him at this point. On the contrary, he is a theologian in his own right, and must be treated as such.” Historian and Theologian, 75. W. W. Gasque, in his masterful A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1975; repr. 1989), includes two chapters on Luke the Theologian, pp. 136-63 and 251-305.
64
5
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 65
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
was ultimately responsible for this phenomenon of universal salvation based on grace alone.16
Three Key Principles
Fee outlines three specific principles regarding hermeneutics and his- torical narrative: (1) Authorial intent is the chief factor in determining nor- mative values from narratives. (2) That which is incidental to the primary intent of a narrative cannot have the same didactic value as the intended teaching, although it may provide insight into the author’s theology. (3) For historical precedent to have normative value, it must be demonstrated that such was the specific intent of the author. If the author intended to establish precedent, then such should be regarded as normative.17 As any- one familiar with Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology will quickly real- ize, the preceding “guidelines” commence the challenge of the Pentecostal position for subsequence and initial evidence, for both are based on the assumption that Luke intended to teach these doctrines from the related narratives in Acts. Pentecostals have responded forcefully, yet creatively, to Fee’s guidelines. Their response is discussed in detail below.
Categories of Christian Theology
In general, Fee believes that Christian theology may be divided into three (or four)18 categories: (1) Christian theology (what Christians believe); (2) Christian ethics (how Christians ought to behave); and (3) Christian experience or practice (what Christians do in terms of religious practices). These must be further defined in terms of primary and sec- ondary importance, depending on whether they are derived from impera- tives, or incidentally by analogy or precedent.19 Astutely, he notes that
16
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 91.17
Ibid., 92.18
This was one of the few changes from Gospel and Spirit to How to Read the Bible, published several years later. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993). Its impetus came from a specific challenge by R. Stronstad that the last category must be divided into two. More detail on this below.19
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 93. See also How to Read the Bible, 106-8, for the same mate- rial rephrased for the layperson. By way of example, in the first category we might consider the deity of Christ primary; how the two natures concur in unity is secondary. That Scripture is the inspired word of God is primary; the precise nature of inspiration is secondary. With
65
6
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 66
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
almost everything that Christians derive from Scripture by way of prece- dent is in the third category, Christian experience or practice, and always at the secondary level. This is not to say that secondary statements are unimportant; we simply cannot treat them as identical to primary state- ments based upon clear imperatives.20
Fee wades further into the debate with his fellow Pentecostals:
The doctrine of a baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent to conversion and accompanied by tongues seems to belong to the secondary level of doctrinal statements in my third category. That believers are to be (or keep being) filled with the Spirit, that they are to walk and live in the Spirit is at the pri- mary level and normative. When and how one enters the dimension of Christian experience, although not unimportant, is not of the same “norma- tive” quality, because the “when and how” is based solely on precedent and/or analogy.21
Specific Principles Regarding Historical Precedent
With these general observations and principles in view, he offers the following specific principles for the use of historical precedent.22
1) The use of historical precedent as an analogy by which to establish
a norm is never valid in itself. Such a process (drawing universal
norms from particular events) produces a non sequitur and is therefore
irrelevant.
2) Although it may not have been the author’s primary purpose, historical
narratives do have illustrative and, sometimes, “pattern” value. It
should be noted, however, that especially in cases where the precedent
justifies a present action, that the precedent does not establish a norm
for specific action. A caveat is in order here: for a biblical precedent to
justify a present action, the principle of the action must be taught else-
where, where it is the primary intent so to teach.
respect to Christian ethics, general maxims such as love for one’s enemy and unlimited forgiveness are primary; concrete principles and applications to specific situations are secondary.20
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 93.21
Ibid., 93-94.22
It is important that these be listed just as Fee wrote them, for it is on these principles that he has drawn much of the fire from his Pentecostal colleagues. Often the issue concerns the actual wording used. For the sake of later clarification, I offer these principles verbatim.
