Ervaring (“ experience ”)

Alhoewel die Skrif vir die Pentekostalis die norm is, is dit volgens Davies (2009: 220) vir die Pentekostalis belangrik dat die Skrif hom by ’n egte ontmoeting met of belewing van God uitbring. Belewing is vir die Pentekostalis belangrik. Enyinnaya (2008: 148) verwys hierna as ’n

“reader-centered” benadering tot hermeneutiek en impliseer dat dit wel moontlike gevare kan inhou.

Davies (2009: 220) is van mening dat dit onmoontlik is om ’n algehele en ’n absoluut omvattende insig in en die verstaan van die teks te verkry, sonder om in ’n mate subjektief met die teks te werk te gaan. Hy haal Anthony Thiselton aan wat meld dat “those who ‘seek to silence their own subjectivity, striving for the kind of objective neutrality which is … an illusion’ “.

’n Absolute objektiwiteit in ’n poging om ’n omvattende insig en verstaan van die teks te verkry is dus, volgens Davies, nie moontlik nie en kan dit ook nie as ’n voorvereiste dien vir ’n persoon om ’n egte ontmoeting met of belewing van God te hê nie:

“In fact, I am not at all sure that Pentecostals should lay claim to anything that could be called a full understanding of the Bible, or even particularly think it desirable. Explain it, preach it, study it, sure. But hardly understand it, for that might mean grasping it, containing it, knowing it, and that might imply an attempt at grasping, containing and knowing the God it reveals, and thereby, in some measure at least, seeking to control and restrict him and his actions in the world and in our lives, to define him out of dangerousness. I do not think we could ever endure such a boxed and pre-packaged deity; Pentecostalism requires a God on the loose, involving himself with the fine details of our earthly existence and actively transforming lives. I think Pentecostal theology, in both its systematic and more popular forms, requires a degree of uncertainty” (Davies, 2009: 220).

Pinnock (2009: 165) praat op dieselfde trant en beweer dat Bybeltekste “do have definite meanings in the historical situation and that meaning is the anchor of our interpretation. But the ‘total’ meaning cannot be restricted to that.”

Hierdie uitgangspunte dui egter nie daarop dat Pentekostaliste die belangrikheid van die Skrif afwater nie. Gordon Fee (1991: 25) is ’n vername Pinksterteoloog wat ’n “author-centered” benadering steun en meen dat dit die taak van die eksegeet en teoloog is “to discover and hear the word in terms of God’s original intent”. Die Pinksterteoloog moet dus nie net ’n “reader- centered” of anders gestel, ’n ervaringsbenadering volg wanneer met die Skrif omgegaan word nie.

Die Pentekostalis maak dus erns met die Bybel en beskou en ondersoek dit as die Woord van God. Vir hom is dit nie maar net nog ’n dogmatiese uitspraak nie, maar gebaseer op

’n persoonlike ervaring van God in sy lewe. Ellington (1996: 17) vermeld dat Pentekostaliste nie hul verstaan van die outoriteit van die Skrif op ’n “bedrock of doctrine” vind nie – “their doctrine is itself resting on something more fundamental, dynamic, and resilient; their experiences of encountering a living God, directly and personally.”

Davies (2009: 219) meld dat historiese kontekste en vroeëre teologiese sieninge volgens hom nie so swaar opweeg vir die Pentekostalis as om persoonlik te ervaar hoe God daadwerklik in die hede, vandag, deur die Heilige Gees tot hom spreek nie:

“Pentecostals read the Bible not to learn of the history of Israel, the development of the earliest Christian theology or even of the life of Christ, but to meet God in the text, and to provide an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to speak to our spirits” (Davies, 2009: 219).

Wat Skrifbeskouing en ervaring betref, is Vickers (2006: 385) van mening dat dit vir Pentekostaliste belangriker is “to live the Gospel faithfully before God, not to prove God’s existence based upon philosophical argument” en vermeld hy dat vroeëre Pentekostaliste benadruk het dat “religious experience authenticates Christianity.”

