Scripture in Today’s Worship and Pastoral Ministry

by Carl Schultz

Houghton College, Houghton, NY

Initially when suggesting this topic, I was excited, persuaded of its relevance and importance. As I began its development -- the bringing together of many articles and lectures, the reflections of many professional years of teaching and pastoral ministry, I began to question its vitality. It appeared rather pedantic. There seemed to be nothing new to say about this subject. But as my thoughts unfolded, I was reenergized. I sensed again the importance of this subject -- not necessarily what I have to say about it but the topic per se.

I and likewise, I believe, you cannot begin to conceive of worship and ministry without the Bible. We could be bereft of many contributing elements to worship and ministry which would hurt and limit such, but how could we possibly get by without the Bible? To where would we turn for our homilies? At wedding celebrations what would we read and at funerals where could we go for hope and strength? How could we console the sick and dying, the lonely and depressed without sacred writ?!

It is not by chance that the design of our sanctuaries with the central pulpit on which is an opened Bible and the structure of our worship service with significant time and emphasis given to the reading and preaching of the scripture are common to our tradition. Nor is it by chance that the clergy are called preachers for indeed that is a primary function of our calling. We are also called ministers, reflecting our pastoral implementation of the Bible.

My handling of this topic at best may be pedantic and inadequate but no one can question the importance of this topic and its immediate relevance.

The words of the Quaker poet express well the thrust of this presentation:

We search the world for truth, We cull

The good, the true, the beautiful,

From graven stone and written scroll,

And all old flower fields of the soul:

And, weary seekers of the best,

We come back laden from our quest,

To find that all the sages said

Is in the Book our mothers read.[1]

My approach will feature three points: the Availability of the Bible, the Appropriation of the Bible, and the Authority of the Bible.

I. Availability of the Bible

General Mills recently apologized for CD Rom versions of the Bible that had been shipped to stores in about 12 million cereal boxes. They are part of a $10 million software and cereal promotion that also involves computer games and dictionaries.

The company claimed it didn't know the Bible had been put on the CD ROMs. The company that created the CD ROMs called General Mills' claim that it was unaware of the software Bibles "a flat-out lie."

We will not enter into this disagreement except to ask "Why should there be any apology for providing people with the Bible?"

But my purpose in using this news is to call attention to how the Bible is made readily available today.

For instance, you're in a business meeting. Suddenly the pager in your pocket starts beeping loudly, insistently. You pause in your presentation, press one of the tiny buttons and check the message on the screen. "I'm sorry," you tell the meeting, "but I must take this. It's from the top." A gasp of admiration goes round the room. Yes, you have just been paged directly by God.

For just $5 per month, Pure Vision Ministries will send a regular supply of 20 Bible verses to your pager. "By receiving pages from God," says the sales pitch, "you will not only learn the Bible, but you will be able to share the messages with others." And not only that -- just imagine the impact of being bleeped awake out of a deep sleep to read: "Be still and know that I am God."

Forget Charlton Heston. When God talks to us he sounds like Johnny Cash. The Franklin Holy Bible will have you quaking in your heathen boots. Use the Chicklet-sized keys to search for a favorite passage, click the speech icon, and . . . The Man in Black will read it to you, his road-weary whiskey growl rolling through thees and thous like thunder over the prairie. Other handy features are Learn-A-Verse, which teaches you new Scripture every time you switch it on, and a spell correction for believers who are rich in spirit but poor in the ABCs.

I use these recent ways of getting the Bible into our hands to reflect a sharp contrast with the words of I Samuel 3:1: "The word of the Lord was rare in those days" -- the days of the elderly Eli and the youthful Samuel. Obviously the biblical writer is not reflecting on the technical, citing the absence of printing and digital technology. His concern is more substantive than that and we will return to it subsequently. But from our perspective it is the printed, audio, and visual formats that have made the Bible so utterly available.

In short, we have been inundated with the Bible in multiple formats so that whether we travel and encounter the Gideon Bible in our motel room or surf the net and note the argument advanced by the "King James Bible only" proponents, or open our mail and observe the latest advertisement, listing an array of Bibles in various translations and in all sizes and prices, we are overwhelmed with the availability of the Bible.

All this not to mention thousands of books about the Bible, millions of sermons, and countless numbers of Bible study groups.

My point is obvious. It would seem that the word of the Lord is not rare in our day.