66
7
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 67
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
3) In matters of Christian experience, and even more so of Christian prac-
tice, biblical precedents may be regarded as repeatable patterns—even
if they are not to be regarded as normative.23
Fee directly engages Pentecostal distinctives and historical precedent. He maintains that one is unable to prove authorial intent in the “patterns” of Pentecost, Samaria, Paul, and Ephesus. It is simply not possible to show that Luke intended to teach an experience of the Spirit as subsequent to conversion.24 For Luke, the real evidence of Christian experience was the reception of the Spirit. What he is teaching in this narrative is the valida- tion by the Jerusalem leaders of the spread of Christianity beyond Jerusalem.25
The Essence of Pentecostalism
Upon discovering that Gordon Fee does not subscribe to either subse- quence or initial evidence as stated by his denomination,26 the twin doc- trines cherished by many Pentecostals as the true doctrinal essence of the
23
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 94-96. The repeatable character of certain practices or pat- terns should be guided by the following considerations: (a) The strongest possible case can be made when only one pattern is found, and when the pattern is repeated within the New Testament itself. (b) When there is an ambiguity of patterns, or when a pattern occurs but once, it is repeatable for later Christians only if it appears to have divine approbation or is in harmony with what is taught elsewhere in Scripture. (c) What is culturally conditioned is either not repeatable at all, or must be translated into the new or differing culture.24
On the other hand, one might respond with the equally correct assertion that it is also impossible to prove that Luke did not intend to teach subsequence from these patterns. The difficulty with demanding proof of authorial intent is that it attempts to place the burden of proof on one viewpoint and not the other.25
This is widely agreed upon as Luke’s intent for this narrative. With Fee on this are George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993), 383-84; L.T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina 5, ed. D. Harrington (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1992), 150-53; Gerhard A. Krodel, Acts, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 164; F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1984), 182-83; John R.W. Stott, The Spirit, the Church and the World: The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 187; and I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980), 157-58.26
The question of whether tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit reception Fee dis- misses as a “moot point,” and thus he discusses it very little. Because tongues is seen as a repeated pattern in Acts, many Pentecostals have argued that it is the pattern. Fee disagrees. “To insist that it is the only valid sign seems to place too much weight on the historical precedent of three (perhaps four) instances in Acts.” Fee does not thereby downplay the role
67
8
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 68
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
movement, one may be drawn to inquire as to exactly how Dr. Fee still considers himself a Pentecostal. The answer lies essentially in Fee’s definition of the essence of Pentecostalism and the Pentecostal experi- ence.27 His attempt to articulate his understanding of what it means to be Pentecostal demonstrates his own strong commitment to Pentecostalism:
In thus arguing, as a New Testament scholar, against some cherished Pentecostal interpretations, I have in no sense abandoned what is essential to Pentecostalism. I have only tried to point out some inherent flaws in some of our historic understanding of texts. The essential matter, after all, is neither subsequence, nor tongues, but the Spirit himself as a dynamic, empowering presence; and there seems to me to be little question that our way of initia- tion in that—through an experience of Spirit-baptism—has biblical validity. Whether all must go that route seems to me to be more moot; but in any case, the Pentecostal experience itself can be defended on exegetical grounds as a thoroughly biblical phenomenon.28
Summary
Based on Fee’s principles, Pentecostals may say the following about their experience. In the New Testament, the presence of the Spirit was the chief element in Christian conversion and in the Christian life. In Acts, as
of tongues. In “Tongues—Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on I Corinthians 12-14,” Pentecostal Theology 2:2 (1980): 3-14, he argues forcefully that Paul values tongues highly for personal edification. His most recent comment on the issue, in God’s Empowering Presence, maintains this viewpoint, sug- gesting that personal edification is in no manner wrong and is in fact viewed very favorably by Paul, an avid tongues-speaker himself. See Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 890, 218-19.27
I posed this question in personal conversation with Dr. Fee. Some, such as William Menzies, view the tying together of tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism as a sub- sequent event, as the essence of Pentecostalism; see “The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology,” in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honour of Howard M. Ervin, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 1-3. Fee was asked how he could still consider himself a Pentecostal when he disagreed with statements 7 and 8 (above) of their funda- mental truths. He replied that he told the Assemblies of God, “I cannot support the language used to articulate this, but I support what you mean by what you have written.” At issue is the language used. To me he offered the following: “I do not throw out initial evidence, I throw out the language, because it is not biblical, and therefore irrelevant. From a reading of Luke and Paul I would expect people to speak in tongues when they are empowered by the Spirit. The reception of the Spirit is most commonly evidenced by speaking in tongues. It is very normal. I expect people to be empowered by the Spirit for witness. For most peo- ple this will be a subsequent experience, because they will have become Christians without realizing that this is for them.” Gordon Fee, interview by author, December 5, 1997.28
“The Issue of Subsequence and Separability,” in Gospel and Spirit, 111.
