My thesis is that the Free Methodist Church should consider deemphasizing the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a means of determining theological truth, specifically through removal in the Pastors and Church Leaders Manual and its advocacy within the FMC History and Polity course. I understand the challenges that would be involved in doing so as the Quadrilateral has established itself within various aspects of the denomination and likewise has had a central place within Methodist theological spaces since it was first popularized and made official in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline in 1972. Nonetheless, I aim to demonstrate in what follows several truths that I hope collectively convince that the Quadrilateral should be phased out of usage:
- Overview of what the Quadrilateral is and recognizing its existing place within Free Methodism
- Several well-respected, traditional Wesleyan scholars concur that it is problematic
- It does not successfully capture the essence of John Wesley’s theological process
- Even if it did represent Wesley accurately, Wesley himself would likely agree that he shouldn’t be emulated in this regard
- What the Quadrilateral represents instead is the zeitgeist of Mainline Protestantism from the mid-20th Century, and as such, it is a distinctly United Methodist take on Wesleyanism that some have identified as complicit in the theological schism of that denomination
- It doesn’t truly work epistemologically, and it tries to oversimplify and clearly delineate a process that is not easy and defies clear-cut definitions
- The reality of how the Church determines theology is a collective and Spirit-infused enterprise, and we should encourage that corporate method instead of the implicitly-individualized method of the Quadrilateral
1. Overview of what the Quadrilateral is and recognizing its existing place within Free Methodism
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is summarized well in the Pastors and Church Leaders Manual: “This term, coined by Albert Outler in 1964, was an effort to describe a Methodist methodology for theological formulation. It built on the Anglican Trilateral formulation of Scripture, reason and tradition by adding ‘experience’ as the fourth source for developing our understanding of truth and how to apply that truth.”
To be fair, several Methodists had posited many aspects of what became the Quadrilateral before (though not necessarily attributing it to Wesley, interestingly): Colin Williams cited the same four as sources of theology just before Outler in 1960; Albert Knudson in the 1920s and 1930s; William Burt Pope in the 1870s; and Richard Watson also discussed them in the 1820s. Non-Methodists of the same era also came to an approximate same understanding of these sources, most notably Friedrich Schleiermacher in the 1820s.
But Albert Outler made the implicit explicit in Methodism in 1964. He was arguably the most influential Methodist theologian of the 20th Century and was widely considered a leading expert on the life and thought of John Wesley. He was central in the creation of the United Methodist Church in 1968 when the Evangelical United Brethren joined with the Methodist Church, and he was a leading figure in the ecumenical movement, which reached its peak in popularity at around the time of the UMC’s formation.
Outler created the phrase “Quadrilateral” as a way of trying to describe how Wesley came to his theological conclusions and thus as a means for Methodists to likewise do the same. Outler selected scripture, reason, tradition, and experience as the four “legs” of the Quadrilateral based on his understanding of Wesley’s writings and his perception of how Wesley thought, not from anything explicit that Wesley said. Insofar as Wesley remained a devoted Anglican his entire life, it’s more than fair to say Wesley was familiar with the use of scripture, reason, and tradition because (as noted in the quote above) that was and remains the Anglican Trilateral formulation (or Triad) for discerning theology, and adding experience to the mix certainly reflects the importance Wesley placed on spiritual or converting experience within the Christian life.
While the Quadrilateral is included in the UMC’s Book of Discipline, the same is not true of the FMC. Thus the Quadrilateral has no “official” position, per se, within the FMC, though it is alluded to in The Free Methodist Way, is taught within the FMC’s History and Polity course, and is included in the Pastors and Church Leaders Manual.
