Contextualization or Strict Literalism
As has been pointed out earlier, the Swedish Pentecostal Movement and even the Norwegian Pentecostal Movement have practiced a strict literalistic approach to the interpretation of the Bible. This attitude must be understood in the light of the theological liberalism that invaded the theological faculties of our universities and even some theological seminaries in the beginning of the twentieth century, characterized much of the debate in various Free Churches. In an effort to react against this liberal movement, and even against the denominational pattern, both the above mentioned movements turned to "restoration theology," with a firm desire to return to the "original" apostolic church model, which could be achieved only by means of a consistent focus upon literalism. For that purpose, the SPM used terms like "Godīs pattern" or "Godīs blueprint," which were intended to embrace and reflect the apostolic church-life.
The strict literalism that sometimes brought the SPM to extreme interpretations of different doctrines, is now being abandoned more and more and replaced by a fresh and healthy attitude to hermeneutics as a scientific discipline which includes more than a couple of basic rules. This is seen especially in young pastors and theologians who have been trained in universities or non-Pentecostal theological seminaries. The new attitude towards hermeneutics seem to be more inclined to incorporate new ideas from the exegetical and hermeneutical fields in their Bible studies and biblical interpretation. (1) In this dissertation I have pointed out that several debaters use a contextual method, which helps them to come to grips with the difficult hermeneutical problems, especially issues on woman's ministry. The dogmatical positions due to a literalistic approach are being abandoned.
Contextualization is not, as some Pentecostal leaders have thought, a method that undermines or attacks our faith in the Bible as God-breathed Word. On the contrary, it helps us in our effort to a arrive at a better application of the text. In other words, if one knows the meaning of a particular text and its historical and cultural settings, they instruments to avoid any fanciful and spectacular interpretation and application. The chances to achieve a more correct application of a text increases in proportion with the "amount" of knowledge and insight of the circumstances and the historical and cultural which lay behind the text.
The Beginning Tension Between Literalism and Contextualization
The whole debate on women's ministry in the SPM has more or less revolved around the following question: is the contextual method (2) a right method, or should the interpreter stick to the literalistic method. (3) "Is this the wind blowing from the world?" Karl Ramstrand asked in his article after Nyhemsveckan in 1986. The contextual method, accepted by for example Hasse Andersson, had created both positive and negative impacts on members in our movement. Ramstrand feared that this new way of interpreting Scripture (for the purpose of ordaining female ministers) would take us far from "God's pattern" or His plan for the church. By saying this, he believed that the Swedish Pentecostals had come very close to the apostolic pattern. This was at least the way many pioneers understood "God's pattern," or restorationism. In his article, it is probably true that Ramstrand was convinced that only a consistent, strict literalistic approach would be the answer to the issue of female elders.
In 1978, when Expressen interviewed several famous Pentecostals, it seemed obvious that something new was happening in the hermeneutic field. It was alos clear that this "new hermeneutic approach" would be heavily criticized. Ingvar Holmberg and Josef Mattson-Bozé, both interviewed in Expressen, were convinced that women could minister as elders. (4)
When the first "female-ministry" conference was held among the Pentecostals in Stockholm, in November 1978, Ingvar Holmberg specified in a document, based on cultural and historical reasons, why the women should be accepted as elders. His contextual defense was probably one of the first times, at least officially, that the Pauline "problem-texts" (5) were applied contextually. This new approach came further into use when Wasti Feldt, in 1979, published her book "Kvinnan i frikyrkan." From that time on, the debate revolved around these two ways of interpretation: strict literalism and the contextual method.
The Pentecostal Movement and the Historical Approach
The resistance the Pentecostal Movement showed for many years towards the historic-cultural studies and its influence in the hermeneutic field, depended, among other things, on the fact that pastors and leaders many times confused the contextual method with the historical-critical method which in its negative context refers to higher-criticism. (6) Another factor was the view that the text should be taken at its face value. Therefore, in the very beginning of this chapter the difference between these two somewhat different approaches to the historical studies need to be considered.
Now, the study of a text's historical and cultural background in a contextual method applies background data to a passage in order to understand better its meaning. In other words, in order to achieve a more accurate application of the text itself to our contemporary world, it is necessary to get beyond the mere text.
