Author Archives: Kevin M. Watson

More on Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”

02 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , ,

About a month and a half ago I wrote a post on the quadrilateral that focused on Albert Outler’s (the one who coined the phrase) understanding of John Wesley’s understanding of experience. There were many lively reactions to the post here and in various other places online. It provided a helpful, if disheartening, reminder that many contemporary Methodists see the quadrilateral as what is most distinctive about Methodism. Today I received the most perceptive question about Outler’s understanding of experience I have received thus far. I responded to the question at the original post, but because of the length of my response and the importance of the question, I wanted to publish it as its own post for broader engagement. Here is the question, which was from Brandon Blacksten:

Kevin, I’m late to this party, but I’m having trouble seeing how experience construed in the way Outler puts forth is useful or relevant to theological reflection. In the blockquote above from Outler, I understand his descriptions of Wesley’s use of the Bible, tradition, and reason, but it is not at all clear to me how assurance of pardon might “clinch the matter” in a theological discussion. Maybe Outler clarifies this elsewhere in the essay. Could you perhaps provide an example of how experience construed in this way would play out in theological reflection?

My response:

From where I’m sitting, my post “Experience in the so-called ‘Wesleyan Quadrilateral’” has been one of the most misunderstood posts I have written (which may say more about the author of the post than the audience). My intention was to flesh out Albert Outler’s understanding of Wesley’s understanding of experience. The reason for doing so was to shine a light on how different contemporary uses of experience in the quadrilateral are from the intended use of the person who created the quadrilateral (Outler). Many over-read my initial post, assuming that what I was really saying was that experience is bad, or illegitimate, etc.

I appreciate your perceptive question. On Outler’s understanding of experience, it is difficult to see what the role of Christian experience is in theological reflection. My sense is that part of what Outler is saying is that, for Wesley, the experience of new birth gives people a new set of sense experience (spiritual senses, by which we perceive our adoption as God’s children) and that this experience helps us to better know God, and choose between “contrary positions.”

So, when choosing between two contrary positions, Christian experience would be an essential aid in your discernment – it could be thought of as being like glasses that help you see more clearly the two positions and what their implications are. My sense is that what most contemporary Methodists do when they deploy experience as a general category is that they use their life experience to ask which of the two contrary positions makes the most sense in light of what they know about life and the people around them. In this sense, it doesn’t seem to function as spiritual discernment but more as common sense (which is even more odd, because if it were truly common sense, why the contrary positions in the first place?). Experience as it is most often used today also appears to function as a category that does not need to be informed or infused by Christian content.

I could be wrong, but my reading of Outler’s understanding of Wesley’s understanding of experience is that experience would not actually add much in theological reflection, at least as far as bringing new content to the table. He does not think that your general life experience provides new content that you can legitimately set alongside the Scriptures, for example. In fact, Outler clearly ruled out pitting experience against Scripture.

When I read Outler himself, I was surprised at how clear he was on this point, because it seems to me that this is precisely the main reason the quadrilateral is deployed. Instead, Outler is saying that Wesley added Christian experience to the Anglican triad of Scripture, tradition, and reason because he felt that people were missing the basic reality that theological reflection is not agnostic or secular. It is done by Christians, those who have experienced awakening, justification by faith, the new birth, and in whom the Spirit witnesses with their spirits that they are children of God.

It is entirely possible that Outler’s reading of Wesley is wrong. But, at least from this essay written well after his initial statement of the quadrilateral, this is the way that Outler himself defined and limited the use of experience in the method for theological reflection that he created (because of what he thought Wesley meant by experience).

My main motivation in the original post was to try increase awareness within the UMC (and other parts of the Church that lift up the quadrilateral as a helpful tool for theological reflection) that the way that we are currently using the quadrilateral is in many ways profoundly different from and perhaps even contrary to the intended use of its creator.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

The Class Meeting: Reclaiming a Forgotten (and Essential) Small Group Experience (Coming Soon)

24 Monday Jun 2013

Posted by in Accountability, Class Meetings, Wesley

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, ,

Seedbed has just posted a press release to their website about the book I will be publishing with them on the class meeting. You can read the entire release here. The working title of the book is: The Class Meeting: Reclaiming a Forgotten (and Essential) Small Group Experience. The purpose of the book is to help people form class meetings. In order to accomplish this purpose, the book provides an introduction to the class meeting and its central role for the early Methodist movement, as well as a practical guide to reclaiming this distinct kind of small group. The book is designed to be an eight week small group resource that helps a group to actually become a class meeting. The hope is that after the book is over, the group will continue meeting as a class meeting. To further facilitate this, the book includes questions for discussion and a transformation question that progressively guides the group to the heart of the class meeting: Discussing the state of each person’s relationship with God.

