representative of this genre by Stephenson are the standard ones found in
theological texts of the era, with special attention given to “characteristi-
cally pentecostal questions” such as Spirit Baptism or miraculous gifts. 67
Although Archer’s analysis presented a method that seemed to eschew
extrabiblical sources, Stephenson’s consideration of the “Bible Doctrines”
hermeneutical approach shows an openness to other sources, mostly due
to a belief in the possibility of continuing divine revelation from God.
Human experience is cited as a particular source, but even then, it is a ref-
erence to the ways in which the Spirit unites contemporary generations of
Bible readers to ancient communities vis-à-vis their common experiences
of God’s pneumatic gift. Stephenson is clear that this method should not
be confi ned to early Pentecostalism (e.g., one of the three exemplars he
cites as representative of this approach, French L. Arrington, taught and
published into the twenty-fi rst century), though it does seem to be the
one that predominated in the early twentieth century.
Finally, L. William Oliverio’s analysis of early Pentecostal hermeneu-
tics in Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A
Typological Account echoes conclusions found in the studies by Archer
and Stephenson. Oliverio sees early Pentecostal hermeneutics infl uenced
by a set of “core interpretive assumptions” 68 that helped shape the spirit of
early Pentecostalism: the centrality of the Protestant Bible as the primary
authority for doctrine and practice, the “restorationist” grid by which
Pentecostals framed their understanding of salvation history, the emer-
gence of the “full gospel” as the Christological structure for Christian
ministry, and a “pragmatic naïve realism” that merged with a fervent
expectation of the supernatural to form an early Pentecostal rational-
ity. 69 Similar to Archer, Oliverio sees early Pentecostal hermeneutics as an
attempt to navigate the divide between conservative and liberal notions
of revelation that resulted in a “dialogical” dynamic between Scripture
and experience. 70 Oliverio also affi rms the fact that the object of most of
the theological refl ection of early Pentecostal hermeneutics concerned the
major issues of Spirit baptism, sanctifi cation, and Oneness doctrines, with
little attention spent on issues pertaining to race and culture. 71
Evaluating defi ciencies is the easy, critical work in this task. What about
the constructive side? That is, what would a Pentecostal hermeneutic that
took race and culture seriously look like? Would it resemble Seymour’s
original ecumenical/eschatological vision in which “unity was manifested
in the interracial and transcultural experience of worship in the Spirit,
with the gift of tongues playing an important (but not exclusive) role
PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS AND RACE IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH... 241