Turning to the other historical approach, the historical-critical method of interpretation, this method deals with the authenticity and editorial expansion of that text, and (in its negative use) is based upon a liberal foundation, and approaches the Bible as any humanly written litterature. Contextualization and the historical-critical method are similar in their approach, since they both deal with historical issues and can both be misused. But they are different as to purpose as has been noticed. A sound and balanced use of the contextual method is helpful as an interpretative instrument, whereas higher criticism is a result of the influence of the Enlightment upon theology. Suffices it to mention J.S. Semler, Jean Astruc, Julius Wellhausen, and Gotthold Lessing who all contributed to de-supernaturalize the Bible.
In order to distinguish between the two methods let us look at a well known example. While the contextual method would be helpful to state the meaning and the intention of a specific biblical text like 1 Timothy 2:11-12, higher criticism would argue that the same text was not written by Paul, since Christianity described in the pastoral letters, does not express genuine Pauline thoughts. Therefore, a scholar who adheres to the historical-critical method would assert that this text can not have any decisive influence on the debate on women's ministry. One method deals with authenticity and editorial expansion of that text and the other with the interpretation.
So, while the contextual method leads up to a deeper knowledge of the intention of Paul, higher criticism, through its liberalistic approach, views the book as any other human book. To the latter, the above mentioned text does not represent a genuine Pauline statement but rather a later attempt (of the church in Asia) to limit women's admittance to the ministry.
But even the Christian who believes in the infallibility of the Word of God must accept that Scripture contains various genres, and since the bible was addressed to different and specific historical and cultural settings, the biblical texts must be dealt with individually, in the light of rules, proper for each kind of literature. (7) Therefore, in order to rightly interpret the apostolic epistles which contain much of the problem-texts related to the discussion on the female ministry, contextualization may be very effective.
The Meaning of Culture
In order to understand the significance of the contextual method, it is necessary to define the meaning of culture, since it plays such an important part in this approach. According to Bernard Ramm, culture is the "total ways, methods, manners, tools, customs, buildings, institutions, and so forth, by means of which, and through which, a clan, a tribe, or a nation carry on their existence." (8) Due to this definition, it is obviously essential to have a profound insight into the historical and cultural backgrounds out of which Scripture has been written. It is also equally important to get to know one's own culture so that a correct translation of ideas and word-meanings can be performed. Bernard Ramm states the same thing when he says that "understanding Scripture through culture" has a preventive function, since we can "decode (my emph.) the original designation of a word," its usus loquendi. (9) It is only when the biblical words are understood in their cultural settings that they can be applied properly in our own culture.
For that reason, if no attention is given to the cultural significance in hermeneutics, the interpreter might depart from the real significance of the text and move towards an a-historical cultism. That happens when the reader imposes a meaning on Scripture that is built upon the perspective of his beliefs, his traditions, or his ideology. In other words, the interpreter works out of a dogmatic approach. Cults, and possibly even sects, violate the principles of interpretation when ignoring the culture of the original writers of the Bible.
If the interpreter understands that God's Word came in terms of the culture of its writers and first audiences, he is then able to enter into cross-cultural communicating with the people to whom he wishes to unfold the message of the gospel. Contextualization as an effective method of interpretation makes it possible to decode many cultural-bound terms in the Bible which mean something completely different in a modern world.
It is essential that the reader understands that the cultural aspects of the message were not meant to make it more difficult for us to interpret, or to deceive us, but to make the truth all the more accessible and part of each person in each succeeding era of history. The particularity of the text, in which were introduced culturally relevant materials, was intended to aid the interpreter in applying the text to his own days, rather than acting as an obstacle to his contemporary appreciation for what was being said.
Definition of Contextualization
One scholar defines contextualization in the following way: Contextualization is "that dynamic process which interprets the significance of a religion or cultural norm for a group with a different (or developed) cultural heritage." (10) This process entails cross-cultural communication and is a method that characterizes not only Christianity but every religion.