Odd though it may seem, there is a sense in which I am lamenting the commonplaceness of the Bible. Any item in great supply is apt to lose value as must have silver and gold in Solomon's reign when according to the Chronicler, He made silver and gold as common in Jerusalem as stone.

Actually, in I Samuel 3:1 the word rendered rare is better translated precious and is generally so translated. It is this same Hebrew word attached to the Hebrew term stone that gives us the designation precious stones, the term used for gems such as topaz, jasper, and carnelian.

Given this commonplaceness of the Bible, perhaps the word of God has all too often ceased to be precious, resulting in a casual approach.

This all-too-casual approach to scripture stands in sharp contrast to the times of Josiah when the lost book of the law -- the Bible -- was discovered. It allegedly had been buried under temple debris for some time. It was read voraciously by the officer, by the king and finally read to the people. The Chronicler notes to "all the people both great and small."[2] This attention to the book of the law led to the greatest reformation Judah ever experienced.

Standing in contrast also is the reading of the book of the law by Ezra following the return from Babylonian exile. The people stood for this reading form early morning until midday and the text states "The ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law."[3]

Perhaps the word of the Lord is taken seriously in proportion to its rareness.

II. Appropriation of the Bible

While we are overwhelmed with the availability of the Bible I would stress that accessibility is one thing, appropriation is another.

Here I have reference both to the disuse and misuse of the Bible.

Little needs to be said about the Bible's disuse. Survey after survey reveals that while the Bible is found practically everywhere in the civilized world, it is not as widely read as it is distributed. One study is sufficient here. In a recent poll by LeMoyne College in Syracuse, N.Y. of 1,508 Roman Catholics, nearly all the respondents said they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but 68 percent said they seldom or never read the Bible.[4]

A recent Princeton Religion Research Center study reveals that 93% of homes in the U.S.A. have Bibles but 55% seldom or never read the Bible. Women are more apt to read the Bible than men and older people are more likely to read the Bible than are younger people.[5]

Such disuse is reflected in a prevailing ignorance of Scripture. I have been particularly aware of this in academia where I and my colleagues who teach Bible constantly come up with responses both pathetic and humorous. Among them are such gems as:

"Noah's wife was called Joan of Ark."

"The seventh commandment is thou shalt not admit adultery."

"Moses and the Israelites barely escaped the Pharisees who had pursued them through the wilderness."

"Moses went to the Sermon on the Mount where he died and the dream was worked out that loving everyone included our enemies."

"Jesus' last words in Mark 'My dear Lord, why hast thou portrayed me?'"

"The temple was the home of God's name and glory although the exile allowed God to move around and be transcendent."[6]

Occasionally, however, some real insights are derived from these gaffes. A student concluded an essay on Matthew's gospel with these words: "We must all follow Christ's final command: 'Go and make disciples of yourselves.'"[7]

These bloopers are humorous and understandably produce some good laughs. But they are symptoms at best of confusion and at worst of abject ignorance. Gone are the days when speakers or writers could make a pungent point by a brief allusion to scripture, such as:

putting out a fleece

turning the other cheek

steadfastness of Job

David/Goliath

In passing it must also be observed that this ignorance of scripture pertains to other great literature expressing ideas and practices associated with such names as Micawbers, Pips, and Scrooge, allowing speakers simply to utter the name to establish a picture in the minds of the listeners, are no longer possible.[8]

Disuse is not limited to the theoretical where it results in ignorance; it pertains also to the practical, resulting in failure to implement the teachings of the Bible. The Bible is not simply a book to be mastered; it is a book to master us. We are not only to be informed we are to conform our lives to its teaching. The Bible is not simply to be memorized; it is to be mobilized. Anything less is a disuse of scripture.

But not only disuse but also misuse, treating the Bible as a magic charm or a source of divinization, is an area of concern. How many of you have ever -- even once -- been so hungry for guidance that you closed your eyes, let your Bible fall open and pointed to a verse in hopes of a nudge? That is called divinization, a form of magic, and Christians have been at it for a long time. Evidence dates from the third and fourth centuries, when a form of soothsaying called sortes biblicae was all the rage. First someone went to the trouble of writing short, fortune-cookie style sayings at the bottom of each page of scripture. One fifth century manuscript, the Codex Bezal, contains 69 different sayings. "Expect a great miracle." "You will receive joy from God." Seek something else." "After ten days it will happen." That sort of thing.

