Tag Archives: Quadrilateral

United Methodist Doctrine: That 70s Show?

19 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Methodist History

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

Yesterday I wrote a brief update on the Vital Piety Page on Facebook sharing a thought I had about Outler’s understanding of experience while reading his essay “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – in John Wesley.” After reading Outler on the quadrilateral, I then read the 1972 and 1988 statements on “Our Theological Task” in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church. For years I’ve been struck by the ways in which the 1972 statement’s influence persists, despite its being intentionally replaced with a thorough rewrite that was adopted in 1988 and is still the version in the current BOD. Here are a few quick thoughts:

It is interesting to note the ideas from the 1972 statement that were rejected in the 1988 rewrite that are very much alive and well in popular United Methodist consciousness. The 1972 statement, for example, explicitly endorsed “theological pluralism.” It expressed a sense that the “effort to substitute new creeds for old” tends to “partisanship and schism.” And it prioritized “ethical fruits of faith” over “systems of doctrine.” Finally, it asserted, that our doctrinal standards “are not to be construed literally and juridically.”

The statement then raised the challenge, “By what methods can our doctrinal reflection and construction be most fruitful and fulfilling?” (I.e., in the absence of literal and juridical standards of doctrine, how do we search for meaningful unity?) The answer is the quadrilateral! “The answer comes in terms of our free inquiry within the boundaries defined by four main sources and guidelines for Christian theology: Scripture, tradition, experience, reason.”

The virtue of the quadrilateral is described as follows in the 1972 statement: “They [the four sources] allow for, indeed they positively encourage, variety in United Methodist theologizing.”

One way of understanding the creation of the quadrilateral in United Methodism, then, is to see it as a strategy for pitching a big tent and working to ensure that the tent would be big enough for anyone who might come under its cover. To that end, the quadrilateral appeared to be designed to ensure that the method would lead to a variety of conclusions or theological perspectives, not to bring doctrinal unity within a particular faith community. Some United Methodists today would see this as one of the primary virtues of United Methodism, one of the reasons we can agree to disagree and love each other in the midst of disagreement. Others would see this as one of the primary vices of United Methodism, one of the reasons we are not able to find consensus on basic theology or ethics. Regardless of whether you personally love or hate the 1972 statement’s endorsement of theological pluralism, it was intentionally removed from the current statement.

In reading the 1972 statement of “Our Theological Task” in connection with the 1988 statement, one has the impression that the 1988 statement was a significant rejection of much of what was in the earlier statement. Theological pluralism is no longer in the statement at all. The arbitrary assertion that our doctrinal standards cannot function as standards in any meaningful way is also removed. While “serious reflection across the theological spectrum” is encouraged, the statement makes clear that “the Church considers its doctrinal affirmations a central feature of its identity and restricts official changes to a constitutional process.” The statement goes on to affirm that, “We are a Church with a distinctive theological heritage.” It continues: “In our diversity, we are held together by a shared inheritance.” The impatience with systems of doctrine in order to get to ethical living is also much less present in the current statement of “Our Theological Task,” which seems to have a more clear recognition that theological reflection is an essential precondition for ethical Christian living.

The main place where the current statement is worse than the 1972 statement, in my view, is in its understanding of experience. I’ve previously written on Albert Outler’s understanding of John Wesley’s understanding of experience. The 1972 statement says the following about experience:

Experience is to the individual as tradition is to the Church as a whole: the personal appropriation of God’s unmeasured mercy in life and interpersonal relations. There is a radical distinction between intellectual assent to the message of the Bible and doctrinal propositions set forth in the creeds, and the personal experience of God’s pardoning and healing love… This ‘new life in Christ’ is what is meant by the phrase ‘Christian experience.’

