A Fractured Quadrilateral
In the previous piece, I wrote about the four identified sources of authority within the history of the Church of Christian faith. Experience, Tradition, Scripture, and Reason have all risen to be the primary source of authority for a faith community. In some cases, the rise of a new form of primary authority has created a conflict between faith communities. There have been obvious splits within the history of the Church over these points of difference.
I also alluded to John Wesley and the integration of all four sources into his work in the area of theology. The United Methodist Church took what John Wesley did and have found a unique identifying theological framework. In the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, our polity and doctrinal guide, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is described. It has become a reference point over the last 40 years that United Methodists could point to as something that we shared in common. Recent events lead me to believe that the common identification around the Quadrilateral is no longer feasible.
Many denominations within the American Protestant portion of Christianity have been struggling to find their way in the 21st Century. The greatest issue of struggle at the time of this writing is changing status regarding homosexuality and the broadening of gender or sexuality beyond binary norms of male and female. The American secular culture has been more embracing of homosexuality as a normative lifestyle. Sensitivity to non-binary gender or sexuality is increasing if still accompanied by confusion and ignorance. The American Church, though, is generally lagging behind the secular culture. The United Methodist Church is among that group.
There are reasons for this grounded in a Tradition, which in turn is based upon a particular application of Scripture, that has rejected homosexuality as a legitimate expression of God’s intended purpose for human sexuality. The Tradition of this has been grounded in passages of Scripture in the Old and New Testaments. The interpretation of those verses is defended with great passion as clear prohibitions from the Bible against homosexual choices.
There is a movement with the United Methodist Church, as well as other denominations, to change this state. The position of changing how the United Methodist Church is based upon the Experience of God’s presence within a person, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. This is supported with Scripture as well. It focuses on the overwhelming and mysterious capacity of God to love humanity and extend forgiveness and grace.
As I sit on the sidelines of the great debate swirling about the United Methodist Church, I listen. I listen to the arguments and I listen to how the arguers approach one another. I listen to the content and I listen to the intent. I listen for the source of authority being drawn upon and I listen to the source of authority that is being rejected. What I have heard I can only describe as the fracturing of the framework that has been the unique identifier of the United Methodist Church. Our current debate has broken the “fellowship of the Quadrilateral”.
I use that phrase with a little tongue in cheek. That sentence reflects a pivotal scene from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. A fellowship of diverse people has been banded together to undertake a great mission. That mission will transform the world. Before the fellowship can really get into the heart of its mission, a disagreement arises over how to best carry out the mission. The result of that disagreement is that the fellowship is broken. The band of compatriots becomes divided into three separate units that each goes its own way. One maintains the mission. One is completely sidetracked but accomplishes something great importance. One goes out to rally the people needed to push through the enemy’s forces. Unfortunately in the process of breaking the fellowship, one of the band lies dead.
I have to wonder what the United Methodist Church will look like in the coming years. I have been United Methodist all of my life. It is an identity I have chosen for myself, though. I am part of the fellowship of United Methodists who have been joined together to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The current debate and disagreement we are experiencing is fracturing to the very soul of who we are. We are facing the reality that some of our fellowship will continue to pursue the mission of making disciples. Some will pursue something that is of importance. Some will rally others to the cause. Some will abandon the mission completely because their souls are too damaged. The reality that we are currently facing is that the one thing that has enabled us to come together and agree on what we do is no longer sufficient.
The Quadrilateral was never a superstructure that was embraced by everyone equally within the United Methodist Church. It was, however, a framework that allowed us to find some points of agreement. We may not all come to the same conclusion when we applied our understanding of it, but we could offer some begrudging respect that it was done “right”.
John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist movement within the Anglican church in 18th century England. As an Anglican priest, he was well acquainted with the Tradition of the Church of England. He was also very passionate about the Scriptures. Wesley’s exposure to the Moravians and the readings of the ancient Church writers provided him with a healthy respect of Experience in faith. He also applied Reason in his thinking, writing, planning, and formation of the Methodist movement. Through his writings, we see his use of all four of these sources of authority. They were not used with equal status, though.