Then the person who wanted to know his or her fortune could either open the Bible at random or cast dice to come up with a page number, and voila; a prediction. In France alone, this practice was condemned at four different church synods over a period of a hundred and twenty five years, but the very fact that it had to be condemned so often tells you that people went right on doing it.[9]

Another example of misuse, considerably less extreme but nevertheless dangerous, is one I found in The Jerusalem Post (August 22, 2001) under the headline "New Counter-Terrorism Weapon -- Psalms."

There is not much you can do about the threat of suicide bombings other than to recite psalms, according to Prof. Menahem Friedman, a sociologist at Bar-Ilan University in Jerusalem. Friedman was commenting on a recent advertising campaign encouraging Israelis to be more aware of the Book of Psalms.

The campaign was not specifically planned for the present conflict with the Palestinians. Nevertheless, after every terror attack there is an increase in the number of callers to the campaign's hot line. The idea that reciting psalms might protect people and their families is part of the message imparted by the volunteers who answer the hot line. This organization sends out free copies of a selection of psalms "for time of trouble for the people of Israel."[10]

Now, I appreciate the use of the Psalter in dangerous times but correctly understood, these psalms do not necessarily save us from trouble but rather sustain us in the midst of such danger.

While both the Bible's disuse and misuse necessitate a response by the church, I believe the misuse to be more serious and perhaps demanding of more attention by us as clergy since this deployment of scripture is more apt to occur with people who attend our worship services and to whom we provide pastoral care. Such misuse of the Bible can lead minimally to distress and what is worse, to rejection of the scripture. People disenchanted by the Bible will require special attention.

While the antidote to misuse is not disuse, such often occurs. Misuse requires instruction in proper use.

While to under represent the Bible is unfortunate, it may be worse to oversell it, resulting in significant disillusionment.

III. Authority of the Bible

The greatest reason for the use of the Bible in worship and ministry is to be found in its authority. The Bible is the authoritative source to which we as Christian appeal to determine the nature and content of the Christian faith as originally held in order that we may evaluate our own beliefs and actions in the light of it.

No wonder then that Walter Brueggeman observes that "the authority of the Bible is a perennial and urgent issue for those of us who stake our lives on its testimony."[11] And you and I are among those who stake their lives on its testimony.

John Bright notes:

There is not a parish pastor who does not collide head on with the problem of authority each Sunday when he rises to exhort and instruct his congregation. It is wrapped up with the very nature of his function as a minister of the Word. In what capacity does he speak? Certainly he does not speak merely as an educated man who propounds his personal opinions, although he has, of course, both a right to his opinions and the right to express them. Nor does he invite the congregation to join him in the search for truth, though it is a tragedy if both he and they are not open to all truth. He does not claim a hearing as one who is an authority, whether in philosophy, ethics, history, political science, economics -- or even theology. In all likelihood he is not an authority in any of these things. He speaks as a teacher and advocate of the Christian gospel -- nothing else. Indeed, there is fundamentally no other reason that he should speak at all, and certainly none that the faithful should trouble to listen to him fifty-two times per annum, give or take a few.[12]

Creeds and confessions recognize the authority of scripture. The Westminster confession of faith, representing the reformed position, states: "Under the name of Holy Scripture or The Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament which are these [they are then listed]. All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."[13]

Or a more appropriate source for our Wesleyan tradition, an early Methodist statement:

The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. The names of the canonical books are: [they are then listed]."[14]

Since the emphasis of this lecture is on the use of scripture in worship and ministry, it is critical to note the authority of the Bible both in faith and practice. Not only our authority in what we believe and preach -- dogma -- but also our authority in how we minister -- deeds.

So at ordination the first charge to the candidate is to "take authority to preach the word of God," followed by "give diligent pastoral leadership ordering the life of the congregation for nurture and care."[15]

"To preach" is a critical charge. While as the Westminster Confession of Faith notes

"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof, and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God."[16]

Nevertheless there is a sense in which the Bible becomes the word of God in proclamation. The Bible is not simply identified with past revelation but becomes the means of hearing the voice of God today. The threefold blessing of The Apocalypse is not only pronounced upon those who read and obey the word but also upon "the one who reads aloud the word . . . ."[17] While there is a sense in which the Bible in its digital or printed format is the word of the Lord, ultimately and finally it is only the word of God as the readers are awakened by the Holy Spirit to the significance of the particular passage for their lives.