2. Several well-respected, traditional Wesleyan scholars concur that it is problematic
Despite its consistent usage in the UMC – and other Wesleyan traditions such as the FMC – from 1972 to the present, several prominent, traditional Wesleyan scholars have commented on its deficiencies, inadequacies, and even dangers. My arguments here are all derivative of theirs. They include in no particular order:
Ted A. Campbell, Albert C. Outler Professor of Wesley Studies at Southern Methodist University;
David F. Watson, President of Asbury Theological Seminary;
Kevin M. Watson, Director of Academic Growth and Formation at Asbury Theological Seminary;
William J. Abraham, former Albert C. Outler Professor of Wesley Studies at Southern Methodist University;
Albert C. Outler himself (he later regretted coining the phrase and its frequent misuses)
I’ll link to several of their primary sources at the end that are by far superior to my distillation here.
3. It does not successfully capture the essence of John Wesley’s theological process
Several scholars note that the Quadrilateral does not adequately reflect Wesley’s theological method.
Ted Campbell in The ‘Wesleyan Quadrilateral’: The Story of a Modern Methodist Myth – “…it is not appropriate to conclude…that there must have been a consistent, fourfold conception of religious authority in Wesley’s mind or thought. As in so many other areas, Wesley’s theology and practice developed over the years, sometimes with major shifts in theological emphasis…sometimes with relatively minor shifts in emphasis. One cannot infer a static (or simply consistent) fourfold conception on the basis of an emphasis in 1756 on three of the four elements, and an emphasis fifteen years later on two of those three with another added to them…The ‘myth’ is the continuing legitimation of the fourfold pattern by historically attributing it to John Wesley.”
David Watson in The Global Methodist Church and the Quadrilateral – “A significant problem with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is that Wesley never articulated it. It is not at all clear that it represents his approach to theological questions. In fact, Wesley seems to have relied upon different resources at different times, though his reliance on Scripture far outpaced his appeal to all other authorities. At times he would rely on one of these, or some combination of them, to the exclusion of others. Additionally, he drew upon resources such as natural law and testimony. In Methodism: Empire of the Spirit, David Hempton identifies Wesley’s ‘eclecticism’ as one of his preeminent characteristics as a theological thinker. He writes, ‘The attempt to boil Wesley’s theology down to a simple formula, such as the much-peddled quadrilateral of scripture, reason, tradition, and experience, spectacularly misses the point. A forensic appeal to geometrical precision, of all approaches to Wesley’s theology, is the one least likely to capture its essence’…To say that Wesley made use of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to resolve theological problems is a vast oversimplification and thus historically inaccurate.”
Dr. Howard Snyder in response to a piece I wrote in “Free Methodist Conversations,” Beyond the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? – “Most Wesley scholars today view the Quadrilateral (as Outler described it) as inadequate and not very useful. Billy Abraham’s critique of the Quadrilateral is fairly well known. Yet it is true, as Wisener says, that some Methodists today use the Quadrilateral to justify their own views, even if those views clash with Scripture.”
William Abraham in the piece referenced by Snyder above, The End of Wesleyan Theology – “Outler’s Wesley was an invented Wesley, a Wesley at once Catholic, Reformed, Evangelical, Enlightened, Ecumenical, non-dogmatic, pragmatic, pious, anti-confessional, relative to his place and time, pluralist in ecclesiology, and always open to the future…Outler’s attempt to salvage Wesley’s vision of Scripture by arguing that he offers us a unique theological method enshrined in the Quadrilateral is neither true to the historical Wesley nor will it work as a normative epistemological agenda. The shift from modernity to postmodernity may have taken the passion out of the issue, but the underlying epistemological issues remain as unresolved as before. They cannot be resolved by historical investigation; they are inescapably philosophical and normative in nature. The very idea of solving them by appeal to Wesley is a categorical mistake…Wesley has become a historical cipher for our diverse and competing contemporary commitments.”
4. Even if it did represent Wesley accurately, Wesley himself would likely agree that he shouldn’t be emulated in this regard
Put quite bluntly, Wesley wrote in a letter to Joseph Benson in 1750: “I do not ask anyone to adopt my opinion or my way of reasoning. Let every man enjoy his own liberty of thinking, provided his heart be right with God.”