In the speaking I have done on the class meeting in various contexts, people have consistently asked me to recommend a resource that would help them guide a group toward becoming a class meeting. These requests, and the lack of a resource that is focused on a return to the class meeting, led me to write this book. My hope is that The Class Meeting will help people to actually start life-changing class meetings, not just learn about the small groups that were at the heart of early Methodism.

I am very excited about this book! I believe the class meeting continues to have enormous potential for Christian discipleship in this time and place. And from many of the conversations that have occurred here, I know that many of you do too. I am praying for the Holy Spirit to raise up a network of class meetings.

I will provide further updates on the release of the book here. As the press release states, Seedbed anticipates that the book will be in print this fall.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Book Review: From Aldersgate to Azusa Street

21 Friday Jun 2013

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History

≈ Leave a comment

Last summer I was asked to write a book review of From Aldersgate to Azusa Street: Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pentecostal Visions of the New Creation, edited by Henry H. Knight III for Pneuma, which is the academic journal for the Society for Pentecostal Studies. The key contribution of the volume is that it points to the similarities between the Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pentecostal traditions. The similarities are deep enough that the three traditions are rightly viewed as a distinct theological family.

From Aldersgate to Azusa Street demonstrates the common vision that unites these traditions in chapters that focus on thirty different figures. There are many names you would expect to find in a book like this: John Wesley, John Fletcher, Francis Asbury, Richard Allen, B.T. Roberts, Phineas Bresee, Charles Parham, William Seymour, and E. Stanley Jones. However, one of the reasons I think this book should be read by pastors and laity is because of the way it provides an accessible introduction to so many lesser known (but very significant) historical figures. A few examples are: Lorenzo Dow, Julia Foote, Amanda Berry Smith, Ida Robinson, and Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. Some of you will be familiar with these people. However, too many people have never heard of them. If you are unfamiliar with these women and men, they are worth knowing! And this book provides a great introduction.

Here is how I summarized the significance and contribution of From Aldersgate to Azusa Street in the conclusion of my review for Pneuma:

The volume provides a long overdue description of common theological emphases and experiences in the Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pentecostal traditions. The biographical approach brings into focus a broader movement of Christians who expected and anticipated a transformational encounter with God’s grace that, impacted their personal lives in profound ways and changed how they thought about and interacted with their broader cultural context. Several decades ago in Discovering an Evangelical Heritage, Donald W. Dayton argued that the Wesleyan and Holiness traditions were concerned about gender equality, racial reconciliation, and lifting up the oppressed before liberal Protestantism turned its attention in that direction. In his subsequent work, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton traced the development of the theology of entire sanctification from Wesley through American Methodism and into the holiness movement, arguing that Pentecostalism is rooted in the Wesleyan tradition. From Aldersgate to Azusa Street develops both of these themes in crucial ways, showing an unmistakable family resemblance among the Methodist, Holiness, and Pentecostal traditions. The book narrates the stories of women and men who, because of their common concern for personal and corporate holiness worked to correct issues of systemic injustice and accepted leaders who often challenged prevailing assumptions about race and gender. Methodist historians, in particular, have not given sufficient attention to their spiritual offfspring in the Holiness and Pentecostal traditions. This book addresses that deficiency and ought to spark renewed scholarly interest in this neglected trajectory. For these reasons, From Aldersgate to Azusa Street is a gift to the academy, and a useful resource to help members of these traditions recognize just how much they have in common.

You can read my review for Pneuma in its entirety here.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

The Integration of Perkins School of Theology

11 Tuesday Jun 2013

Posted by in Methodist History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

During my time as a PhD student at Southern Methodist University, I had the privilege of researching the history of the integration of Perkins School of Theology (the seminary at SMU). The story of the integration of Perkins is fascinating and has been largely untold. It is particularly surprising that this story is not better known because Perkins was integrated in the fall of 1952, which was two years before Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka. It was also more than a decade before Candler School of Theology at Emory University (another Methodist seminary) integrated their student body.

It was interesting to learn more about the role of Joe and Lois Perkins, whom the School of Theology was named after as the result of a substantial financial gift. Joe Perkins was at times explicitly against the integration of the school, while Lois was at times a key voice in favor of integration. Merrimon Cuninggim’s role as the dean of the school was also intriguing. The highlight of my work on this history was by far the captivating phone conversation I had with James V. Lyles, who was one of the five African-American students who integrated Perkins. I can still hear his voice.