Osborne points out that everyone has to be careful when they define the term "dynamic process," otherwise "the priority of the text diminishes progressively as one moves away from a high view of scriptural authority." The supra-cultural nature of biblical truth is replaced by the priority of current cultural context. (11) This is obviously one of the temptations the Christian needs to watch out for and has to struggle against. Liberation theologians, for instance, argue that the climate of economic oppression and deprivation controls the contextualization process so "sin" is redefined as social injustice and "salvation" becomes the liberation of the poor. (12) This is what Osborne calls the antithesis of the true contextualization, because God's revealed Word is the final arbitrator of all truth and contextualization out of necessity must recognize the inviolability of God's Word. (13) But what happens to the adherents of the infallible and inerrant approach towards Scripture? Well, they are to some degree limited in the contextualization process and that "border-line" cannot be crossed if we want to be loyal to God's Word. But how is it possible to differentiate between the transcultural and the cultural-bound texts?
Transcultural and Culturally Bound
This means that the interpreter must find some kind of guideline or way to determine what is a divine principle or law, and what is limited to certain cultural conditions or circumstances. If the eternal is not separated from the time-bound, and the human from the divine, then exegesis may lead the reader away from the author's core message. The consequence might be then, that culturally related norms and mores are accepted as something permanent for any culture in any time. In other words, exegesis and hermeneutics have failed their ultimate purpose, which must be to contextualize the text in such a way that the modern reader receives the message with the same impact as the receptor in the early church. Several theologians have presented convincing guidelines that will help the reader to arrive at a good and satisfying interpretation of the biblical texts. (14)
Walter Kaiser, current Professor at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, makes the following comment of the importance of the contextualization of the Word of God:
Our practice of contextualization will affect more than the way we deliver our sermons to different cultures or the way we do theology and the way we counsel in those situations; it will have a mighty impact on the way we do theology and the way we present Scripture to ourselves and our hearers ... In all cases, the text as it was intended by the author must sit in judgement on our perspectives and our conclusions that we have drawn from the text. (15)
Literalism - A Definition
Since the term "literalism" has been so misunderstood in many Christian circles, it is necessary to define it. Literal does not mean "letterism," (16) that is, an over-emphasis of the "the letter," a kind of hyper-literalism, a method used by the Jewish cabbalists, wherein both "letterism" and allegorism form a grotesque alliance. (17) The term "literal" is used in the dictionary sense: "the natural or usual construction and implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; not allegorical or metaphorical." (18) But it is also used in its historical sense, specifically, the priority that Luther and Calvin gave to literal, grammatical, or philological exegesis of Scripture in contrast to the Four-Fold Theory of the Roman Catholic scholars (historical meaning, moral meaning, allegorical meaning, eschatological meaning) developed during the Middle Ages and historically derived from Augustine's Three-Fold Theory. It was particularly the allegorical use of the Old Testament that the Reformers objected to. (19)
In this sense literalism coincides with the historico-grammatical method and is directly opposed the "allegorical." (20) Since the former makes up the foundation for an appropriate application or contextualization of the text, it is logical to conclude that the contextualization depends heavily on the classic literalism.
Even if we stick to the grammatico-historical method we cannot escape to be "critical" to the text in the sense that we will have to do intelligent judgments about historical, literary, textual, and philological questions which one must face in dealing with the Bible. Especially in the light of all of the available evidence, when one regognizes that the Word of God has come to men through the words of men in given historical situations. That the "criticism" taken in this sense has a positive connotation is clear, especially if we understand what the basic meaning of the corresponding Greek word - krisis - is and that the English term "criticism" is derived from that word. A "critic" in the broadest sense is a man who makes intelligent judgments or decisions about necessary questions associated with the books of the Bible. Consequently, " 'criticism' as we would define the term, does not mean sitting in judgment on the Bible as the Word of God." (21) Any scholar has to be a "critic" in the positive sense. Even if we take this word in its positive sense I am afraid that many leaders in the SPM and even NPM would misinterpret the word. So, it will take a lot getting used to the technical terms used in hermeneutics.
But What Do Pentecostals Mean By the Word "Literal"?