This definition bears the clear mark of Outler’s hand. The 1988 statement generally keeps this understanding, but adds to it. Wesley “looked for confirmations of the biblical witness in human experience, especially the experiences of regeneration and sanctification, but also in the ‘common sense’ knowledge of everyday experience.” In the specific section on experience, much of the material cited above from the 1972 statement is kept, but it is also added to in ways that are in tension with Outler’s understanding of what Wesley meant by experience as a source for theological reflection. The current statement, for example, says “We interpret experience in the light of scriptural norms, just as our experience informs our reading of the biblical message.” On my reading of Outler, he would have serious concerns about the second half of both of the previous quotes.

In rereading both statements of “Our Theological Task,” I am struck by the persistent influence of a statement that is obsolete. It is difficult to change understandings of doctrine overnight. It also seems problematic when a discarded understanding of the theological task is still influencing and informing the current popular United Methodist understanding of theology. Even worse, the 1972 statement at times seems more influential than our actual doctrinal standards, particularly when neither statement of “Our Theological Task” has ever been understood as a standard for United Methodist doctrine.

United Methodist doctrine exists. But whether it is owned by rank and file United Methodists is, regrettably, an open question.

For much more information on the 1972 and 1988 statements on “Our Theological Task” see Doctrine and Theology in The United Methodist Church, edited by Thomas A. Langford.

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.

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.

Wesley and Experience

23 Monday Aug 2010

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

The so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” is often seen as the common thread that holds together Methodist theological discourse. The only problem is that it is rarely used as a tool that actually arbitrates theological disagreements amongst Methodists. That is to say, the people using the quadrilateral do not agree on what is meant by an appeal to the four sources of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

One of the sources that is least understood, at least when connected with the thought of John Wesley is experience. In preparing for my most recent field-level exam, I reread this summary of Wesley’s understanding of experience in Gerald R. Cragg’s Reason and Authority in the Eighteenth Century, (1964):

Wesley never allowed experience to stand alone. It was always checked by the evidence of Scripture and by the judgment of his reason. Experience confirms authority, it does not establish it. It verifies the truth we have discovered, but it is not the source of that truth. Consequently we cannot authenticate our faith by appealing to our feelings. [Quoting Wesley] ‘That some consciousness of our being in favour with God is joined with the Christian faith I cannot doubt; but it is not the essence of it. A consciousness of pardon cannot be the condition of pardon.’ Wesley had too shrewd an understanding of human nature not to realise that emotions can be unpredictable and unreliable. Consequently he laid down the principle ‘you are not to judge by your feelings, but by the Word of God.’ (161)

Cragg’s summary identifies one of the most common misuses of “experience” as a source of authority within the quadrilateral. Experience does not stand alone. Experience confirms authority, it does not establish it. In particular, Wesley appealed to experience in order to confirm the doctrine of assurance. The truth of Romans 8:16 – “The Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are God’s children” – is confirmed by our experience. For example, Wesley wrote:

The fact we know: namely, that the Spirit of God does give a believer such a testimony of his adoption that while it is present in the soul he can no more doubt the reality of his sonship than he can doubt of the shining of the sun, while he stands in the full blaze of his beams. (“The Witness of the Spirit”, I.12)

For Wesley, Scripture promises that the Holy Spirit will witness within the spirits of those who have become children of God that they are in fact children of God. The promise from Scripture is confirmed by the experience of the Spirit actually witnessing within our spirits of our adoption as God’s children.

What do you think?

(If you are interested in learning more about the quadrilateral, I would recommend Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation. William J. Abraham also provides a dissenting voice in Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in The United Methodist Church.)

General Conference, M.U.M., and the Quadrilateral

29 Tuesday Apr 2008

Posted by in Article Review, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I receive quite a bit of emails from a caucus group in the Oklahoma Conference named Mainstream United Methodists. I have recently received several emails from them about a handout that they were planning to distribute at General Conference. I have been away from my office for two weeks due to the birth of my first child, so I just got an email with final details about the handout and distribution of it. In the email there was an attachment that had the first page of the handout. Out of curiosity I opened the attachment. The front page prompted me to track down the entire handout, which you can find on the MUM website here.