I was first able to present my research as a paper at the 2010 meeting of the American Academy of Religion. However, because of the demands of finishing my dissertation and beginning to teach at Seattle Pacific University, I had to put the paper aside for a few years. Last summer I was able to work on revisions and the paper was recently published in Methodist History. You can read the entire paper here.

I would also highly recommend Joseph L. Allen’s recent full history of Perkins, Perkins School of Theology: A Centennial History (Southern Methodist UP, 2011).

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Recommended Resources for Wesleyan Theology

31 Friday May 2013

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

,

I was recently asked to write a piece for Seedbed on key texts for understanding Wesleyan theology. Here are the books I recommended:

1. John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology, edited by Albert C. Outler and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Abingdon, 1991) or The Sermons of John Wesley: A Collection for the Christian Journey, edited by Kenneth J. Collins and Jason E. Vickers (Abingdon, 2013) when it is released by Abingdon.

2. Key United Methodist Beliefs, William J. Abraham and David F. Watson (Abingdon, 2013).

3. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology, Randy L. Maddox (Kingswood, 1994).

4. The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace, Kenneth J. Collins (Abingdon, 2007).

5. Mainline or Methodist: Rediscovering our Evangelistic Mission, Scott Kisker (Discipleship Resources, 2008).

6. Wesley and Sanctification, Harald Lindström (Francis Asbury Press, 1996).

7. Aiming at Maturity: The Goal of the Christian Life, Stephen W. Rankin (Cascade Books, 2011).

In the original post, I provided a brief introduction to each book. You can read the entire post here.

What resources do you see as essential to understanding Wesleyan theology?

Christian Perfection: The Reason for Methodism

27 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , ,

John Wesley Statue, Savannah, GA credit: Daniel X. O’Neil

On September 15, 1790, John Wesley wrote a letter to Robert Carr Brackenbury. Wesley wrote that his “body seems nearly to have done its work and to be almost worn out.” This acknowledgment of his own mortality seems to have led Wesley to reflect on his life and his involvement in Methodism. Wesley’s description of his sense of God’s purpose for “raising up” the “people called Methodists” is now fairly well known:

I am glad brother D — has more light with regard to full sanctification. This doctrine is the grand depositum which God has lodged with the people called Methodists; and for the sake of propagating this chiefly He appeared to have raised us up.

In other words, Wesley believed that there was a particular reason for Methodism. Methodists existed because God had given them a particular corporate calling – to spread the teaching about the possibility of full sanctification.

Wesley argued for and preached entire sanctification, full sanctification, or Christian perfection throughout his ministry.

In the essay “The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained”, which was published in 1746, Wesley argued that “holiness… is religion itself” (Works, 9:227).

Forty years later in “Thoughts upon Methodism”, he described Methodism as follows, “Methodism… is only plain scriptural religion, guarded by a few prudential regulations. The essence of it is holiness of heart and life” (Works, 9:529).

Wesley defined Christian perfection in “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection” (1777) as:

In one view, it is purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God. It is the giving God all our heart; it is one desire and design ruling all our tempers. It is the devoting, not a part, but all our soul, body, and substance to God. In another view, it is all the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked. It is the circumcision of the heart from all filthiness, all inward as well as outward pollution. It is a renewal of the heart in the whole image of God, the full likeness of Him that created it. In yet another, it is the loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. (Works, Jackson, 11:444)

When Wesley talked about growth in holiness, and the ultimate goal of being made perfect in love, or being entirely sanctified, he was adamant that sanctification is by faith, just as justification is by faith.

In one of his best known sermons, “The Scripture Way of Salvation” (1765), Wesley described the faith by which Christians are entirely sanctified as a faith that:

1. God has promised this in Scripture.

2. What God promises, God is able to do.

3. God is able and willing to do it now.

4. God actually does this.

Wesley concluded the sermon by exhorting his audience to seek this faith now:

And by this token you may surely know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If by works, you want something to be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, I must first be or do thus or thus. Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek it by faith, you may expect it as you are; and expect it now. It is of importance to observe, that there is an inseparable connexion between these three points, –expect it by faith; expect it as you are; and expect it now! To deny one of them, is to deny them all; to allow one, is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctified by faith? Be true then to your principle; and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better nor worse; as a poor sinner that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead, but “Christ died.” And if you look for it as you are, then expect it now. Stay for nothing: why should you? Christ is ready; and He is all you want. He is waiting for you: He is at the door! (Works, 2:169.)

