A Theology of Church History as Apologia for the Pentecostal/charismatic Movement

by Daniel A. Tappeiner

Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, January 1, 1999

The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement generally interprets itself as a great, new and final movement of God in the end times. Some classical Pentecostals speak of their movement as the “latter rain,” the final outpouring of the Holy Spirit prior to the apocalyptic return of Jesus Christ. Tentative evaluations of this movement from an historical perspective might speak in terms of a new Reformation, comparing it in importance to the great Reformation of the sixteenth century under Luther, Calvin and the Reformers.

This movement, however, is not simply a matter of experience, which would only be an historical phenomenon to be interpreted psychologically, sociologically and culturally. It is also a relatively new understanding of the meaning of the experience and teaching of the New Testament in relation to the Holy Spirit and especially to the matter of baptism in the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit.

Immediately a series of questions arise in the minds of Evangelicals, those who already hold the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” What right does this new understanding of scripture have to exist? Is a new normative revelation from God being claimed, as in Mormonism or Christian Science? Is there a danger of going beyond the Jesus of the New Testament to a “spirit” of experience and immediacy? What of all the generations of saints, martyrs and common believers prior to this new movement and new understanding? Were they all deficient? Did they miss the real depth of Christian life?

For a person who is without the perspective of church history such questions may seem irrelevant. The de novo quality of their experience seems enough for the present. There is, however, a real need that such questions be faced and some justification be given. The need is three-fold. First, it is necessary to avoid errors of self-misinterpretation and the attendant dangers of spiritual pride. Second, if unbiblical subjectivism is to be avoided, it is necessary to see continuity with the past as a well as newness in the present. Third, such a justification is necessary in terms of communication with those who know the finality of Jesus Christ and are all too aware of the confusion which comes when the vagaries of the human spirit are uncritically equated with the action of the Holy Spirit.

The approach to such issues and questions must not be narrow. It cannot consist in glib quotes from scripture and the telling of some modern day experience to clinch the point. The approach must be large enough in scope to take into account all the relevant data. It must show continuity with the Spirit’s activity in the church from the time of the New Testament church to the present. It must ask why the new interpretation and present experience are not clearly discoverable in the records of the early church. It must speak to the fact of periodic manifestations of such Spirit-movements in the history of the church. The approach must give an explication of the fact of such past Spirit-movements, but it must also explain why the present movement is unique and significant beyond these earlier movements. It must also deal with the issue of fanaticism, mere emotionalism and doctrinal heterodoxy, which often accompanied such “Spirit movements” in the past. The problem of discernment of spirits and testing must be faced.

To do that is a task of no little difficulty! It must, however, be attempted. It is a legitimate demand upon those who support the present day Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal and who seek to integrate it to the larger world of Christian faith and life. Indeed, it is a demand internally implied in the truth that the impulse to gnosis is embedded in true biblical pistis. St. Anselm’s prayer, “I believe that I might understand” is the only legitimate attitude in the task of theological reflection.

What is required, then, is an adequate theology of church history. The promise of Jesus, that when the Spirit of truth comes He will guide us into all truth (John 16:13), must be properly related to the emergence of any new understanding and movement in the church. I propose to develop a theology of church history based upon the work of Philip Schaff, the Evangelical giant and church historian of the last century. In particular on the approach which he enunciated in his treatment of the issue of the rise of the Oxford movement in England under the leadership of men like John Henry Newman. A proper theology of church history will prove an adequate and solid platform to support and justify the possibility of the new kind of theological understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit embodied in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.

Anyone acquainted with Schaff will know his encyclopedic perspective, his concern for true continuity in the church and his sensitive and balanced approach. He himself was not one to take lightly the past or to overrate the present understanding of his own “enlightened era.” He expressed his attitude on this point in the following words of trenchant irony:

O, thou light of the nineteenth century! How hast thou tarried with thy rising, hiding thyself for a thousand years behind the clouds, in cowardly fear of those dying men, the popes! Come now, ye poor unfortunate children of darkness - ye Leos and Gregorys, ye Emperors… Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura and Bernard of Clairvaux, Dante Alighieri and Petrarch…Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, Francis of Assisi and Thomas à Kempis — come forth from your graves and be illuminated by the light that now reigns; learn how to govern church and state from our synods, consistories and advocates; study philosophy and theology at Andover and New Haven; practice poetry, church building, and painting amid the encouragement that is given to the arts in practical, money-loving America; take lessons in piety from the camp meetings… But they have no desire to come back the mighty dead. With a compassionate smile, they point our dwarfish race to their own imperishable giant works and exclaim: “Be humble and learn that nothing becomes you so well.”

The application to the present situation is clear enough.

Yet this man, who so powerfully speaks to our necessity for historical perspective, was also in the vanguard of those who looked for the point at which the Spirit of truth was teaching the church and leading it into all truth. Even in 1844 Schaff looked forward to the next development of the Spirit which he called “Protestant Catholicism.”

In Schaff’s inaugural address as professor of biblical literature and ecclesiastical history at the seminary at Mercersburg, he spelled out his views on the church, the principle of Protestantism and an assessment of the contemporary condition of the church in his time. From this can be extracted a theology of church history which contains the principles needed for the present task of justifying the current Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement as a legitimate possibility, reflecting the work of the Holy Spirit of leading into “all truth.” Schaff summarized his views of the development of the church in his time with a series of 111 theses. I will select out those theses which will provide a framework of understanding to deal with the issues of historical continuity and the possibility of genuine advancement in the area of theological understanding and experience.

I. THE FACT OF DEVELOPMENT

Schaff’s first thesis will serve as the starting point for our exposition of a theology of church history:

Every period of the church and of theology has its particular problem to solve; and every doctrine, in a measure every book also of the Bible, has its classic age in which it first comes to be fully understood and appropriated by the consciousness of the Christian world.

The church is a living, supernaturally constituted organism, not a mere mechanism or phenomenon of psychology and culture. As such it has its own life history, its own processes of growth and its developmental crises. As in any living organism, the church, in its initial constitution, contained, through the work of the Holy Spirit, all the elements necessary for its functioning in God’s purpose and plan. Through the new life of the age to come (deriving from the resurrection of Jesus) and the new power of the age to come (deriving from the ascension and Pentecost) the church was plenarily endowed to fulfill its worldwide mission of kerygmatic proclamation and the charismatic ministry of wholeness. The fullness and completeness of divine teaching was also given through apostolic figures to establish the base for normative life and understanding of divine things.

There is, however, a correlation in the history of the church between three basic elements and every advance in the theological development of the church. First, the church has its own developmental needs and readiness for learning. Second, it has a relationship to its own age, with its Zeitgeist, peculiar concerns and pressures. Third, there is that aspect of Scripture which is most alive and meaningful to the church at a particular point in its development toward the fullness of the stature of Christ, to the aner teleios, of Eph 4:13. Therefore, in fact, the historical and theological development of the church can be analyzed as a series of encounters among all three elements - readiness, context and scripture - in which a particular problem is tackled, solved and developed in the explicit understanding of the church and in so doing, certain books of the Bible and key passages receive their classical expositions.

A review of the development of church doctrine suggests the following skeletal outline which will indicate the fact of development — the leading of the Spirit of truth into all truth. Within the New Testament itself it is clear that the major theological tasks included an integration of the Christ event with the Old Testament tradition, the consequent universalization of Christianity into a religion of world-wide scope, the relation of Christian reality to pagan religions and life-styles and an inner struggle with it own eschatological expectations.

