But that doesn’t mean unimportant! In this post I’d like to introduce the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to those who haven’t heard of it. And while the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is well known to theologians and pastors, it is a helpful framework that should be more widely known outside theological and biblical studies circles.
The reason I want to introduce the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is because it can help describe and set up the tensions I was discussing in the last post.
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral was first described by Albert Outler in his study of John Wesley (1703–1791), the famous theologian and evangelist. Wesley endorsed prima scriptura (“Scripture first”) in reaching theological conclusions. This is a bit different from sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”). “Scripture first” argues that, while the Bible should be given pride of place, there are other considerations when formulating doctrine. If so, what are these other considerations, voices, and data that supplement our reading of the Bible? Outler argued that when you look at the work of Wesley, he drew his conclusions from four sources, what Outler called “the Wesleyan Quadrilateral”:
- Scripture: the Bible.
- Tradition: the historic creeds and teachings of the Church.
- Reason: human rationality and logical reflection.
- Experience: reflections upon the human condition and flourishing.
Let’s walk through these and bring the Wesleyan Quadrilateral into conversation with what I described in the last post.
First, the Bible. This should be obvious. Scripture sits at the heart of what theologians call “special revelation.” As Thomas Aquinas argued at the start of the Summa, there are things about God we would never know if it weren’t for God revealing himself to us.
Second, tradition. All that said, the Bible is hardly clear in places. The church had great battles in order to reach an authoritative consensus on matters of doctrine. Most Christian denominations look to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds as definitive descriptions of orthodoxy. Beyond Trinitarian dogma, Christians also look to well-established and traditional teachings across a range of issues, from worship to morality.
Third, reason. As we reflect upon the life of faith, we naturally seek harmony and rational consistency. We draw reasonable, justifiable conclusions.
Lastly, human experience. This is a subspecies of what theologians call “general revelation.” General revelation concerns truths that are universally available to the reflective human mind, regardless of faith commitment. For example, as I describe in The Shape of Joy, positive psychology, as an empirical science, can investigate the causes and correlates of human flourishing. Consequently, we can examine how religious beliefs relate to human experience. We witness how some religious beliefs cause harm, abuse, damage, hate, extremism, and violence. We can also observe how some religious beliefs produce joy, peace, health, and love.
So, these are the four sources of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Scripture was the primary authority for Wesley, but his theological conclusions examined all four sources. And like Wesley, in the push and pull of these voices we are guided in our reflections and toward theological conclusions.
Okay, so how does the Wesleyan Quadrilateral relate to my reflections in the last post and my agenda for this series?
Let’s step away from Wesley and prima scriptura and let the sources stand on their own in a value-neutral framework. Once we do that, some obvious questions arise. For example, when Tradition and Reason come into conflict, which should be privileged? Or when Scripture and Experience come into conflict, which should be privileged?
This is a very crude reduction, but broadly speaking, those who would describe themselves as conservative, traditional, or orthodox privilege Scripture and Tradition over Experience. Not that there aren’t Quadrilateral tensions within this group, with Protestants privileging Scripture over Tradition in contrast to Catholics and the Orthodox. Regardless, all these groups tend to rank Experience lower in their theological considerations.
Progressive and liberal theologians, by contrast, tend to privilege, or give greater credence to, Experience in relation to Scripture and Tradition. For example, when progressives see a location of human virtue and flourishing that doesn’t jibe with plain-sense readings of the Bible or the traditional teachings of the church, they will adjust their hermeneutics so as to make their readings of Scripture congruent with human experience.
Mapping all this onto the “Barth” and “Schleiermacher” contrast from the last post: By “Barthian” I mean theological positions that privilege Scripture and Tradition over human Experience. That is to say, in these perspectives, if human experience contradicts Scripture and Tradition, then human experience is wrong and has to change. Conversely, “Schleiermacherian” theological positions privilege, or at least elevate, human Experience over Scripture and Tradition. That is to say, when we observe locations of human flourishing that contradict plain-sense readings of the Bible or traditional Christian teaching, these readings and teachings should change. Relatedly, when we see plain-sense readings or traditional Christian teachings causing harm or undermining human flourishing, these readings and teachings should also change.
Stepping back, then, one way to describe the topic of this series is to view it from within the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
Specifically, how are we to balance Scripture and Tradition over against human Experience?