68
9
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 69
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
well as in Paul’s churches, the Spirit’s presence involved a charismatic dimension normally associated with the reception of the Spirit. Although speaking in tongues may not have been normative, it was normally expected to accompany Spirit baptism in the early church. Modern believ- ers, many of whom have not experienced a charismatic dimension to their conversion, may still (on the basis of the New Testament pattern) experi- ence such a dimension of Christian life. This includes speaking in tongues, for it was the repeated expression of the dynamic dimension of the coming of the Spirit. If the Pentecostal may not say one must speak in tongues, the Pentecostal may surely say, why not speak in tongues? It does have repeated biblical precedent, it did have evidential value at Cornelius’ household (Acts 10:45-46), and—despite much that has been written to the contrary—it does have value both for the edification of the believer (1 Cor. 14:2-4) and, with interpretation, for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:5, 26-28).29
The unfortunate omission of this valid biblical dimension of Christian life from the life of the Church is the backdrop against which we must understand the Pentecostal Movement, deeply unsatisfied with life in Christ without life in the Spirit. Although their timing may have been off, what they sought to recapture for the church was not.
That this experience was for them usually a separate experience in the Holy Spirit and subsequent to their conversion is in itself probably irrelevant. Given their place in the history of the church, how else might it have hap- pened? Thus the Pentecostal should probably not make a virtue out of neces- sity. At the same time, neither should others deny the validity of such experience on biblical grounds, unless, as some do, they wish to deny the reality of such an empowering dimension of life in the Spirit altogether. But such a denial, I would argue, is actually an exegeting not of the biblical texts but of one’s own experience in this later point in church history and a mak- ing of that experience normative. I for one like the biblical norm better; at this point the Pentecostals have the New Testament clearly on their side.30
The Pentecostal Response
As might be expected, Pentecostal scholars have responded definitively to the hermeneutical and theological challenges put forward by Fee. While
29
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 98-99. Also helpful are Fee’s The First Epistle to the Corin- thians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 569-713; and Empowering Presence, 863-68, 886-90.30
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 119.
69
10
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 70
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
many Pentecostals have written on the topic, only three scholars have taken Fee’s challenge seriously and provided appropriate responses: William Menzies, long-time Pentecostal scholar and Professor; Roger Stronstad, Academic Dean at Western Pentecostal Bible College (Clayburn, B.C.); and Robert P. Menzies, Professor at the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary (Baguio, Philippines). In each section, Fee is given opportunity to respond to his critics.31 Three issues in particular have been raised: (1) authorial intent and the essence of Pentecostalism; (2) Fee’s cat- egories of Christian theology; and (3) historical precedent.
Authorial Intent and the Essence of Pentecostalism
That Luke had specific theological intentions when writing his narra- tives is highly likely. Determining what his intent might have been remains one of the biggest issues separating Fee and other Pentecostal scholars. Fee’s contention is that genre seriously affects biblical interpretation, and further, when narratives are used to derive theology, specific authorial intent must be shown. He does not therefore allow the critical passages of Acts to be used to establish normative patterns. Pentecostals recognize this and get straight to the point:
If one can demonstrate that Luke did not intend to convey a theological mes- sage by his narratives, he has at that point effectively undercut the possibil- ity of a clear Pentecostal theology. Pentecostal theology is dependent on a hermeneutical methodology which takes seriously the theological intention of Luke. Acts must be more than an interesting glimpse into the life of the early church. It must be more than mere historical resource. Since the only access we have to Spirit-baptism initiation experiences are mediated to us through the descriptive mode, and that limited to Acts, we are heavily indebted to Luke-as-theologian.32
Fee’s hermeneutics raise several important questions. Who determines authorial intent: Pentecostals or non-Pentecostals? Who determines what is primary and what is secondary? Who is authorized to adjudicate
31
The exception here will be Robert Menzies, to whom Fee has not responded. When I asked Fee about this in an interview, he replied that a response would have drawn him much further into the debate, for which he has neither the time nor the passion. “By the time Bob published his thesis I had moved on to so many other projects that I simply abandoned the hermeneutical give and take…. I had read only enough of Menzies to know that…under the pressure of time [I wasn’t] able to handle it adequately.” Gordon D. Fee, interview with author, January 27, 1998, electronic mail.32
Wm. Menzies, “The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology,” 7.