In the following centuries the Gnostics raised the issue of the relation of God to the created order. The trinitarian struggle worked with the relation of God to the person of Jesus Christ. The christological controversies sought to explore the relation of Jesus Christ to humanity. The Pelagian controversy developed the doctrines of sin and grace and the nature of man. In the Medieval period the unique features of the Roman Catholic Church began to emerge, built upon previous advances and developing a complex system in which a sacramental conception of the church as mysticus corporis was the central feature. The Reformation represents an epochal advance in the church’s grasp of the meaning of the Pauline teaching of justification and the re-establishment of the formal authority of Scripture. Recent history is more difficult to assess, but in the late 18th and the 19th centuries the missionary task of the church gained its clearest explicit expression for the time and in the last one hundred years the nature of the church has been extensively explored and expounded in the interests of ecumenicity.

The relevance of all of this to the present day movement of the Holy Spirit is obvious. The church is now ready, both in its own development and in relation to the climate of the age, to wrestle with the reality of the Holy Spirit in the life and experience of the church in a new way. The time has come for a definite exposition of the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit Himself, in executing the sovereign plan of God, is leading the church into a condition which has resulted in the renewed experience of the Spirit in the form found in the New Testament and the theological reflection of the church which naturally follows upon such experience.

II. THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT

If the developmental interpretation of the history of the church is correct it is imperative that the precise nature of this process be stated explicitly in terms of its limits, possibility and specific character. It is at this point that questions of superceding Jesus Christ become most insistent. The very legitimate concern exists that in speaking of “development” it may be interpreted to mean leaving behind, as “mere objectivity,” the Jesus of history and the inspired apostolic witness, for a religious experience of the spirit of Jesus separated from Jesus. Schaff was much aware of that very danger as it inhered in the theological reconstructions of Schleiermacher and in the whole dynamic of German liberalism. He therefore states theses, which established very clearly the limits, possibility and nature of the development of the church both in its experiences and doctrine.

He first deals with the issue of the limits to development. In thesis 13 he states very succinctly: “Christianity in itself is the absolute religion, and in this view unsusceptible to improvement.” Jesus Christ is the full final and perfect revelation both of God and humankind. There is nothing beyond Jesus Christ. He is the center of all. In Him the triune God is perfectly revealed. In Him all things in the created order unite in a cosmic “recapitulation.” There is no revelation to follow save the final open manifestation of the glory of God in Jesus Christ and His church in the eschaton. There is no “age of the Spirit” succeeding the “age of the Son” in which the Son is replaced at the center by another reality. Rather, Jesus is both the center and the circumference of Christian experience and truth. He is the limit, the boundary of all legitimate development.

The apostolic writers everywhere assume this fact and they also state it explicitly at times. Jude speaks of contending “for the faith which was once for all (hapax) delivered to the saints” (v. 3). Here “faith” is used to refer to the content of faith, not its usual sense of the experience of supernatural trust based on divine revelation. Paul clearly means the same thing when he speaks of Jesus Christ as the foundation upon which all future ministry is built (1 Cor 3:10-15), or as the chief corner stone, along with the other foundational elements of apostles and prophets, in the holy temple of the Lord (Eph 2:20-22).

Such images clearly mean that all genuine spiritual development in the future must be fully in accord with the “sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness” (1 Tim 6:3), that is, with Jesus Himself and the apostolic witness and teaching. In other words, all teaching and all experience must be evaluated by the authoritative norm of Jesus and the apostolic message. Any experience or teaching which does not sustain the test of the limit and norm of Jesus Christ is false and to be rejected.

III. THE ISSUE OF PENTECOSTAL/CHARISMATIC “REVELATION”

At this point a question is often raised, by those who seek and accept this finality of Jesus Christ, in relation to the often-repeated references by those in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, to receiving “revelations” in the Spirit. An example of such a claim to “revelation” can be seen in the book written by David Wilkerson, a popular Pentecostal figure, which purports to be a prophetic visionary revelation from God for the whole church today relative to the near future.

Pauline “Revelation”

Notice must also be taken here of the Pauline references to “revelation” (apokalypsis) in the “charismatic liturgy” of the early church (1 Cor 14:26, 30). This charismatic liturgy is taken seriously in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement and such revelation is both expected and received in the context of corporate worship. What is the relation of these charismatic revelations to the hapax revelation of Jesus Christ?

The answer can best be framed in terms of the function of such charismatic revelations in comparison with and contrast to the function of the revelation in Jesus Christ and apostolic witness.

A review of the Pauline usage of the concept “revelation” indicates a three-fold thrust. There are ecstatic revelations (2 Cor 12:1, 7), which are personal in nature. There are charismatic revelations which are corporate and local. There are apostolic-prophetic revelations, which are universal and normative (Eph 3:5). Paul himself experienced the “traditional” ecstatic revelations characteristic of the apocalyptic writers and devotees of the mystery religions. He writes of receiving an abundance of visions (optasia) and revelations in terms which clearly indicate ecstasy and altered states of consciousness (”Whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,” “caught up into paradise,” and “heard things which cannot be told”, 2 Cor 2:1-10). This type of experience was strictly personal in nature, related to God’s purpose for his life and his own spiritual and psychological makeup. This is evident from the fact that his whole ministry began with such a sovereign revelational experience on the road to Damascus (see Gal 1:15, 16), from the very personal way in which the glorified Lord counterbalanced these ecstatic revelatory experiences by allowing “a thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7), and from the fact that they were not intended for public proclamation to the church (2 Cor 12:4). Paul gives explicit warning against such experiences when they are made the basis for new doctrine or practice outside the context of apostolic teaching and fellowship (Col 2:18).

Paul also speaks of and promotes, as an expected part of the charismatic liturgy, another form of revelation with another purpose (1 Cor 14:26, 30) In charismatic revelation the form is not ecstatic and it takes place in orderly fashion in the context of worship in the Spirit. That this type of revelation is not ecstatic is indicated by the general principle that “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (1 Cor 14:32), by the orderliness expected by Paul and by the close connection of such revelation to the manifestation of prophecy (1 Cor 14:29, 30).

The purpose of such revelations is clearly tied to the corporate context. The general Pauline rule for all charismatic manifestations of the Spirit is “let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor 14:26; see also 1 Cor 12:7; 14:12). This principle governs charismatic revelations whose purpose must be the upbuilding of the church. The purpose is strictly local and always related to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. This can most clearly be seen in its connection with prophecy which is local and of the moment, for those gathered in worship (1 Cor 14:38; Gal 2:2). In two places it is explicitly stated that such revelation is given by the Holy Spirit from God that we might “understand the gifts bestowed on us by God” (1 Cor 2:12) or that Christians might know their hope, inheritance and power in and through Jesus Christ (Eph 1:17ff). In other words, the nature of this type of charismatic revelation is a divine illumination of the definitive revelation in Jesus Christ, which makes that revelation especially alive and suited to upbuilding the church through a corporate proclamation of it and an appropriate testing by the church.

