To the layperson, reference to John Wesley conjures up the image of an itinerant evangelist whose labors resulted in the founding of a great Methodist movement. To the adherents of the "holiness movement" the focus shifts to the great teacher of Christian perfectionism and the doctrines associated with entire sanctification. The serious theologian adds to that a third label. Moving beyond the biographical and theological significance, they find particular interest in the hermeneutical method of this Oxford scholar—turned Kingdom builder. Beyond his contributions of ecclesiastical organization and doctrinal refinement, Wesley offers us in his "quadrilateral" an approach to resolving the myriad of competing claims to truth and authority in a pluralistic and post-modern age.

The term "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" is a misnomer. It was neither originated by Wesley nor is it best understood by reference to that geometric figure. Scholars who study the origins of authority in Christianity can find traces of the four elements included in the quadrilateral—Scripture, reason, tradition and experience in the writings of the ancient fathers. Appeals to scripture occur in the Apostolic fathers, in fact within the New Testament canon itself. The early apologists were already laying out the rational defense for Christianity against pagan critics. The early church fought off the constant threats of heresy by appealing to the tradition of the apostles and their successors. And, while the Latin fathers re-shaped the gospel into increasing moralistic and legalistic constraints, the eastern church relished in the "life of God in the soul" as experienced through mystical union with the divine. The roots of the quadrilateral are imbedded deep in the soil of the church centuries before Wesley ever draws attention to them in his writings.

Scholars have further noted that the term "quadrilateral" does not originate with Wesley, but with his later interpreters. In fact, Donald Thorsen, the current expert on the concept, notes that there is no single reference where Wesley lists these four sources of authority in their standard sequence and identifies them as his methodological rubric. Perhaps he comes the closest in titling one of his treatises—The Doctrine of Original Sin according to Scripture, Reason and Experience. In a preface to his third edition of his sermons, Wesley proposes that these most recent works are "agreeable, I hope, to Scripture, reason and Christian antiquity [tradition]." That he used all four of these sources—and no doubt others—in most of his apologetic works in unquestioned. However, it remains worth noting that Wesley would probably be surprised—and we hope pleasantly so—that his name was now attached to one of the great slogans of Protestant theology.

If there is some question concerning how uniquely "Wesleyan" is Wesley’s quadrilateral, there is also some debate as to whether it apropos to use the image of a four-side figure to represent Wesley’s view. Most criticism of this view centers around Wesleyan strong commitment to the Protestant cry of sola Scriptura—Scripture alone. Some scholars are willing to retain the four legs of the quadrilateral so long as Scripture is given ascendancy. Others prefer a baseball diamond with the Bible as home plate—both beginning and ending point of the methodological run around the bases. Our own Dr. Lennox abandons the standard images to describe Scripture as the gold, refined in the fires of reason, tradition and experience.

This primacy to scripture is well-considered. One can easily see that priority given to any other source of authority easily drifts from authentic Christianity. But it is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate we do not solve all the questions of hermeneutics and religious authority by merely appealing to scriptures. The genius (allowing us to use that term) of the quadrilateral is that each of the four dimensions serve to refine (as Lennox suggests) and restrain (as I propose) the others.

The dichotomy between the objective and subjective polarities of the quadrilateral is obvious and has been explored by several writers. Scripture, the written Word of God offers the most indisputable source of authority. Its primacy is not only its divine origin but also its propositional nature. Most theological students can recall waxing eloquent on their religious opinions only to be chastened by a professor’s inquiry "But what does the Bible say?"

At the opposite extreme is the compelling but highly subjective appeal of experience, whether the mystical inner voice of conscience or divine bidding or Wesley’s more empirical notion of experience as the verification of personal insight in the laboratory of life experience. (I have made a strong case elsewhere that Wesley’s concept of experience is much more empirical and rational than existential—what he termed "experimental religion."

Whichever way one wishes to define "experience" it provides an inner witness, which can be totally convincing to the individual even when it lacks any ability to convince or compel others.

Does a similar disparity exist between the other two sources of authority -- reason and tradition? I suggest that these two sources of authority represent a collective counterpart that parallels the polarity of scripture and experience. Reason connotes a common sense -- a pattern of thinking and communicating that is governed by the conventions of a group. In its formal and technical sense it entails the rules of formal and informal logic, combined with empirical observation and analysis. This corporate pattern of thinking gives a certain objectivity to truth. Comments like "obviously," "but, of course," and even the more colloquial term "a no-brainer" suggests that we can appeal to an objective standard of truth and falsehood, right and wrong when looking for warrants for our beliefs and actions.

If reason provides a collective or corporate objectivity to our belief system, tradition provides a dimension of corporate subjectivity. The very label "tradition" suggests that there is more of "group opinion" than "group fact" in the methodology. When Tevje, the all-wise patriarch in "Fiddler on the Roof" is asked to give some rationale for the strange practices of his Jewish community, solid argumentation gives way to a shrug of the shoulders and the appeal to "tradition." This is not to suggest that tradition, particularly religious tradition is merely capricious preferences of some body. The core of tradition is the "collected wisdom" of numerous individuals over an extended period of time. But nonetheless, it lacks the hard substance of either Scriptural or logical proof.

Thus we can divide the Wesleyan quadrilateral into four quadrants formed by the intersection of an objective/subjective axis intersected by an individual/corporate axis.