Though Christian perfection is not often taught or preached by contemporary Methodists, it is still part of official United Methodist teaching.

“The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church”, which is part of United Methodism’s doctrinal standards, contains this beautiful statement on Christian perfection:

Article XI—Sanctification and Christian Perfection

We believe sanctification is the work of God’s grace through the Word and the Spirit, by which those who have been born again are cleansed from sin in their thoughts, words and acts, and are enabled to live in accordance with God’s will, and to strive for holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Entire sanctification is a state of perfect love, righteousness and true holiness which every regenerate believer may obtain by being delivered from the power of sin, by loving God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, and by loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. Through faith in Jesus Christ this gracious gift may be received in this life both gradually and instantaneously, and should be sought earnestly by every child of God.

We believe this experience does not deliver us from the infirmities, ignorance, and mistakes common to man, nor from the possibilities of further sin. The Christian must continue on guard against spiritual pride and seek to gain victory over every temptation to sin. He must respond wholly to the will of God so that sin will lose its power over him; and the world, the flesh, and the devil are put under his feet. Thus he rules over these enemies with watchfulness through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Book of Discipline, 75.)

In addition to official United Methodist doctrine, every pastor who is ordained in the UMC must answer these three questions:

1. Are you going on to perfection?

2. Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?

3. Are you earnestly striving after it?

The anticipated answer to each of these questions is: “Yes, by the grace of God.”

Proclaiming and defending Christian perfection was one of Wesley’s deep passions, largely because he believed that God had given this teaching to Methodism in order to spread the good news that we can actually live fully for God in this life.

I am a Methodist because I believe, by the grace of God and the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that we can experience freedom from sin now. I believe we have been entrusted with the most audacious, bold, and positive vision for the possibilities of transformation that are available on this side of Easter. I do not believe that the Christian life must be one of futility or frustration, where one does the best they can but is not able to completely give their lives in obedience to Christ.

By faith in Jesus, all who are created in the image of God can experience not only the joy of having our sin cancelled, but the deeper joy of experiencing God break the power of cancelled sin, as Charles Wesley so eloquently put it.

Teaching and preaching the possibility of being made perfect in love for God and neighbor, and seeking to actually become entirely sanctified are the reasons Methodism was “raised up.”

May we remember who we are and why the Holy Spirit brought us to life.

Kevin M. Watson teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Connect with Kevin here. Get future posts emailed to you here. Affiliate links used in this post.

Pray for Oklahoma

21 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by in Life, Ministry

≈ 1 Comment

[image from okumc.org]

A major tornado hit Moore Oklahoma, a suburb of Oklahoma City yesterday. As of this writing, 24 people have died, including 9 children. I cannot image the pain that the family and friends of those who have died are experiencing. And yet, looking at pictures of the area – particularly the two elementary schools that were destroyed – I can’t help but think that the loss of life could have been much worse.

Yesterday’s events have hit me particularly hard because these are my people. Most of my family and many friends live in Oklahoma. My parents, my wife’s parents, and my brother all live in Oklahoma. And many of them live quite close to the damage. I am also a clergy member of the Oklahoma Annual Conference. My home church is in the community next to Moore. I talked to several people yesterday about what was happening. It was a blessing to feel connected to colleagues in ministry in Oklahoma. But it was also really hard. I am serving in extension ministry as a professor at Seattle Pacific Seminary. It is hard to be so far away and feel helpless. My heart is breaking for Oklahoma.

You may be like me, feeling compassion and connection to this community through the news coverage, but also detached by your physical distance from Moore Oklahoma. I would like to ask you to consider joining me in doing two concrete things that will make a difference. First, pray. Pray a lot. Pray for the specific things that come to mind as you think about what this community is going through. Pray for families who have lost loved ones. Pray for families who are searching and hoping. Pray for the injured. Pray for rescue workers, for those who have lost their homes. Please pray. Second, give money. People who work for disaster relief agencies seem to be united that money is the best thing to give in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster like this. I will be giving to The United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), because of their track record with disaster relief and because all of the overhead for UMCOR is covered through other giving. This means that 100% of what you give will be directed to helping the people who most need help right now. UMCOR has already set up a specific page for giving for the Oklahoma tornadoes. Click here to donate to tornado recover efforts through UMCOR.

Please pray and give generously.

