I come from a Methodist tradition that looks to John Wesley as its founder. Wesley utilized a famous quadrilateral to talk about how we do theology. The four elements were Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.
I love the quad! I am a proud descendant of Wesley and I still find it quite helpful to utilize the same quad. Here is why I find each element so valuable.
Scripture: No matter how fancy we want to get with our theology (I am looking at you Tillich) or whatever else we want to do (Griffin), it must account for the scriptural witness . I am not saying that we must always begin with scripture (like neo-Orthodox or Open folks) nor am I saying that we must only do scripture – but any 21st century theology must account for it. The Gutenberg and Missionary eras have reinforced a global importance and influence that must be acknowledged for any theology to carry weight. There is just no sense in having a theology that is not thoroughly scriptural if you want it to count widely.
Tradition: I grew up evangelical and developed a disdain for tradition. It was a bad word to me – like religion. It meant thoughtless, empty ritual done on autopilot in rote repetition. I see things a little differently now. Back then, I actually thought that we were free to do whatever we wanted as long as it was meaningful and effective for accomplishing the goal – which was to bring people into a deeper relationship with the living God. Now, I understand that we are all socially conditioned into elaborate human constructions. These constructs (like language or religion) are part and parcel of both the communal/social order and the religious tradition. Tradition and community must be recognized and honored since all theology is contextual theology.
Reason: I loved quoting Colossians 2:8 when I was an evangelist and someone would ask me a better question than I had an answer to
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ.
It was the deceptive word play that depended on human thinking that was so dangerous to my Josh McDowell faith. I had evidence that demanded a verdict and you had tricky mental gymnastics and endless questions. I had never heard of Neoplatonism and why did I need to? I had Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews! … Which is to say that I had never encountered the philosophical underpinnings of the New Testament writers nor of my Protestant declarations of faith.
Experience: I know that part of my fascination comes my charistmatic-evangelical roots. I know that part of it is my American protestant upbringing and that it is reinforced by my personality. But I find it on the pages of the New Testament, and I am simply uninterested a religion that is all in the head and not in the heart. I want a full body religious experience. Nice words are fine (and OH how I love nice words) but we have to walk the walk (as they say) and not just talk the talk. Theology must be validated by the community’s experience.
I always attempt to frame things in the positive. In this case, I will also attempt to reinforce the need for all four by allowing myself to state them in the negative as well.
Scripture: I am not interested in a Christianity that does not engage scripture or does not seek to be faithful to those initial witnesses. We can update, renovate, adapt, evolve and reinterpret … but we must always interact with scripture. It is scripture that we update and reinterpret.
Tradition: Let me say first that I loath tradition for tradition’s sake. It makes be somewhere between vomitous and irate – which is not pretty. But in our global context you can’t just ‘do theology’ as if it were in a vacuum or you were starting from scratch. We are not starting with a blank slate! I did not write the Bible, I am not the first to read the Bible – it was handed to me, was given to me and it is that ‘givenness’ that must be absorbed.
Reason: who wants a faith the un-reasonable? Not me. Plenty of other people do. In fact, this is really in vogue right now. Lots of conservative folks are retreating into their orthodoxy silo and playing their own isolated word games. That is a theological dead-end for the faith. It is a desperate remnant of Christendom monopoly and wholly counter to the very impetuous of the gospel they so proudly claim to defend.
Experience: I am as uninterested in a theology that is not experienced as I am in a faith that is unreasonable.
I have been reading a lot of theology lately in preparation for the 2012 Theological Conversation. Much of it has been philosophical 20th century theology, some of it has been early century and reformation era. At the end of the day, I keep coming back to the Wesleyan quadrilateral as a framework that works for the inter-active, cross-cultural, multi-voiced engagement of the 21st century.
What’s tough about the quad (which i also find extremely useful and for which i maintain a great deal of affection!) is that it’s rare that all 4 are agree perfectly on any given circumstance or question.
So we usually end up privileging one or two pieces at the expense of the others on any given subject (I’m convinced the privileging typically derives from personality and background).