As someone interested in Wesley Studies and preparing to enter SMU’s PhD program in the History of the Christian tradition in the Fall, and as someone who is a pastor in the Oklahoma Annual Conference, I wanted to comment on a few things that I think are inaccurate or unhelpful about this handout. My intent in doing this is not to start a fight or be disrespectful, but simply to clarify some misunderstandings about John Wesley and his relationship to the quadrilateral. I also want to clarify upfront that I am not involved in any other caucus group. My interest is not in defending the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which the handout is very critical of. Rather, my concern is that in reacting to things that MUM does not like about IRD, they seem to misrepresent Wesley in the interest of scoring points against IRD.

The main piece of the handout that I take issue with is the article found on the front page in the center column under a very well known picture of John Wesley, “Wesley’s Quadrilateral Under Attack.” It is not all that long, so for the sake of clarity and fairness, I will quote it in its entirety:

Wesley’s Quadrilateral is the center piece of United Methodism. Found in the introduction of Wesley’s forty-four sermons, it has provided a balanced doctrinal perspective for over 200 years.
Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason are valuable tools that guide inquiring minds and open the doors of spiritual mysteries. How can a pilgrim of the Way negotiate the treacherous waters of 21st century faith without them? These four guidelines help extract Biblical and theological truths for Jesus’ followers.
A growing number of scholars and theologians of various backgrounds tuck these “helps” in their tool belts. For Methodists, the Quadrilateral is a common denominator. It’s part of who United Methodists are. 2004 General Conference “editors” moved scripture to first and foremost on the quadrilateral. The next attempt will be to move to Sola-Scriptura, “Scripture Alone.” This is AWAY from John Wesley’s instructions.
As a layperson in Oklahoma recently exclaimed:
“Do away with Wesley’s Quadrilateral?
How could you do that?
The Quadrilateral is Methodism!”

There are a number of problems with the arguments made in this statement. The first is found in the title itself. The Quadrilateral cannot accurately be called “Wesley’s” because the quadrilateral was not created by John Wesley. In fact, Wesley himself never used the term. This is a not controversial, but is a plain fact that all respected Wesley scholars recognize. The term quadrilateral was coined, in relation to contemporary United Methodism, by Albert Outler (1908-1989). In an article published in the Wesleyan Theological Journal titled, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – In John Wesley,” 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.”

Second, I think the first sentence of this article is a reach: “Wesley’s Quadrilateral is the center piece of United Methodism.” I confess to not having the time to research this fully, but I am fairly confident that this statement is not one that is found in the Book of Discipline. If there is a center piece of United Methodism, I would think it would be something more along the lines of the UMC’s mission to “make disciples of Jesus Christ.” Elevating the Quadrilateral to “center piece” status would seem to be on the verge of another form of fundamentalism that is not helpful to the current context of polarization and mistrust. This is not to say that Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are not important norms for theological reflection. As a United Methodist pastor I think that they are absolutely important norms. However, I do not think the Quadrilateral should be lifted up as the center piece of Methodism. I think the Discipline highlights a preferable aim for Methodism “to summon people to experiencing the justifying and sanctifying grace of God and encourage people to grow in the knowledge and love of God through the personal and corporate disciplines of the Christian life” (45).

In the second sentence, we are told that the Quadrilateral is found in the introduction of Wesley’s forty-four sermons” and that “it has provided a balanced doctrinal perspective for over 200 years.” I am not sure what introduction is being referred to, but I am guessing it is the introduction that Outler wrote for his 1964 collection of Wesley’s works. The Quadrilateral is certainly not mentioned in the Preface that Wesley wrote for Sermons on Several Occasions. On the other hand, in that Preface Wesley did write, “I want to know one thing, the way to heaven – how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way: for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price give me the Book of God! I have it. Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri [A man of one book]. Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In his presence I open, I read his Book; for this end, to find the way to heaven” (Bicentennial Edition, Vol. I, 105-106).

