| Theological Studies: The Wesleyan Quadrilateral and Constructing Theology
Alvin Shaul Theology, Oord September 21, 2005 What Role Should Reason, Tradition, and Contemporary Experience Play in Constructing an Adequate Theology? The initial conclusion that must be made before any propositions can be given is that an adequate theology must be grounded in the Scriptures. The roots of Wesleyan theology are true to this reality. The components of reason, tradition and experience, though vital to theological formation, do not hold the authority of the Scriptures. Each of these three contributes in enabling our theology to encompass the spectrum of possibilities involved with interpretation. Conversely, a theology that does not embrace each of these components lacks sufficient understanding and reliable conclusions. Reason plays the role of structuring our theology. Tradition plays the role of reminding us of past events and past interpretations. Experience allows us to reflect on both our senses and our private inner thoughts, including those that are heartened by the Holy Spirit. Though reason is vital in the development of an adequate theology, Dunning is quick to point out some of the limitations of reason. First, it cannot function as an independent source of theology. That is, reason cannot not stand alone as grounds on which the rest of our theology is to be built. I find this to be true in all of life. If we start with what only rationally makes sense, we are limiting ourselves from the very beginning. Reason is not the foundation, but a test that is brought to fruition when analyzing developing theology. Our theology must be revised finally, not initially, by reason. A second limitation as to why reason cannot stand alone as an independent source is that God has revealed himself through historical acts, and these acts cannot be tested against reason. As Christians, we must accept that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected as a revelation of God. Reason holds no ground in terms of a resurrection, because it cannot be reasoned, that by human means and capability, one could rise from death. We must treat such a historical event as divine fact not subject to reason (Dunning 84-85). What then is the function of reason if it cannot be applied to historical Christian fact? One primary function is that of structure. Reason helps us to structure our theology into a well-ordered series of ideas that define the God-human relationship. Reason helps us to decide how we will order our sermons. Reason informs nearly every decision we make in terms of schedule, if we are disciplined enough to maintain one. A second primary function of reason is to guard against false and/or inappropriate interpretations of the Scripture. If interpretations of Scripture do not mesh comfortably with the overriding norms of Scripture (justification by faith and sanctification by faith as seen in the context of prevenient grace�according to Dunning), then they have most likely been misinterpreted by the use of misappropriated reason. Dunning also states that �reason provides the conceptual vehicles with which theological ideas are expressed� (86). He is referring to systematic philosophies and philosophical thought in general. He makes the conclusion that no one systematic philosophy has been created, but that every theological decision inevitably includes some form of philosophy. Since reason and philosophy answer the question �why?�, it is simple to see reason�s relevance in ministry and theology. If we do not know why we are teaching or even believing a certain way, than that thought or belief cannot be truly ours. Tradition reminds us of past events and past interpretations. By recognizing the importance of tradition, we are giving ourselves the opportunity to interpret these past events and interpretations. There are two main reasons that interpreting past interpretations correctly is vital to our theology. First, if we wish to add new thought to a given theological topic, we must know and truly understand what has been interpreted from the Scriptures in the past. Second, the misinterpretation of historic biblical interpretation can misinform one�s theology, either in denying that interpretation or accepting an interpretation that does not really exist. To deny something when we do not truly understand it is to expose our ignorance. To misinterpret a past interpretation and accept our own misinterpretation can drive us down roads we never intended to travel. Let us take for example the phrase �dogs are good.� There are essentially three possible interpretations of this text. Let us say that the original meaning was that dogs are good pets. A person from Las Angeles California, where athletic events are a primary social activity, might interpret this to mean that hot dogs are good. However, their interpretation of this phrase is far different from the assumption that dogs are good pets. A third possibility, as might be interpreted by a person from Tonga, is that dogs are good to eat. In these two misinterpretations, we see culture playing a substantial role. Our cultures and environment greatly affect how we look at the world around us and at the world behind us. Now we turn to the formation of tradition. All tradition, at one time or another was most likely oral. Everything that we have now in the Bible originated orally before it was written. With the New Testament we see the life and teachings of Christ and those directly following him. Most of the Gospels and select other writings were passed from observer to writer, or maybe even observer to listener to writer. If the information was not passed down orally by a witness, it was the witness himself who orally experienced the situations described therein. Our Christian historicity can thus be traced to a completely oral tradition. It must be acknowledged thus, that the writers and/or observers had opportunity to interpret the oral communication they received. We see direct evidence of this in the Gospels where the same passage will appear in two or three of the Gospels, but appear in different contexts. The writers took the liberty to arrange the text as they thought would best suit their audience. In this we see the structural importance of reason as described above. We have seen that tradition involved the interpretation of text from the very beginning of New Testament times. We must now expand on the development of tradition throughout the history of the Church. What we have in the creeds is purely Scriptural interpretation aided by reason. As such, the creeds have been the foundation of our traditions for these nearly two millennia since the Scripture�s writing. For nearly a thousand years or more after the creeds ceased formation, they held to be the sole truth concerning Scripture. From the time of the Reformation until now, the reinterpretation of Scripture and past traditions has been immensely important in defining our own theology of Scripture. Every new major idea or interpretation that comes out of Scripture must now be weighed against other interpretations to test its validity. This is the task of the theologian in relation to building and investigating tradition. In doing this, the continual reinterpretation of Scripture helps to allow the Holy Spirit to work with us in our culture and environment, as compared to those of the past (Dunning 82). This leads us to the idea of contemporary experience. Experience allows us to reflect on both our senses and our private inner thoughts, including those that are heartened by the Holy Spirit. This broad definition of experience allows for the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Dunning makes the important statement that �All Christian doctrines originally emerged out of experience in the sense that they were given in or to someone�s experience� (89). The revelation of the Scriptures, both originally and post-scribed, came to a person as part of his or her experience. A proper response to this revelation must include the reception of it. If we hear or see but do not receive revelation, it is as if that revelation never occurred (89). The experiences of God in his Trinitarian existence and Christ in his human existence are both example of how experience shapes theology. It is crucial when speaking of revelation through the Holy Spirit that just as reason must be tested against Scripture, so also revelatory experience must be tested against Scripture. Dunning gives the example of the Zwickau prophets claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed to them that the Bible was unnecessary. Obviously, claiming the Bible is unnecessary is unbiblical and thus cannot withstand the test of Scripture (93). For the Zwickau, their error came in valuing experience (revelation) over Scripture. Wesley stated it both short and precise: �The Scripture is to be the final authority.� We have seen that reason, tradition, and experience are vital to the development of a theology. We have perhaps more importantly concluded that these three must be tested against the foundation of Scripture for accuracy and acceptability. Furthermore, we have seen that all four components are absolutely necessary and applicable in every act of theological interpretation. As the discussion begins on the attributes of God, let us remember to see those attributes in light of the truth herein. Bibliography Dunning, H. Ray. Grace, Faith and Holiness. Beacon Hill Press, Kansas City, Missouri, 1988. Pinnock, Clark H. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God�s Openness. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001. |