Wesley always maintained a heavy reliance upon the authority of Scripture. It was his primary source. He used it to define the boundaries of what Methodists were to be about. Many detractors of Wesley’s efforts criticized what he was doing. When Wesley found an example from the Bible, he defended his position with that support. If there was no prohibition or limitation from Scripture, Wesley found the defense to allow for the work he was doing. Everything Wesley was doing was passed through the filter of Scripture as his first and foremost authority.
How Wesley uses the other three sources of authority is perhaps one of the most confusing aspects of the Quadrilateral. Experience, Tradition, and Reason could be considered on equal footing with each other. Wesley preached and maintained a belief that personal Experience within the corporate Experience was a reality. We can be saved and know it. We can be perfected in love toward God and toward all humanity in this life. We can know God’s assurance that we are indeed children of God. Wesley also held tightly to the importance of the authority of the Church down through the ages. The Tradition of the faith, even up to the Anglican Church he was trying to reform, was important enough to build a structure to maintain a healthy sense of accountability to rule and order. And Wesley could not separate anything he did from a rational, thoughtful, sometimes overly logical method.
When the Quadrilateral was conceived by Albert Outler, a Methodist historian, and theologian, he was trying to describe the possible process steps Wesley may have used to come to points of theology. Outler would later become frustrated to a degree with how his original concept was being used. That result he was frustrated with was the formation of the only unified theological point within the United Methodist Church. When the Quadrilateral was finally processed through the General Conference of the United Methodist Church (the only official decision-making body for United Methodism), it had become the only common point of connection between the many points along the theological spectrum within the United Methodist Church.
The great beauty of the United Methodist Church, in my mind, was that we could hold widely different theological points of view while still finding a common point of connection. To go anywhere in the world and find another United Methodist brought me a sense of comfort. It wasn’t that we may agree identically on an issue or a point of theology. It was that we could look at each other and find a single point of common reference. It was the greater picture of United Methodism, like an ancient stained glass image, that kept me positive about our future.
That future isn’t as positive in my mind. In fact, I don’t see a unified future of the United Methodist Church. The main reason is that the thing that we had in common cannot hold us together anymore. I feel that the Quadrilateral has been fractured. It no longer holds the same level of authority as a system of thinking that it once did. For me, the Quadrilateral was a three-legged stool. The seat was Scripture. It held the three legs together in structure and purpose. Whatever was “set” upon the stool had to rest upon Scripture. The legs of the stool were tied together at the top to Scripture, but also bound together along their lengths. They held each other in balance and tension. No leg would slide out or fold in because the other two legs held it in place.
As I look at the landscape of United Methodism, I see that different quarters of the UMC have shortened one of the legs. I believe that every side of the disagreement we are currently dealing with still rests everything upon the seat of Scripture. All sides tend to pull out the requisite verses when there turn to speak is presented. There is one side pointing to clear statements of prohibition against homosexuality. There is one side pointing out the clear acceptance and gracious nature of God. There is one side that is pointing out the unity and reconciliation requirements of a godly fellowship. Every side I have heard knows where their authority comes from first: Scripture.
What breaks my heart about this is that Scripture is being used as a weapon, not as a balm. The Good News of the Church has become a sword in the hands of opponents. Swipes and defenses are made with well-rehearsed chapter and verse. Dynamic flourishes can occasionally be drawn out that produce a clear mark of victory. Those are only undone by a counter-strike that hits in an opening. Scripture has been used like this for centuries and in numerous battles. Even the Councils of the early Church used Scripture in this way. Those battles were just as heartbreaking.
I have come to the point that Scripture no longer has any authority in the decision making process for me. I have heard all of the sides and find that all three are correct. The Bible says exactly what all three sides say it does. It is therefore a stalemate. Scripture cannot solve the problem we are in. It is not the way forward. If we continue to use Scripture in this manner, we only decrease the efficacy of the Good News for the lost. That brings us to the other three legs.
