Inerrancy Debate in Methodism; Response to Itineracy Article; Summer Reading
"Without shared hermeneutical principles, we cannot hope to reach consensus on the authoritative teaching of Scripture for the church.”
Happy summer, my friends! I have neglected my Substack for the past few weeks, because there has been simply too much to do (camping, or rather glamping, in the Smokies, going to the pool, wrestling with my sons, reading long books, idly staring out my window, and other vitally important matters).
But I am back today, with a few thoughts on scripture, a response to my article on itineracy, and a summer reading invitation if you are so inclined.
How should Wesleyans in the GMC talk about scripture?
There have been several articles recently from Wesleyan and Methodist folks arguing about what Protestants always must argue about: how are we supposed to read the scriptures?
What’s interesting about the debate in Methodism is that most of the folks who have left the United Methodist Church are searching for a new framework. For many years, United Methodists have somewhat uncritically adopted Albert Outler’s “Wesleyan quadrilateral,” the idea that we use scripture, tradition, reason, and experience together in order to arrive at truth from God.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F994c261e-59cf-45c3-8f09-2b8c2dabca4f_331x340.png)
David Watson wrote a nice article in Firebrand last year, which helpfully explains why so many Wesleyans are eager to jettison the quadrilateral:
Whether or not Wesley would have signed on to the Quadrilateral, however, there are more substantive issues at stake. One is that the appeal to Scripture, without further clarification, will in most cases be unhelpful. We may say that our faith is revealed in Scripture, but what is the content of that revelation? Put more simply, what does God reveal to us through Scripture? While the Reformers affirmed the perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that its meaning is clear on its face), they quickly began to betray this principle by separating from one another over the content of biblical teaching. Likewise, as the disputes in the UMC over sex and gender have shown, it is possible to support entirely opposing positions by the appeal to Scripture. How we approach the Bible, our conceptions of inspiration and revelation, scriptural authority, and the Bible’s relationship to different elements of Christian tradition invariably come to bear on the conclusions we reach. Without shared hermeneutical principles, we cannot hope to reach consensus on the authoritative teaching of Scripture for the church. One of those hermeneutical principles would need to describe the relationship between Scripture and later Christian tradition, which leads to another problem with the Quadrilateral.
Dr. Watson seems right to me:
“Without shared hermeneutical principles, we cannot hope to reach consensus on the authoritative teaching of Scripture for the church.”
The division of the UMC was foundationally one about diverging hermeneutical principles. And so I think it’s very good and healthy to build a consensus, particular in the Global Methodist Church, about what claims we will make about the authority of scripture.
Chris Ritter wrote an excellent article on his blog about the entire conversation, that does a great job explaining why our language around scripture is so important, and he gives a great list of articles written recently about it.1 He writes,
“The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it!” Good enough? Maybe for an individual’s devotional reading it is. But life together requires thinking, believing, and acting together. Reaching spiritual consensus on weighty matters is important and difficult work. The Bible is a complex, multi-layered, and multi-part text with thousands of years of interpretive history. There are bad ways of interpreting it. “Scarce ever,” said Wesley, “was any erroneous opinion either invented or received, but Scripture was quoted to defend it.” Even Satan can quote the Bible (Luke 4:9, 10).
Ritter does a great job of explaining the debate and what exactly is at stake. My hope in the GMC is that we refuse to get bogged down with pedantic debates around the definitions of words like “inerrancy”, “infallibility”, etc., because in many ways that argument seems to me to be focused on modern assumptions about the way that truth functions in the world. The church fathers, along with Wesley, implicitly trusted the authority of scripture, and read it for the purpose of sanctification; scripture for them (and for us!) is God’s self-disclosure, God’s Word, revealing himself, given to us to make us holy and to guide us into truth.
And so I think being overly concerned with scripture’s narrative contradictions or historical or scientific errors (which are overt at times), are ways in which modern readers of scripture simply miss the mark of what God has given to us through the books of the Bible.
What I hope we maintain in our claims about scripture is a firm stance on Scripture’s final authority over faith and practice, and an openness about how we might stake that claim epistemologically. This was Billy Abraham’s great insight, and I think he was right: the Church tends to make a big mistake when we get too bogged down in epistemology.
In other words, I think the current language about scripture in the GMC’s draft of the discipline is actually pretty good, and says what needs to be said without saying too much:
"The canonical books of the Old and New Testaments (as specified in the Articles of Religion) are the primary rule and authority for faith, morals, and service, against which all other authorities must be measured."
But in any case, this will be an ongoing conversation in the Global Methodist Church, and in all Wesleyan circles, and my prayer is that God would give us wisdom in how best to profess what scripture is and what it does.
Jeffrey Rickman’s Response to my Itineracy Article: “Advancing Itineracy”
I wrote a while back an article on the nature of itinerancy in the Global Methodist Church (Is Itineracy Dead?), and essentially proposed that the GMC more robustly names the actual practice on the ground of how clergy are being deployed.
