Methodist History, Doctrine, and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a Theological Framework

Each edition of The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church since 1972 has contained the formulation widely known as the "Wesleyan (or Methodist) Quadrilateral" — the claim that "the living core of the Christian faith is revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason." At the conclusion of their "conference" about the Quadrilateral, published as Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), W. Stephen Gunter et al. collectively make the following statement:

"We believe that the Quadrilateral, when defined as 'the rule of Scripture within the trilateral hermeneutic of tradition, reason, and experience,' is a viable way of theologizing for United Methodism. We believe that this dialogical way of theologizing is in harmony with the teachings of John Wesley. And we believe that the theological application of this Neo-Wesleyan interpretation of the Quadrilateral is the most faithful way for The United Methodist Church to end the twentieth and begin the twenty-first century." (142)

Of course, any methodological strategy is only as good as the researchers who use it, and the adage that it is a poor workman who blames his tools comes to mind. In many ways, it is difficult to challenge the assertion that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral represents a valuable framework for modern Bible students who are interested in learning more about their faith, because it was "revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason" (Sachs 383).

The application of these foundational pillars of support for the Quadrilateral is a highly subjective experience, however, and the process is subject to a wide array of individual interpretations that reinforce the value of a holistic methodology for modern students of the Bible. In sum, perhaps the overarching constraint on the Quadrilateral methodology is a lack of understanding concerning the proper manner in which to apply its constituent elements in order to obtain the optimal outcomes.

The Neo-Wesleyan Interpretation and Wesley's Theological Position

In reality, both the "Neo-Wesleyan" label and the "Quadrilateral" itself suffer from an image problem that stems in part from the polysyllabic and intimidating descriptions of relatively straightforward issues. Certainly, much has transpired in the centuries since Wesley formulated his concepts about the appropriate path to exegesis, but the fundamental purpose of the Quadrilateral — to provide a methodology whereby Bible students can gain a better understanding of Scripture — remains essentially the same. Moreover, Neo-Wesleyan interpretations of the Quadrilateral are highly congruent with the acknowledgement that "rather than there being 'one' United Methodist Church, there are in fact 'many Methodisms'" (Flanagan 379). Applied with these issues in mind, the Neo-Wesleyan interpretation of the Quadrilateral therefore provides an accurate characterization of Wesley's theological position as viewed through a twenty-first-century lens.

As to whether the Wesleyan tradition provides an adequate basis for Christian theological reflection today, the answer depends on context. Although the Wesleyan tradition has changed over the past 200 years, it remains essentially intact by recognizing that prevailing religious thinking at any given point in time may introduce changes that are not only acceptable but essential to keeping the faith relevant and alive. The Methodists of the eighteenth century faced the same types of challenges and opportunities that confront their modern counterparts. For example, in an early letter to an Anglican vicar, Wesley pointed out that members of the church "saw or felt some impending or pressing evil, or some good end necessary to be pursued. And many times they fell unawares on the very thing which secured the good, or removed the evil. At other times they consulted on the most probable means, following only common sense and Scripture — though they generally found, in looking back, something in Christian antiquity, likewise, very nearly parallel thereto" (cited in Davies 254). Similarly, Wesley's guidance that "I question whether a mortal can arrive to a greater degree of perfection than steadily to do good, and for that very reason patiently and meekly to suffer evil" (cited in Baker 339) remains highly relevant for modern Methodists.

This connection to antiquity as applied to contemporary challenges makes the Neo-Wesleyan interpretation of the Quadrilateral highly effective in providing an adequate basis for Christian theological reflection in the Wesleyan tradition today. In this regard, one Methodist educator emphasizes that "Our Wesleyan theological roots provide both anchor to the historic church as well as nimble practicality. This is driven by a passion to bring the Kingdom into culture and make a difference now" (Wesleyan Framework 3).

Among the multiple United Methodist Church theological tasks, task number 6 provides a useful and timely assessment of how the discrete Quadrilateral elements interact with respect to participation in "our theological task." Task number 6 stipulates in part that: "As United Methodists, we have an obligation to bear a faithful Christian witness to Jesus Christ, the living reality at the center of the Church's life and witness. To fulfill this obligation, we reflect critically on our biblical and theological inheritance, striving to express faithfully the witness we make in our own time" (Our Theological Task 3).

Methodist Schisms and Divisions in the First Century

One way of describing the history of American Methodism during its first century is as a history of schism and division. The following groups each separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church for distinct political, social, institutional, and theological reasons.

Formed in 1794 by James O'Kelley of Chatham, North Carolina, the Republican Methodist Church began as an act of defiance against the dogmatic stance of Bishop Francis Asbury at the Methodist Episcopal Church following decades of disputes (Georgian 2012). According to one church historian, "In pursuit of his vision of Christian freedom, O'Kelley left the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in November of 1792 after decades of quarreling with its leader, Bishop Francis Asbury" (Georgian 231). Two years later, O'Kelley and his foundational members formed the Republican Methodist Church, which succeeded in drawing about 20 percent of the Methodist Episcopal Church membership, thereby slowing its former rapid growth (Georgian 232). The original Republican Methodist Church is described as "an aggressively egalitarian denomination, very different from the hierarchically organized Methodist Episcopal Church" (Georgian 233). In 1801, the Republican Methodist Church officially changed its name to the Christian Church (Georgian 233).

Founded in 1816 by the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) was created in response to fundamental differences in theological beliefs with the teachings of the main church, most particularly with respect to the characterization of African Americans as chattel as still codified in the U.S. Constitution at the time. According to one AME leader:

"The [AME] has a unique and glorious history. It was unique in that it is the first major religious denomination in the Western World that had its origin over sociological and theological beliefs and differences. It rejected the negative theological interpretations which rendered persons of African descent second-class citizens [and] theirs was a theological declaration that God is God all the time and for everybody [which was a] protest against slavery — against dehumanization of African people, brought to the American continent as labor." (Richardson 5)

Likewise, formed in 1821 in New York City at the John Street Methodist Church by a group of disaffected Black parishioners led by William Hamilton, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (AME Zion) rejected the enslavement of African American people and their continuing "cruel oppression" (Our Heritage 4).

Founded in 1828 by a group of former members of the Methodist Episcopal Church over church governance issues and subsequently renamed to its current title in 1830, the Methodist Protestant Church credits its origins to the Methodist Episcopal Church and the teachings of John and Charles Wesley (About Us 2019).

Formed in November 1842 by three leading Methodist abolitionists — Orange Scott, LaRoy Sunderland, and Jotham Horton — who were disillusioned primarily by the mother church's stance on slavery, the Wesleyan Methodist Connection was subsequently joined by other like-minded parishioners. According to Buckley's historical account, "They had come to believe, Scott said, that it would be a sin for them to remain in a church that seemed so intent on betraying its antislavery heritage" (cited in Buckley 3).

Like the AME denominations discussed above, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MEC, S) was also formed in the early nineteenth century over a stark division in beliefs concerning the MEC's stance on slavery (Wesley 2015). Despite these fundamental differences in beliefs about slavery, the MEC, S continued to have "integrated African Americans in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South's polity and economy until immediately before the Civil War" (Wesley 307).