A Divergence in Methodist Theology
The Traditional Wesleyan Approach Compared to the New United Methodist Approach
Introduction
What does the task of the systematic theologian require? Every denomination (and every generation) has their own answer to this question. J. I. Packer (1991, 23) offered the closest thing to a consensus definition when he claimed the goal of systematic theology was to answer the question, “How may we best state and apply the complete Christian faith, topic by topic and as a whole, in the light of current interests, doubts, assumptions, perplexities, questions, protests, and challenges?” This study will analyze the Methodist approach to theology by comparing the traditional Wesleyan approach with the modern United Methodist approach. The analysis will demonstrate that although both approaches offer helpful insights for the church, the traditional Wesleyan method counts as Christian systematic theology, while the United Methodist technique falls short.
The Traditional Wesleyan Approach to Theology
Traditional Wesleyan theologians follow the theological method developed by John Wesley (Coppedge 1991, 267). In the Wesleyan method, the Bible represents “the final authority in all religious matters” (Coppedge 1991, 269). Wesleyan theologians use other authorities to complement their biblical interpretation, including reason, tradition, and experience (Coppedge 1991, 279).
Since reason comes from God, true religion must remain reasonable (Coppedge 1991, 273). In other words, a Wesleyan theologian adheres to logical first principles, such as the law of identity (A = A) and the law of noncontradiction (A ≠ non-A). Wesleyans acknowledge that reason alone cannot yield theological truth (Coppedge 1991, 275). However, they respect the use of logic as a test of the reasonableness of theological conclusions. In other words, you cannot reason your way to the truth presented in the Bible, but upon analysis, the truth presented in the Bible is reasonable.
Wesleyan theologians also honor the tradition of biblical interpretation. They compare their conclusions to the conclusions of other theologians from the past and present (Coppedge 1991, 276). The Wesleyans take pride in their place in a theological lineage which traces back to the church fathers (Bevins 2006, 239). Yet, they make the point that no traditional idea takes precedence over the clear meaning of the Bible (Coppedge 1991, 276). If tradition disagrees with the commonsense interpretation of the Bible, Wesleyans follow the Bible.
Wesleyans look to life experience to gauge the practicality of their theologizing. They believe that “biblical truth actually works in practical life” (Coppedge 1991, 277). Thus, they attempt to figure out how the Bible applies to real life situations. Then they live by that application. Wesleyan theology is, if nothing else, practical.
Why does the Wesleyan family of theologians do theology in this manner? Wesley’s successors believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Bible as a gift for humans to live in a right relationship to God. That conviction drives their theology. Hence, they believe (1) that the Bible contains universal principles and (2) that humans possess the ability to apply those principles to life (Meistad 1999, 54). The Wesleyans ground this conclusion in a concept they call prevenient grace.
What is prevenient grace? Although the Fall tarnished mankind’s ability to reason, God’s grace restored much of that ability to all humans regardless of whether they have yet accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, hence the adjective prevenient (Coppedge 1991, 280). Although it lies outside the scope of this study to debate the merits of the concept of prevenient grace, Wesleyan theologians argue that the concept comes directly from their exegesis of Scripture (Coppedge 1991, 280). Thus, they believe humans can apply reason, tradition, and experience to their study of Scripture in order to (1) get saved then (2) determine how to apply scriptural principles in situations, even situations not discussed directly in the Bible.
Wesleyan theology requires careful exposition of the Bible from the original languages (Coppedge 1991, 268). Expositors following the Wesleyan hermeneutic (system of biblical interpretation) prioritize the literal meaning of passages. Thus, they seek the author’s original intent, which constitutes the original meaning (Coppedge 1991, 272). If a passage remains difficult to understand, Wesleyan exegetes look to other scriptural passages that speaks more clearly on the topic. Then they interpret the difficult passage by the clearer passage (Coppedge 1991, 272).
Wesleyans observe three main themes that serve as a lens for biblical interpretation: (1) God as Father, (2) holiness, and (3) grace (Coppedge 1991, 286). These themes put checks on their exposition. If a theological conclusion contradicts the idea of God’s holiness, that conclusion automatically becomes suspect. For example, the Father theme led to Wesley’s Arminian view of salvation and predestination (Coppedge 1991, 283). Just like a good father, God desires for His children to love and obey Him, but He does not force them.
One of the major strengths of Wesleyan theology is that it is practical. Wesleyans emphasize the need to focus on how the Bible relates to real-life issues. They attempt to answer the questions that common people ask. Also, these theologians commend themselves by their strong view of the Bible. The Bible stands as the litmus test against which they test all views.
Some critics might complain that the Wesleyan approach does not take serious human limitations. Reformed theologians would differ with the Wesleyan view of prevenient grace, arguing that no one can understand the Bible without the direct aid of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Klooster 1991, 240). Postmodern or deconstructionist theologians would disagree with the firmness of the Wesleyans’ doctrinal conclusions, since they believe that religious knowledge is relative and situational (Smith 2003, 110).
The Modern United Methodist Approach to Theology
Modern United Methodists, under the influence of the postmodernists, have taken Wesleyan theology in a different direction. United Methodists have elevated the subordinate authorities of reason, experience, and tradition onto the same plane as Scripture, creating a “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” (Bevins 2006, 231). According to Mary Elizabeth Moore (1989, 53), the 1988 General Conference of the United Methodist Church concluded “that theological reflection may begin in any of the four” points, Scripture, reason, experience, or tradition. Why did the United Methodists promote reason, experience, and tradition to the same level as Scripture? The answer requires a philosophical-theological dialogue.