Normally the SPM and the NPM use the word "literal" in a stricter and more limited sense than the definition above, and because of that, leaders and pastors in both SPM and NPM have done their studies mainly from the logical context. This means that when teachers in the SPM talk about literalism, they do not mean the same as for example the theologian Bernard Ramm in his discription of the same approach. (22) The SPM has been using literalism mostly in a one-sided focus upon the immediate context instead of taking into account even the historical context. Therefore many times the literal method has been marked by an intuitive approach in opposition to the scientific approach and consequently, the biblical interpretation has often served the purpose of being an aid for devotional readings. (23)
Perspicuity - Clarity - of the Text
The way the SPM has interpreted the biblical texts has basically been based upon a particular point of view, namely that every newly-born Christian, can efficiently and fully interpret the Bible and come close to the intention of the ancient texts. A translation of the Bible has in many occasions been the only hermeneutical tool.
The principle of perspicuity means simply that the Bible is sufficiently clear in and of itself for believers to understand it. As J. Stafford Wright has stated, the principle implies three things:
(1) Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person to live by it; (2) Scripture is deep enough to form an inexhaustible mine for readers to the highest intellectual capacity; and (3) the perspicuity of the Scriptures resides in the fact God intended all Scripture to be revelation of Himself to man. (24)
Now, this principle must not be used as an excuse against further investigation and strenous study by the believers. According to Dr. Walter Kaiser, there are two problems related with this principle:
(1) How can the principle of perspicuity be squared with the wide divergence of scriptural interpretations
in Chistendom even among equally committed believers, and (2) why should so much emphasis be placed on advanced training of teachers and other interpreters in Christ's church when all believers have an anointing from the Holy Spirit by which they know the truth (1 Joh. 2:20)? (25)
Dr. Kaiser is right when he contends, as an answer to the first question, that the amount of agreement is really large and impressive, but the emerging tradition and certain patterns of thinking was given priority over the Word of God. To some degree it is still the case in many denominations, including both NPM and SPM.
Concerning the second question, things get more serious.
First John 2:20 was not meant to deny the need for explaining some texts. Ideally, a believer should not need to be urged by teachers to make personal application of clear scriptural teachings or be urged to see their wider and fuller significance. But application and comprehension should not be confused with interpretation. Furthermore, is it not true that the more removed a reader is from the original languages and from the times in which the biblical authors wrote, the greater will be his need for specially trained teachers and various other kinds of assistance? (26)
Kaiser continues pointing out that
We need to recall the system of checks and balances used by the Reformers to grapple with the very problem we face here. They argued for the priesthood of believers (for it was taught in Scripture and embodied the truth of the perspicuity of Scripture), but they also insisted that the final court of appeal was the original languages in which Scripture was written." (27)
The acceptance of the perspicuity of the biblical texts as an "selfevident" truth is one of the reasons why the debate has engaged so many lay-members. Of course, this gives a special dynamic to discussions since it creates enthusiasm and interest in doctrinal issues. Unfortunately, this is almost unknown in, for example, USA. However, it also keeps the debate at the "superfical" level, avoiding any focus on academic issues. This attitude must be understood in the light of the strong influence people from the "grass-root level" have had on doctrinal discussions, especially in the regional and national conferences, such as the Nyhem Conference and Lapplandsveckan. (28)
Another reason why the debate has only been carried out at the surface level, and not touched important theological subjects concerned with the female discussion, is because the SPM has very few trained theologians who may contribute with articles or theological material marked with profound insight in theological issues. The lack of theologians is partially due to the fact that the founder, Lewi Pethrus, opposed theological seminaries as belonging to denominationalism. Of course, he could not stop students from going, but he rejected the idea of advanced theological studies as a merit or an advantage in the pastoral ministry. His idea was that a "one-month Bible school" would keep the pastors from being influenced by liberal theology.
Inconsistent One-Sided Literalism
Normally strict literalism does not give the desired result, which is due to the fact that the outcome of the exegesis and hermeneutics are founded on too many uncertain principles. That is, they are grounded on a method that does not take into account the influence of culture and history. Therefore it tends to fail in its search for the author's intention. Its use as an comprehensive, interpretative method often leads to inconsistency.
For example, during many years the women in the SPM were demanded to to wear long hair, bound up on their head. Very few of them really knew why they had to follow this custom, and I am not sure that the majority of the pastors knew how to explain the complex text in 1 Cor. 11. In spite of the fact that the SPM had stuck to this doctrine for more than fifty years, and in spite that it is clearly related to the so-called order of creation and the angels, it is strange how it could disappear almost without any major doctrinal discussions. This is still more strange since the womenīs hair and head-covering were such important doctrines within the SPM. Unfortunately, many women were excommunicated from its churches only because they did not comply with the idea of having long bound-up hair. This interpretation of the text in 1 Corinthians 11 became a must for women until the beginning of the 1960's, when the largest churches decided to stop demanding women to wear head-coverings in church.