I think this is where the greatest fracture has occurred at this point. The support bars that held the legs together has been broken. We see this in the progressive move away from the Traditional Church. They point out the centuries of bias or the narrowing aspect of theological pursuit. The Tradition of the Church was built early out of the rejection of new ideas or contrary points of view. Many of those contrary points of view were based upon Experience of the those who were presenting the idea. The progressive side of the Church wants to tap into the personal Experience once again as the secondary level of authority. Personal Revelation, immanence of God’s presence, acceptance, and grace are all hallmarks of progressive theology. The major point they raise is that God can be Experienced by anyone in their personal connection with God.
The more traditionalist perspective rests strongly on Tradition. It wishes to hold to the established line of how the Church has responded. It believes that the faith that has been handed down through the centuries is God-ordained. It has been preserved from generation to generation because it is truth. It isn’t looking to maintain the recent traditions. It wants to continue in the standards and faith boundaries that have been clearly developed. Creedal statements, doctrinal boundaries, and accountability to a higher standard of personal transformation are the strong points held by traditionalists.
The one source of authority that should be holding everything in balance is teetering, on the brink of failure. Reason has been replaced with Emotion. People are passionate. People are angry or hurt. We are seeing fight or flight mentality projected into discussions. Reason would dictate that we set emotions aside and deal with points of fact. We hear, instead, accusations and generalizations. People use the weakest forms of argument to bolster their position. We turn away from the hard choices because we want resolution right now. I feel that Reason, which was a leg of the stool made from strong material, has been replaced with Emotion and it is bending to the point of breaking.
I’ve seen a few broken chairs in my life. I know what happens when the legs come loose and go out in different directions. Most often the individual legs stay in one piece. What breaks is the seat. If the legs don’t hold each other together in tension and balance, they go their own ways and the seat cracks along seams that are in the material. Or the legs break off right at the point where they are joined to the seat. That is where I feel we are headed.
The legs are disconnected from one another now. The cracks are already visible in the seat. We have one leg that is bending to the point of breaking. The Quadrilateral cannot hold us up any longer as a church. The fellowship of the Quadrilateral is broken. We can only hope that when we fall down, we can continue to pursue a worthy mission.
In the previous piece, I wrote about the four identified sources of authority within the history of the Church of Christian faith. Experience, Tradition, Scripture, and Reason have all risen to be the primary source of authority for a faith community. In some cases, the rise of a new form of primary authority has created a conflict between faith communities. There have been obvious splits within the history of the Church over these points of difference.
I also alluded to John Wesley and the integration of all four sources into his work in the area of theology. The United Methodist Church took what John Wesley did and have found a unique identifying theological framework. In the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, our polity and doctrinal guide, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is described. It has become a reference point over the last 40 years that United Methodists could point to as something that we shared in common. Recent events lead me to believe that the common identification around the Quadrilateral is no longer feasible.
Many denominations within the American Protestant portion of Christianity have been struggling to find their way in the 21st Century. The greatest issue of struggle at the time of this writing is changing status regarding homosexuality and the broadening of gender or sexuality beyond binary norms of male and female. The American secular culture has been more embracing of homosexuality as a normative lifestyle. Sensitivity to non-binary gender or sexuality is increasing if still accompanied by confusion and ignorance. The American Church, though, is generally lagging behind the secular culture. The United Methodist Church is among that group.
There are reasons for this grounded in a Tradition, which in turn is based upon a particular application of Scripture, that has rejected homosexuality as a legitimate expression of God’s intended purpose for human sexuality. The Tradition of this has been grounded in passages of Scripture in the Old and New Testaments. The interpretation of those verses is defended with great passion as clear prohibitions from the Bible against homosexual choices.
There is a movement with the United Methodist Church, as well as other denominations, to change this state. The position of changing how the United Methodist Church is based upon the Experience of God’s presence within a person, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. This is supported with Scripture as well. It focuses on the overwhelming and mysterious capacity of God to love humanity and extend forgiveness and grace.
As I sit on the sidelines of the great debate swirling about the United Methodist Church, I listen. I listen to the arguments and I listen to how the arguers approach one another. I listen to the content and I listen to the intent. I listen for the source of authority being drawn upon and I listen to the source of authority that is being rejected. What I have heard I can only describe as the fracturing of the framework that has been the unique identifier of the United Methodist Church. Our current debate has broken the “fellowship of the Quadrilateral”.