Paul also writes of apostolic-prophetic revelation which is universal and normative for the church. His own message he claims to be the direct result of revelation (Gal 1:11) and he specifically rejects any “revelation” which is contrary to the Gospel of the Jesus of history (Gal 1:18). He writes to the churches in Asia Minor of the “mystery of Christ”, — the gospel, given by revelation through the apostles and prophets (Eph 3:3-5). Here “prophets” refer to the New Testament prophets. This normative revelation is always in connection with the Old Testament prophetic expectations (Rom 16:25, 26), with the historic person of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:23) and with the foundational, and therefore final and unrepeatable, revelation through the New Testament apostles and prophets (Eph 2:21, 22).

It is only charismatic revelation which is part of the present Pentecostal/Charismatic movement as a normative part of the church’s functioning. Ecstatic revelations are accepted as possible and actual but only personal in significance. Normative revelation is restricted to apostolic teaching and practice and is used as the canon by which charismatic revelations are to be weighed by the gathered church (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:19-21).

Johannine Theology of Development

The same dialectic, between the absoluteness of Jesus Christ and developmental leading of the church “into all truth,” is also clearly evident in the Johannine materials. Two passages in the Farewell Discourse (John 14:25; 16:12-15) indicate a delicate balance between the permanent, normative significance of the Jesus of history and the further revelations to come by the Spirit of truth. In both passages it is stated or implied that Jesus’ teachings are incomplete prior to his glorification in the cross and ascension. In the first passage Jesus says “these things” (and no more) I have spoken to you while I am still with you” (v. 25). But - there is more to come - the “all things” which Jesus wants to say to the disciples which they were unable to assimilate (bastazein) in their present spiritual state. Once again reference is made to the coming Spirit of truth who will guide them into all truth.

In these same passages, however, which point to further teachings and revelations from Jesus to be given by the Paraclete, it is clear that they are really from him and will refer back to him. The Paraclete will bring to remembrance all that Jesus had said to them (14:26), he will not speak on his own authority, independent of Jesus (16:12) but will disclose (anangelei) the things which are coming. At the same time the Holy Spirit will also be taking from “the things” of Jesus, i.e., content which comes from Jesus and which points to Jesus, and declaring them so that, in this guiding activity of the Spirit of truth, Jesus will be glorified.

This same balance between the on-going, post-Pentecostal activity of the Spirit and the normative meaning of the history and teaching of Jesus is seen in 1 John 5:6-8. Here the Spirit, “who is the truth,” is a witness to the Jesus of history. The Spirit is united with the witness of the “water and blood” which refer to the historical events of Jesus’ baptism in water at the Jordan and his baptism in blood at the cross.

From this discussion it is clear that there must not be any attempt to go beyond the Jesus of apostolic witness to another gospel or another spirit which is not the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7), whose proper task is to interpret to the church in a living way the hapax of Jesus Christ Himself. Any such attempt is unbiblical and must be guarded against.

The other side of the matter, however, must also be taken seriously, namely, that without the continued activity of the Spirit, of taking of the things of Jesus and declaring them to the church, there is no real gospel any more. Without the living, leading voice of the Spirit of truth the gospel becomes mere dead letter. Once we have laid to rest the specter of further normative revelations being claimed, there should, then, be the positive expectation - indeed demand, for continued charismatic revelations in the church, in order that the body of Christ might be fully built up in the one faith of absolute dependence upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ and in a further grasp of the content of faith, the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

IV THE POSSIBILITY AND CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT.

Schaff makes very clear the way in which development is actually possible in the church in thesis 13:

We must not confound with this (absoluteness of Jesus Christ), however, the apprehension and appropriation of Christianity in the consciousness of mankind. This is a progressive process of development that will reach its close only with the Second Coming of the Lord.

The key categories which must be used, if the biblical balance between normative apostolic revelation and the continuing activity of the Spirit leading the church into all truth is to be maintained, are those of “consciousness” and “apprehension.” The distinction between the once-for-all givenness of normative revelation and the active appropriation and apprehension of that revelation in the living, corporate (and then individual) consciousness of the church, makes it very clear how progress and development are possible within the limits of the apostolic hapax. Development does not consist in going beyond Jesus Christ and the apostolic witness, because there is nothing beyond. Going “beyond” could, in fact, only be a reversion to mere human religion, whether it be to the legalistic misunderstanding of Judaism or the multiple forms of religious error found among the other families of humankind. Rather, true development, led by the Spirit of truth, is a matter of drawing ever more deeply upon the treasury of God’s reality and grace as it is found in Jesus Christ. Development can only be an increase of genuine life in Christ and an ever more precise explication, in cognitive categories, of the truth which is in Jesus Christ.

In the Colossian epistle, both increased participation in the material principle of Jesus Christ and in the formal principle are held before those who were being wooed to an advance “beyond Christ”, which was really a falling back into a mixture of heathen and Jewish religious notions and practices. The formal principle is Jesus Christ Himself “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3). But He is also then the material principle, for it is from this treasury that “all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery” may be drawn (Col 2:3). The apostle sums up this whole point in these words: “As, therefore, you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith…” (Col 2:6). It is one thing to have a treasure of “assured understanding,” it is another to appropriate it personally, in consciousness, in explicit form. The situation is much like having a valuable book in your library without having read any more than the table of contents. The value is in the text, not outside of it. What is required is a real interaction with the contents.

The category “consciousness” suggests its opposite, which is “unconscious” or “implicit.” The domain in which development takes place, then, is that of consciousness not content. Therefore it is evident that this change is a shift from implicit to explicit. The Spirit’s role is the explication, in the consciousness of the church, of that which the church previously had lived upon only implicitly but which is now called forth according to the developmental readiness of the church as a living, growing organism and by the pressures experienced externally from the Zeitgeist and internally from the dynamic which urges pistis to seek gnosis. As Schaff goes on to say in thesis 16:

It is possible for the church to be in possession of a truth and live upon it, before it has come to be discerned in her consciousness…. Thus the child eats and drinks long before it has the knowledge of food, and walks before it is aware of the fact, much less how it walks.

CONCLUSION

The theology of church history which we have extracted from Schaff’s “theses for the times” serves quite well in providing the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement with a rationale for the possibility of “newness” and development, while maintaining a senses of historical perspective and connectedness. It does not, of course, answer all of the specific questions which can be raised exegetically or historically. But it does point in a direction which would be more acceptable to the larger Evangelical world, to which Pentecostals and Charismatics could and should be positively related. In the specific matter of the nature of “revelation” and the danger of going beyond Jesus Christ, it is clear that neither Paul nor John allows it, nor do Pentecostal/Charismatics intend it.

Much work remains to be carried out in detail, within this Christian consciousness model for the theology of church history. A series of further question arise which must be dealt with if all of the data of the history of the church are to be properly placed within the developmental framework we have presented as one which will justify the claims of the Pentecostal/Charismatic to be a significant work of the Holy Spirit and one which represents a further dialectic advance in the consciousness of the church.

ENDNOTES

1. This is not to say that such statements are an approval in any way of the doctrines and practices of, say, the Latter Rain Assemblies of South Africa in the late 1920s, which were generally repudiated by most classical Pentecostals. It is simply an “eschatologizing” of a familiar biblical metaphor. See Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 140-48.