I am sure that an in-depth contextual study of the text in 1 Corinthians 11 would have lead the interpreter to acknowledge that the meaning of this text, whatever its background was, could have been explained out of the historical and cultural settings. (29) It was a socially accepted custom that woman, especially in the Jewish culture, wore a veil or shawl to cover her heads, but not so among the Greco-Roman women. Therefore the head-covering can not be a transcultural principle that has to be followed by people in all times and in all cultures, just because women among one certain group of people used to express their humility or submission through head-covering.
Strict literalism in the SPM has created a tendency to fall into a dogmatical fundamentalism resulting in fixed traditions and interpretations. This has been made possible since the traditional attitude of the Pentecostals has been to deal with theology as a kind of "once-for-all-time" system. You can notice that in the present discussions the older members of our churches cannot mentally allow for "doctrinal adjustments." They often come back to expressions such as "we have never done that before," or "our pioneers never said that." This reveals that they view theology as a fixed status-quo truth that must be administered in the light of the Scripture and the sound doctrine of the apostles.
It is now time to take a look at one example from the SPM female debate, specifically from the initial phase. There were at least several of these debaters who held a view that most of the conservatives would reject today, or at least they would not bring forth such arguments.
The first example comes from Gotthard Dahlberg in 1979. He says among other things that "the woman was not born to be a leader." He refers to the psychological and physical burdens that make it impossible for a woman to be a leader. He also points out that in case that "such a sad thing would happen that Pentecostal churches would be so impoverished [spiritually] that there would be no man that could assume the leader's responsibility, then again, God would certainly have another Deborah."
Very few members of the SPM would say today that God does not call women to leadership, and nobody would say that female leadership is a sign of spiritual poverty. In this way it is obvious that even strict literalism is subject to change. This still does not mean that all its adherents have changed their minds to accept female elders.
Godīs pattern.
The author of this document has tried to show how the SPM have constantly pursued the restorationist theology, that is, they have tried to restore the apostolic church pattern for both church life and doctrines. The SPM followed the world-wide Pentecostal approach and focused upon such doctrines as the independent local churches, the Parousia, the speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, healing and miracles. These doctrines were all part of the early Pentecostal Movement. (30)
As time passed by, these doctrines were considered almost self-evident "dogmas" and consequently were accepted as God's inmutable and unchangable truths. (31) For the SPM it was of course important to stick to these doctrines which were part of the "Godīs pattern," a word used frequently in order to refer to the original ecclesiastical blueprint.
When the debate on the female eldership started, preachers and pastors continually referred to the impossibility of accepting female leaders since this concept was not part of the original church structure or "Godīs pattern." Carlo Johansson, one of the well-known teachers in the SPM, gives the following answer, quoted earlier in this dissertation, when asked whether the SPM will ordain female elders in the future:
No, I don't think so. It would go against 'God's pattern' which we find in the New Testament." This statement was probably shared by the huge majority of the pastors within the SPM the female elder- and leadeship did not belong to "God's pattern. (32)
But is it so simple? Well, it is right that the apostle Paul refers to some kind of divine pattern when talking about "God's rule" in Galatians 6:16, but he probably alludes to the essence of the gospel, being under discussion in the previous context. May be as a deduction from the argument it refers to the foundational doctrines of the church. However, it is true that God has given the church both a message (Gal. 1) and a commission (Matt.28). It is also true that Paul and the apostles became the interpreters of the given message and commission. But the church through the centuries has from time to time tried to return to the apostolic pattern, but always with different interpretations. It suffices to mention the Montanists, the Valdenses, the Puritans, the Pietists, the Holiness Movement, the Pentecostals etc. So, restorationism is not a simple and monistic movement.
