Read Scot McKnight's take on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/07/the-wesleyan-quadrilateral-ste.html
I think this is a well written post (as usual with McKnight's work), but I also think it is reflective of McKnight's upbringing and his own scriptural interpretation (obviously my post has it's own bias). I do think that Wesley gave scripture priority, but given the time in which Wesley lived and taught, I wouldn't expect otherwise. I would however, apply the quadrilateral maybe a bit differently today. McKnight suggests that we should give scripture priority in the equation and the illustration shown in his post shows scripture, indeed, as the foundation of the quadrilateral. I hope that one day we can get past these "word games" and realize that scripture is a vital component, but is no more or less valuable than the other components.
To explain myself, I would even echo some of the points McKnight makes himself as he talks about the ways tradition, reason, and experience enhance and work with scripture. When we throw out tradition, we are basically insulting conclusions and affirmations made over centuries. This doesn't mean that tradition isn't adapting or being reformed, but without tradition we lose respect for some of the distinctly common aspects to our faith.
Reason and experience are similar, and NT Wright (being an Anglican priest) asserts that experience is an unnecessary leg in the quadrilateral. With my own "experience" in mind, I couldn't disagree more. Reason allows us to translate scripture individually and communally with our experiences fueling what is reasonable (not without scripture and tradition in hand, though).
You can see how difficult it is to talk about one without the other three. We can't possibly interpret scripture properly on our own. We all have been brought up with a particular approach to the Bible and have reacted to that approach one way or another. Ironically, the title of my blog is "Taking Jesus Out of the Box," and one of the most frustrating things I've seen is when people practice their faith in a way that chains God, and Christ, to the Bible. Aren't we engaging the LIVING GOD today? Are our lives any less important to God than the lives of the saints in the Bible?
I agree with most of what Mr. McKnight had to say, and I bet I'm reading too much into semantics when I challenge the sola scriptura approach as well as others who challenge that approach and yet still seem bullied into deferring to scripture as the primary understanding of God independent of our own lives. I don't think that's what McKnight is doing, per say, but just the fact that he took the time to mention that scripture is the primary component of the quadrilateral speaks volumes.
To conclude, let me just say that we sometimes forget what we're reading and where it comes from. In some cases we don't even know where exactly it came from but make an educated guess or conclusion with what we do know. To me, the Bible is an interpretation of an interpretation of an oral tradition put into writing, and in some cases it is an interpretation of an account of events (interpretation in regard to language). It is a central component of my own faith, but I always approach it with a bit of humility because to me it is impossible to look at the Bible as a prescription for all of life's events as well as a collection of scientific conclusions. When people look to the Bible as the end all be all, they give it priority over God and lose the God given ability to think for themselves in some situations. We need more room for discussion and respect for differences in the church in regard to scripture. We have more common beliefs with each other as Christians than we do differences, and humanity as a whole has more in common than it has differences. Let's give scripture it's proper place with the realization that God works outside of scripture as well as outside of the limitations tradition, reason and experience have on their own.
God bless,
Jason
.jpg)