2. The necessity of “justifying” a new theological understanding is, of course, an issue for any kind of theological development. A recent example of this in Evangelical circles is related to the matter of the “secret rapture of the saints” associated with the rise of dispensationalism since the mid-1800s. George Ladd raised the historical/developmental issue in his book The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, l956), p. 19: “If the Blessed Hope is in fact a pretribulation rapture, then the church has never known that hope through most of its history, for the idea of a pretribulation rapture did not appear in prophetic interpretation until the nineteenth century. Pretribulationists are reluctant to admit this.” In reply, John F. Walvrood, The Rapture Question (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 192 writes: “The detailed development of pretribulational truth during the past few centuries does not prove that the doctrine is new or novel. Its development is similar to that of other major doctrines in the history of the church.” He also deals with this matter in more detail earlier in the book, pp. 52, 53.

3. Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1964), p. 177.

4. Schaff, p. 230, thesis 83.

5. Schaff, p. 219.

6. Obviously there are a number of other tasks which might be mentioned such as the early trinitarian reflections implicit in the Johannine Farewell Discourses or the incipient Gnosticism reflected in the Pauline letters.

7. Cf., Irenaeus’ concept. See Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan (New York: Dover, l961), II, p. 238.

8. David Wilkerson, The Vision (Grand Rapids: Revel, l973). The contents of this vision are quite in line with what might be expected from a pre-tribulation Pentecostal with some negative feelings about the Roman Catholic Church.

9. This review is restricted to an analysis of Pauline usage of apocalypsis in relation to charismatic manifestation. It excludes the more general usages and such issues as “general revelation.” Of course it is understood that the basic etymological meaning of “unveiling” stands behind all of its uses and points to perception of the hidden reality of spiritual things. For an exhaustive treatment of the broader background see Albrecht Oepke, ” ,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tran. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), III, pp. 563-92.

10. The meaning taken here is that reflected in the RSV “taking his stand on visions,” literally “upon that which he has seen (ha heoramen) puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind.”

11. See the perceptive discussion of this in an excellent book by James Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975), pp. 350-53.

DISCLAIMER: The intent of the knowledge base is to provide information about Christ, Christianity, the Gospel and missions, in order to equip Christian workers to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples who earnestly desire to worship God, relate to each other, serve the world and evangelize the lost. Articles are derived from a variety of sources representing a wide range of opinions. They are either submitted as original works from authors, reprinted by permission, or annotated analyses of works published elsewhere. The opinions expressed are those of the original sources, are given for informational purposes only, and in some cases do not agree with the doctrinal position of the Network for Strategic Missions, our staff, or our advisory board.

An Updated Spiritual Autobiography

I cannot really start an auto-biography narrating the story of my life. It is really my mother who has to be credited for my journey to faith. She’s been a Christian for already 22 years and I wouldn’t even continue on with the faith if I didn’t see her so devoted to the Lord. I find the need to insert this short narrative that I wrote before to highlight our family’s journey to faith that was initiated by God through my mother’s devout life. Sometimes we do not appreciate the person who brought us to the Lord Jesus, but this is not the case with how I am grateful my mother introduced me to Him.

A Narrative of My Family’s Journey to Faith[i]

There was once in the history of this world that God smiled[ii] for his created man whose name was Bernard, not that he was unique in creation but He just simply delights in each work His hand lays.[iii] He was a second son of college sweethearts who met in Manila and from two different provinces in the Philippines, one from Batangas and one from Bicol. This couple, Abelardo and Melchy, married and gave birth to their first wonderful son and named them Albert. Then after two years, the couple loved each other so much that the woman bore their second son, who will be a person in which God’s grace would be so much demonstrated.[iv] In their faithfulness in marriage and love for each other, the woman gave birth to their third child and it was a beautiful daughter. With their family God delighted that He protected[v] them and these children grew in the guidance of their parents.[vi]

The family did not have a Christian background for both parents were raised Catholics by their families. It was only 1986 when Melchy had her first personal encounter with God. Abelardo was not exactly into consideration of being like her for he said to her, “You were the one who brought me in embracing the Catholic faith and now you are taking me again to some sort of religion.” So she just kept on praying for her husband and for their child to be raised as Christians. Until one day the husband said to his wife, “This land is getting dry and we may not have enough to raise our children, I will go and work in a foreign land.” So the husband, in their agreement as married couples, went to Japan to have an advanced training on his job, for behold, he was an agricultural engineer. This gave her a chance to grow with her Christian faith for she was not hindered in going to church. She was like a bird[vii] that just came out of her cage flying around the beauty of life with God in His wide wings as a companion.[viii] However, some of the man’s relatives considered it to be non-sense that they informed him about his wife’s devotion as a Christian. She always wrote him letters sharing her new faith but the consideration of the husband was having their children not taken care of.[ix] He would often call and say, “You have to abandon that faith of yours or this marriage is over.” Then the finishing statement would always be BLAG!! (phone just hanged up). She just continued to claim God’s word by consistently praying, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household.”[x]

Abelardo finally went back home after his training (actually it was a bit early), and what a surprise!! Their marriage was not over. But still he did not want her to go to church. So she underwent so much persecution even having an experience of being beaten by a 2×2 wood in front of the people in a Bible study group. Surely, their children regarded it as growing under a dog and cat relationship.[xi] Thus, her relationship with Him faded but still she experienced God’s own hands with everything she was undergoing. She was spared from a bus accident; business was booming plus the fact that their children were growing healthy and intelligent. Until the day a devil confronted her and dared to strangle her in a dream.[xii] She could not resist it without the authority she remembered of being given to her so she resisted the devil and said aloud, “in Jesus’ mighty name get out.” That day, she realized her helplessness apart from the Lord. She decided to look for a church near their place because before, she had to go to Luneta just to attend church while bringing their children. Finally, she found one and started to regularly attend again and involved herself in the church activities. This time, her husband gave her permission only that the children should not be going with her. Still, she persisted of bringing their children having the reason that they were to be taken care of. So she went together with their children.

Behold[xiii] their children were growing and were being raised having the principles of the Bible, especially the two sons for they are the ones who did not have much of an age gap. They started to have opinions in life and thought of their decisions towards Jesus Christ. The eldest, Albert, chose a life of this world and so did the younger. Albert started to be an oppressor that even the higher batch on his school was afraid of him. He cut classes, became video games addict and anything that a man of this world would engage into. He ended up being in a fraternity and almost got somebody killed then he was exiled to their father’s home in Batangas. In the same way Bernard, the younger, idolized his brother that he also became the school’s most aggressive bachelor[xiv] having the school’s higher batch under his proud approach on everyone.[xv] He had the best high school experience for he was favored in spite of his unrevealed personality to some. He was surrounded with fortunate friends and they all excel in different areas at school.[xvi] No wonder why this person became as proud as can be. The Author above all was longing for this young man to be broken.[xvii]

Until this much awaited day by the heavens and the earth came.[xviii] Bernard’s mother got him reserved to attend a youth camp training at Norzagaray, Bulacan. He agreed to come with the young people expecting it to be a good experience. He only intended to have fun around but there he experienced recognition of his sins and realized his need of a Savior. Surprisingly, he received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. What a day to witness?! How can this ‘greatest miracle’[xix] happen to a person?[xx] This day his life was transformed and he decided to serve God as an act of gratitude. But the change of life did not come in the fullness instantly. He still got involved with fights during the early years of his Christian life. Actually, it will not be ideal to say but these days might be typical,[xxi] he was already teaching and sometimes given an opportunity to give exhortations. Well hypocrisy did not start in the modern age; it was there even before Jesus’ incarnation.[xxii] He was even taught a lesson when they went far of going to another school for a fight and suddenly he was left behind by his friends. Some punches reached him until he was able to run with his own will. His friends may have deserted him but still he stuck on to them and continued on with their lives.

