Reflections on Pentecostalism 3: Hermeneutics

Any one who has read the bible systematically knows that it is not always straight forward as it is sometimes made to be. This point is easily demonstrated by asking what the condition of the world would be when Jesus comes back again - peace (people marrying, partying, etc) or war? Here is another one: Would the church go through 'the great' tribulation? I have found that those christians who are living quiet and relatively peaceful lives (in the same country or other countries such as the West) generally find it difficult to imagine the church going through (the great) tribulation. I am not sure what is it they do to those verses that speak about this. But the great tribulation is not what the church will go through. Rather, the tendency is to become premillenial and postulate a pretribulation rapture. Yet the majority of the World's christian population, which is found in the third world is going through some of the worst cases of tribulation- Chinese Christians belonging to the house church movement being the case in point. For these Christians, tribulation is not some far of thing which the church will conveniently dodge through rapture. They are already loosing their lives and sealing their testimony with their blood today! So the matter of interpreting and explaining the bible is serious indeed. How then, did the pentecostals I converted to explain and interpret the bible?

I have already indicated that the bible played a major role in the lives of the pentecostal community of which I was a member. These folks were mostly your working class semi rural people with not much secondary schooling. Even though there were some who were civil servants, my nurturing in the pentecostal faith happened among the uneducated ordinary folks. Even though those with school going children had these children in school, there generally existed no expectation that these kids could come home with questions engendered by the subjects they were being taught and get a sensible and satisfying answer - no. They generally read only the bible, and that mostly if not only in vernacular. Theirs was a simple world where the bible was generally read and appropriated literally. "If the word says it, I believe it" they would say. They also acknowledged no time-culture gap between their world and that of the bible. As far as they were concerned they were today's disciples of Christ standing in continuum with the early disciples. To be able to say that "God has said..", they assumed a view of the bible as the word of God. Thus reading the Bible could be construed as listening to God. And being impressed with a portion of scripture would be taken as God or the Holy Spirit speaking. I can hardly recall anyone ever saying that "Jesus said to me..", but always hear "God said to me" or "the Spirit said to me..". I need to point out again that in order for one to say that God spoke to him or her, scripture had to be read. But that reading would not qualify as God speaking unless one received a strong impression from it. And this impression was a consequence of the Spirit acting on the believer. The Spirit was understood as impressing different people differently even on the same text.

So, how then did these folks handle the inconsistencies regarding some teachings of the bible, e.g; is there rapture or not? Will the church be raptured before, in the middle or at the end of the great tribulation? In my recollections, I cannot seem to remember whether I heard them make any sytematic statements on anything. This does not mean they did not have any doctrinal stands, only that I hardly remember any doctrinal sermon or discussion being given. To start with, they would have denied that the bible presented inconsistencies in any thing. They also had a way of considering the Old Testament, particularly the laws to be redundant. Furthermore, their passion for evangelism and personal holiness meant that they read the bible with the eye for that which would assist in winning people to the faith and living out the faith daily. Systematic reading of the bible was not exactly something they engaged in. Thus, their intentional randomness helped them not to discover the inconsistencies and averted pressure to systematise what they read. They would not be bothered by any reading that ruffled feathers so long it would not be part of an extensive exposition of a certain position which is not part of their belief already. These were people whose assumptions were so well hidden even to themselves that they hardly knew existed. For most, the Holy Spirit was the interpreter of the bible such that he ironed out any inconsistencies. Should some body pick inconsistencies, then it would indicate how that individual was not being led by the Spirit in the reading of that particular passage. Thus the exhortation was always to seek the enlightenment of the Spirit in dealing with any text, whether for personal or communal gain.