John and Charles Wesley were the 18th Century-Oxford-educated-brothers who founded the Methodist Movement. While I certainly don't buy into all of their theology these guys did some pretty sweet, radical things. They also preached in cool gowns as can be seen in this picture of John on the right.
Anyway, John proposed that we can know God in four different ways (hence the whole "quadrilateral" thing) and that without all four our relationship with God is incomplete and unstable. Thus the analogy is often of a square (4 sides) or of a 4-legged stool. Without 4 sides a square is not a square... without 4 legs the 4-legged stool will not hold weight, etc. You get the idea.
John's 4 ways to know God are usually summarized as:
1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience
In his own words, "… the Holy Scriptures [scripture] stand first and foremost, and yet subject to interpretations that are informed by ‘Christian Antiquity’ [tradition], critical reason [reason] and an existential appeal to the ‘Christian experience’ of grace [experience].”
So, while I know that evangelicals tend to get pretty squeamish when it sounds like we're taking any steps away from "sola scriptura" I think I stand closer to Wesley than Luther on this one.
Wesley very appropriately puts scripture "first and foremost." I don't think any of us would have any arguments with that. But while it is good that we hold firmly to the scriptures they cannot stand alone. We have only to look to our fundamentalist "cousins" to see what happens when people hold to nothing but the scriptures. I think they could use a little reason and experience to balance things out.
#2 poses a few more questions for a lot of evangelicals. Many evangelicals balk at the very mentioning of the word "tradition." They picture priests and monks quoting obscure "saints" alongside scripture as if they had equal authority and all sorts of stuff like that. However, most of this is myth.
Pretty much all denominations (including Catholics) that give any sort of credence to tradition define tradition as Wesley does: the "interpretations that are informed by ‘Christian Antiquity’." Tradition is simply the way in which others have historically interpreted scripture. I don't have much of a problem with that. In fact, according to this definition, any time that I quote someone in a paper or a sermon I am appealing to some sort of tradition.
#3 is reason. I don't think many of us will argue with this one either. We have all seen how people have used and abused scripture or misrepresented the Christian faith because they weren't using their brains. In order for us to properly interpret scripture (and thus create a healthy repository of tradition) it requires that we think critically. Without critical thought we are lost.
But reason needs to be balanced out by experience. I appreciate that Wesley said this back in the 1700s otherwise people might just think that this is a post-modern thing. But no, we need to recognize that the way that we interpret scripture and all of our critical thought is shaped by the ways in which we have (or haven't) experienced God in a personal way. I love the way John Wesley puts it: "an existential appeal to the ‘Christian experience’ of grace."
Of course, each one of these four could be expanded on but I don't want my posts to be too long or people will stop reading. The only remaining thing to be said is that in order for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to work properly none of the 4 can contradict any of the others. All of our traditions, our thoughts, and our experiences must be consistent with the Word of God and visa versa.
So, what do you think?
Are you comfortable with all of these?
Are there any of these 4 that you are more or less comfortable with?
In what ways can the Quadrilateral help us in our Christian walk?
4 comments:
How would personal interpretation (each person has his/her own experiences which shape how he/she views & interacts with the world) of scripture fit in with this model?
Would not different worldviews contradict another persons interpretation of the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral"?
Or am I simply out to lunch & this isn't applicable at all.
I am very comfortable with these four as long as we hold scripture as first and foremost. The other three need to be evaluated through the lens of scripture. But I agree with you that in order to know God we are designed to have all four things in our lives. What I love is that different people gravitate to different areas and so they are drawn to church by one or two. Then it is the churches job to walk with them into a holistic relationship with Christ by knowing and loving all three areas and not just being stuck on one.
Tim S.
Well said, Tim.
Jared, I think you are right to highlight that each person's worldview shapes how we interpret scripture. That's why I think "Community Hermeneutics" is so important.
When we interpret scripture alone there is no one to balance our use/abuse of the Word. However, when we interpret the Word in a group setting the odds are a lot better that someone will challenge our thinking when we are in danger of misinterpreting the Bible.
Essentially, tradition holds a very similar function. I remember my Homiletics prof saying once that, "if you have an 'original' idea when preparing your sermon, it's probably heresy!" In 2000 years of Christianity we have a large base of historical interpretation to draw from and in some ways this can help safe-guard us in the same way that community does.
This is one topic you've finally hit that actually makes me feel better about myself. When I separated my life from community and only read scripture, I felt like I was lacking some sort of communication with God. But when I'm involved in a church, small group, and communicating with other believers, my relationship with God just seems so much more real, and even scripture seems to be more alive. Those relationships also encourage the balance between reason, experiences, and tradition by working together through scripture. Like your "community hermeneutics" that you talk about.
Post a Comment