70
11
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 71
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
between Pentecostals and their opponents as to whether or not Luke may teach twenty-first-century Christians about their experience of the Holy Spirit? Many Pentecostals believe Fee’s hermeneutics muzzle the im- portant passages of Acts, leaving him in no position to answer the above questions. Although Fee’s work challenges the tendency to allegorize, moralize, and/or spiritualize historical narratives, as a whole it must be rejected.33
In focusing on Luke’s theological intent, Fee consistently employs a basic presupposition: in the New Testament, the presence of the Spirit was the chief element in Christian conversion. Whereas others addressed Fee on his hermeneutical principles per se, Robert Menzies challenges the notion that Luke shares Paul’s pneumatological emphasis in his writings on the Spirit’s function. If Luke’s basic intent in relating the activities of the Spirit is charismatic and not soteriological, the Pentecostal case con- cerning authorial intent in historical narratives is much stronger.
Fee’s work played an important role in the theological development of Pentecostalism since the 1970s. He clearly argued that Pentecostalism could no longer rely on nineteenth-century interpretive methods. But Menzies maintains that this message is no longer relevant. Pentecostals have replaced their outdated hermeneutics with approaches that speak the modern hermeneutical language. Fee’s critique of Pentecostal hermeneu- tics, updated in 1991, now fails to address today’s crucial question: “Does Luke, in a manner similar to Paul, present the Spirit as the source of new covenant existence?”34 For Menzies the answer is “No.”
I would suggest that the pneumatologies of Luke and Paul are different but compatible; and the difference should not be blurred, for both perspectives offer valuable insight into the dynamic work of the Holy Spirit. Clearly Paul has the more developed view, for he sees the full richness of the Spirit’s work…. Paul attests to both the soteriological and the prophetic (as well as charismatic) dimensions of the Spirit’s work. Luke’s perspective is less developed and more limited. He bears witness solely to the prophetic dimen- sion of the Spirit’s work, and thus he gives us a glimpse of only a part of
33
Roger Stronstad, “The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent,” in Paraclete 27, no. 2 (1993): 11.34
R. Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 239. This question is the crux of Menzies’ work, and is answered in the negative through 200-plus pages of argument and exegesis. Although the specific proofs supporting the claim are outside the scope of this work, we will nonethe- less explore the results and impacts of his thesis. The interested reader may find a brief sum- mary of his research in “The Distinctive Character of Luke’s Penumatology,” Paraclete 25, no. 3 (1991): 17-30.
71
12
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 72
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Paul’s fuller view. Nevertheless, Luke, like Paul, has an important contribu- tion to make. He calls us to recognize that the church, by virtue of its recep- tion of the Pentecostal gift, is a prophetic community empowered for a missionary task. In short, not only are the pneumatological perspectives of Paul and Luke compatible, they are complementary: both represent impor- tant contributions to a holistic and harmonious biblical theology of the Spirit.35
For Menzies, Luke’s intent is clearly subordinate to the question raised above. If his description of a “distinctive” pneumatology for Luke is cor- rect, then Luke’s intent to teach a Spirit baptism as distinct from conver- sion is, he believes, easily demonstrated. “One need only establish that Luke’s narrative was designed to encourage every Christian to receive the Pentecostal gift. And, since Luke highlights Pentecost as a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy concerning an outpouring of the Spirit upon ‘all flesh’ (Acts 2:17-21), this appears to be self-evident.”36
Finally, Fee has been charged with “selling out” the essentials of Pentecostalism. After all, one who subscribes to neither the stated doc- trines of subsequence or initial evidence, and yet claims to be a Pentecostal, will face some disbelief. Some suggest Fee has simply reached for a hermeneutic acceptable to the evangelical world. His reluc- tance to employ the concept of normative when describing charismatic phenomena associated with Spirit baptism leaves one with an “impover- ished” Pentecostal theology. “The use of normal in this connection is indeed compatible with the views of some contemporary evangelicals, but it is too weak to be made into a doctrine. Repeatability is hardly a preach- able item.”37
The obvious result of this reductionism is a willingness to permit repeata- bility of patterns, but not normativity. Hence, speaking in tongues associated with Spirit baptism may be normal, and even desirable, possibly, but it can- not be proclaimed as a normative model. Hence one is sorely pressed on
35
R. Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 241.36
Ibid., 239. For Fee’s failure to respond publicly to Robert Menzies, see n. 31 above. In private conversation, Fee offered the following. He agrees that Luke’s primary interest is in the Spirit and the Spirit’s missiological rule. It is less on initiating experiences than on the role of the Spirit in the Church. The soteriological dimension is not his focus. Luke assumes the soteriological dimension. Fee does not believe that he reads Luke with Pauline lenses, anymore than he does 1 Peter or John, both of whom assume that the reception of the Spirit is what makes one a Christian. It is a thoroughly New Testament point of view. “I do let Luke speak for himself. He just isn’t saying what they are saying he says.” Interview with author, December 5, 1997.37
Wm. Menzies, “Methodology of Pentecostal Theology,” 10; italics original.