The four quadrants are identified as follows:

Objective individual--- Scripture Objective corporate--- Reason Subjective individual --- Experience Subjective corporate --- Tradition

We might explore the positive contribution that each dimension brings to the theological method. Instead, let us examine some of the potential weaknesses of each quadrant and point out how the other sources of authority counter and correct that flaw.

We begin with experience, the individual and internal assessment of truth claims. For all the power of inner convictions, their weakness is precisely that -- they are only "truth for me." Any endeavor to assert that one's religious experiences or inner directives from God should be universalized and imposed upon others can, and often should, be challenged by submitting it to the three-fold questions of "Is it Biblical?" "Is it reasonable?" and "Is it consistent with the norm of the community of believers from whence it originates?" Despite the intensity and passion of one's spiritual experience, there is often little to commend such experiences to the broader scope of Christianity.

Reason, it would seem would be the better alternative. Here one has the more generalized appeal of logic, scientific fact and common sense. But the anthropological foundations of reason, grounded as it is in naturalism and empiricism, often leads to a suspicion or outright denial of the supernatural elements of the Christian faith. Matthew Toland's book Christianity within the Limits of Reason Alone, became the "bible" of the deists and rationalists shortly after its publication. The seemingly airtight validity of the claim to reasonableness only serves to deny the reality of miracles and the supernatural working of God in the lives of individuals and the church.

The antidote for such a cold objectification of truth is the "strangely warmed heart" of personal experience wedded with a deep submission to the Word of God both written in the Bible and incarnate in the history of the Church. The "faith once delivered" and then entrusted to faithful witnesses for two thousand years keeps the secularizing tendencies of an overly-reasoned faith in check.

Any student of the Protestant Reformation can explain easily the dangers of the appeal to church tradition when it is carried to extremes. Whether it be catholic dogma or evangelical pragmatism, the elevating of human opinions and practices to the level of divine mandate is a dangerous practice. Here the will of the majority whether determined by vote of a general council or a general conference must be challenged by an Athanasius against the world or an Orange Scott against the system. These individualized appeals to Biblical command and theological soundness are often unpopular and occasionally radical in nature.

Nonetheless, the purifying of the church has often come from these lonely prophets in the wilderness challenging the popularism and pragmatism of the masses.

To this point, we can feel rather comfortable in pointing out the inherent weakness in depending too heavily upon experience, reason or tradition for building one's system of beliefs and practices. But dare we touch the high altar of Scripture as well. Does the high view of the Bible held by Wesley and Protestants in general cause us to pause before suggesting that there are inherent dangers in this source of authority as well? I think not.

Too often we have seen the abuse of a facile appeal to the Bible as the warrant for heretical views and immoral behavior. While giving Scripture its due regard as "first among equals" in the quadrilateral, we must recognize the potential harm that can by embracing this dimension at the denigration of the other three.

Looking again at our schematic, we see that Scripture falls into the objective/individual quadrant. The clout of Scriptural authority is its very objectivity; it is the truth of God communicated in jots and tittles. But in the post-reformation era there has been a tendency to allow private interpretation of Scripture to suppress the validity of the more reasoned consensus fide (consensus of the faithful). Paul Tillich identifies this trend as the "Protestant Principle." He contends that the very appeal to "scripture and conscience" of Luther and other reformers leads to a fractionalizing of the church. Repeatedly some individual or group breaks away from the parent body for reasons of deep conviction, based upon their interpretation of what the scriptures say or mean. These protesters soon create a following that evolves into another denomination--the seed plot for even further break-away movements, all in the name of scriptural purity and deep personal conviction. Tillich yearns for some the benefits of catholicity, where the church once again finds a common ground and lives "according to the whole."

This tendency to fragmentation in the Protestant hermeneutic of Scripture and conscience has been held in check for five hundred years by the basic assumptions of the modern age, namely the validity of human reason and the value of democratic consensus-building. But now we are told that the modern era is fading, soon (if not already) to be replaced by a new post-modern mindset, in which reason and community are less valued.

Now personal experience, religious or otherwise, is a defining factor and the meaning of texts can no longer be established by canons of reason or religious tradition. In such an age, the Scriptures, which had previously served to correct and temper religious enthusiasm, will now become the validation of privatized opinions. One might well center his/her faith upon the feelings and impressions of the moment and seek warrants for the validity of such experience by a non-rational, non-traditional and extremely subjective interpretation of Scripture. Now believers might not only "do what is right in their own eyes" but claim Biblical support for what they do by a de-constructed appeal to the Bible!

Hence, the importance of understanding and using the Wesleyan quadrilateral in our formulations of faith and practice in the Church. It is not simply a matter of confirming what we do by appealing to one or another of these sources. It is not enough to claim three-out-of-four makes it right. It is not even enough to score up "points" for each category and assume that sufficient weight makes right in our hermeneutics. Rather it is recognition of the corrective interplay of these counter-balancing forces in moving toward truth. Scripture must be both the source and the corrective of our doctrinal formulations. Reason can assist us in adding extra-biblical components to our beliefs and in "rightly handling the word of truth" in our Biblical studies. Tradition can enrich our heritage by infusing cultural and historical elements to our faith, while reminding us of the wisdom of those who have already addressed the problems of the church from a Biblical perspective.

Finally, experience adds the personalized touch -- what Calvin described as the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" to enlighten the written word and what Wesley encountered as a heart strangely warmed by the very presence of God in the life.

Dr. Bud Bence

Martinmas, 1999

Return to Home Page