Alhoewel Alexander (2011: 337) se beskrywing van Pentekostalisme nie werklik as ’n leerstellige kenmerk of as “distinctive” daarvan aanvaar kan word nie, is haar definisie van Pentekostalisme, dat dit in wese ’n spiritualiteit is, baie insiggewend:

“First, it is still a form of tacit protest. It reflects a widespread discontent with the pre- shrinking of ‘religion’, Christianity in particular, into a package of theological propositions, by the religious corporations that box and distribute such packages. Second, it represents an attempt to voice the awe and wonder before the intricacy of nature that many feel is essential to human life without stuffing them into ready-to-wear ecclesiastical patterns. Third, it recognizes the increasingly porous borders between the different traditions and, like the early Christian movement, it looks more to the future than to the past.”

Wat belewing betref is Arrington (soos aangehaal deur Maré, 1998: 16) van mening dat Bybelse interpretasie ’n teorie en metode van hermeneutiek vereis “that enhances a re-experiencing of the biblical text”.

Oor hierdie herbelewing van die Bybelse teks meen Davies (2009: 224) “all interpreters condition their reading of a text by a kind of pre-understanding arising from their own life context

… [and then] the interpreter enlarges the meaning of the text being interpreted”. Dus, deur die herbelewing van die geïnterpreteerde teks, word die betekenis daarvan uitgebrei of vergroot.

Archer (2004: 42) beweer dat die Pinkster-narratiewe tradisie “an experiential, conceptual hermeneutic narrative” verskaf “that enables them to interpret Scripture and their experience of reality”. McKay (soos aangehaal deur Maré, 1998: 16) noem hierdie manier van Skrifbenadering “a theology of biblical experience or, perhaps better, ‘shared experience’ ” en wys daarop dat dit vir Pentekostaliste daaroor gaan om ’n gedeelde ervaring of belewing van God en sy wondermag met die mense wat in Bybelse tye geleef het, te sien aktualiseer in hul eie lewe.

Davies (2009: 220) benadruk hierdie onmiddellike, persoonlike herbelewing van die teks en meld dat “the reading, interpretation and proclamation of Scripture have little to do with intellectual comprehension and all to do with divine self-revelation.”

Nel (2014: 296) beaam die feit dat die belewing van die teks vir Pentekostaliste belangrik is:

“Pentecostals believe that the modern church should expect to experience the same miracles performed by Jesus and the apostles because they are part of the post- Pentecost experience of the early church as reported by acts ... miracles and healing are part of the salvation announced by the gospel and serve as a sign of reassurance to the believer and witness to the unbeliever... Christ provided his children with mighty power for the relief of suffering humanity, to heal the sick, cast out devils, speak with new tongues, and confirm the word by these outward signs” (Nel, 2014: 296).

’n Algemene beswaar teen Pentekostaliste, volgens Maré (1998: 17), is dat hulle soms hul ervaring in die teks mag inlees. Arrington (soos aangehaal deur Maré, 1998: 17) beweer in hierdie verband dat Pentekostaliste erken dat “praxis informs what they find in Scripture, and they go on to acknowledge that what they find in Scripture informs their Pentecostal praxis”. Maar Davies (2009: 222) verdedig die Pentekostalistiese benadering en meld dat dit dalk beskou mag word as “subjectivist, experiential, self-centred even; but then is there really any other kind of reading?”.

Goldingay (soos aangehaal deur Maré,1998: 16) wil ook die belangrikheid van ’n ervaring of ’n belewing benadruk en meld dat dit ’n voorvereiste vir die verstaan van die teks, waarna dit verwys is. Ons vermoë om te hoor wat die Bybel sê begin “with the fact that we

share things with it... and that we want to grow in that understanding, relationship, and commitment to God that is expressed in these texts.”

Goldingay waarsku egter dat ’n mens versigtig moet wees vir die voorveronderstelling van ervaring om sodoende nie daardeur “misled or trapped by it” te word nie.