Thinking Outside the Box of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Sometimes it takes thinking outside of the box, moving beyond the traditional lines, or what other metaphor you prefer to describe finding a solution that is more both/and than either/or. There are several issues facing the United Methodist church that make the creation of alternate solutions imperative if we are going to maintain our unity (and effectiveness) as a denomination. One might think that the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral would not be too controversial. Think again, for the stated understandings of the relationships between the component parts are significant when it comes doing theology in the Methodist movement.

The late church historian and theologian Albert Outler coined the phrase Wesleyan Quadrilateral as he tried to analyze how Wesley did what he did. He rightly named four components: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. While Wesley never talks of all four in the same sentence at the same time, Outler was correct when identifying these key sources for theological reflection. As background, I call your attention to a paper by Outler entitled The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – in John Wesley. I suggest that you read it for yourself; but be sure to read the whole thing.

In this essay, Outler can be seen as speaking of the relationship of these four realities in two ways. First, he seems to describe a “prioritized list.” When Wesley was confronted with an issue, he would first go to Scripture. When Scripture did not speak clearly, he would next go to the great Christian tradition. Outler reminds us on the one hand that Wesley spoke of himself as a Man of One Book; on the other hand, Wesley was a voracious reader who published hundreds of condensations of our church forebears in the collections called the Christian Library.

Next, as an Oxford Don, Wesley clearly had great respect for the faculty of logic and in fact wrote several tomes on Reason. Finally, as one whose “heart was strangely warmed,” he understood experience to be essential to religious faith. He confessed that while he had “head knowledge” of the fact of his justification. It was only later in his spiritual journey that he began to know that he, himself was justified. This notion of experience was closer to modern existentialism than the religious enthusiasm of his times.

It is also fair to say the Wesley had a love/hate relationship with Tradition, for while he was particularly fascinated with the Eastern Church sources, he was also a child of the reformation and was deeply suspicious of Tradition as it showed up in the Angelical church. In his work on Original Sin, Wesley mentions Scripture, Reason and Experience. Tradition as a source of interpretation is conspicuously absent.

Also, the diagram of a prioritized list, while it spoke of the importance of Scripture, it did not clearly account for the way the other three elements interacted with Scripture.

Borrowing on the notion of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, Outler tried a different image – a square box – the Wesleyan Quadrilateral if you will. Here we might.chart out a more complex picture of the relationships. After first being included in the Book of Discipline, shortly after it was published, several folks, mostly Evangelicals in the church, pushed for wording that would emphasize the “primacy” of Scripture. The four-sided diagram began to fall apart – it’s not quite equilateral. Maybe it is a table where Scripture got four votes, and each of the others got one – so Scripture always trumped the conversation.

Later, some suggested a notion of a three legged stool. The seat (or for some, the floor) is Scripture, supported by the other three.

It doesn’t take much thought to see how the relationships diagramed here are central for discerning what to do in terms of issues like the inclusion of homosexuals or the priority of Christianity over other World Religions where Experience and the Scriptures seem somewhat at odds with each other

Part of the problem we have is that we have not drawn what to me are more obvious distinctions and in that context, I am proposing a different sort of diagram.

Rather than a geometrical shape or a three legged stool, I want to suggest a model that talks instead of two interactive axes, each with their own polarities. See Diagram.

I

The first axis speaks of the received resources – an axis holding the tension between Scripture and Tradition. Recently, I have been reading the final book published by distinguished Yale professor, the late Jaroslav Pelikan, Whose Bible is It? It is a challenging book. We might remember that he “converted” toward the end of his life from his lifelong self-understanding as a Lutheran to Eastern Orthodoxy. Pelikan is going to make a case for the importance, perhaps even the primacy of Tradition. While I am not asking you to agree with him, I am suggesting that you listen to him as he does make a compelling argument.

Pelikan starts by reminding us that God is a “God who Speaks.” Creation is a product of speech. Then, there is, of course, the oral tradition. While something is gained by the collection and redaction of the oral tradition into its written form, Pelikan argues that much is lost as well. He notes in particular, that the oral tradition was documented, but it continued to be read orally to the church. Pelikan points out how as the oral is collected in writing, we run the risk of the loss of nuance, vocal tone, much of the irony and humor and subtlety. For example, are the demons in Mark praising Jesus or ridiculing him? The recent emergence of the dramatic rendering of the various Gospel texts by actors speaks to this dynamic.

The point here is while we talk about Tradition vs. Scripture, in fact, and Outler would agree, Scripture is Tradition, only a more particularization of a wider heritage for primarily liturgical purposes and not doctrinal clarity.

II

The second axis speaks to the human dynamics. If the first axis is about Revelation, this interacting axis is about Response. Our human response stretches out along the continuum extending between Reason and Experience.

Harvard scholar Wilfred Cantwell Smith taught us that there is no such thing as generic revelation. Revelation always happens in relationship to particular persons or communities. Jesus is revelatory of God’s grace not in general, but to me and my community. So to stop and summarize, let me suggest that:

Revelation requires response and response opens up greater revelation. This is the process by which we continually grow in Faith and Love.

This is a very preliminary proposal on my part, but it has some advantages. Responsible reflection on faith requires keeping these tensions alive. The tension between Scripture and Tradition (the oral and written tradition) is especially important, for to collapse the pole of Tradition tempts us to create an idol of the Bible. Minimizing the importance of the Bible tempts us into a kind of subtle relativity. We say everything goes.

Similar dialectical moments can be described as we struggle to responsibly hold the tension between Reason, which left alone substitutes philosophy for spirituality and Experience, which left alone tempts us to enthusiasm.

This diagram also can serve as a map to plot some of our denominational diversity. For example, if I would draw a circle around the Bible pole and the Reason pole, maybe I would plot Presbyterians somewhere in that region. Would Episcopalians fall closer to Tradition and Reason? Where would you put us Methodists?

I know this has been a long post. I appreciate your patience. I would welcome any constructive comments.

Grace and Peace,

John