In The Character of a Methodist, he wrote: “We are not distinguished from others by any opinions of our own; by any singularity of speech; or by any peculiar custom or usage…The distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort…but his heart is filled with love of God and neighbor.”
William Abraham summarizes the mistake of trying to turn Wesley into something he was not and never claimed for himself in The End of Wesleyan Theology – “John Wesley is not some norm of truth; nor is he a folk theologian waiting to be organized into a systematic theologian; nor is he merely our brother in the faith; nor is he a Doctor of the church; nor is he a prince of the church. He was and continues to be for many a spiritual Father in God. He was and is a minister of the gospel who has birthed us indirectly in the faith. He is a thinker and spiritual guide who has gone on to Glory and whose work, with all its shortsightedness and shortcomings, can still bring us to God and foster holiness of life and thought. In short, he belongs in the canon of spiritual Fathers and saints…The good news is that we are now free to stop pretending that Wesley is a great theologian (or even a theologian) and to receive him for what he is, an extraordinary evangelist, a great saint, and a remarkable spiritual Father in God.”
Alber Outler himself noted in The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – In John Wesley – “Wesley seems never to have toyed with the notion of a summa theologiae – not even a catechism…Wesley was clearly interested in coherent doctrinal norms but was equally clear in his aversion to having such norms defined too narrowly or in too juridical a form…He nowhere gave his people an actual paradigm for their theologizing.”
5. What the Quadrilateral represents instead is the zeitgeist of Mainline American Protestantism from the mid-20th Century, and as such, it is a distinctly United Methodist take on Wesleyanism that some have blamed as complicit in the theological schism of that denomination
As referenced in Item 1 above, those who developed similar notions of using scripture, tradition, reason, and experience as sources for theology (both Methodist and otherwise) were all products of the Enlightenment (as Wesley himself was), so it’s no surprise that these “legs” appeal to distinctly Enlightenment sensibilities and concerns. Outler’s explicit version of the Quadrilateral even more pointedly emerges within the ecumenical movement and the atmosphere surrounding the eventual merger of the Evangelical United Brethren and the Methodist Church to form the UMC.
As William Abraham spells out in The End of Wesleyan Theology – “As Outler’s work and legacy reveals, the recovery of Wesley was (and is) as much an ideological exercise as it was (and is) a work of intentionally objective, historical scholarship. The fastidious editorial efforts and brilliant essays of Outler functioned ideologically at three levels. First, they were a way to legitimize Methodism as a player on the world ecumenical stage. They served to make it clear that the heirs of Wesley could hold their own in the world of theological scholarship, even though their elder brothers and sisters in the faith were constantly tempted to dismiss them as talkative intellectual midgets poisoned by pietism. Second, they were a rallying cry to scattered sheep and wolves scurrying and prowling in and around the Methodist Episcopal fold. They provided a way to gather up the disorderly bands of Methodists that could agree about next to nothing other than that they had inherited a tradition initiated by John Wesley and that they ought somehow to hang together as freshly minted ecumenists. Third, they were a creative personal agenda. They constituted a new method in theology that would fix the doctrine of Scripture once and for all and breathe new life into a tradition long on theological smugness and apathy and short on intellectual virtue.”
David Watson in The Global Methodist Church and the Quadrilateral – “In the spirit of the age, the height of the ecumenical movement, it was an attempt to constitute a Christian denomination not on the basis of common beliefs, but on a theological method. While some United Methodists bucked at the idea of a church that lacked clear doctrinal teaching, for others this was a positive development, one they embraced as a defining characteristic of the denomination.”
But as a defining characteristic of the UMC, it is perhaps likewise partly to blame for the theological tragedy of the schism within the UMC.
As Kevin Watson notes (echoing Abraham) in Methodism Dividing, “Outler himself came to regret the ways the quadrilateral was misconstrued. When one puts Scripture and tradition in a list with reason and experience, reason and experience invariably trump Scripture and tradition.”
In Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” Watson writes, “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?”
