What's MISSING in The Wesleyan Quadrilateral's Search for Truth?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. The term itself was coined by 20th century American Methodist Albert C. Outler in his introduction to the 1964 collection John Wesley (ISBN 0-19-502810-4).
Upon examination of Wesley's work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
* Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
* Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
* Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
* Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “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 [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’” (The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2004, p. 77).
Wesley saw the Quadrilateral not merely as prescriptive of how one should form their theology, but also as descriptive of how almost anyone does form theology. As an astute observer of human behavior, and a pragmatist, Wesley's approach to the Quadrilateral was most certainly phenomenological, describing in a practical way how things actually work in actual human experience. Thus, when Wesley speaks of "Tradition", he does not merely refer to ancient Church Tradition and the writings of the great theologians and Church Fathers of days past, but also of the immediate and present theological influences which contribute to a person's understanding of God and of Christian theology. "Tradition" may include such influences as the beliefs, values, and instruction of one's family and upbringing. It may also include the various beliefs and values which one encounters and which have an effect on one's understanding of Scripture.
It must be understood, however, that for Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional "sources" for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a "lens" through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience. Reason is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of Tradition. Reason is the first means by which we may "trim our sails" and adjust interpretations of Scripture.
But for Wesley, the chief test of the "truth and nothing but the whole truth" of a particular interpretation of scripture is how it is seen in practical application in one's Experience. Always the pragmatist, Wesley believed that Experience formed the best evidence, after Scripture, for the truthfulness of a particular theological view. He believed Scriptural truths are to be primarily lived, rather than simply thought about or merely believed. Thus, how a particular interpretation of scripture is lived out is the best and most viable test of our theology.
Each of the "legs" of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority.
The Planter: Remember the Quad is a test for theological truth and not a test for our practices with regard to tradition or is it? I see something huge missing here. Can anyone else see it. See if you can find the several things that box God in here.
I almost hate to post this on the blog because I am taking another blogging sabbatical until next Tuesday. So have at it, Phil, I'm doing this for you.
posted by Bob Carder @ 12:04 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, I certainly appreciate the opportunity! I have mentioned this in several other posts here on this blog. And surprisingly have come against quite the opposition. I think the article you posted here is an excellent summation of the Quadrilateral. It is a good pragmatic way of looking at and testing the Truth of Scripture.
I think I know what you are getting at here as the missing element. Am I right to assume that you think the Holy Spirit is missing here? Well, I would say that Wesley assumed that we go through the Quadrilateral guided by the Holy Spirit. He is, in fact, acting in and through the method to reveal the validity of the Truth we seek and examine.
I am not sure why you call this putting God in a box. Do you then ignore the whole school of systematic theology as well?
Speak now or forever hold your peace...
:)
"I am taking another blogging sabbatical until next Tuesday." - theplanter
lol... poor phil... left waiting for a week! oh the suspense... lol
So, the Holy Spirit works in this man made box? Yes, He does, but he works outside of the box too, and there is more outside than inside.
im relatively new to the concept of the quadrilateral, so bear with me here.
I see the four areas, and how they are all important, i guess. but with reason and tradition, arent those two things that Jesus condemned in the New Testament?
"Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?" (Mark 2:8)
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3)
Now while i see the importance of these two things, in the Gospels i see them as being more problematic than helpful.
not to say that i don't follow any kind of tradition (depending on how you define tradition). my friends and i all take communion out of the same cup, or bottle in our case. and thats a tradition i hold dear, but not dearer than the Truth of Scripture. Traditions and resonings should BASED on Scripture and the Holy Spirit, otherwise they tend to get in the way of the working of the Spirit. So i guess i am unsure why tradition and reason would ever take a spot aside from the last two in your quadrilateral
eric, is this Christianity thing logical? Is God logical? I think they both are. This method helps us to systematically discover the Truth of each. God has revealed himself in such a way, both in Scripture and in the person of Jesus Christ, that we can look for him in Sripture, see him in tradition, discover him with our reason, and know him with our experience. This is not putting God in a box. It is only examining the areas in which he has revealed himself to us. This is what we have. I do not think you will find God outside of this method, because it is really all that he has used. Unless I am missing something, every person that has ever come to God was initially introduced to him through one of these four areas. And to explain the whole of the Christian faith you follow up with the other areas, starting with Scripture.
(unless, of course, you are an open theist and believe that God can work in any way he wants to even if it contradicts his nature)
zach, if reason is so bad, why don't we get rid of the entire books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes? Why don't we leave out the speech given by Paul at Mars Hill? In fact, if reason is so bad, we would have to remove just about all of Paul's letters, especially the letter to the Romans.
Reason is not a bad thing. As I have said before, it is part of God's image in us. It is the thing that sets us apart from the animals. We can reason a lot of things in Christianity.