Shubert Ogden (1991, 417) of Southern Methodist University began his discussion of modern Christian theology by asking, “What is Christian systematic theology?” Before addressing the theology component, Ogden (1991, 418) discussed the nature of systematic inquiries in general. He argued that systematic inquiries describe the appropriate worldview for the present situation. Therefore, Ogden concluded that theology had to do with validating “Christian witness,” which he defined as “all that Christians think, say, and do about God” (Ogden 1991, 423). Christian witness that receives validation should be both “appropriate to Jesus Christ” and “credible to human existence” (Ogden 1991, 424). On Ogden’s view, the goal of Christian theology is to determine what constitutes Christian witness.
Initial philosophical inquiry complete, Ogden (1991, 425) transitioned to a discussion of the sources of authority for Christian systematic theology. The systematic theologian must attempt to validate Christian witness in three phases. In phase one, the historical phase, the theologian researches what type of witness achieved validation in the past. Since valid Christian witness involves appropriateness to Jesus, these researchers seek the “historical Jesus” by examining the New Testament, theologies of the past, and other historical documents (Ogden 1991, 428–429).
Phase two, the “hermeneutical phase” requires examination of how one applies theological norms to human existence (Ogden 1991, 429). The hermeneutical phase has more to do with existential philosophy than biblical interpretation on this view (Ogden 1991, 430). Theologians use the tools of existential theology to determine which doctrines possess existential truth for an individual person or group of people. Thus, different doctrines attain validation at different times for different cultures. Valid Christian doctrine is relative to time and culture on this view.
The theological process concludes with the philosophical phase, which determines “what is to count as existential truth” (Ogden 1991, 432). On this view, existential truth “is what human existence itself discloses to be so.” The philosophical phase of Christian systematic theology necessitates a philosophical examination of human existence. Thus, while the historical phase deals with validity related to appropriateness to Jesus, the hermeneutical and philosophical phases relate to validity according to human existence. These three phases undergird the United Methodist approach to theology, which elevates reason, tradition, and experience to the same level as the Bible in theological method.
As noted above, Packer (1991, 23) claimed the goal of systematic theology was to answer the question, “How may we best state and apply the complete Christian faith, topic by topic and as a whole, in the light of current interests, doubts, assumptions, perplexities, questions, protests, and challenges?” The modern Methodist approach does not do what Packer suggested. The United Methodists do seek to apply a topical worldview to current issues. However, the worldview that they apply should not properly be called Christian. Ogden’s identification of what is basic to Christian theology lacks warrant. It has no basis in fact. It is merely an idea that he suggested and onto which the United Methodists have latched. Proper Christian theologians systematize biblical doctrine (Packer 1991, 24). Ogden’s method systematizes cultural preferences.
The United Methodist approach does have strength in that they attempt to contextualize the teachings of Jesus for modern people. Theology should serve the modern church with all its problems and issues, and the United Methodists deserve commendation for their attempt to do that. However, their attempt fails in that they interpret the Bible through the lens of the culture. In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King suggested that the church should be a thermostat which sets the standards for the culture, not a thermometer that reflects the standards of the culture. United Methodists are thermometers.
Conclusion
The traditional Wesleyan approach to theology serves the church well. These methods systematize biblical doctrine. They keep the Bible at the center of their theology, which honors the Creator. They employ other tools that God has provided, including reason, experience, and tradition, in order to apply the Bible properly to life situations, while keeping them subordinate to the Bible. Although the United Methodist approach lacks adequate basis in the Bible, the church can also learn things from that approach. These theologians teach the church the importance of contextualizing the Bible for difference cultures. However, the split that is now happening within the Methodist Church should caution other theologians from removing the Bible from its place of primacy. Christian theologians who devalue the Bible as a source of authority devalue their own theological conclusions.
Reference List
Bevins, Winfield H. 2006. “A Pentecostal Appropriation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14, no. 2 (April): 229–246. http://doi.org/10.1177/ 0966736906062134.
Coppedge, Allan. 1991. “How Wesleyans Do Theology.” In Doing Theology in Today’s World, edited by John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey, 267–290. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Klooster, Fred H. 1991. “How Reformed Theologians ‘Do Theology’ in Today’s World.” In Doing Theology in Today’s World, edited by John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey, 227–248. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Meistad, Tore. 1999. “Systematic Theology and Ethics in the Wesleyan Tradition: Some Methodological Reflections.” Quarterly Review 19, no. 1 (Spring): 53–71. https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=399528e0-9812-4b9d-850a-ec1077db8dca%40redis.
Moore, Mary Elizabeth. 1989. “The Style and Substance of United Methodist Theology in Transition.” Quarterly Review 9, no. 3 (Fall): 44–63. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/ pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=de935a57-aa2d-4daa-bf21-569570d3744f%40redis.
Ogden, Schubert M. 1991. “Doing Theology Today.” In Doing Theology in Today’s World, edited by John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey, 417–436. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Packer, J. I. 1991. “Is Systematic Theology a Mirage? An Introductory Question.” In Doing Theology in Today’s World, edited by John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey, 17–38. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Smith, James K. A. 2003. “What Hath Cambridge To Do With Azusa Street? Radical Orthodoxy and Pentecostal Theology in Conversation.” Pneuma 25, no. 1 (Spring): 97–114. https:// web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=31&sid=4193519b-57f6-4835-ac7c-58f54fd6f42d%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.