72
13
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 73
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
exegetical grounds…if this be true, to establish a clear doctrine of either subsequence or tongues as accompanying Spirit baptism. This reductionist point of view…is somewhat short of a thoroughgoing Pentecostal theology [and] is apparently a position held today by a number of evangelicals.38
Fee’s belief that his proposals should not impact the essentials of Pente- costalism has also come under fire. To some, Fee’s message is theologi- cally indistinguishable from that of James Dunn.39 His repudiation of Pentecostal theology leaves him with nothing new to offer to the theo- logical world, and challenges the Pentecostal understanding of its own Spirit-baptism experience at its deepest level. Fee agrees with most non- Pentecostals in affirming that Spirit baptism is equated with conversion, although he does insist that the charismatic, empowering dimension is lacking and should be restored. For Robert Menzies, this still undercuts crucial aspects of Pentecostal theology:
When the Pentecostal gift is confused with conversion, [the] missiological (and I would add, Lukan) focus is lost.
The bottom line is this: If Fee is right, Pentecostals can no longer pro- claim an enabling of the Spirit which is distinct from conversion and avail- able to every believer, at least not with the same sense of expectation, nor can Pentecostals maintain that the principal purpose of this gift is to grant power for the task of mission. To sum up, the doctrine of subsequence arti- culates a conviction crucial for Pentecostal theology and practice: Spirit- baptism, in the Pentecostal sense, is distinct from…conversion. This conviction, I would add, is integral to Pentecostalism’s continued sense of expectation and effectiveness in mission.40
Fee’s Response41
Fee has responded with some clarification. He concurs on the charis- matic nature of Luke’s writings and agrees that his primary concern was
38
Ibid., 9; italics original. Timothy Cargal agrees. “In one of the first responses by Pentecostals to these challenges, Fee essentially conceded the case by joining didactic value with authorial intent.” Timothy B. Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Contro- versy: Pentecostal Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age,” Pentecostal Theology 15:2 (1993): 183.39
Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970). In one of the first challenges to Pentecostal theology, James Dunn forcefully chal- lenged the Pentecostal position on subsequence by firmly equating the experience of Spirit baptism with conversion.40
Wm. Menzies, “Methodology of Pentecostal Theology,” 9.41
With the 1991 republication of the two key articles from 1976 and 1985, Fee included
73
14
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 74
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
charismatic and not soteriological. It is not “theology” in the larger sense that concerns him when discussing Acts, but the concept of “didactic” as it is related to the question of establishing Christian norms. He believes that part of the problem lies in his usage of “norms” and “normative.” By “normal,” Fee understands that this is the way it was in the early Church. The dynamic, empowering dimension of life in the Spirit was a normal, expected, recurring experience. Precisely because it was so “normal,” it was presupposed; there was no compulsion to talk about it at every turn. By “normative,” however, he means something that must be adhered to by all Christians at all times and in all places, if they are truly obedient to God’s word. It becomes a matter of obedience, no questions asked.42
He acknowledges the concern, however, that this transition from “normative” to “normal” waters down the Pentecostal position. Fee dis- agrees with the assertion that “Repeatability is hardly a preachable item.”43 He points to the millions of believers worldwide who have experienced and are experiencing the Pentecostal reality of dynamic life in the Spirit, many of whom have never heard of subsequence or initial evidence.44 He concludes:
Precisely because I understand this dimension of life in the Spirit to be the New Testament norm, I think it is repeatable, and should be so, as the norm of the later church. Where I would tend to disagree with my tradition in the articulation of this norm is when they use language that seems more obliga- tory to me than I find in the New Testament documents themselves.45
Categories of Christian Theology
Roger Stronstad, in particular, has taken issue with Fee’s threefold classification of doctrinal statements: (1) Christian theology (what Christians believe); (2) Christian ethics (how Christians ought to behave); (3) Christian experience or practice (what Christians do in terms of reli- gious practices). He believes that Fee is guilty of “a confusion of cate- gories” in placing the experience of Spirit baptism, and the Pentecostal
