Edit: Interpreter magazine has revised the online article here and published a correction in the July-August 2017 issue here. I am grateful for the time the editors put into addressing my concerns about the initial article.
I was discouraged to read “One faith, different understandings” published in the May-June 2017 issue of Interpreter. I was interviewed for this article about two months ago. At the end of the interview, I asked to read a complete draft of the article before it was published. I said that I recognized the author was on a tight deadline and promised to respond within a few business days, or she was free to send it on for publication. I did not see or hear anything more about this article until I started receiving emails and messages from people asking me about my quotes in it this week.
This is particularly frustrating to me because I tried to be clear about my perspective when I received the interview request, which started with this question: “To begin, perhaps we can agree that the Methodist quadrilateral unites United Methodists. Describe the quadrilateral’s role in denominational life.” I responded to this email as follows:
Reading your questions, however, I may not be helpful to the direction you are going with your article. I see the quadrilateral as probably more of the problem to the disunity of The UMC than a way of providing unity. I think it became, in some ways despite Albert Outler’s wishes, a way of legitimizing coming to different – and at times mutually incompatible – understandings of theology and practice in one denomination. I would also be fairly adamant that the quadrilateral is not theology proper. Rather, it is a method for doing theology – and one that, again, virtually guarantees different conclusions (and that is almost always misused).
I have done some writing about the quadrilateral on my personal blog. These pieces may help you discern whether I would be of help to you in the story you are working on.
Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”
More on Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”
United Methodist Doctrine: That 70s Show?
Again, happy to talk if that is helpful to you. I also understand if you determine that my thinking on this would not help in the article that you are writing.
Two quotes in the article, in particular, suggest that I support the big-tent vision for United Methodism that started with Albert Outler at the beginnings of The UMC and is being aggressively advocated today by many United Methodist Bishops and other key denominational leaders.
The article begins by listing a number of random facts about United Methodism. These facts are followed by the question: “Do those differences have to be sources of division?” The article introduces me for the first time after asking this question. It states:
Within United Methodism are Christians rooted in mainline Protestantism, the Holiness Movement and everything in between, says the Rev. Kevin Watson, assistant professor of Wesleyan and Methodist studies at Candler School of Theology. Essentially every denomination connected to John Wesley and Methodism is “represented in the United Methodist denomination.” [I am leaving the lack of quotation marks etc. as they are in the article published online.]
Immediately after this, Tamara Lewis, who teaches at Perkins School of Theology is quoted, “The core of United Methodism even going back to Wesley is unity in diversity.” I do not share this understanding of our Wesleyan heritage, and said as much multiple times in the interview. (To be fair, Lewis may also feel that her remarks were taken out of context and used in a way that distort her meaning.) Either way, the transition between these two quotes gives no indication that I would disagree with the second, and seems to me to suggest that I agree with it.
Later the article states:
Throughout the church, Lewis said, theological differences on questions of homosexual leadership in the church or other interpretations and understandings of Scripture “do not have to divide Methodism as in splitting the church institutionally. I don’t think these questions have to make or break us if we follow Wesley’s lead.”
Watson likens the denomination to a big tent. “We keep moving the tent poles as wide as we have to make sure that anyone who is part of it or wants to be part of it can be,” he said.
In my description, I was saying that the tendency to keep moving the tent poles was a liability of United Methodism, neither a source of strength nor faithful to our Wesleyan heritage. I believe that for Wesley unity was the product of a firm commitment to a particular set of beliefs and practice (a doctrine and discipline). Wesley would not, and we should not, put institutional unity above a particular understanding of “holiness of heart and life.”
My words were not used in a way that accurately reflect the interview I gave, what I believe is true of our history, or what I believe is at stake for The United Methodist Church today. Since the print version of the magazine is already out, I am publishing my response here to clarify what I believe. I hope that Interpreter will publish a correction to this article online and in their next print issue.
Kevin M. Watson 
Thanks for your post. May our Lord continue to bless and lead in this difficult time for the UMC. My lack of faith in this whole process led me to become a charter member of the WCA. Biblical Orthodoxy needs to be preserved if the UMC is to be a viable denomination. I’m not sure there is historical support for a “divided house” standing.
There was a time when articles were written to shine light on a issue and like a monument in a park, allowed readers to reflect and meditate on the subject; each seeing through the lens of their individual backgrounds and experiences. Now, articles are written like legal arguments where differing views that don’t support the main thesis are either omitted or warped so the train of thought is never derailed. One need to look no further than omission of Outler’s own thoughts when folks use the quadrilateral as a reason to ignore scripture.
Wow. I hope a strong correction is issued Kevin. I can’t imagine the writer or publication getting you more wrong if they tried.
I am truly disappointed in the Interpreter for this. Misusing your statements, twisting them so inappropriately, is so very wrong. How are we to have open and honest conversations about differing views when there is no level of respect granted?
Thank you for this clarification. I hope the magazine will acknowledge this and issue corrections.