Scripture must not be imprisoned in the past, reducing it to antiquarian interest. It is not an artifact but it is a classic to be appreciated. "It is a text so true and beautiful that it enjoys an immediate contemporaneity with all people of all times . . . ."[18]

A. Reformation and Authority

The historic cry of the Protestant Reformation -- Sola Scriptura -- reflects the authority of scripture while the English translation of this Latin phrase is simple (scripture alone) its actual meaning must be determined by context. This is equally true of the cry Sola Gratia.

These reformation terms are slogans and programmatic statements, gestures toward the truth rather than full principles of theology. Centuries of use has provided them an aura of sanctity which veils their true meaning.[19]

Sola Scriptura in its Reformation context was Sola Prima. Luther was not so much placing scripture against tradition but scripture above the dictates of Rome. Actually the locus of the argument was not even the primacy of scripture in itself. To that everyone essentially consented. The issue was freedom of interpretation -- not the issue of revelation, rather the issue of hermeneutics.[20]

Indeed there is a stronger formulation of Sola Scriptura as the only authority for faith and practice. This should probably be attributed to Zwingli, hence its impact on the Reformed churches and Fundamentalism.[21]

In times and places of disagreement the reformers discovered they could no longer appeal to scripture alone. So creeds were developed, said to be distillations of biblical truths. So then circular reasoning took hold. The contents and nature of the questions addressed to the Bible were those generated by the credal framework and the answers given were expected to fit into the framework.[22]

B. Wesleyanism and Authority

While Wesleyanism shares much with the Reformation, Donald Dayton notes there are significant levels on which Wesleyanism can be seen as a corrective to Reformation thought and even in many basic ways as a reversion to Roman Catholic patterns of thought.

The "solas" of the Reformation are basically a disjunctive way of thinking while Wesleyanism is more conjunctive in its thought. While Luther was inclined to speak of faith or reason, gospel or law, faith or works, and so on, Wesley was much more inclined to speak of faith and reason, gospel and law, faith and works, and so on. It is true that Wesley had his Aldersgate experience under epistle to the Romans, but when he got around to reading the commentary he was inclined to the text that the "law is established by faith" and was offended by the Lutheran denigration of the law and works. Several of Wesley's key texts were taken from the book of James which Luther so devalued. Indeed, it was characteristic of Wesley that he spoke easily the language of both the epistle to the Galatians and the book of James.[23]

Further while Wesley, in the frequently quoted phrase homo unius libri[24], "a man of one book" indicates his commitment to the finality of biblical authority, his "conjunctive way of thinking puts scripture in a larger context of authority quite different from that produced by the 'solas' of the Reformation . . . the book could be understood only through the study of books."[25]

In the preface to his sermons (42 years earlier than the above quotation), a few paragraphs after calling himself "a man of one book," Wesley quotes Homer's Iliad in the Greek![26]

While Wesley used scripture extensively, he also used a wide variety of literature, classical Greek and Roman writings as well as Christian.[27]

In response to preachers who complained about Methodist reading requirements, saying they read only the Bible, Wesley retorted:

This is rank enthusiasm. If you need no book but the Bible, you are got above St. Paul. He wanted others too. "Bring the books," says he, "but especially the parchments," those wrote on parchment. "But I have no taste for reading." Contract a taste for it by use, or return to your trade.[28]

C. Interpretation and Authority

But not only is scripture to be iterated; it must also be interpreted. Interpretation goes beyond the reiteration of the text. Proclamation of scripture from the pulpit and the application of scripture in our pastoral ministries involve interpretation. Brueggeman observes:

As our mothers and fathers have always known, the Bible is not self-evident and self-interpreting, and the Reformers did not mean to say that it was so when they escaped the church's magisterium. Rather the Bible requires and insists upon human interpretation, which is inescapably subjective, necessarily provisional and inevitably disputatious.[29]

How does interpretation relate to authority? Is it destructive of biblical authority? Is it possible to accept the authority of scripture and to utilize it in an illegitimate manner? Bright states:

