ECUMENICAL HERMENEUTICS
In recent years, there has been a tendency within Pentecostal discussions
of hermeneutics to refl ect on the ecumenical dimension of hermeneu-
tics, 36 and I consider myself an ally of this movement. However, how I
understand the implications of a divided Church for the hermeneutical
task differs from some of my fellow Pentecostals. The point is not for
Pentecostals to become respected, with rights to our own distinctive
hermeneutical tradition. For a movement with strongly anti-traditional
origins such a goal seems both misguided and self-referentially inco-
herent (i.e., we now celebrate for ourselves what we lampooned in
others).
Still, Pentecostals should embrace ecumenism in the proper context.
Our Pentecostal forefathers had many theological disagreements; nev-
ertheless, they also felt unifi ed. They claimed a unity of the Spirit even
though they had not yet achieved unity of the faith (Eph. 4:13). While
unity of the faith (i.e., theological agreement) was desirable, it was not the
basis of their fellowship. Rather, they all claimed to have received spiritual
experiences they saw in Scripture, and they found impressive correlation
between the experiences they held in common and the descriptions of
spiritual experiences in the Bible. There is an ecumenical principle in this
impulse and it suggests a model for wider ecumenical dialogue.
But the role of Scripture is also important. I have already described
the quasi-creedal quality of the New Testament. It refl ects diversity,
but also sets boundaries. I am not interested in ecumenical dialogue in
which Pentecostals get “a seat at the table,” but in which others at the
table defi ne their faith outside the New Testament boundaries. This is
not an attack on dialogue with Catholics or the Orthodox; I have been
involved in the national Evangelical–Catholic Dialogue for twenty
years. Catholics take the authority of Scripture very seriously, even
if they articulate that authority differently than I do, and I regularly
experience “unity of the Spirit” with them. But there are other groups,
whom I will not name, who claim to represent authentic Christian
traditions but stake their tents outside the New Testament boundaries,
often by denying the stability of textual meaning and the determina-
tive character of authorial intent. Dialogue with them more closely
resembles interfaith dialogue than ecumenical dialogue. Accordingly,
it is not very productive.
This is one reason why hermeneutics matters.
98 G.W. MENZIES