Then another incident in his life occurred. He had dengue fever and reached his critical status in the hospital. He was already nearing death when he decided to call upon the name of Jesus. He settled his relationship once more and then life goes on being a Christian. He finished high school with good grades for he has been gifted with knowledge[xxiii] although he messed up in his early high school years.

When he studied for college, another Christian declining year came. He again forgot his relationship with God. “He did everything pleasing to his own sight”[xxiv] When he graduated his 3-year course, he again thinks highly of himself. But he did not notice that because of his lax years, his knowledge was not enhanced. Actually he was like being the exact word ‘dumb.’[xxv] He planned to take up a course ladderized to his previous one but what was lost was not recovered. It was as if he did not have any background of the course on civil engineering. Thus, it again gave him a humbling experience. He started to be afraid of not having his plans established in the future. Until he decided to give his life back to Him and enrolled in Asian Seminary of Christian Ministries. However, his father did not support him at first. He had to go through lots of prayers and fasting and have the Spirit lead reconciliation with his father. After three weeks of pleading to God, his father pronounced his support for his son. A very blessed day!! (I will never forget that!!)

Right now, as this narrative ends, it is still an ongoing journey of faith to Bernard’s family. The saving grace started from his mother; endured and tested, grace was experienced by him. Now his sister goes with them and believing someday all of them will be in one faith. A statement of his mother when he got delivered from a threatening death can never be forgotten, “I now know that the reason I have endured the persecutions is that God has a great plan for your life, my son.”[xxvi]

A Personal Journey on Initial Christian Growth and Ministry Works

The camp I attended was the time, as mentioned in the narrative, that I received Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. It was the last week of May 1997 after I graduated from elementary. I was 13 years of age back then. Although I had been joining my mother as she went to church when I was younger, it came really unexpected that in the camp I felt the One shared by my mother to be ‘as if very close to me.’ I guess it was at first, a ‘feeling conversion.’ I loved the way it felt!! To cry before the camp’s proclaimed Lord without even knowing the reason of the tears. I do not even think I had the concept of the cross during those times. I just knew that the God, who is very powerful, created everything, had His self-disclosure to me. Was I aware that there is a Holy Spirit? I guess so, because they taught me so. “God is here through the Holy Spirit, feel the touch of Jesus,” was the message I believe I had preconceived in my mind. I really do not know, my Christian rationality wasn’t working yet in my first youth camp days. I just know it’s a transition that my life is changed forever (that I actually doubted as time went by). It became the first landmark of my Christian belief.

Even before I had the chance to join the camp, the Lord was very much at work in my life. I had a friend named Marilen Grama, – the older sister of my friend, actually – who gave me a booklet. It was a devotional book for teens. The title is Nuggets: Gems for the Youth. I think it was issued for the teenagers of the Bread of Life church. That devotional booklet, that I still have, nourished me in some way as a new spiritual babe. But I didn’t read it much before the camp. I just wasn’t interested. The camp experience surely is the time I started to appreciate the booklet. There I found many verses for young people that I memorized. 1 Timothy 4:12 is the best example, “Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in truth and in purity.” I wasn’t aware of context issues during those times and I don’t think I would care. I didn’t even have an idea of who Timothy was or who wrote the letter (or not even knowledgeable that it’s an epistle, hehe!!). I just know it’s the word of God. Another is Ecclesiastes 12 saying, “Remember your Creator in the days of your youth.” Being so naïve, I was nourished and strengthened in my early Christian life. Thanks to the booklet that Ate Marilen gave me!! Thanks to Ate Marilen for her desire to reach me!! (Although I know she was shy to share the gospel verbally.) Thanks to God who used people like her and my mom!!

I started to grow having regular prayers in my life and taking the Bible seriously as possible. I also began to involve myself to church activities and wow, every Christian worship experience was wonderful!! I became the youth chairman for the KKB (Kristianong Kabataan para sa Bayan) of JIL (Jesus is Lord) church Masinag, Antipolo chapter because it was the first church I was with. The camp where I got converted was even the JIL camp for the young people. But it was only for a short time because we had a church split from JIL. I was young then and I might fall into error if I state the reason of the division so I decide not to say anything about it. Whether if I got affected or not, yes I was really affected knowing that this very people who showed me love as they ministered to me failed to live the love I heard them teach. I’ve even heard threats of a non-Christian goon from a mouth of a Christian pastor. Again, I will not go in details. Hmm, if someone is to ask me, “Have you already seen church fights?” my answer would be, “It’s really not a big deal for me.” Our church is a product of two church divisions. One was when the Cogeo, Antipolo chapter of JIL broke with them and became LJCC (Lord Jesus Christ Church) and the other one was when we’ve realized that we couldn’t have harmony with the LJCC and went out from it to establish a new church. Although it was only for a while that I was youth chairman of JIL – KKB, I learned responsibility and commitment together with my youth friends. I also had mentors who discipled me and took me deeper to Christian faith and relationship to God. After that first break up, I got so much acquainted with the revival works of the Holy Spirit through a pastor named Sonny Lucaban in LJCC. I was always with him in ministry works, especially in evangelistic crusades. Again, it was only for a short time but I am so sure that it strengthened my Christian life seeing the mighty moving of God in the lives of people. I saw people get healed by the laying on of hands and be tremendously filled up by the Holy Spirit. Actually, I was baptized by the Spirit on April 1, 1999 during his ministry works in LJCC. For some reason, there was again a breakup of leaders within the church. Pastors were actually scattered to different churches. Pastor Sonny Lucaban pioneered a new church in Pasig, Pastor Warren Valdez remained Senior Pastor of LJCC, others went back to JIL, yet others didn’t find it a good idea to go back to JIL and joined other big churches, and I just found myself with my mother supporting Pastor Elpidio Manalo which I think was the best place for us to be to avoid clashes.

I am now in this small new church I mentioned formerly known as the Power of Love Church International Ministry (POLCIM), where I got my license to preach and became youth pastor last December 17, 2000. I wonder if it is even legal because I was only 16 years old back then. I just knew that I attended the homiletics and some hermeneutics classes from the one who ordained us, Ptr. Marvin Tabil, a graduate of Four Square Bible School. I continued on with the ministry works even until now that POLCIM was now changed to God’s Lovingkindness Community International (GLCI). The reason of the change name was not any conflict as some may think. It was only for the reason that people were mistaken that the name Power of Love was taken from the song of Celine Dion where in fact the song of Geoff Bullock was in the organizers’ minds. I was the one who suggested the word ‘lovingkindness’ because I found it very necessary to say that in the Old Testament, God’s love cannot be equated to the word ‘love’ only but a combination of love, mercy, grace and kindness – a ‘covenant love’, a ‘lovingkindess’ a ‘love so steadfast’. It is the same love that brought Jesus here to be with us, as the creed in Philippians says, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count it equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Right now, I am still the youth pastor of GLCI and also involved with various ministries, especially the equipping ministry that enables me to teach and mentor aspiring teachers and young pastors. But this is just a fast track of a calling. There are struggles in the Christian life, specifically the struggle with sinful nature.