a brief postscript in Gospel and Spirit containing his response to Wm. Menzies and R. Stronstad.42
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 102.43
Wm. Menzies, “Methodology of Pentecostal Theology,” 10.44
Gordon Fee, interview with author, December 5, 1997.45
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 103.
74
15
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 75
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
explanation of it, into the third category. According to Stronstad, Spirit baptism is not something Christians “do”; rather, it is an experience. The third category ought to be spiritual experience, with a fourth category needed for Christian practice. The essence of this argument is the hope that the hermeneutics appropriate for Christian practice somehow do not apply to Christian experience. By challenging Fee’s placement of Spirit bap- tism into the third category, Stronstad hopes to bypass the more difficult of his hermeneutical guidelines. Thus Fee’s entire hermeneutical scheme, suggested for the category of Christian practice, may not apply to the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism.
As a spiritual experience it is akin to, say, the spiritual experience of being born again. Both the experiences of Spirit-baptism and of being born again are experiences in which God causes something to happen to the person. In neither case is it something that Christians do…. Consequently, the princi- ples which apply to [the category of] . . . Christian practice, are irrelevant for this new category, spiritual experience.46
Fee’s Response
Fee’s use of three and not four categories was “more descriptive than definite.” While Stronstad correctly observed that there is a fundamental difference between spiritual experience and Christian practice, Fee acknowledges that he put them together because he perceived the hermeneutical issues to be very similar for each category. Whether or not this is actually true remains open for further examination and dialogue. Fee admits that he might well be wrong in that assumption. His main concern was not to establish a hermeneutical axiom, but to make the hermeneutical observation that most differences among Christians occur in this third (and fourth) category.47 Neither Fee nor Stronstad has actually examined what differences, if any, occur hermeneutically between the two categories.
The Merits of Historical Precedent
Fee maintains that Pentecostals employ the key passages in Acts on the basis of historical precedent alone. For historical precedent to function
46
Stronstad, “Biblical Precedent,” 4-5.47
“Response to Roger Stronstad’s ‘The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent,’” in Paraclete 27:2 (1993): 12.
75
16
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 76
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
with didactic merit, Fee argues that it must be taught elsewhere in Scripture. Herein lies the sore spot between most Pentecostal scholars and Fee. No other part of Scripture teaches subsequence or initial evidence. Thus, for Pentecostals, Fee has undercut their theology at the root.
Ultimately, this methodology means that Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or John, may instruct the contemporary Christian, but that Luke, because he chose to write historical narrative, neither intended to instruct the church nor will be allowed to instruct the contemporary church, whatever his intention might or might not have been.
It is a monumental irony that Luke, the author of 25 percent of the New Testament, is allowed no independent status among the recognized teachers in the New Testament by Reformed hermeneutics and so-called scientific exegesis.48
Robert Menzies accurately captures the essence of Fee’s dilemma con- cerning how the normative aspects of Luke’s narrative may be clearly identified. “Unless we are prepared to choose church leaders by the cast- ing of lots, or are willing to encourage church members to sell all of their possessions, we cannot simply assume that a particular historical narrative provides the basis for normative theology.”49 Fee’s concern is thus legiti- mate. His solution is to tie historical precedent to authorial intent. On the basis of this, Fee has rejected the Pentecostal formulation of their theology, although he maintains the validity of their experience. The younger Menzies agrees with Fee on this point and has instead focused his atten- tion on the charismatic theology of Luke, with the promotion of the charis- matic thus intrinsically implied in any discussion of Lukan intent.