Now regarding Mark 2:8....Jesus here is not condemning their reasoning. The teachers of the law were asking who could forgive sins but God. Jesus then shows them his authority to forgive sins. In fact he appeals to their reason in verse 9 when he asks which is easier. This question requires logical thinking to answer. Jesus is not against reason, otherwise he would not have appealed to reason so often in his ministry as he does here.
Now to tradition: in Matt 15 Jesus is against the Mishna, the tradition of the elders. The mishna was written as extra-Mosaic requirements in the 400 year gap between the last prophet and the coming of Christ. The Mishna was not required by the Law of Moses and was extremely legalistic. It required things that God himself did not require. The reason why Jesus was against this was because the teachers of the law were focusing more on the Mishna and fulfilling its duties than focusing on God and doing as he required. Jesus is not against tradition. He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. He was a Jew. He was a respecter of tradition.
We cannot just do a Biblegateway.com search for the words "tradition" and "reason" and then pick out something that sounds like it is condemning those things. We have to look at it in context. Look at the passage, not just the singular verse. Then we can extract the real meaning from the text rather than inserting our own meaning and prejudices into it.
""" This method helps us to systematically discover the Truth of each. God has revealed himself in such a way, both in Scripture and in the person of Jesus Christ, that we can look for him in Sripture, see him in tradition, discover him with our reason, and know him with our experience.""""
Systematically discover God? Hmmm. Don't think so.
""" I do not think you will find God outside of this method, because it is really all that he has used. """"
I guess you could chalk it all up to experience if you are saying I have to experience the scriptures by reading them, experience tradition by knowing it, experience reasoning by preceiving it, however, when we really look at it, it is not us that can reason out God. We can not reason who God is. Tradition can not reveil God to us. We can not learn God. Yes, God works apart from these things. It saddens me you have never seen such things. I have seen how the Holy Spirit works. I have had times where I had conversations with God and conversed with Him. I have gained knowledge I had no way of knowing at all. God has worked with me apart from your method. You boxed God into a method of discovering Him. You can not do that. You are fooling yourself if you think you can.
""""(unless, of course, you are an open theist and believe that God can work in any way he wants to even if it contradicts his nature)""""
Absolutely not. And yes, it all starts with scripture usually (God CAN reveal himself to a person without scripture. Of course, he would have to reveal Christ and who He is and what He did.) As for the rest of your statement, you have not seen God work apart from your flesh, it doesn't mean that He does not, nor does it mean that, that is His nature implies He only works those ways.
"""""zach, if reason is so bad, why don't we get rid of the entire books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes?"""""
I don't think he said reasoning was bad, just that we can not logic out God. Yes, God is logical, can we logic him out? NO!
""""This question requires logical thinking to answer. Jesus is not against reason, otherwise he would not have appealed to reason so often in his ministry as he does here"""'
You miss what Zach is saying, they used human reasoning above God's reasoning. We can not logic God out, even though God is logical.
""""The Mishna was not required by the Law of Moses and was extremely legalistic.""""
The modern church system is not in the Bible and is extremely legalistic.
""""He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. """"
The law and the tradition are two different things. :-)
""""We cannot just do a Biblegateway.com search for the words "tradition" and "reason" and then pick out something that sounds like it is condemning those things. We have to look at it in context. Look at the passage, not just the singular verse. Then we can extract the real meaning from the text rather than inserting our own meaning and prejudices into it.
"""""""""
I think the problem is your interpretation of what he just said. He was by no means taking anything out of context, and I don't think he ever said anything bad about tradition or reason, just that when done in the flesh, they can not do anything spiritual. We can not logic God out. We are not smart enough or logical enough. To think you are would be prideful.
thank you for the clarification eric, that was EXACTLY what i was saying. i find nothing wrong with reason or tradition, but they must take a backseat to the revelation of the Holy Spirit and obedieance to the Lord.
Phil, do we have different definitions of tradition and reason? (remember, i have no backround in this quadrilateral thing) i define tradition as rituals or customs that are man-made in origin, extraneous to Scripture, that are handed down over genereations. it seems as if, to you, that the Law and tradition are one and the same, and i would argue that.
and when i define reason or logic, i define that as man's understanding, which is inherently limited. God has revealed SOME things to us in ways that can be "logiced out", but He is above our ways and thoughts. reason cannot peer into the depths of His Being.
Ultimately, i dont beleive the systematic approach is the approach God would have us take. In Scripture, His relationship with His chosen has been entirely personal. Abraham, Elijah, Isaiah, David, they didnt ponder and think and discover through their reasonings. They beleived, and God revealed things to them through their faith. Our faith is meant to be experiential and transformative. I dont understand Scripture because of long hours of study, no those give me migraines. I understand Scripture only because i ask Him to show me what He wants me to see and He does. Reason has very little to do with it.
OH BOY, I'M BACK WITH A SMALL BREAK IN NEW YORK WHILE VISITING OUR DAUGHTER. HAVING A GREAT = GREAT TIME.