In Relation to Paul and the Saints of God

Just recently when I encountered Romans 7 again, I was able to see something of relevance with the dating of the epistle. Paul wrote it, if I’m allowed to say, while he was in the peak of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ. When I read about him saying, “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.” And he went on to say, “For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me” (quotations are from the New King James Version). At first, I really couldn’t imagine Paul, who had been working tremendously by the power of the Holy Spirit, having struggles with sin specifically. Well, I’m so happy to say that Peter was right when he said, “your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings” (1 Peter 5:9, NIV). All the saints underwent and are undergoing sufferings and struggle with sin in particular!!

I am now to share my personal struggles as a growing man of God. In the narrative above, I was involved in school fights and other unchristian acts, and as I have said, I doubted if I have even been saved at all. I found it hard to believe in the new man the Bible is saying in 2 Corinthians 5:17 because it wasn’t evident that my old man has gone. But I have seen that it’s really a process. I’ve read somewhere that one truth that the Bible teaches in the literal sense of creation is that, God, who is over-all powerful, did not make everything just in one time. He did it within six days and shows us that there’s a process for everything. I am really in a process. Now, I see myself as a peacemaking person because of the love of Christ. However, I do not disregard the fact that I was one of those who ruined the essence of Christian testimony and witnessing through ones personal life.

One of the struggles I had was the struggle against lust. My brother, even when we were still so young, used to bring pornographic films at home. At a very young age prior to my conversion, my mind was already corrupted with these sinful sexual desires. Exposure to sin is really something that should be avoided as I try to examine it now. Once we’ve been exposed, the first reaction is, ‘wait a minute, this is sin!!’ just as when a light is turned off we react, ‘hey, it’s dark!!’. But once we’ve already get used to the darkness, we feel not afraid of it anymore even being comfortable to see through the dim and gives us the guts to say when we are convicted, ‘yeah this is sin, so what?!’ (though not explicitly with our words but with our hearts). We may sometimes even reach the point of saying, ‘I love to sin, it’s pleasurable’ which I think I wasn’t able to say because I always had this feeling of conviction and condemnation in my heart. Thanks to the Holy Spirit who convicts people of their sins (John 16:8), believers and unbelievers alike!! The instrument used by God that initiated my deliverance from that bondage was the book Not Even a Hint by Joshua Harris. He introduced me not just to insights in overcoming lust (which is still a battle going on) like: (1) God’s standard for holiness of not even a hint (Ephesians 5:3), (2) that “Willpower won’t work. Only the power of the cross can break the power of sin that keeps us on a treadmill” and (3) about the right holiness motive of pleasing God and find it in His grace so that we cannot boast of our own efforts (which is very biblical)[xxvii] but also to the things I found very interesting to focus my attention. It is the study of theology which diverted my idle mind that used to be the devil’s workshop. In his book, I encountered many quotations from C.S. Lewis, John Stott, John Owen and Richard Baxter. It was a good thing I also like to read footnotes and to try analyzing how thoughts are formulated, so, I encountered them as if I were hearing them teaching in a Bible study. I read the book after a sinful life during my college years (2001 – 2004) that led me to my downfall as a Christian. I do not prefer to include names that with them sin was associated as a story because I usually post my writings to wordpress.com and I do not want to destroy others just for me to share the good story. I just want to be honest and say that as a Christian person, I also have fallen so deep and was just ‘lifted up from the miry clay’ by the Lord that now I praise, fear and put my trust in Him (Psalm 40:1-30). If John Wesley had this memory of, “I went to America to convert the Indians, but, oh, who shall convert me?”, I also have one being remembered as I walk in the street of San Marcelino, Manila at Technological University of the Philippines. Beside the call I believe inside that is affirmed by an outward call by the community I am in, church and neighborhood, my downfall was really one of the factors I entered a seminary life. I wanted to be in an environment of Christians who love God and willing to give up everything in their lives for the sake of the call, His call. “When Christ calls a man,” as Dietrich Bonhoeffer complements the text in Mark 8:34, “he bids him come and die… It is the same death every time, death in Jesus Christ – the death of the old man at his call.” Although we are struggling as Paul clearly stated his own condition regarding the sinful nature of man, we are captivated by the Word and made overcomers in Christ through his death and resurrection and through our deaths with Him.

Where am I Heading to?

To answer the question ‘where am I heading to?’ is really up to God now. I can only share my plans but it is really up to Him. “The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, but the LORD weighs the motives. Commit your works to the LORD and your plans will be established. The LORD has made everything for its own purpose” (Proverb 16:1-4, NASB). I do not want to Lord over my life. I have already done so and fell.

I definitely believe that God has a great plan for my life. I can see it as the devil tries to hinder me all along. I have already shared my struggle with sin and that’s one great instrument of him. Another was the nearing death experience when I got confined in the hospital (also mentioned in the narrative above) for having a stage 3, reaching stage 4, Dengue fever. I had blood transfusion and my organs were already bleeding including, as the doctor informed, some nerves in my brain. I was really in critical condition during that second week of September 2000. But God is faithful that He delivered me from an untimely death. I always rejoice whenever I remember that and end up being grateful enough to give my life as His instrument for everything He wills for my life.

I also cannot forget that my father wants me to be an engineer and be a contractor of many companies. He works in the government so clients ‘are already given’ for sure. Entering the seminary for him is really not a wise decision I’ve done with my life. Well, now he supports me in this Bachelors course but he still wants me to pursue a professional career like being in a law school or returning back to my engineering field.[xxviii] I entrust everything to God because what I really want is to finish a doctorate degree in theology. I am hoping that one day he will see me the way some professors see my gift in the seminary academics and most of all, for him to encounter the Lord and be saved by His grace. My graduation day is very much awaited. It is going to be the first ceremony in a Christian setting that he will attend, actually. I believe God will speak to his heart in that day both to realize my call and to admit that he needs the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior the way.

Right now I am in my journey of studying theology and hopeful of going to the states after graduation to pursue my theology track. I really find it necessary to study there because we lack resources here in the Philippines. After that, I plan to go back here be in a church and continue pastoring, teach in a seminary and influence Christians to make them aware of our Christian heritage, which is somehow lost, and be an instrument of God in the eradication of Bible illiteracy among our Filipino brethren.

---

[i] This narrative is actually an excerpt from my wordpress account (bernardbragas.wordpress.com) with a title The Ongoing Journey to Faith: Salvation Gained by One, to the Household. It was passed to Prof. Bennett Lawrence as a requirement for Historical Books and Writings subject. I appreciate the narrative that I cannot manipulate its flow. Literary styles are also stated in the succeeding end notes.

[ii] Narrator’s Anthropopathism on God.

[iii] Narrator is omniscient (Greidanus) even considering Anthropomorphism.

[iv] Emphasis on being the second son and the vital role in the selection.

[v] Narrator’s Anthropomorphism on God.

[vi] Chiasm: A – God smiled …delights

B – gave birth to their first son

C – bore their second son …God’s grace would be so much demonstrated

B’ – gave birth to their third child

A’ – God delighted

[vii] Narrator’s use of Simile.

[viii] Narrator’s use of wings as Zoomorphism and companion as Anthropomorphism.

[ix] Omniscience by the narrator.

[x] See Bible. Acts 16:31, NIV.

[xi] Narrator’s use of Hypocatastasis.

[xii] Dream is an assumption of the narrator by his omniscience.

[xiii] Emphasis that a situation shifted.

[xiv] Narrator’s comment.

[xv] Bernard’s life was like a rereading of his older brother’s life only that he did not end up being in a gang.