Others take a different approach, suggesting that the hermeneutical “rules” laid out by Fee border on the arbitrary and that care must be exer- cised to avoid limiting the theological enterprise.50 Stronstad argues that Fee’s three principles for the use of historical precedent are “fundamen- tally flawed.” In particular, he takes issue with the first of the principles51 and gives three examples from Acts illustrating the use of historical prece- dent by the early Church for a variety of purposes, including the establish- ment of norms.
48
“The Hermeneutics of Lukan Historigraphy,” in Paraclete 22, no. 4 (1988): 11.49
R. Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 237.50
Wm. Menzies, “Methodology of Pentecostal Theology,” 10; italics original.51
“The use of historical precedent as an analogy by which to establish a norm is never valid.”
76
17
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 77
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
The first biblical example is at the very beginning of Jesus’ public min- istry. He anticipates the skepticism of the people when he visits Nazareth and declares, “No prophet is welcome in his hometown” (Luke 4:24). He then appeals to Elijah (Luke 4:25-26) and Elisha (Luke 4:27), both of whom turned away from their own community to minister to others. Thus, on the basis of the historical precedent of Elijah and Elisha, Jesus left Nazareth and went down to Capernaum (Luke 4:30). Luke also reports Jesus’ use of historical precedent when the disciples are charged with Sabbath violations, namely, the picking and eating of wheat on the Sabbath (Luke 6:2). Jesus defends his disciples on the precedent set by David when he and his companions were hungry and ate the consecrated bread, lawful only for the priests (Luke 6:4). Historical precedent is used at the so-called Jerusalem Council, reported in Acts 15, in which the apostles were decid- ing the fate of Gentile Christians. On the basis of Peter’s vision concern- ing the Gentiles, the apostles decide that God’s purpose is met in making the Gentiles God’s people. Further, their decision to refrain from insisting upon Gentile circumcision establishes a normative doctrine in the church.52
Despite his arguments against the validity of Fee’s dictums, Stronstad recognizes his predicament:
The impasse in this debate is that whereas it is possible to expose the flaws in Fee’s hermeneutic of historical precedent, it is impossible to prove that there is a biblical precedent for historical precedent. In other words, although it is possible to demonstrate that there are examples in the Book of Acts where the church used historical precedent to establish a norm, it is impos- sible to prove that Luke intended for his readers to interpret his narratives by the same principle. It is impossible to prove this because Luke never tells his readers to do this.53
Stronstad concludes that the validity of the use of biblical precedent must either commend itself as self-evident, or it does not. Pentecostals operate on a hermeneutic that affirms that normative beliefs and practices may properly be derived from narratives on the basis of historical prece- dent. Although often criticized for this approach, other New Testament scholars tacitly agree.54 The real issue for Stronstad, then, is not whether
52
Stronstad, “Biblical Precedent,” 6-7.53
Ibid., 9.54
He quotes J. Ramsey Michaels, “There is nothing wrong in principle with deriving normative beliefs and practices from narratives.” From “Evidences of the Spirit, or the Spirit as Evidence? Some Non-Pentecostal Reflections,” In Initial Evidence, ed. Gary McGee
77
18
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 78
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Pentecostals are justified in using historical precedent hermeneutically, but whether they have done so correctly.
Fee’s Response
Fee responds by confessing that in all of the criticism directed toward his articulation of things, he has failed to find another hermeneutical approach that “took me by the hand and showed me how one goes about doing this—that is, establishing something normative on the basis of his- torical precedent alone.”55 Regarding the criticism of his first principle, he notes that the key word for him in that principle is analogy. His only point was that anything based on analogies is sure to fail hermeneutically when establishing norms, for they open up too many possibilities.56 As for Stronstad’s pointed questions concerning exactly who had the authority to decide authorial intent, Fee has two suggestions. First, scholars must work to discover whether Luke actually had a doctrinal/theological imperative in his narratives, with regard to repeating the specifics. Second, with the evident diversity of patterns within Acts itself, how does one determine which are normative? If Luke’s concern and intent were to provide patterns for the establishment of normative doctrine, Fee wonders, how do we explain his failure to narrate similar events in the same way? Luke’s fond- ness for great variety as he reports the experience of the early believers leads Fee to conclude that the establishment of normative patterns was not his chief objective.