As Dr. Steven Bruns, Free Methodist pastor and Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program at Asbury, replied in a comment to my post Beyond the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? – “The main issue with the Quadrilateral, though, is that it is…a method of how to arrive at a theological position. The proof of this is in the diverse theological positions within the UMC today on a variety of issues. The Quadrilateral, as a method, produces different results based upon the assumptions brought to it by the ones employing it to arrive at an answer. It can be a great tool to help people learn to think theologically, but it actually requires the one using it for that purpose to already have theological positions when they begin to use it. If people believe that Scripture fell out of heaven as-is and is inviolate in the way that they read it, that will determine the outcome of the use of the Quadrilateral. If people believe in the Vincentian Canon, that will determine the outcome of the Quadrilateral. If people believe that positions have to conform to the current scientific consensus of thought, that will determine the outcome of the Quadrilateral. If people believe that their experiences are God-given and God-blessed, that will determine the outcome of the Quadrilateral. Each of those is a theological position that informs Outler’s method.”
6. It doesn’t truly work epistemologically, and it tries to oversimplify and clearly delineate a process that is not easy and defies clear-cut definitions
William Abraham summarizes his overall critique of the Quadrilateral as taken from his book Waking From Doctrinal Amnesia like this in The End of Wesleyan Theology – “My objections to the Quadrilateral are manifold and bear repeating here. 1. It involves a serious misreading of Wesley’s complex and incomplete epistemology of theology. 2. It sets an impossible standard, in that nobody can seriously execute the tasks involved. Only God could use the Quadrilateral, and presumably God does not need it. 3. It provides for quick and easy proofs of critical Christian doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is easily proved, for example, given its secure place in the tradition of the Church. If it is contained in tradition, then it is contained in a combination of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. 4. It treats Scripture and tradition as epistemic concepts on a par with reason and experience, an obvious category mistake. 5. When push comes to shove, as it inevitably will, reason and experience will be privileged over Scripture and tradition because the former are logically prior to the latter. 6. Epistemologically, it is severely underdeveloped, assuming that we know what to make of reason and experience. 7. It omits the critical concept of special revelation from any serious place in the epistemology of theology. 8. Given that the primary warrant for the Quadrilateral is that it is constitutive of Wesley historically, what we really have on offer is a cult of John Wesley disguised as a scholarly project. 9. My relentless opposition to the Quadrilateral is fueled not by my fighting Irish temperament but by my sense of shame that Wesleyan theologians have been so smug in the arena of epistemology and so ignorant of the revolutionary work done in the field over the last forty years. Using (and abusing) the Quadrilateral has become an excuse for various intellectual vices that Wesley would have excoriated.”
7. The reality of how the Church determines theology is a collective and Spirit-infused enterprise, and we should encourage that corporate method instead of the implicitly-individualized method of the Quadrilateral
As David Watson notes in The Global Methodist Church and the Quadrilateral – “I believe it was a mistake for the UMC to canonize a theological method, in part because theological answers are not the kinds of things we work out on an assembly line.”
Thus far, the GMC has avoided any reference to the Quadrilateral in its Book of Doctrines and Discipline. No method of theological reasoning is alluded to at all, and instead the emphasis is on doctrine itself as established primarily by scripture. I commend the same for the Pastors and Church Leaders Manual and wherever else the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is utilized in the Free Methodist Church.
The ultimate reason for doing so aside from all the reasoning discussed thus far is the lone definitive process of theological reasoning that is described within the New Testament itself, which (because it comes from scripture) ought to be the final arbiter as model for how the Church should make theological decisions.
This comes from the rather remarkable and relatively underdiscussed section of Acts 10–15, in which the very first Gentiles are converted through receipt of the Holy Spirit and the Council in Jerusalem quite stunningly breaks with a literal scriptural (Old Testament) precedent and determines that Gentiles will not, in fact, have to effectively become Jews according to scriptural requirements to join the church. To overly generalize, the process the Council uses in Acts 15 is a reinterpretation of scripture in light of their collective perceived understanding of the actions of the Holy Spirit – which is not at all the same process as described by the Quadrilateral.
