Maybe I just don't get it.
It really could be that I don't get it.
But I just can't see how the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is
particularly useful for resolving theological questions. I can't see, moreover,
why we hold on to this concept as Wesleyans. Bear with me in a bit of
foolishness.
It is fairly well known that Wesley never articulated the
Quadrilateral. Rather, the Quadrilateral is a construct based upon Albert
Outler’s historical exegesis of Wesley. John Wesley was an Anglican, and Anglicans
of the eighteenth century, while distinct from Roman Catholics, were not
entirely like Continental Protestants, either. Remember, unlike other forms of
Protestantism, the Anglican Church did not separate itself from the Roman
Catholic Church over theological matters, but over matters of authority within
the Church. Richard Hooker, an Anglican “divine” (theologian) of the sixteenth
century, was instrumental in marking out the specifically Anglican way of
theological reflection. Hooker was dissatisfied with the Protestant notion
of sola Scriptura, according to which Scripture alone was the source and
norm of theological reflection. He claimed that there were two ways in which
the Holy Spirit led human beings into truth: (1) through divine revelation,
which comprised Scripture and tradition, and (2) through reason. This Anglican
approach to theology using a triad of resources (Scripture, tradition, reason)
represented a “middle way” between Roman Catholicism and Continental
Protestantism.
In Outler’s formulation, Wesley added to this trilateral the
element of experience, which in this context refers to the
believer's assurance of salvation. (By the way, I highly
recommend Kevin
Watson's recent post on the meaning of "experience" in the Wesleyan
Quadrilateral.) With the addition of experience, we
arrive at the Quadrilateral.
Did Wesley actually do this? Maybe. He doesn’t talk about
doing this. But it's important to keep in mind that the Anglican reliance on
Scripture, tradition, and reason was a way of maintaining continuity with
the major historic doctrines of the faith because sola Scriptura was
thought inadequate for doing so.
One formulation of the Quadrilateral made its way into
the Discipline during the 1972 General Conference, four years after
the formation of the United Methodist Church. However, until 1988 the formulation
of the Quadrilateral in the Discipline bore little resemblance to the
Anglican tradition that began with Hooker and was modified in Wesley’s corpus
of writings. Consider this statement from the 1984 Discipline (which
echoes the language from '72):
Since our “present existing and established standards of
doctrine” cited in the first two Restrictive Rules of the Constitution of The
United Methodist Church are not to be construed literally and juridically, then
by what methods can our doctrinal reflection and construction be most fruitful
and fulfilling? The answer comes in terms of our free inquiry within Christian
theology: Scripture, tradition, experience, reason. These four are
interdependent; none can be defined unambiguously. They allow for, indeed they
positively encourage, variety in United Methodist theologizing. Jointly, they
have provided a broad and stable context for reflection and formulation.
Interpreted with appropriate flexibility, self-discipline, and prayer, they may
instruct us as we carry forward our never-ending tasks of theologizing in the
United Methodist Church.
Every time I read this, I'm still flabbergasted by it.
(I've been wanting to use the term "flabbergasted" in a post
for some time. Thank you, '72 Discipline.) The reasons are too
numerous to go into here. One problem, however, is that, while we have
these four sources, there is no sense of how they are to be used. Heck, there's
no clear sense even of what they are ("none can be defined
unambiguously"), and we end up with a theological free-for-all, with no
common doctrinal identity. Yet the Anglican triad that Hooker formulated came
about as a means of expressing how Anglicans could maintain their
doctrinal identity, given their separation from the Roman Catholic Church and
their dissent from the Protestant concept of sola Scriptura. Further,
unlike the tradition that Wesley inherited, there is no understanding of divine
revelation embedded in this formulation of the Quadrilateral.
The language of the 2012 Discipline, which reflects the
changes made by the 1988 General Conference, expresses much more accurately a
notion that we could rightly call “Wesleyan”: “Wesley believed that the living
core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition,
vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.”
Scripture and tradition, then, ostensibly establish the
parameters for Wesleyan belief. The faith that is expressed within these
parameters is made real for us in our experience of the Holy Spirit (through
assurance), and confirmed by reason. We have, then, much room for debate and
discussion, while maintaining a doctrinal identity that is rooted in Scripture
and illumined by the Church’s historic doctrines.
This sounds better, but it's still not enough. After all,
there are a variety of ways to interpret Scripture, and even if we say that we
interpret Scripture in light of tradition, tradition itself is such a broad
category as to be of very little help. Wesley generally meant to refer to the
"primitive church" of the first five centuries, and he was strongly
influenced by the Book of Common Prayer. In other words, Wesley, like the
Anglicans before him, assumed the Trinitarian, credal faith of the Church as he
made use of Scripture, tradition, and reason.
The Quadrilateral has ostensibly provided a way for people
to think for themselves, not to be governed by dogma. But in making this move,
other dogmas have simply filled the void. These are the dogmas of moralistic
therapeutic deism. Faith can lead you to do what is right, can bring you a
reasonable level of happiness, and involves a God who doesn’t bother too much
in the day to day goings on of our lives.
I've never known an argument to be resolved by appeal to the
Quadrilateral. In fact, the Quadrilateral, in its current iteration, cannot
serve as a tool to resolve theological and ethical debates because there is too
much latitude in the ways in which its four components are understood. The only
way the Quadrilateral can be useful is if it is deployed in a context in which
the credal faith of the church is already assumed. At that point, we share a
common set of theological assumptions and we are speaking a common theological
language. Without assuming the church's historic, orthodox faith claims, the
Quadrilateral will create far more confusion than it resolves.
This is an important post, Dr. Watson. As I read comments about recent events in The United Methodist Church, I am seeing many references to the the "Wesleyan quadrilateral" in comments to articles and blog posts as United Methodists over the issues of marriage equality and the ordination of homo-sexuals.
ReplyDeleteOur Book of Discipline deleted the quadrilateral several quadrenia ago. I believe it is time to stand firm on Scripture, tradition, and reason in this season of the church's life. We have misunderstood Wesley's notion of "experience" to the detriment of our life together . We need a renewed emphasis and understanding of words like "sanctification", "holiness", and "love".
Holly, I don't know what you mean when you say, "Our Book of Discipline deleted the quadrilateral several quadrenia ago." Could you clarify?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember what year it was that General Conference adopted a major revision of "Our Theological Task", but when they did, General Conference pretty much deleted the Outlerian language. Unfortunately, I am working on memory here. I am retired, and I did not hold on to my old BOD's. I DO remember reading the new "theolgical task" section and being astonished at the extent of the the revision (a distinct improvement as I recall). Unfortunately, the quadrilateral's influence lingers on.
ReplyDelete