Since no one really knows the content and meaning of "God's pattern"or what it stands for, it is impossible to use it as a decisive argument in favor of or against the female debate. Did really God expressively say that women under all conditions will never be permitted to teach and hold leadership positions? It is doubtful that Paul's view of women should be taken as an everlasting denial for them to get access to leadership positions. Rather it seems that Paul tries to stop women from usurping authority from men through the teaching ministry. The prevailing conditions in both Corinth and Ephesus could cause problems to the church if they gave too much freedom to women. And it is possible that the apostle would have kept women separated from the leadership positions in similar conditions even today. This is the meaning of the contextual approach, namely, to transfer the same intention and application of the writer to similar cultural and historical circumstances. It is exactly here where literalists get into problem of consistency. For if the literal view is supposed to prevail, the rest of the text in for example 1 Timothy. 2 would oblige women to keep on learning in humbleness and silence instead of giving them permission to preach and witness. In this document Boris Arapovic has alleged that this is the New Testament teaching.
In summary, the contextual method is in some cases to be preferred over the strict literalism, in order to make a more correct hermeneutical approach of the biblical texts. Or at least it needs to be a compliment to the literalistic approach. It avoids many fanciful interpretations, is more effective in taking into account the historical and cultural dimensions, and more or less avoids a dogmatical approach, that comes out of a preconceived hypothesis. God has surely a basic pattern for his church and its life. He has established rules which we are to follow. But it is not right to take a hypothesis (God's pattern) and force it into a text, if by doing this, one loses sight of the general purpose or panorama of the writer. (33) This is exactly what happens with the strict literalistic approach.
________________________________________________1. It is interesting to notice how the board in the Filadelfia Church in Stockholm suggests a change of terms for the church's leadership, something that has been met with criticism even from egalitarians. Herbert Sandman from a location called Tyresö, calls the current debate "distorted." He is not opposed to female elders or pastors but means that changing terms is only a way to get around the problem. He considers that "church-servant" will be confused with "deacon," a term that already exists in the Bible. Cf. the debate in the 1994 year Pastorīs Conference where young pastors such as Uno Solinger, a student at the ICBI- University, has an open-minded attitude to the contextual method.
2. Even if the word "contextualization" is not mentioned all the criticism is directed against this method.
3. We must not confuse the insight in the historical and cultural settings with the contextual method. Many people agree with the importance of knowing the teological historical, sociological and cultural settings. But this does not imply a willingness to change application (significance) if the circumstances changes. For example, the women's ministry in the apostolic church was limited basically because of a patriarchical society, the lack of women's education and problems related with too enthusiastic women who took advantage of their freedom without considering that this resulted in a total clash with the prevailing social mores. They were not willing to wait for the dynamic effects. Now almost 2000years after society has completely changed. In spite of this turn-around literalists are not willing too "contextualize" the texts. The meaning and the significance are still the same.
4. Expressen, June 17, 1978.
5. Even if the term "contextualization" was quite a new phenomenon in that time, it is obvious that the way, that for example, Ingvar Holmberg approached the Pauline texts, dealing with the female ministry, was the beginning of a new approach in the SPM of the historical dimensions of the biblical texts.
6. One of these people was Karl-Erik Heinerborg who wrote an article in Evangelii Härold, no. 16, 1988, where he asked if the new method of interpreting the Bible, came from a historic-critical method? Even Thoralf Gilbrant in Norway expresses his fear that the female debate will open up for liberal theology in the Pentecostal churches. Cf. Thoralf Gilbrant, ibid., p. 173. "Pentecostalism placed little or no significance on the historical context in which the texts were inscribed. Biblical statements were understood at face value with no appreciation for the ancient context in which they were delivered. In time, this understanding of inspiration was found to be unsatisfactory. Instead, there is seen a full cooperation of the human and the divine in the writings of the Bible." (Stanley M . Burgess, Gary B. McGee and Patrick H. Alexander eds., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan Publ. House, 1988), p. 380.
8. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical.Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI.:. Baker Book House, 1970), p.152; Cf. even William J. Larkin Jr., Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1988, pp.192-193; Walter C. Kaiser & Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, (Grand Rapids, MI.; Zondervan Publishing House, 1994).