This also matches William Abraham and David Watson’s critiques that the Quadrilateral leaves no room for revelation, and it’s revelation as an incredibly broad category with which scripture would fall under (it being a very special example of written divine revelation) as well as the collective interpretation by the Church of how the Holy Spirit is moving as demonstrated within Acts 10–15.
Acts 10 describes the conversion of Cornelius’ household after Peter received a vision from the Holy Spirit to go minister to them. Catholic theologian Luke Timothy Johnson spells out some of the fuller implications of the events that follow through 11–15 in his book Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church.
In 11:1-3 (NRSV) – “Now the apostles and the brothers and sisters who were in Judea heard that the gentiles had also accepted the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?’”
Johnson explains, “Just because Gentiles have ‘received the word of God’ (which is acknowledged in 11:1), it does not necessarily follow that they should have full communion with Jewish believers, or be considered as members of God’s people in the fullest sense. The problem is a real one. For a Jew to eat without attending to ritual purity meant to lose his or her Jewish identity…His opponents imply that Peter has, by eating with Gentiles, himself gone against his identity as one of God’s people, and has, furthermore, jeopardized the identity of the community.”
Johnson notes one key in Peter’s defense, coming in verses 15-17 where Peter says, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” Johnson says, “What Jesus said to Jews is seen to apply to Gentiles as well. The words of Jesus are given new import because of the continuing work of the Spirit. The experience of God’s activity in the present acts as a key for the interpretation of the Scripture, and now, we see, for the sayings of Jesus as well.”
Looking as a whole at the concluding section from 15:1-29 –
“Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the gentiles and brought great joy to all the brothers and sisters. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.’
“The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us, and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’
“The whole assembly kept silence and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—even all the gentiles over whom my name has been called. Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things known from long ago.’
“’Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every Sabbath in the synagogues.’
“Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among them and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter: ‘The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers and sisters of gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose men and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’”
Commenting on how James uses a quotation from Amos 9:11-12, Johnson writes, “Peter’s story is the key to understanding the Scripture. James’ way of introducing the citation is at first puzzling, then illuminating. He does not say, ‘This agrees with the prophets,’ but says, ‘The words of the prophets agree with this,’ and the reference is to the story Peter has just told: how God was at work in these events…What is remarkable, however, is that the text is confirmed by the narrative, not the narrative by the Scripture. As Peter had come to a new understanding of Jesus’ words because of the gift of the Spirit, so here the Old Testament is illuminated and interpreted by the narrative of God’s activity in the present. On the basis of the narrative and of the Scripture, therefore, James decides for God rather than for precedent.”
Johnson concludes: “The decision reached by the church has resulted from the discernment of the Spirit. This church is able to agree with Peter that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit ‘just like us,’ because it was a church open to the work of that Spirit and able to recognize it in the narrations of others…The church, in short, is able to discern what God is doing because it is silent and listens to the story of what God is doing in others. Without these narratives, the church cannot discern, and therefore it cannot decide in a theologically responsible way…The words of Jesus and Scripture are normative for the believers, but in a way that allows new and deeper understanding of them. Throughout these accounts, the experience of God’s activity stimulates the church to reread the Scripture and to discover ever new ways in which God maintains continuity with Godself.”
The point, therefore, is that the precedent within scripture itself for how the church should go about the process of making theological decisions is not, in fact, the process that is described by the Quadrilateral. That reality by itself – let alone the several other reasons previously mentioned – should conclusively close the debate on whether the Quadrilateral should be utilized by the Free Methodist Church.
Select Referenced Readings
Abraham, William. The End of Wesleyan Theology.
Campbell, Ted A. The ‘Wesleyan Quadrilateral’: The Story of a Modern Methodist Myth.
Outler, Albert C. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – In John Wesley.
Watson, David F. The Global Methodist Church and the Quadrilateral.
Watson, Kevin M. Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”.
Wisener, David S. Beyond the Wesleyan Quadrilateral?
David S. Wisener 