I’m glad you posted this reply, Kevin. It was hard to imagine you saying those words published in the *Interpreter* article, especially in the context the author attempted to impose on them. The whole article seemed like a vapid puff piece. The first paragraph of your email to the author contains more substance than the whole article did.
Because this is the kind of fare we’re getting from our big publications, we need more thoughtful, substantive writing out there. Hope you’ll keep writing, and more often!
Kevin,
Having read your previous work, I thought you were being misquoted or at least having your words transferred to another context for another purpose. The church needs the undiluted input of Wesley scholars like yourself to understand where we are and where we should be heading if we are going to be faithful. I have often said to my congregation that nowhere was it ever said that one had to be a Methodist to be a Christian, there are other churches. Wesley himself recognized this. He did maintain that this was a path to renewal of the church and it was the best way he had found to bring to bear the best of the church’s scripture and tradition. Frequently, I hear him saying (toward the end of his life and ministry): “this is our way, if you want to follow it we welcome you, if not godspeed.” This is certainly not the constant moving of the “tent poles” to let more in, to accommodate. Methodism wasn’t out to be a unity movement, but a renewal, recovery movement. I don’t know if we can have both.
On another track, I recently finished your The Class Meeting. I’d love to correspond with you more on it.
As one who has read the Interpreter piece in question, I find this remarkable. If there is anyone left on the planet who actually believes in the myth of “objective journalism,” then I hope your example serves to dispel that myth. All reporters inject their own point of view into a piece (whether they mean to do so or not), but not all of them so brazenly take material meant to represent a particular perspective and intentionally distort it to support the contradictory viewpoint.
.
This is the type of thing that makes one not want to be interviewed at all. Journalistic integrity calls for much better.
Interpreter magazine deeply regrets that the article “One faith, different understandings” was edited in such a way as to misrepresent Dr. Watson’s thinking. We acknowledge that he has a valid concern and we sincerely apologize for the error.
The error occurred during the editing process and not through any fault of the author. It was entirely unintentional and not meant to misrepresent Dr. Watson’s perspective. We accept full responsibility and are taking steps to rectify the error to the extent possible through an online revision and a published correction. Fair and accurate reporting is critically important to us, and we will redouble our efforts to make sure that our articles accurately convey the intended meaning.
Kevin, I’m preparing an article for United Methodist Insight on this conflict. I do have one question that you may respond to me via email if you choose: Did you make any attempt to resolve this issue in private before you went public with your concerns?
I would appreciate hearing from you immediately as I intend to publish an article about this conflict in this week’s issue. Thank you.
Andrew Thompson, the Interpreter’s error is in no way a smear on the total integrity of journalism. I’m saddened and more than a little angry that you would take this position after all the years we worked together at the United Methodist Reporter, during which time I faithfully edited and published your material as you submitted it. United Methodist journalists are not “the enemy.” We are devoted servants of God who love the church, and we don’t deserve to be maligned as you have in your comment.
Dear Kathy, Thank you for taking time to respond here and for your apology. I am happy to accept it. I am grateful that Interpreter will be taking steps to correct the online version of the article and will issue a published correction. That is much appreciated.
Cynthia, Given Interpreter’s formal apology and work to correct their mistake, I don’t see a need for further writing on this in other formats.
Cynthia — I am a bit confused as to the reason for your anger at me. The Interpreter article as it was printed did, indeed, misrepresent Dr. Watson’s views in a significant way. And from what he reports in his blog post, he was clear in an initial email exchange and in the interview about what those views were.
.
For what it’s worth, objective journalism *is* a myth. That’s a fact, whether it is a UMC Communications publication, the NY Times, or Fox News. All reporters have a social location and speak or write from it. That necessarily injects their views into what it is that they’re writing. What was so disappointing about this example of that phenomenon is that the reporter (or editor, according to Kathy Noble’s note above) seemed so completely unaware of the way in which that social location / perspective was informing the way the news story was being put together. Journalists simply have to have more awareness of that and work to compensate for it so that something approaching fairness is reached, regardless of how elusive complete objectivity may be.
.
Consider that you may be reading some things into my comments that I neither included myself nor intended to communicate. What I expressed had nothing to do with you or with our prior working relationship. It also didn’t express the view that UM journalists are “the enemy.” What I did express was frustration and disappointment over an egregious and completely avoidable error by a publication that should know better. That’s a view honestly held by me—as is the statement that this is the type of thing that causes one not to want to do interviews in general. And if you don’t understand that, then you’ve never been misquoted or misrepresented (something that happens all the time and when it does is always very frustrating).
Pingback: seeing through UM Insight - Unsettled Christianity
In the past 2 years, 12 from the UMC have joined us in worship at our little church in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition in E TN. They have become a part of the family. In April, 10 joined into church membership, two with tears in their eyes. I am from a family who were considered late “come-outers” when we left the UMC in 1960. It’s painful. I have asked, when will the pain stop? We are Methodists, and many have generations of Methodists in the their lineage. The big tent may get larger, but is the crowd underneath shrinking?