MATTHEW 15:1-3 IF TRADITION KEEPS US FROM BEING OBEDIENCE IT MUST BE REMOVED.
JESUS ASKED THIS QUESTION IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED PASSAGE. TRADITION IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN OBEDIENCE.
SOME TRADITIONS IN THE CHURCH ARE GREAT WHILE OTHERS ARE NOT. WE MUST DISCERN OUR TIMES. WHEN TRADITION BECOMES TRADITIONALISM WE HAVE ARRIVED AT DISOBEDIENCE. WHEN TRADITION IS VALUED MORE THAN TRUTH AND OBEDIENCE IT HAS BECOME TRADITIONALISM.
WHEN TRADITION BECOMES TRADITIONALISM IT IS WORSHIPED AND DISOBEDIENCE FOLLOWS. IT IS WISE TO DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD TRADITIONS AND TRADITIONALISM.
THERE ARE TRADITIONS THAT HINDER GOD IN HIS KINGDOM WORK THOSE TRADITIONS HAVE LED TO SACRED COWS OR TRADITIONALISM.
WHEN THE GREAT COMMISSION IS NOT FULLY OBEYED IN TRADITION THAN TRADITION MUST CHANGE. WHEN THE RHEMA OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT TAUGHT AND FULLY ENGAGED WE NEED TRADITIONAL CHANGES.
PHIL - IN MANY INSTANCES TRADITIONALISM HAS HINDERED THE WORD OF GOD AND HAS LED TO DISOBEDIENCE. WE HAVE MUCH DISOBEDIENCE IN THE AMERICAN CHURCH.
Phil, nice work and thought. I think that many hairs are spliting on this one but I must comment. The basis of Revelation is always found in the Word. There is no new revelation that adds to the Word. Wesley's basis of this quad-thinking has to do with how we balance the revealed Word of God...especially on those things that are not explicently layed out. For example, the word abortion is not mentioned in the Bible yet we are prolife. Why? Logic coupled with precept tells us what belief we ought to have. Homosexuality is not so spelled out ~ yet the act of healthy sexual behavior is defined because of our ability to systematically define doctrine through logic, reason, tradition and biblical precept. Balance is what Wesley was getting at. In his time, slavery was not ruled as sinful practice. Afterall, the Bible can almost tote context and build a case for slavery BUT we know it today as wrong. Why? The quad~pattern emerges to define it as wrong. Just to say that the Holy Spirit tells me everything I need to know is a shallow interpretation of the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of the Lord works within me to disciple me in doctrine based on a revelation that has roots in the Word. We then use logic and tradition and experience to frame what I know to be true. Another example. Why do many worsip on Sunday? THE BIBLE SAYS TO WORSHIP ON THE FIRST DAY? The first day is Sunday? Perhaps my Sabbath is too rigged to only gather Sundays. What is that? Is it 8 am - Noon? Is it all day? I know that tradition coupled with experience coupled with logic along with what I know the Bible says brings me to the conclusion of Sunday ritual...that gathers me with The Body for worship. I don't worship when I feel like it or "when the Spirit move". I worship because He is worthy. I do it with believers because it is instructed through Scriptural precept. I do it on Sundays because that is a tradition that fits.
BEFORE YOU ALL THROW THE FIRST STONE AT LOGIC, EXPERIENCE AND TRADITION, REMEMBER THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING SCRIPTURALLY DIRECTING YOU TO SHOWER DAILY BUT WE ARE SO MUCH MORE PLEASANT TO BE AROUND WHEN WE DO. Scripture is almost always coupled with reason, experience and tradition. Don't take isolated bad examples of church and throw it out with the bath water. In fact, ego and arrogance often conclude me to think that somehow I have some special revelation...we need tradition and experience to help discern my truth with The Truth. Hope my ramblings help edify the body of Christ.
about the statement: God works more outside than inside the box.... Hmmm, my humble apology. I must differ here. What you call outside the box means that God works through the Spirit with no regard to the Bible? Is not the Bible God's box? Since when does God choose to create without a design? When does He define Truth without a doctrine? Are not these inside the box? Whose box is it that formed the box? Man's? I dare say that post modernism would say that everything is based on felt impressions (outside the box) but we all have to answer to God who is the box. Not everything comes from nothing, it has substance which is the box. Even to say that you prefer out of the box thinking is your trap~it is your box. Careful friend to have such a narrow perspective. Out of the box thinking is edging to humanism and even worse, post modern, feel good anything goes thinking. Certainly you don't mean that, do you?
When Paul contronted the religious of Mars Hill, he spoke to a group of out of the box people who had crafted an alter to the unknown god. He said, let me tell you about a God who framed Himself as the ONLY WAY. A box indeed! Whose box is your out of the box?
Post a Comment
<< Home