"Biblical Hermeneutics in the Wesleyan Tradition"

Dr. Carl Schultz

My assignment is a difficult one.

Now with these caveats in mind, allow me to approach the topic first of all negatively, positioning the Wesleyan movement relative to Fundamentalism and the Reformation.

Fundamentalism

   Fundamentalism is a twentieth century theological movement among conservative Protestants in the U.S.A. with a strong emphasis on the inspiration and the authority of the Bible.  The Bible is to be read literally.  It is inerrant, totally free from any error whatsoever whether historical, theological, or scientific.[ii]           

   Contrary to popular perception, the Northeast of the U.S.A. was the area of origin, impacting northern Presbyterians and Baptists.  In time it shifted southward, influencing the Southern Baptists and giving rise to independent Bible churches.[iii]           

   Note the general absence of the Wesleyan movement here.            

   As time went on, with a few exceptions, fundamentalists embraced dispensationalism, popularized by the Scofield Bible with its strong emphasis on future fulfillment of biblical prophecy.[iv]           

   The Wesleyan denomination drifted/was drawn into this movement.  Dr. Stephen Paine, then President of Houghton College, was a leading participant in the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals.  This organization was a coalition between post fundamentalists and neo evangelicals.  While more moderate than Fundamentalism it retained the emphasis on the inerrancy of scripture.[v]           

   Observe, I said The Wesleyan Church drifted/was drawn into such a movement.  The historic roots of the Wesleyan movement are not in the traditions that gave rise to Fundamentalism.[vi]           

   Most critical, obviously, to my paper is the attitude toward the Bible, held by fundamentalists.  It can be characterized as biblicism or bibliolatry -- a view that is excessive and extravagant relative to the Bible, at times almost bordering on the worship of the Bible.           

   Such a treatment of the Bible has not generally been true of the Wesleyan movement, where the Bible is viewed as the Word of God but it is not to be unduly elevated.  The human nature of the inscripturation as with the human nature of the incarnation is not to be ignored or minimized.  The Bible may and should be approached with the tools of modern critical scholarship.[vii]

Reformation

            Here my concern is understandably limited to the Bible and its use by way of the Reformation.

            The famous Reformation phrase relative to the Bible was Sola Scriptura.  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 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.[viii]

            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.[ix]

            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.[x]

            In times and places of disagreement the reformers discovered they could no longer appeal to scripture alone.  When controversy arose an authoritative book could not replace an authoritative church.  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.[xi]

            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 the influence of a public reading of Luther's preface to the commentary on the epistle to the Romans, but when he got around to reading the commentary he found Luther blasphemous in his treatment of law, works, and reason.  Wesley 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.[xii]

            Further while Wesley, in the frequently quoted phrase, homo unius libri[xiii], "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."[xiv]

            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![xv]

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

            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.[xvii]

Quadrilateral

            The approach of the Wesleyan movement to theology 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."[xviii]

            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.[xix]

            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."[xx]

            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 . . ."[xxi]  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.[xxii]

            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.[xxiii]

            Efforts have been made to treat these four elements dialectically, granting each of the elements relative autonomy.[xxiv]  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.[xxv]

            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.[xxvi]

            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.[xxvii]  But he also appealed to the tradition of the church of England, stressing the articles, homilies and prayer book.[xxviii]  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."[xxix]

            Wesley appealed to reason more than the other two elements of the trilateral hermeneutic.  He was prone often to repeat "all reasonable people believe . . ."[xxx]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.[xxxi]  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.[xxxii]

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

Conclusion

            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.