We are not to appeal to the Bible's authority in a mechanical way, as if the Bible were a rule book or a dictionary, the authority of which resides equally and independently in each of its parts. The Bible is not a rule book or a dictionary. It cannot, therefore, be used as if it were no more than a vast collection of proof texts which one may call upon at discretion in order to support one's own arguments or confute those of one's opponents. That is a misuse of the Bible's authority. . . . Yet adducing proof texts can be a dangerous thing and can lead to the breakdown of biblical authority. The danger exists that the Bible will be appealed to in an arbitrary selective way -- that texts will be adduced in evidence as convenient, while other texts, equally but inconveniently germane, will be passed over, played down, or artificially harmonized. The danger further exists that texts, lifted from their context, will become little more than mottoes, or will be improperly thrown together with other texts in support of an argument as if authority attached to them regardless of the use to which they are put. And this opens the way to the ultimate danger that the Bible's authority will become, not something to be submitted to, but something to be used.[30]

But even though "many biblical texts are ambiguous and capable of more than one interpretation and no interpretation is infallible . . . the authoritative position of the Bible is in no sense impaired by this . . . there may be disagreement, but it is not longer a clash of free opinions . . . but rather a disagreement regarding the correct interpretation of an agreed norm. And that norm remains the Bible."[31]

D. Quadrilateral and Authority

The approach of the Wesleyan movement to biblical interpretation can be best treated by focusing on the so-called quadrilateral -- a term that refers to the four elements basic to theology: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

While Wesley himself never used the term quadrilateral, all four elements played a conscious role in his theological reflections.

This theological procedure did not originate with the Methodist movement. It was developed in Anglicanism over a period of time as the state church of England attempted to position itself relative to the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches.

So commitment to the quadrilateral "was less distinctive of Wesley than characteristic of him as one nourished in his Anglican context."[32]

As far as the Methodist movement is concerned, the term quadrilateral seems to be first referred to by Albert Outler in the late 1960s while he was serving on the commission on doctrine and doctrinal standards of the United Methodist Church.[33]

Ever since then the meaning and procedure of this term have been the focus of debate, earning it the characterization of a "modern Methodist myth."[34]

Basic to this debate is the role of scripture. Is it e pluribus unum or is it prima?

The geometric forms employed to depict the interdependence of these four sources have not clarified the relationship of the Bible to the other three. To quadrilateralize is to employ a box. But are the four sides equal? Richard Lovelace (a Presbyterian) suggests that the baseball diamond be used to show the relationship. "Home plate is scripture, first base is tradition, second base is reason, and third base is experience . . ."[35] But even this paradigm could easily be distorted.

Thorsen observes that if a geometric figure is employed, it should be a tetrahedron -- a tetrahedral pyramid. In such a design "scripture would serve as the foundation of the pyramid with the three sides labeled tradition, reason, and experience as complementary but not primary sources of religious authority."[36]

Perhaps the employment of the geometric should be discarded. These four elements should be treated historically and theologically rather than geometrically; as metaphoric rather than literal.

The interdependence of these four elements needs to be treated dynamically and organically. While avoiding equality of and homogenization of these elements, an articulated precise hierarchical relationship is not needed. An organic relationship may be found in an analogy of the human body -- scripture being the head -- but the head cannot be detached from the other parts of the body, all of which are needed for a healthy life.[37]

Efforts have been made to treat these four elements dialectically, granting each of the elements relative autonomy.[38] In response since such a dialectic relationship fosters confusion, a call for scrapping the quadrilateral has been issued, suggesting that the quadrilateral invites antipolarization of these four elements.[39]

But the misuse of the quadrilateral should not be an excuse to dismiss it. The relationship of these four elements needs to be seen dialogically, with scripture as the rule and authority in a way that should not be ascribed to the other components.[40]

The proper use of tradition, reason, and experience allows for a trilateral hermeneutic. Relating these three to scripture, allowing for conversation among them, will result in a greater understanding of scripture and in our hearing from scripture that which we previously may not have heard.

Time restraints preclude lengthy let alone adequate treatment of tradition, reason, and experience as they relate to the interpretation of scripture. Only the briefest characterization can be made of each of these complex elements.

As to tradition Wesley preferred that associated with the immediate post-apostolic period because this tradition was seen to be the purest.[41] But he also appealed to the tradition of the church of England, stressing the articles, homilies and prayer book.[42] Wesley saw Methodism as a revival of the apostolic faith expressed in the Bible.

Wesley considered human reasoning an essential part of the image of God. Even though the image of God was effaced by the fall it was not obliterated. "Reason is a [sic] unique gift from God, and God graciously continues to permit reason to function in significant ways even though sin reigns in the moral character of people."[43]

Wesley appealed to reason more than the other two elements of the trilateral hermeneutic. He was prone often to repeat "all reasonable people believe . . ."[44] As such reason was more a tool than a resource in his hermeneutic. But his appeal to reason was not without caution. He warned against false rationalism, emphasizing that reason has limits.

