For more information about
the book, click on the
book cover below:
Historical Narrative versus Didactic
from The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Debate
Dear Readers,
I received a review of my book from a reader who said that my argument that one cannot build doctrines from narrative portions of Scripture was wrong.
However, I never said that Christians cannot build doctrines from narrative portions of Scripture. In fact, when I read the reviewer's note on this, I was shocked, and I wondered if he had actually read my book at all or if he had just assumed my arguments.
In chapter nine of my book, I wrote this line: "It is my position that doctrines and practices may be legitimately derived from historical narratives."
In the same chapter, I also wrote: "So, while I accept the view that historical narrative is grounds for doctrine and practice, it must make that doctrine and practice obvious."
I'm not sure how much more clear I could possibly be on this. The only thing that I can think of is to reproduce the entire chapter here (without editing it) so any and all readers can see both my statements and the full context of my statements.
So, before too many people read a review that sorely misrepresents my position on this topic, I am making chapter nine of my book available here as a Coffee Talk.
This CT taken from chapter nine of my book, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Debate. It is used by permission, and it may not be reproduced from this CT, and it is quoted here, in full.
Historical Narrative Versus Didactic
Proper biblical hermeneutics(1) always plays a major part in biblical interpretation. One primary hermeneutical principle that is especially germane to this discussion is historical narrative versus didactic (teaching) portions of Scripture.(2) Since there are different genres of literature in Scripture, each must be seen in its own context and interpreted in light of its own literary principles.
To be sure, there is a difference between historical narrative and didactic genres, and it is important to know which is which and to know how to interpret them accordingly. But, an oversimplified view is that doctrines can only be derived from didactic portions of Scripture while historical narratives serve only to show us what transpired for others in those historical events. Perhaps the best way to clarify this is to give examples of each.
Historical Narrative Example
When the historical narrative in Exodus tells us that Moses struck a rock with his staff and water came out, are we then to assume that all believers can strike a rock to have water? God is speaking to Moses, and he says:
“I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exodus 17:6).
However, one narrative does not a doctrine make. Something must be repeated to establish a norm (a “have-to pattern”). Furthermore, this “thing” must be consistent each time it is repeated. It is interesting that this “water from a rock” did not happen only once. It happened again. In the book of Numbers, it says:
Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank (Numbers 20:11).(3)
However, even with two separate accounts of Moses striking a rock to retrieve water, this narrative description of what happened should not be treated as though it were a prescription for “the way to get water.” And, as far as I know, no thoughtful Christian believes that we can simply take a stick and hit a rock for our water needs.
Though this is an extreme example of how not to build doctrines on narratives, the point should be clear. Narrative passages of Scripture are often only descriptive, i.e., describing how some people did something and not prescriptive, i.e., prescribing how all people must do something.
Didactic Example
Now, let’s review a didactic portion of Scripture.
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).
In this didactic (teaching) portion of Scripture, Paul is addressing the Corinthians, and he is explaining to them how they should conduct their worship service. Since this is a direct teaching, we can see and accept its universal application for all Christians for all times. When something is for all Christians for all times, then we call that a “norm” (or “normative”). It is something that should (must) be done by all Christians, and when they do not do it, they are out of line.
However, in our narrative passage of Moses and the rock, we would not see that as a norm. The water-from-the-rock situation was unique to Moses. Nowhere is there a didactic portion of Scripture that commands all Christians to strike rocks for water. Therefore, it is not a “norm.” It is simply a record (narrative) of how God dealt with Moses in particular times at particular places.
Two More Examples
It appears that Peter had a particular ministry that was unique to him. The historical narrative of the book of Acts gives us this account:
As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by (Acts 5:15).
Peter had a “Shadow Ministry,”(4) and no one assumes that this is a norm. This passage is not prescribing how Christians are to heal the sick; it is simply recounting this unique experience in Peter’s life.
Speaking of Peter, he himself, however, writes didactically to all Christians when he says,
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good (1 Pet. 2:1-3).
In this passage Peter gives instructions that are normative for all Christians for all time. Unlike Moses’ rock-and-water experience, which is only descriptive, Peter’s instructions are prescriptive. Here is a simple table that may help clarify the two.
NARRATIVE ------------------ and ------------------ DIDACTIC
A story ------------------------------------------------- A teaching
Descriptive ------------------------------------------- Prescriptive
Normal for some ----------------------------------- A norm for all
The Twist
However, it is not as simple as saying, “Doctrines can only be derived from didactic portions of Scripture and never narrative portions of Scripture.” If the discussion were that simple, we would be able to simply state that the book of Acts is a historical narrative, and, thus, no doctrines can be built from it. That then, would end the debate. But, the church has legitimately established some of its doctrines and practices via historical narrative. As Fee points out, the Baptists (and some others) insist on baptism by immersion. This practice, however, is not based on any clear didactic portion of Scripture, but rather upon a word study of the word baptize and upon historical narrative. Why does the church meet each Sunday for services? What didactic portion of Scripture establishes that routine for our church practice? Upon what New Testament didactic portion of Scripture does the church teach and support the practice of tithing?
Furthermore, New Testament writers did use Old Testament narratives for didactic instruction. In fact, Paul seems to imply as much when he says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Also, in Romans 15:4, Paul says, “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” So, historical narrative does have didactic value; the issue is how do we legitimately exegete doctrine and practice from historical narrative?