I use that phrase with a little tongue in cheek. That sentence reflects a pivotal scene from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. A fellowship of diverse people has been banded together to undertake a great mission. That mission will transform the world. Before the fellowship can really get into the heart of its mission, a disagreement arises over how to best carry out the mission. The result of that disagreement is that the fellowship is broken. The band of compatriots becomes divided into three separate units that each goes its own way. One maintains the mission. One is completely sidetracked but accomplishes something great importance. One goes out to rally the people needed to push through the enemy’s forces. Unfortunately in the process of breaking the fellowship, one of the band lies dead.
I have to wonder what the United Methodist Church will look like in the coming years. I have been United Methodist all of my life. It is an identity I have chosen for myself, though. I am part of the fellowship of United Methodists who have been joined together to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The current debate and disagreement we are experiencing is fracturing to the very soul of who we are. We are facing the reality that some of our fellowship will continue to pursue the mission of making disciples. Some will pursue something that is of importance. Some will rally others to the cause. Some will abandon the mission completely because their souls are too damaged. The reality that we are currently facing is that the one thing that has enabled us to come together and agree on what we do is no longer sufficient.
The Quadrilateral was never a superstructure that was embraced by everyone equally within the United Methodist Church. It was, however, a framework that allowed us to find some points of agreement. We may not all come to the same conclusion when we applied our understanding of it, but we could offer some begrudging respect that it was done “right”.
John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist movement within the Anglican church in 18th century England. As an Anglican priest, he was well acquainted with the Tradition of the Church of England. He was also very passionate about the Scriptures. Wesley’s exposure to the Moravians and the readings of the ancient Church writers provided him with a healthy respect of Experience in faith. He also applied Reason in his thinking, writing, planning, and formation of the Methodist movement. Through his writings, we see his use of all four of these sources of authority. They were not used with equal status, though.
Wesley always maintained a heavy reliance upon the authority of Scripture. It was his primary source. He used it to define the boundaries of what Methodists were to be about. Many detractors of Wesley’s efforts criticized what he was doing. When Wesley found an example from the Bible, he defended his position with that support. If there was no prohibition or limitation from Scripture, Wesley found the defense to allow for the work he was doing. Everything Wesley was doing was passed through the filter of Scripture as his first and foremost authority.
How Wesley uses the other three sources of authority is perhaps one of the most confusing aspects of the Quadrilateral. Experience, Tradition, and Reason could be considered on equal footing with each other. Wesley preached and maintained a belief that personal Experience within the corporate Experience was a reality. We can be saved and know it. We can be perfected in love toward God and toward all humanity in this life. We can know God’s assurance that we are indeed children of God. Wesley also held tightly to the importance of the authority of the Church down through the ages. The Tradition of the faith, even up to the Anglican Church he was trying to reform, was important enough to build a structure to maintain a healthy sense of accountability to rule and order. And Wesley could not separate anything he did from a rational, thoughtful, sometimes overly logical method.
When the Quadrilateral was conceived by Albert Outler, a Methodist historian, and theologian, he was trying to describe the possible process steps Wesley may have used to come to points of theology. Outler would later become frustrated to a degree with how his original concept was being used. That result he was frustrated with was the formation of the only unified theological point within the United Methodist Church. When the Quadrilateral was finally processed through the General Conference of the United Methodist Church (the only official decision-making body for United Methodism), it had become the only common point of connection between the many points along the theological spectrum within the United Methodist Church.
The great beauty of the United Methodist Church, in my mind, was that we could hold widely different theological points of view while still finding a common point of connection. To go anywhere in the world and find another United Methodist brought me a sense of comfort. It wasn’t that we may agree identically on an issue or a point of theology. It was that we could look at each other and find a single point of common reference. It was the greater picture of United Methodism, like an ancient stained glass image, that kept me positive about our future.