Wesley Didn’t Say It: “Personal and Social Holiness”

20 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 27 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Personal and social holiness.”

Wesley did not say this.

Andrew Thompson, who is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology and Wesleyan Studies at Memphis Theological Seminary, reminded me of this phrase that is often attributed to Wesley in a comment on my previous blog in this series. (Andrew also blogs here.)

Here is part of Thompson’s comment:

The one that gets me is the attribution of the phrase “personal and social holiness” to Wesley. There is no evidence I have ever seen that Wesley used this phrase. And in an article I did a couple of years ago, I looked as hard for it in Wesley as anyone ever has. Yet the phrase gets repeated ad nauseam, as if it is a given that Wesley used it. I would argue that it is neither historical to Wesley nor is it “Wesleyan,” in the sense that it bifurcates holiness in a way that Wesley was at pains to avoid (hence the use of the phrase, “no holiness but social holiness,” which is accurately Wesleyan).

At the end of his comment, Thompson cites the quote where Wesley does use the phrase “social holiness.” However, when social holiness is used by contemporary Methodists, it is almost always used in a way that is synonymous with social justice. And yet, in the only passage I know of where Wesley used the phrase “social holiness” he was talking not about justice, but about the importance of other people for growing in holiness. The passage “social holiness” occurs in is the preface to Wesley’s 1739 edition of Hymns and Sacred Poems. Here is the passage in its broader context:

Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found there. ‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness.

In this context, then, Wesley is explicitly rejecting “holy solitaries”, or the attempt to become holy in isolation from other Christians. And he is insisting on the importance of community for becoming Christ-like.

I have previously written about this quote and its broader context on this blog here. Andrew Thompson has written about “social holiness” on his blog here and here. He has also published an excellent academic essay on Methodist Review. The essay can be accessed through his personal website here.

You can add “personal and social holiness” to the other quotes that are stubbornly connected to John Wesley, despite the fact that there is no source that connects them to Wesley’s pen. Others I have previously written about are:

“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.” [Original post here.]

“I set myself on fire and people come to watch me burn.” [Original post here.]

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity.” [Original post here.]

Kevin M. Watson teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Connect with Kevin. Get future posts emailed to you.

Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”

13 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 40 Comments

Tags

, , ,

For many Methodists, the most cherished piece of their heritage is the so-called “Wesleyan quadrilateral.” Yet, as has often been noted, the quadrilateral was largely Albert C. Outler’s invention in the mid-twentieth century. Towards the end of his life Outler wrote:

“The term ‘quadrilateral’ does not occur in the Wesley corpus – and more than once, I have regretted having coined it for contemporary use, since it has been so widely misconstrued” (36)

Nearly thirty years later, I wonder how Outler would feel today about his creation. It certainly continues to be widely misconstrued. The quadrilateral is not doctrine, it is a proposed method for theological reflection. But it is almost never used the way that it was intended. A tool that does not actually do what it is supposed to do is of limited usefulness. A bicycle pump that lets more air out of a tire than it puts in should be set aside. A screen cleaner that scratches the screen should be thrown away, not repeatedly reused.

So why is there such persistent loyalty to a tool for theological reflection that almost never works the way that it is supposed to?

For the sake of space, I will limit my comments here to the part of the quadrilateral that is most “widely misconstrued” – experience.

In his essay, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – in John Wesley” Outler described the rationale for Wesley’s theological method:

When challenged for his authority, on any question, his first appeal was to the Holy Bible… Even so, he was well aware that Scripture alone had rarely settled any controverted point of doctrine… Thus, though never as a substitute or corrective, he would also appeal to ‘the primitive church’ and to the Christian tradition at large as competent, complementary witnesses to ‘the meaning’ of this Scripture or that…

But Scripture and tradition would not suffice without the good offices (positive and negative) of critical reason. Thus, he insisted on logical coherence and as an authorized referee in any contest between contrary positions or arguments. And yet, this was never enough. It was, as he knew for himself, the vital Christian experience of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven that clinched the matter. (24)

Did you notice how specific Outler’s understanding of the role of experience is for John Wesley? It is not just any experience that a person has. It is not experience with a person and whether you find them to be a good or decent person. In fact, Outler almost always modifies the word experience with “Christian.” And it is not just any “Christian experience,” it is the particular Christian experience “of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven.”