9. Bernard Ramm, 1970, p.152.
10. Grant Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVArsity Press, 1991), p. 319.
11. Ibid., p.319. Osborne cites William Larkin, Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1988), p.188. Larkin points out three "roots" behind the crisis in biblical authority in non-evangelical missiology, following upon the World Council of Churches 1971 Louvain Statement on "The Authority of the Bible": (1) modern society's rebellion against authority mitigates against acceptance of Scripture as a standard, and this is compounded by the tendency to treat the Bible like any other book; (2) the contradictions within Scripture (according to the historical-critical method) make it difficult to choose which aspect is authoritative; (3) the historical and cultural distances between the ancient text and the modern context cause many to doubt whether the Bible has any relevance whatsoever for our day.
12. Ibid., p. 319.
13. Ibid.
14. See Walter C. Kaiser & Moisés Silva, 1994, pp. 185-188; William J. Larkin, Jr.Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1988), pp. 107-113; Grant R. Osborne, 1991, pp. 326-338.
15. Walter Kaiser, ibid., p. 177. Letterism is an expression coined by Bernard Ramm, in Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1970), pp. 47, 49.
17. This kind of letterism or allegorism is found in for example, E.W. Bullinger, Como Entender y Explicar los Números de la Biblia (Barcelona, Clie, 1990). Webster's New International Dictionary.
19. Bernard Ramm,, 1970, p. 119.
20. The SPM has even used the allegorical method in order to explain or find out the deeper spiritual meaning of difficult texts, such as those from the Old Testament but even from the eschatological issues. One example is the book of Revelation where the allegorical method has been used to figure out the significance of its symbolical language. Unfortunately, many times both strict literalism and allegorical method are used indiscriminately, without any explanation of why the one is used instead of the other or vice versa.
21. George E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism( Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1967), p. 37.
22. Bernard Ramm, 1970, pp. 119ff.
23. This does not mean that there have not existed teachers or theologians in the SPM that have had a different view on literalism, coming closer to the classic view of literalism. But the basic rule in the Pentecostal Movement around the world has been a very strict view on literalism. This is now changing even in the SPM.
24. J. Stafford Wright, "The Perspicuity of Scripture," Theological Students Fellowship, Summer 1959, p. 6. Walter Kaiser, Legitimate Hermeneutics, Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), p. 129.
26. Ibid. pp. 129-130.
27. Walter Kaiser, Ibid., pp. 129-130.
28. The SPM has two annual Conferences when all the members of the Movement can participate in the doctrinal discussions, namely, the Nyhem Conference and the Lappland Conference. The latter has got its name from the location, Lappland, in the northern part of Sweden.
29. The author of this document is completely aware of the fact that many theologians, in spite of having done profound in-depth studies of the mentioned text, reached the conclusions that women should not be accepted as ministers or pastors. His opinion is that a great amount of new discoveries and research work have been done, both on exegetical, historical and theological fields, that the church may, on reasonable grounds, accept women as leaders in our churches.
30. The SPM accepted other doctrines as foundational to the apostolic faith, such as the instantaneous conversion, baptism through immersion, the board of male elders, one Pentecostal church in each town. and a movement characterized by a self-educated leadership. (In addition, the ideal sin-free life was accepted as a biblical truth. Gustaf Carlsson, Människan Samhället och Gud (Lund, Lund University Press, Lund, 1990), pp. 102-103.
31. Cf. Lewi Pethrus, Hos Herren är Makten, pp. 80-88, 215-224, 259-266.
32. See for example Carlo Johansson, Dagen, March 8, 1986; Samuel Svensson, The Nyhem Conference1986; Karl Ramstrand, Evangelii Härold, no. 33, 1986; Erling Medefjord, Dagen, April 4, 1988; Karl-Erik Heinerborg Evangelii Härold no. 16, 1988; Olof Djurfeldt, Dagen, August 26, 1989.
33. Cf. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics - A treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan Publ. House, 1990), pp.171-172". Terry says: In the exposition of the Bible, apology and dogma have a legitimate place. The true apology defends the sacred books against an unreasonable and captious criticism and presents their claims to be regarded as the revelation of God. But this can be done only by pursuing rational methods, and by use of a convincing logic . . . but the dogma must be shown to be a legitimate teaching of the Scripture, not a traditional idea attached to Scripture.
_________________________________________ Page Up ______________________________________
Đ 2005 Nils-Olov Nilsson. All rights reserved.