That future isn’t as positive in my mind. In fact, I don’t see a unified future of the United Methodist Church. The main reason is that the thing that we had in common cannot hold us together anymore. I feel that the Quadrilateral has been fractured. It no longer holds the same level of authority as a system of thinking that it once did. For me, the Quadrilateral was a three-legged stool. The seat was Scripture. It held the three legs together in structure and purpose. Whatever was “set” upon the stool had to rest upon Scripture. The legs of the stool were tied together at the top to Scripture, but also bound together along their lengths. They held each other in balance and tension. No leg would slide out or fold in because the other two legs held it in place.
As I look at the landscape of United Methodism, I see that different quarters of the UMC have shortened one of the legs. I believe that every side of the disagreement we are currently dealing with still rests everything upon the seat of Scripture. All sides tend to pull out the requisite verses when there turn to speak is presented. There is one side pointing to clear statements of prohibition against homosexuality. There is one side pointing out the clear acceptance and gracious nature of God. There is one side that is pointing out the unity and reconciliation requirements of a godly fellowship. Every side I have heard knows where their authority comes from first: Scripture.
What breaks my heart about this is that Scripture is being used as a weapon, not as a balm. The Good News of the Church has become a sword in the hands of opponents. Swipes and defenses are made with well-rehearsed chapter and verse. Dynamic flourishes can occasionally be drawn out that produce a clear mark of victory. Those are only undone by a counter-strike that hits in an opening. Scripture has been used like this for centuries and in numerous battles. Even the Councils of the early Church used Scripture in this way. Those battles were just as heartbreaking.
I have come to the point that Scripture no longer has any authority in the decision making process for me. I have heard all of the sides and find that all three are correct. The Bible says exactly what all three sides say it does. It is therefore a stalemate. Scripture cannot solve the problem we are in. It is not the way forward. If we continue to use Scripture in this manner, we only decrease the efficacy of the Good News for the lost. That brings us to the other three legs.
I think this is where the greatest fracture has occurred at this point. The support bars that held the legs together has been broken. We see this in the progressive move away from the Traditional Church. They point out the centuries of bias or the narrowing aspect of theological pursuit. The Tradition of the Church was built early out of the rejection of new ideas or contrary points of view. Many of those contrary points of view were based upon Experience of the those who were presenting the idea. The progressive side of the Church wants to tap into the personal Experience once again as the secondary level of authority. Personal Revelation, immanence of God’s presence, acceptance, and grace are all hallmarks of progressive theology. The major point they raise is that God can be Experienced by anyone in their personal connection with God.
The more traditionalist perspective rests strongly on Tradition. It wishes to hold to the established line of how the Church has responded. It believes that the faith that has been handed down through the centuries is God-ordained. It has been preserved from generation to generation because it is truth. It isn’t looking to maintain the recent traditions. It wants to continue in the standards and faith boundaries that have been clearly developed. Creedal statements, doctrinal boundaries, and accountability to a higher standard of personal transformation are the strong points held by traditionalists.
The one source of authority that should be holding everything in balance is teetering, on the brink of failure. Reason has been replaced with Emotion. People are passionate. People are angry or hurt. We are seeing fight or flight mentality projected into discussions. Reason would dictate that we set emotions aside and deal with points of fact. We hear, instead, accusations and generalizations. People use the weakest forms of argument to bolster their position. We turn away from the hard choices because we want resolution right now. I feel that Reason, which was a leg of the stool made from strong material, has been replaced with Emotion and it is bending to the point of breaking.
I’ve seen a few broken chairs in my life. I know what happens when the legs come loose and go out in different directions. Most often the individual legs stay in one piece. What breaks is the seat. If the legs don’t hold each other together in tension and balance, they go their own ways and the seat cracks along seams that are in the material. Or the legs break off right at the point where they are joined to the seat. That is where I feel we are headed.
The legs are disconnected from one another now. The cracks are already visible in the seat. We have one leg that is bending to the point of breaking. The Quadrilateral cannot hold us up any longer as a church. The fellowship of the Quadrilateral is broken. We can only hope that when we fall down, we can continue to pursue a worthy mission.
Comments