[xvi] Narration bridged the gap of the narrator’s comment in the next sentence.

[xvii] Narrator’s use of Anthropopathism.

[xviii] Comment considering it as an expression to all who are nearing their salvation.

[xix] Salvation is always said be this phrase by many evangelists.

[xx] Narrator on his use of Erotesis.

[xxi] Narration’s comment.

[xxii] See the Bible in Jesus’ time.

[xxiii] Bridge to gap the narrator’s comment.

[xxiv] As the Bible says about God’s unfaithful men.

[xxv] Narrator’s comment.

[xxvi] Mother’s encouraging statement after his experience.

[xxvii] Joshua Harris, Not Even a Hint (Oregon, USA: Multnomah Publishers, 2003),

[xxviii] This is now updated. God is really amazing!! My father, now, is willing to support me in my theology career until I finish my MA level.

Computer on the go..

Mission Alexandria’s computer and other resources are now available for use.  The regular library operation isn’t still fixed.  The computer is for free usage.  (Just for the update.)

J.I. Packer speaks (part 2)

…on same sex blessing

…on first order issues

…on implications for the church

…on the future of the church

J.I. Packer speaks

*from youtube.com

…on God and vocation

…on daily work as worship

…on daily work as ministry

…on offering our work to God

…on accommodating youth in the church

…on writing

A RESPONSE TO CALDWELL’S TRUMPET CALL TO ETHNOHERMENEUTICS

DANIEL A. TAPPEINER

Asian Seminary of Christian Ministries

1. Caldwell’s Call to Ethnohermeneutics

Recently Professor Larry Caldwell blew the trumpet in the hallowed halls of academic Zion, in the Philippines, on behalf of what he calls the new discipline of ethnohermeneutics. He did this in his paper to the AGST Annual Theological Conference. This paper was subsequently published in the maiden number of the Journal of Asian Mission.1 The full title of his paper indicates his intention to question the relevancy of Western hermeneutical methods in the Asian context.

From a missiological perspective he raises a very important and serious issue as to the effectiveness of the present and past educational efforts of seminaries in the critical area of biblical interpretation. He states that “the overarching purpose of theological education is, at its very core, a missiological purpose: to help equip others to better understand and communicate the truths of the Bible to a lost and dying world.”2 Within that fundamental missiological mandate to seminary education he also notes that “training others to correctly interpret God’s word, is the heart of theological education, whatever the individual discipline.”3

He therefore urges all who are involved in seminary education in the multi-cultural “stew” of Asia to be explicitly concerned with teaching effective methods of biblical interpretation in such a setting.

“There is a need,” Caldwell says, “to further explore hermeneutics directed specifically towards how to interpret the Bible from one culture to the next, from one people group, or ethnic group, to another.”4 In particular he states, “We no longer have the luxury to assume that our way is the best way or the only way…There may indeed be other valid interpretation methods available to us….”5

Caldwell then goes on to explore the relevance of western hermeneutical methods in non-western settings, and the need to use what he calls “receptor-oriented” hermeneutical methods. He then gives a kind of example of what he means by such a term along the way.

Finally he points to the significance of the Reformation doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the priesthood of believers as a justification for the search for indigenous hermeneutical methods. He ends his trumpet call with suggestions to those in areas of biblical studies, systematic theology and practical theology on how to rearrange their material in light of the emergence of this new discipline of ethnohermeneutics.

2. A Theologian’s Response to the Call

Being a theologian-missionary in the Asian context, I was very interested in the educational and missiological issues that Caldwell raised in his paper. From the perspective of missions I am committed to changing lives, both in my teaching ministry in the seminary and in my direct ministry in the churches and other non-church settings. For me theology is taking the Bible seriously, thinking God’s thoughts after him, faith seeking understanding and doctrine that in accord with godliness.

In the Asian setting it has been a challenge for me to discover how I might effectively translate the theological reality passed on to me by my own theological mentors, to those who come from a very different intellectual, linguistic and cultural background. I found the kind of content and the methods they used began to change immediately. There was also a shift from my focus on the content of my theological lectures, to methods of effective communication of that content to my students. I sought methodology that would really change them personally and allow them to bring the supra-cultural truth of God’s word to those to whom they were called to minister.

Very early, I came to an inner conviction, quite similar to that which Caldwell expressed, concerning the real needs of the students.

He notes, with an undercurrent of frustration, “And yes, our students will need to be aware of some of the complexities of the biblical text and consequently will need a basic familiarity with the tools that can help address those complexities. But the bottom line question comes down to this: how many and how much?”6 I strongly sympathize with his answer to that question, “Yes, a small percentage of our students will need to learn a lot of this information. But not everyone; in fact, not many at all.”7

He goes on to conclude, and with this I heartily agree, “What everyone really needs, and this is crucially important in our Asian context, are the tools, resources and training that will equip them to relevantly interpret the Bible in the complicated context that is Asia.”8

By all means we really do need, as Caldwell says, to “equip Asians to be able to discover and apply the truths of the Bible to their daily lives without having to rely upon either the interpretational dogma of Protestant scholars and/or upon a scholarly priesthood trained to interpret the Bible for them.”9

3. The “Sour Note” in the Trumpet Call

Unfortunately, much as I appreciated the urgent concern of Caldwell’s trumpet call to question the relevancy of western hermeneutical methods in non-western contexts and to begin to take ethnohermeneutics seriously in our missiological/educational task, my theological “ears” detected a “sour note.” That sour note concerns Caldwell’s apparent position that there can be more than one valid method of interpreting what the biblical text “meant.” The classical position has been “Interpretation, one; applications, many!” Or, perhaps more to the point, “Interpretation, one; cultural contextualization, many!”

If Caldwell’s trumpet call to ethnohermeneutics were only a matter of communication, there would be no sour note. If he were only concerned with taking “what it meant” and using local, indigenous “hermeneutical methods” better to communicate “what it means,” he would be safely inside the boundaries of Evangelical missiological theory and practice. It is my position as a systematic theologian, that hermeneutics, as elucidating first of all “what it meant,” is governed by the nature of human thought and its literary forms of communication, not by ethnohermeneutic, indigenous, culturally conditioned methods of interpretation.

Caldwell is clearly aware of this issue. In a footnote, seeking to protect his position, he states, “…I am not advocating a pluralistic approach to interpreting the Bible….”10 The bulk of the paper, however, is meant to explain why the heart of ethnohermeneutics is its search for “receptor-oriented hermeneutical methods.”11 His “Figure 2” is meant exactly to represent such a pluralism. He urges members of Asia Graduate School of Theology to “re-examine their dependency upon western hermeneutical methods and look instead for Asian methods….”12

Before I can answer the trumpet call, I must first be satisfied on this key point. The issue before us is exactly parallel to the desire for a so-called “genuine” Asian theology — not “Banana theology” but “Mango theology.”13 Just as I must reject the notion of a pluralism of “theologies,” so I must reject the notion of a pluralism of hermeneutical methods. In both of cases, if we are only concerned with “contextualization” and cross-cultural communication, then there is only one theology (one supra-cultural truth), but many ways, culturally sensitive, in which to expound and communicate that one theology. In that case there is no “sour note” in either trumpet call.