Skipping to the third paragraph, “2004 General Conference ‘editors’ moved scripture to first and foremost on the quadrilateral. The next attempt will be to move to Sola Scriptura, ‘Scripture Alone.’ This is AWAY from John Wesley’s instructions.” This statement makes it appear as if placing Scripture above tradition, reason, and experience is a recent innovation. The reality is that most Wesley scholars see this as accurately correcting a misperception that arose from Outler’s articulation of the Quadrilateral. In other words, what was being altered was not Wesley’s theology, but Outler’s articulation of Wesley’s theology — so that it would be more faithful to Wesley’s own writing.

In Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation Scott Jones (formerly a professor at Southern Methodist University, and currently Bishop of the Kansas Area) points out that Wesley called himself a man of one book and forty-one years later: “He uses the phrase again to talk about the beginning of Methodism and its continuing commitment to Scripture:

[Wesley’s own words follow] From the very beginning, from the time that four young men united together, each of them was homo unius libri – a man of one book. God taught them all to make his word a lantern unto their feet, and a light in all their paths. They had one, and only one rule of judgment, with regard to all their tempers, words and actions, namely, the oracles of God. They were one and all determined to be Bible-Christians. They were continually reproached for this very thing; some terming them in derision Bible-bigots; others, Bible-moths – feeding, they said, upon the Bible as moths do upon cloth. And indeed unto this day it is their constant endeavor to think and speak as the oracles of God.[End of Wesley’s words]

Any accurate understanding of Wesley’s view of the Bible must first start here, with a strong statement that Scripture alone is the authority for Christian faith and practice” (41).

I am proud to be a part of the Oklahoma Conference and I give thanks for the voices in our Conference, and throughout our denomination, who are calling for United Methodists to reclaim our Wesleyan heritage. Unfortunately, the information that MUM is propagating at General Conference relating to Wesley’s relationship to the Quadrilateral is misleading and inaccurate. I hope that future publications will be more carefully researched and nuanced.

Understanding the Quadrilateral

02 Wednesday Jan 2008

Posted by in Book Review, Ministry

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I just finished a book that I wish I had read before writing my ordination papers: Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation. This book has essays by Wesley scholars W. Stephen Gunter, Scott J. Jones, Ted A. Campbell, Rebekah L. Miles, and Randy L. Maddox. Gunter is the editor with Jones writing about Scripture, Campbell tradition, Miles reason, and Maddox experience. If you have not read this book and you are a Methodist pastor you need to read this book. If you have heard the phrase “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” and wondered what the heck it meant, you need to read this book. If you already think you know what the Quadrilateral is all about, you still need to read this book.

Here are a few quick quotes from the conclusion:

There is an underlying premise in our chapter on Scripture, and it would read like this: If United Methodists generally speaking have interpreted The Book of Discipline to mean the Scripture are our foundational and primary authority in theology, faith, and practice, we have not done a very good job of making this clear to our constituencies (131).

The temptation to total skepticism that is implied when we recognize the “conditionedness” of our knowledge through experience is usually avoided for a very practical reason: it is not viable to be a total skeptic. What is common among us is to invoke the perspectival nature of mediated experience as a preemptive shield: “That is only your perspective. I am entitled to my own!” While Wesley did not hear this particular modern response in his day, he does potentially provide a way through the impasse — he continually exhorted the early Methodists about the importance of “Christian conference,” specifically for nurturing the lives of holiness and for deciding debated issues in theology. No one person’s perspective was to be privileged over another’s, and the collective perspective of all gave the advantage of a mutually arrived at conclusion. (137-138)

These are just some quotes that spoke to things I have been thinking about. But this book does an excellent job of explaining what Wesley would have meant by Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience; and how Methodists ought to use these tools today. Simply a wonderful book.