The appeal to experience is complex and ambiguous but most apparent. Thorsen maintains "He did not set out to be theologically innovative, but he was the first to incorporate explicitly into his theological worldview the experiential dimension of the Christian faith along with the conceptual.[45] Undoubtedly his pastoral nature contributed to such an emphasis. Cell notes that no one more than Wesley utilized and brought to bear experience on the interpretation of scripture.[46]

But experience -- both of a private experiential nature and of a public empirically observable nature[47] -- must never be used in a solitary manner. It must always be treated dialogically with scripture, tradition, and reason.

Biblical hermeneutics in the Wesleyan tradition must be approached by way of the quadrilateral. But in such an approach scripture must always be primary. The wisdom of tradition, the vitality of experience, and the logicalness of scripture are essential to an understanding of scripture. But they must remain open to the judgment and assessment of scripture.

After all of our efforts to interpret scripture Brueggemann offers some sound advice:

I propose as an interpretive rule that all of our interpretations need to be regarded, at the most, as having only tentative authority. This will enable us to make our best, most insistent claims, but then regularly relinquish our pet interpretations and, together with our partners in dispute, fall back in joy into the inherent apostolic claims that outdistance all of our too familiar and too partisan interpretations.[48]

It is the "inherent apostolic claims" that ultimately insist that the scripture be used in our preaching and pastoral ministry.

E. Worship and Authority

Andrew Young, a close associate of Dr. King's, is an ordained United Church of Christ minister. He once told a group that he was delighted when his eldest daughter had become active in her local church.

With each deepening level of her involvement he became more and more pleased. But one day she announced to her parents that she was going to join the ministry of Habitat for Humanity to build homes for the poor of Uganda. This was not too many years after the fall of Idi Amin, and Uganda was still a very violent country.

Andrew Young confessed, "I tried to talk her out of it. I mean, I wanted her to go to church, to find a nice Christian man to marry, to develop a relationship with God and settle down. But, believe me, I didn't have anything like this in mind. I didn't intend for her to go so far with it. I mean -- Uganda! But she said she felt called. What could I say?

So he warns: "Parents, keep this in mind when you bring your children to church. You may not be prepared for the consequences. It can be dangerous to have your children hangout in the temple because, if they do, someday they might just hear the voice of the Lord."[49]

As William Willimon puts it, a sign should be placed in the sanctuary, not

"Silence please, people at prayer," but rather

"Warning, God might speak."[50]

Anne Dillard agrees. She talks about our padded pews and carpeted sanctuaries. Everything is neat and orderly. She says instead of passing out bulletins perhaps we should pass out crash helmets. “Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews,” for the silent God might break that silence and thunder forth words which will radically transform our lives.[51]

Indeed he might and he does. We need to free his word from the pages of scripture, from pencils, from necklaces, from plaques, from towels/calendars, and allow that word to come alive.

We need to utter Samuel's prayer, "Speak Lord, for your servant is listening."[52]

---

[1] John G. Whittier, "The Bible," Christ and the Fine Arts, ed. by Cynthia Pearlmaus (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1938), 515.

[2] 2 Chronicles 34:30.

[3] Nehemiah 8:3.

[4] Zogby International Survey, November 16, 2001 in conjunction with LeMoyne College, Syracuse, NY.

[5] The Bible and The American People (Princeton: The Princeton Religion Research Center, 2001), 16-21.

[6] Richard Lederer, Anguished English (Charleston: Wyrick and Company, 1999), 7-8.

[7] Frederick Niedner, "Ground Zero," The Christian Century, 118:10 (April 18-25, 2001), 20.

[8] Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 62-64.

[9] The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan and Bruce M. Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 713.

[10] The Internet Jerusalem Post, August 12, 2001.

[11] Walter Brueggemann, "A Personal Reflection - Biblical Authority," The Christian Century, 118:1 (January 3-10, 2001), 14.

[12] John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967), 21.

[13] "Westminster Confession of Faith" Chapter I, Section II.

[14] The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church Paragraph 68, Section 3, Article V.