Can there really be a Filipino hermeneutic, a Chinese hermeneutic, or a German hermeneutic? Is the western hermeneutic really “western” in the merely cultural sense or is it actually “human” or “universal” in the ultimate scientific sense? Is Caldwell correct when he says, “western hermeneutical methods themselves are ethnohermeneutical methods for westerners”?14

When Caldwell discusses the way in which New Testament writers interpreted the Old Testament, he correctly states that “no one hermeneutical method is inspired.”15 Does that properly justify the fundamental assumption on which ethnohermeneutics rests? That is, “that God not only works through culture, hence the need to communicate the truths of scripture in culturally relevant forms, [with which we fully agree] but, correspondingly, that God also works through the hermeneutical processes inherent in each culture”?16 If by “works through” Caldwell means only that contextualizing is useful in the missiological task, he is on solid ground. If he means to say that God uses ethnohermeneutics to discover “what it meant,” he has established hermeneutical pluralism.

In his review of the history of hermeneutics Caldwell notes that “there were a multiplicity of hermeneutical methods used in Bible interpretation” during the last two thousand years, including the allegorical method.17 He expresses the opinion that that method somehow helped “to bring gospel truth to largely illiterate cultures” and “may again prove to be an appropriate method for the non-reading masses of today.”18

From his own assumptions and the development of his argument as we have shown, it seems clear that, in fact, though perhaps not in intention, Caldwell is espousing a pluralistic hermeneutic. His position seems to be that ethnohermeneutics is useful in the missiological task of properly contextualizing the supra-cultural truth of God’s word, with which we might all agree. However, he also seems to suggest ethnohermeneutics is a replacement for the “western” hermeneutic of grammatical/historical method, which I find unacceptable for the reasons stated in this response.

4. An Alternative “Note” for the Trumpet Call

Hermeneutics is usually defined as a two step process in modern times. The first step is concerned with what the writer of the text “meant” by what he wrote. The second step is concerned with what it “means,” here and now in our various cultures and stages of human consciousness. We have come to describe the inter-relation between these two steps as the “hermeneutical spiral, or helix.” It is a complex process of refinement, allowing human beings to grasp more and more accurately, what an ancient text meant, in its own terms and what it now means to humankind in its present state of consciousness.

The grammatical/historical method of interpretation has been a gradual development from the beginning of the church to the present.

Its most explicit, early representatives are those of the “Alexandrine school,” represented by Lucian of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. John Chrysostom.19 But as Caldwell noted, the allegorical method by and large dominated the writings of the teachers of the church up to the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation. From that time to this, a confluence of various forces has converged to produce what we now call the grammatical/historical method of hermeneutics.

How are we to characterize this method? Is it, as Caldwell says, by a western ethnohermeneutic for westerners? Or is it really the grand result of a developmental process, under the general leading of the Spirit of truth, in which the implicit laws of proper and valid interpretation of an ancient text became explicit? If, as historical review suggests, it is the latter, it is quite clear that the grammatical/historical method is not “western” or “ethnohermeneutical,” but objective and universally human.

In any proper hermeneutic the text is “king,” i.e., “what it meant” is fundamental, foundational and indispensable to a proper understanding of “what it means” now. If the method used to determine “what it meant” is not valid, the normativeness of the biblical text is lost to us.20

During the history of the church, as it developed its present understanding of the text, various methods were indeed used. It can, however, be argued — I think successfully — that in fact the only permanently valuable understanding of “what it meant” resulted from the implicit, and sometimes explicit, use of the basic rules of the grammatical/historical method. It is these results which underlie the authoritative and permanent value of the developing Christian consciousness which we now share with our forefathers in the faith, not the invalid results of the fanciful, arbitrary allegorical method.

There is an objective, scientific reason for this. There really is only one valid way in which “what it meant” can be discovered. The grammatical/historical method is simply the developmental result of a process of discovering explicitly, the laws which govern the proper and valid recovery of “what it meant.” The laws of human thought, though conditioned by culture and language, are actually universal. This is so because all human beings share the same basic “hardware” for thinking—the human brain. And, as Imago Dei, they also participate in the Logos structure of created reality through reason. Therefore the grammatical/historical method is not “western,” but “human” and “universal.” It is true that God sovereignly used western culture and its preferred thought processes to develop explicitly the laws of valid interpretation of “what it meant.” That does not, however, make it “western” or “ethnohermeneutical” any more than the conclusions of Nicea or Chalcedon are “western” simply because they use the most accurate and precise language available to them—Greek.

Could the application of an Asian ethnohermeneutic method produce a result that would differ substantively from Nicea or Chalcedon? Such methods may ask other questions of the text and therefore develop some new, illuminating and interesting results to enrich Christian consciousness. However, this comes from the “what it means” part of the hermeneutical helix, not the “what it meant” task.

Now there are, it would seem, two fundamental types of universal thinking modes available to human beings, the so-called “left brain” and “right brain” forms.21 Historically, it turns out, that the development of “left brain” thinking has been most advanced in the human family from the West. The “right brain” type of thought has been more typically used in the East. Each type of thought has its use.

Each is valid for its own purposes. However, concerning the laws by which it is possible to discover what ancient documents “meant”, there really is only one valid method. That method is rooted and grounded in the universal nature of human thought processes as they are committed to literary form and which can only be articulated usefully by means of “left brain” thinking.

Caldwell used the Reformation concept of the priesthood of believers in dealing with the very practical danger of taking the Bible away from Asians because of the complex grammatical/historical method and the expensive books often involved. Since, in my judgment, ethnohermeneutics cannot properly be used to replace the grammatical/historical method without the loss of access to the supracultural truth of God’s word, what is to be done?

At this point the additional Reformation doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture must come to the rescue. The Westminster Confession states it clearly and classically in Chapter I, Article VII in these words:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

By “ordinary means” the Westminster Divines simply meant the basic rules of a common sense grammatical/historical method, based on the objective structure of the text, on the nature of the human thought process and the way thoughts are expressed in literary form. This author agrees that the more advanced methods of the grammatical/historical method, especially as they have been developed in the last two centuries, are not absolutely necessary to useful, Spiritempowered ministry. This is true for all cultures. Only those called to a ministry of advanced teaching and theological thought need to interact with such materials.

5. Final Response

The “sour note” in Caldwell’s trumpet call to ethnohermeneutics seems to result from some kind of confusion between the missiological task of contextualizing the supra-cultural truth to various cultures, and the theological task of determining the content of that supracultural truth and its significance for today. In his missiological approach to the hermeneutical task he does not seem to make a sharp distinction between the two tasks involved in the hermeneutical helix. He does not seem to be concerned sufficiently with the theological task of protecting the supra-cultural truth of Scripture from invalid methods and, therefore, invalid results.

Professor Caldwell’s trumpet call to ethnohermeneutics is appreciated for its concerns about a very important issue. We look forward to further clarification of his position in his up-coming book on the subject.

1 “Towards the New Discipline of Ethnohermeneutics: Questioning the Relevancy of Western Hermeneutical Methods in the Asian Context,” Journal of Asian Mission 1:1 (1999), pp. 21-43.

2 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 22.

3 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 22.

4 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 23.

5 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 25.

6 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 41.

7 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 41.

8 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 41.

9 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 40.

10 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 25 n. 5.

11 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 38.

12 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 4. Italics mine.

13 See Amos Yong, “Review of Kosuke Koyama: A Model for Intercultural Theology and Mangoes or Bananas? The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2:1 (l999), pp. 153-57.

14 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 38.

15 Caldwell, “Toward the New Discipline,” p. 32. Of course