If we conclude that doctrines may be derived from historical narrative (and I do), we cannot then simply say, “Well, there you go. Since we can use that hermeneutical principle, then speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.” You see, even when we conclude that doctrines can be built from historical narratives, shall we then institute the “water-from-rocks ministry,” or the “shadow-healing ministry”? Obviously not.
In Paraclete, Roger Stronstad gives a weighty argument for “The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent”(5) (i.e., building doctrines from narratives). However, in the same issue of Paraclete, Gordon Fee supplies a strong rejoinder in which he offers several cautions concerning this hermeneutical principle.(6) In essence, if doctrines are to be built upon narrative portions of Scripture, many caveats come into play. After an ongoing discussion on this topic, Gordon Fee eloquently expresses my concern:
At issue, as I perceive it, is whether historical precedent may serve in a normative way for the establishing of Christian doctrine. I have expressed concern on this issue; and as Roger [Stronstad] has indicated, “considerable criticism” has been levied against my articulation of things. But I must confess that in all of that criticism, I have failed to find a hermeneutical articulation that took me by the hand and showed me how one goes about doing this—that is, establishing something normative on the basis of historical precedent alone (emphasis added).(7)
So, while there may be legitimacy in building doctrine from narrative passages alone, there is yet to be a definitive hermeneutical statement on how that is properly done.
I believe that it is shortsighted to simply reject a teaching out of hand because it is derived from historical narrative. It is my position that doctrines and practices may be legitimately derived from historical narratives. However, this position notwithstanding, I still must express two caveats: (1) There has been no definitive, accepted method of determining doctrine from narrative alone, and (2) the historical narrative of Acts does not seem to significantly demonstrate the idea that speaking in tongues is the norm for the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
So, while I accept the view that historical narrative is grounds for doctrine and practice, it must make that doctrine and practice obvious. And, the reality is—as demonstrated in chapter five—Luke simply does not do that. He does not make tongues as evidence obvious. He gives only three references to speaking in tongues out of twenty-six conversion accounts. Not only are there only three, but each of them is inconsistent with the other. Thus, it seems obvious, at least to this researcher, that this is one doctrine that cannot be adequately exegeted from the narrative.
The fact that Luke gives three accounts in which people spoke in tongues in association with the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not to be discarded, but neither is it to be elevated to a theological dogma. Truth certainly can be gleaned from historical narrative, but one must be careful not to draw universal, conclusive norms based on occasional happenings within the historical narratives. Luke’s account seems to indicate that speaking in tongues is a normal Christian experience, but the account does not provide an adequate exegetical basis to make it a norm.
A Non Sequitur That some people spoke in tongues when they were saved and filled with the Holy Spirit is a fact of record. This is a truth to be gleaned from the historical narrative that Luke supplies. That the gift of tongues has not ceased is also a fact of record, both biblical and historical. That this is a repeatable phenomenon, i.e., that people today can repeat the biblical experience of speaking in tongues, is also true.
So, while I believe that speaking in tongues is legitimately repeatable, and it is a normal Christian experience, I do not think that the Acts narrative imposes (or teaches) that all Christians must speak in tongues when they are saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. That tongues as evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a universal “norm” is simply a non sequitur. It simply does not follow from the historical narrative that Luke supplies.
Had Luke made a point of clearly, repetitiously, and consistently depicting throughout the book of Acts that all who were saved and filled with the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues, then there would be a paradigm (norm) that we would have to follow. Even if he had clearly and consistently depicted that most of them did, it would make a strong argument for tongues-as-evidence. However, this is not the case. Luke’s record indicates that less than twelve percent of the people who were saved throughout the book of Acts spoke in tongues. This is a small percentage indeed.
Since Luke mentions so few who spoke in tongues as evidence of their conversion/infilling with the Holy Spirit, this clearly indicates that speaking in tongues was not a major point that he was attempting to develop. Thus, speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit as normative is not a doctrine that can be legitimately derived from the historical narrative known as the book of Acts.
_________________
For further discussion about conflicting ideas of theology regarding the book, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Debate, see Coffee Talk # 103) Rick Walston's Response to Robert Graves's Review
_________________
End Notes
_________________
1. Biblical hermeneutics is simply defined as the art and science of biblical interpretation.
2. I will only briefly touch upon this topic as others (Fee and Stronstad, for examples) have dealt with this topic extensively and the reader is directed to their works in this area. See Fee, Gospel and Spirit, and Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. See also Roger Stronstad, “The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent” in Paraclete, vol. 27, no. 3, 1993, pp. 1-10; and Gordon D. Fee, “Response to Roger Stronstad’s 'The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent'” Paraclete, vol. 27, no. 3, 1993, pp. 11-14. I lean heavily toward Fee’s assessment of this issue and give the gist of that argument in this chapter.
3. Of course there are theological differences in these two stories which are significant and interesting but not germane to this book. For further study on this, note the consequences visited upon Moses for striking the rock a second time and compare 1 Corinthians 10:4 and Hebrews 6:6.
4. As I recall, I first heard the phrase “Shadow Ministry” in regard to Peter from A/G pastor Rev. Kerry McRoberts during his lecture, “The Dangers of Spiritual Fog.”
5. Stronstad, “The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent,” Paraclete (Summer 1993): pp. 1-10.
6. Gordon D. Fee, “Response to Roger Stronstad’s 'The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent,'” Paraclete (Summer 1993): pp. 11-14.