In case the limited role of experience is missed, he adds that “Christian experience adds nothing to the substance of Christian truth; its distinctive role is to energize the heart so as to enable the believer to speak and do the truth in love” (25)

Outler goes on to argue that it was Wesley’s “special genius” to add experience to the Anglican “triad” of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Wesley did this, on Outler’s account, in order to “incorporate the notion of conversion into the Anglican tradition” (27).

Outler’s understanding of the role of experience in Wesley’s theology, then, is quite particular. It is not any experience that a person has, it is the distinctively Christian experience of assurance of the forgiveness of one’s sins. It is the experience of the witness of the Spirit. Wesley was quite fond of citing Romans 8:16 to illustrate this: “it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”

When the quadrilateral is deployed as a means of theological reflection; however, experience is almost always defined far more broadly than this. In popular use of the quadrilateral, experience is usually understood as a kind of common sense. Experience is an authority for theological reflection (so the argument goes) because, if we are willing to pay attention, we can see the obvious things that are going on around us. Experience is also usually used to describe one’s encounters with the world around them, which often results in confirming the prevalent perspective of the current popular culture. Rarely, in popular discussions of the quadrilateral, is experience defined in the specific and more technical way that Wesley and Outler did.

We have come a long way from Outler’s qualification that “Christian experience adds nothing to the substance of Christian truth; its distinctive role is to energize the heart so as to enable the believer to speak and do the truth in love” (25)

And yet, it seems to me that one of the reasons that many contemporary Methodists are so loyal to the quadrilateral is precisely because the appeal to experience provides an authority for adding new things to Christian truth.

If Methodists are going to continuing citing the quadrilateral as their distinctive theological method, then we have a choice to make. We can return to an understanding of experience as it was defined by Outler in his creation of the quadrilateral. Or, we can knowingly reject the way that he defined experience as a legitimate source for Christian theology and use it in a way that he explicitly rejected. If we choose the latter, we ought to at least be honest that we are now using a method of theological reflection that neither John Wesley nor Albert Outler would have endorsed.

Kevin M. Watson teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Connect with Kevin. Get future posts emailed to you.

Remembering Dallas Willard (1935-2013)

08 Wednesday May 2013

Posted by in Christian Living

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Dallas Willard died today, May 8, 2013. But his witness to the possibilities of transformation by faith in Jesus Christ continues through his writings and the countless lives he impacted for the glory of God.

Willard has been one of a handful of writers who have mentored and discipled me through their writing. I read The Divine Conspiracy at exactly the right time in my life. He reminded me that Jesus matters for the details of my life, for the way that I live. He reminded me that the best life is life in Christ. As he wrote in The Divine Conspiracy:

“God’s desire for us is that we should live in him. He sends among us the Way to himself. That shows what, in his heart of hearts, God is really like – indeed, what reality is really like. In its deepest nature and meaning our universe is a community of boundless and totally competent love.” (11)

Willard helped me avoid “bar code faith,” a faith that would impact where I went when I died, but not what I did in the meantime. And he pointed me to God’s desire in Christ not only to forgive me of my sins, but to transform and renew me in the image of the Son through the Holy Spirit.

Dallas Willard also played an important role in helping me begin to see discipleship as normative for the Christian life, not an option only for an elite few. I still remember the first time I read this passage from The Great Omission:

“For at least several decades the churches of the Western world have not made discipleship a condition of being a Christian. One is not required to be, or to intend to be, a disciple in order to become a Christian, and one may remain a Christian without any signs of progress toward or in discipleship. Contemporary American churches in particular do not require following Christ in his example, spirit, and teachings as a condition of membership – either of entering into or continuing in fellowship of a denomination or local church. I would be glad to learn of any exception to this claim, but it would only serve to highlight its general validity and make the general rule more glaring. So far as the visible Christian institutions of our day are concerned, discipleship clearly is optional.” (4)

Richard Foster, author of Celebration of Discipline, notes Willard’s impact on his faith journey and writing. James Bryan Smith does the same in his trilogy, The Good and Beautiful God: Falling in Love With the God Jesus Knows; The Good and Beautiful Life: Putting on the Character of Christ; and The Good and Beautiful Community: Following the Spirit, Extending Grace, Demonstrating Love.

I wish I had been able to meet Dallas Willard. I thank God for his life and his literary legacy, which points not to himself but to the possibilities of life with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Willard refused to settle for less than the fullness of what God has actually offered to us. I am grateful for his legacy. May his family and friends experience the comforting and sustaining presence of the Triune God in this time.

“It is a world that is inconceivably beautiful and good because of God and because God is always in it.” – Dallas Willard (1935-2013)