So in an arguing community (like the Wesleyan institution where i teach), people will often try to trump one another by appealing to a different leg of the quadrilateral (“Oh, I see you say that because of your experience, but SCRIPTURE contradicts it and we know scripture is really most important.” or “You are quoting the Bible, but real-life EXPERIENCE leads us in another direction which is the right direction!”) etc.
The solution would seem to be to hold all 4 in dynamic and unresolved tension. Which is a lot harder to do than appealing to a preferred narrow authority. Oh, John Wesley, how you vex us with your complexity and empathy! :- )
That is an EXCELLENT caution! Confession: I would rather be in a conversation where all 4 were present but 1 was privileged than to be in conversation where one (or more) was missing.
-Bo
Bo, thanks for such a helpful summary of the Quad. I really do appreciate that form helps us acknowledge the role things other than scripture in our thinking about our faith.
I have to admit, having been in seminary with students who over prioritized Reason as a source for theology I grew to dislike the Quad. Finally I had to work out why I think it was a flawed form.
Two things emerged for me. 1) was the clear absence of the Holy Spirit within the process of theological reflection. I come from a Pietist tradition, so the Spirit is a key part of the believer’s understanding. 2) My seminary friends helped me realize that some times God acts beyond our reason- or as Paul says, the wisdom of God is foolishness to us.
In my thesis, I developed this much further, but I ended up with a triangle of Scripture, Tradition, and Experience as true sources from which we draw ideas and concepts. I shifted Reason and the Holy Spirit to movements between the three sources. So basically, reason and the guidance of the Spirit help us correlate and interpret the sources.
Josh
Yes, and…any space in that final 4 between your ears… For those for whom contextual clarity doesn’t move the needle?
J said if you love me, feed my sheep. Right?
Paraphrasing H. Kung What use being a Christian for those who struggle with even being in the world?
So, let’s say you finally got it all laid out straight -your context- then what, wait around for that sweet bye-and-bye at boot hill? Just where is that sweet bye and bye located, some where up in the heavens? Right?
@ Josh I have been in that same place. I really get what you are saying! Here is the thing … I just don’t know about cutting out reason. I am all about the Holy Spirit’s work. I am from a holiness background. I just think that in the 21st century the pietistic formulation of centuries past is not going to be sufficient. Sure, some people overdo it – but we have to account for reason.
@ Steve I am not trying to be funny, I honestly don’t know what you are saying. Help me with the A) the context thing B) the heaven thing C) the between my ears thing. ya lost me …
-Bo
Thanks Tripp, and just clarify I am not arguing for leaving Reason out of the equation. Rather, I am saying that is a tool, a means for navigating the sources. As has been observed already, the temptation with this kind of model is the prioritization of one source above the others. Shifting reason to this hermeneutical movement is also a step to avoid the battle between Reason and Scripture, or Reason and Tradition that is plaguing Modern Christianity. Our Experiences and Scripture are conflicting enough as it is, so to add a debate with Reason seems a helpful way. out.
Also, I am trying to leave a role for thought by making explicit how we navigate the sources. That is to say that Reason is essentially a verb- it is the action we bring to the body of material in the other sources. In a way, this helps make clear that it is a person or community that does theological reflection, not just some given synthesis that emerges.
@joshua Just to clarify….Bo wrote this post BUT i do like the idea of ‘reason’ being seen as a verb. word up!
My bad! Sorry Bo= hadn’t had the full cup of coffee before I wrote that!
Bo,
I have read through this post 4 times now! I continue to read it because it has been like turning on the light bulb, it’s beginning to finally shine on what your understanding of “Process Theology” is about.
I continue to read all the posts with great curiosity, the more I read them the more they make sense to me. I’ve always been more drawn to the “New Testament” and what Jesus & the apostles were trying to get across to the people. Reading and understanding “Process Tehology” is helping me understand his mission to earth and the mission of the writers of the New Testament.
I will continue to read with great facination and a new understanding!
Thanks so much,
Jeff