I would not want to say that Luke did not intend us to understand the bap- tism of the Spirit to be distinct from and subsequent to conversion, intended for empowering, and always evidenced by speaking in tongues; I am simply less convinced than my Pentecostal forebears that Luke did so intend. And chiefly because, even though this pattern can be found in three (probably four, perhaps five) instances, it is clearly not expressly narrated in this way in every instance. Although I am quite open on this question, I do not find…the kinds of criteria that help me to think otherwise.57
Fee wholeheartedly agrees that Jesus justified and defended his and other’s actions on the basis of historical precedent. He also supports
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 203. See also G. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 153; and Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 75.55
Fee, “Response to Stronstad,” 11-14.56
Ibid., 13.57
Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 103-4.
78
19
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 79
Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics
Stronstad’s use of his third illustration, the Gentile mission in Acts. For Fee, however, there is a difference between defending one’s actions and establishing a norm. It is certain that Jesus defended, on the basis of his- torical precedent, the right of his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath. But did he thereby establish a norm for all generations following? Jesus did move from his hometown to another location on the basis of the his- torical actions of two Old Testament prophets. Did he thus establish a norm, that we must do the same? In both cases, the answer is undoubtedly negative.58
All of this to say, then, that I am an advocate of the “biblical precedent for historical precedent”; I always have been, and undoubtedly always will be. My roots are deep within restorationism, after all. But on the issue of “bib- lical precedent as historical precedent for establishing what is normative”— as I understand that word—I need more dialogue with the larger Pentecostal community, not with the aim of scoring points in the debate, but with the aim of helping me to understand so that I would be able to articulate such a per- spective with personal integrity within my own present historical context.59
Conclusion
Fee’s contributions to hermeneutics, both for Pentecostalism and the Christian world in general, are significant. Rarely does one read material so concerned to integrate the practical with the theoretical, the “exegesis” with the “spirituality.” For Fee, the inherent tension in Scripture can be alleviated only through the discovery of authorial intent. This focus, how- ever, seriously challenges the traditional Pentecostal practice of relying on perceived patterns in Luke’s narratives. In addition, Fee’s non-typical views concerning the core of Pentecostalism have been highly objection- able to those holding to subsequence and initial evidence as the essence of the movement.
58
“Response to Stronstad,” 13-14. Charles Holman, in another response to Stronstad, agrees. Further, he notes that the third example used, of the Gentile mission, is valid only because it meets certain finely stated criteria. He questions what criteria Stronstad would offer to distinguish between historical precedent that is intended to serve as a norm, and that which is not. “It does us no good to perceive Luke as a theologian and then be unable to arrive at criteria by which his historical narrative becomes authoritative for us in experience and practice.” Holman suggests consideration be given to: (1) the broad literary structure of a document; (2) the consistent recurrence of themes; (3) the place of emphasis such themes occupy in the document as a whole; (4) the distinction between sub-themes and the more prominent themes and the relation between the two. “A Response to Roger Stronstad,” 11-14.59
Fee, “Response to Stronstad,” 14.
79
20
PNEUMA_f6a_60-80 2/27/06 17:11 Page 80
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
For Pentecostals, the opportunity to interact theologically with Fee’s proposals over the past thirty years has been a goldmine of self-discovery and provoked a new awareness of their own hermeneutical issues. Pentecostals have responded forcefully to Fee’s challenge. They have taken considerable exception to Fee’s understanding of authorial intent and historical precedence. In each case, they have argued with some success for their own view of these issues, employing far more sophisticated and scholarly arguments for their cause than had been the case with their pre- decessors. Although many of these issues will be resolved largely on the basis of theological presupposition, the fact that this debate has occurred is significant in demonstrating Pentecostalism’s increased academic inter- ests and the coming of age of Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology. For this, Pentecostalism owes a debt of gratitude to the work of Gordon Fee.
80
21
Leave a Reply