[15] The Discipline of the Wesleyan Church, Paragraph 5782. Even at the coronation ceremony of the British monarch the authority of the Bible is recognized. "Here is Wisdom; this is the royal Law; these are the lively oracles of God": these are the words used when the Bible, described as "the most valuable thing that this world affords," is presented to the British monarch in the course of the coronation ceremony. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ibid, 65.

[16] "Westminster Confession of Faith” Chapter I, Section IV.

[17] Revelation 1:3.

[18] Sandra M. Scheneiders, "The Church and Biblical Scholarship in Dialogue," The Circuit Rider, (September, 1994), 6.

[19] Clayton Libolt, "Only the Bible," The Reformed Journal (April 1979), 17.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid, 18. Donald Dayton, "The Use of Scripture in the Wesleyan Tradition," The Use of the Bible in Theology, ed. by Robert K. Johnston (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 127.

[23] Albert Outler notes: "The great Protestant watchwords of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura were also fundamental in Wesley's doctrine of authority. But early and late, he interpreted Solus to mean 'primarily' rather than 'solely' or 'exclusively.'" Albert C. Outler, ed., John Wesley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 28.

[24] For the primary source of homo unis libri see The Works of John Wesley (Bicentennial Edition( ed. by Albert C. Outler (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), III:504.

[25] Dayton, op cit., 129.

[26] Outler, op cit., I:107.

[27] Jones has taken one representative sample of Wesley's writings and notes that there are fifty quotations from secular sources. He lists these sources in order or frequency as follows: Milton, Charles Wesley, Virgil, Horace, Matthew Prior, Alexander Pope, Isaac Watts, Plato, Diogenes Laertius, George Herbert, Ovid, Quintillian, Thomas Otway, Cicero, Homer, Hadrian, James Thomson, Samuel Wesley, Samuel Wesley, Jr., Suetonius, Lucretius, L. Annaeus Florus, and John Dryden.

This sample can be found in: Scott J. Jones, John Wesley's Conception and Use of Scripture (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1995), 224-225. Sermons, exegetical works, and polemical writings distributed over Wesley's lifetime are included in this sample.

[28] The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A. ed by Thomas Jackson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), VIII:315. James R. Roy shows the breadth of Wesley's vast literary interests in "Wesley: Man of a Thousand Books and a Book." Religion in Life 8 (Winter 1939), 71-84.

[29] Walter Brueggemann, Á Personal Reflection - Biblical Authority," The Christian Century, 118:1 (January 3-10, 2001), 16.

[30] Bright, op cit., 47.

[31] Ibid, 30.

[32] W. Stephen Gunther, "Conclusion," Wesley and the Quadrilateral, ed. by W. Stephen Gunter, et al. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 131.

[33] Donald A.D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 21.

[34] See Ted Campbell, he 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral': The Story of a Modern Methodist Myth," in Thomas A. Langford, ed., Doctrine and Theology in The United Methodist Church (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1991), 154-161.

[35] Richard Lovelace, "Recovering Our Balance," Charisma (August 1987), 80.

[36] Thorsen, op cit., 71.

[37] Ibid. Here Thorsen suggests the Pauline use of the body as a description of the church with Christ as the head would serve as an analogy of the quadrilateral with Scripture as the head.

[38] John B. Cobb, Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 155-176.

[39] William J. Abraham, Waking form doctrinal Amnesia: The Healing of Doctrine in the United Methodist Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 56-65.

[40] Gunter, op cit., 142.

[41] Ted A. Campbell, "The Interpretive Role of Tradition," Wesley and the Quadrilateral, ed. by W. Stephen Gunter, et al. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 69.

[42] Ibid, 73. Wesley cited Anglican documents against the Anglican culture of his day. He believed that Methodism represented faithfully the best in Anglicanism.

[43] Thorsen, op cit., 170.

[44] Gunter, op cit., 134.

[45] Thorsen, op cit., 201.

[46] George C. Cell, The Rediscovery of John Wesley (New York: Henry Holt, 1935), 72-73.

[47] Thorsen, op cit., 203. The terms "empirical" and "experimental" are not directly used by Wesley but they do provide categories into which to put Wesley's use of experience.

[48] Brueggemann, op cit., 16.

[49] Martin B. Copenhauer, "It Can Be Dangerous," Pulpit Digest, Jan-Feb, 1995), 9.

[50] William Willimon, Quotation, Homiletics, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan-Feb, 2000).

[51] Annie Dillard, Teaching a Stone to Talk (New York: HarperCollins, 1999).

[52] I Samuel 3:9-10.