Jeffrey Rickman, a GMC pastor (and blogger and podcaster), wrote a response to my piece with some of his own thoughts about itineracy. Rickman writes, in defense of itineracy,
Here’s why we need it: The gospel comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. We want to be comfortable and in control, but that is a spiritually toxic state. We need to be pushed, cajoled, encouraged, admonished. These things do not happen to the degree needed in the midst of long term relationships. Movers and shakers need to be introduced, and regularly, to keep a fire burning.
Pastors who hope to be in one place for a long time cannot knock heads with established community leaders. They cannot preach sermons that make people uncomfortable. They cannot rock the boat too much. This effectively neuters preachers. We somehow want to imagine that Global Methodist preachers are going to be bolder in ministry than was the norm in United Methodism. I do not know why we would expect that when the same dynamics are transplanted into the GMC. If our goal is the long term, then we will sacrifice short term faithfulness. As you might know, daily compromises result in situations that easily lead to spiritual death.
Congregations need to be made uncomfortable by bold proclamation of Christ and him crucified. They also need to take responsibility for themselves. Long term clergy have a way of taking over everything, assuming responsibility for everything. This is the opposite of Methodism. Methodism is a lay led movement. In order to get away from the clergy-centered culture of United Methodism, the only antidote is to unmoor the identity of local churches from their clergy and require laity to lead. This cannot really happen without actually moving the clergy.
It’s a very nice article, which makes a great point that itineracy, as it was initially conceived, has not been practiced for a very long time. I liked his hopes for an itinerant evangelistic ministry, and I am warming to the idea of an itinerant model for bishop; that does seem to fit what we are hoping from the office. I also whole-heartedly hope for a lay-led movement of the Holy Spirit…seeing it happen on the ground already, I am praying that more and more lay people become empowered to not only lead, but to make disciples in the local church and in their community.
Pushing a little bit against what Jeffrey writes elsewhere in the article, I do think we should make a distinction between methods of evangelism like itineracy, which are very clearly culturally contextual, and Christian ethical commitments (such as “the expectation that young men and women remain chaste until their wedding nights”)—but I take Rickman’s point that many things that we imagine as not possible in our current culture are really just a cop out because they are hard.
All that being said, I still feel like itineracy for clergy, at least as it has been practiced in the past 70 years or so, is a method we should happily bid goodbye to; and mostly it is because I think pastors in our current time need a greater commitment to place, to the virtue of stability in a world of chaos and speed. I think pastors who have stayed longer in a community actually have more authority and credibility to proclaim the gospel boldly to their congregation and their city—Methodism has failed to produce a preacher like Tim Keller, who would have been unable to become the leader he was, if he hadn’t been committed to the very particular place (New York City). His effectiveness in preaching about controversial issues in my mind was rooted in his deep commitment to and understanding of the place he served, something that would be practically impossible for an itinerant preacher.
But I’m grateful for Jeffrey’s article, and for the conversation generally, though I find myself wanting a slightly more congregational system than I think he does. I’m very encouraged by the mission and the focus so far in the GMC on evangelism, discipleship, church planting, the Holy Spirit, and pursuing holiness together, and I feel that if we keep those things central, then the particulars of how we structure the church’s polity will come together. I hope you will join me in praying for all of those who will be at the convening general conference of the GMC, where much of this will be discussed and prayed over and thought through.
Summer Reading:
I am re-reading Tom Holland’s book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World this summer, and am leading a discussion group in northern Kentucky if you are interested in joining us. It’s a long read, but I can’t think of a better book to help us understand how deeply Christian our moral assumptions are.
Articles listed in Chris Ritter’s blog:
Notable Media from Global Methodists on Scriptural Authority
What follows is a list of relevant media from voices in the Global Methodist Church on the topic of biblical authority:
Suzanne Nicholson is quoted in a recent article in Christianity Today about the GMC: “The traditional Methodist approach to the Bible is literalist, according to Nicholson, but that doesn’t mean Wesley or other early Methodists like Peter Cartwright and Francis Asbury read everything literally. Instead, they accepted the plain meaning of the text, which involves an assessment of the genre of writing, the literary and historical contexts, and the larger story of Scripture, moving from original sin to justification by faith, new birth, and inward and outward holiness. Methodists should read commentaries alongside Scripture, Nicholson said, and pray and ask for illumination from the Spirit. They should also look back to Wesley’s historic Bible-reading practices.”
“Thoughts Upon Christian Orthodoxy (Or, Epistemology Can’t Save You)” by David Watson via Firebrand Magazine. “For the Global Methodist Church, I suggest that the best way forward long term is simply to maintain in our standards of doctrine the statements on Scripture.”
“Navigating the Future: The Role of Scripture in the Global Methodist Church” by Matt O’Reilly via Theology Project. “I, for one, am generally happy with the language of inerrancy, properly understood to mean that the text of scripture speaks without error in what it affirms and taken in light of its genre and the author’s intent. Nevertheless, I don’t think there’s much potential for some in the Methodist tribe to warm to the language of inerrancy, if only because it comes with a lot of baggage.”
“A Pentecost Vision for Scripture: A Review of Cheryl Bridges Johns’ Re-Enchanting The Text: Discovering the Bible as Sacred, Dangerous, and Mysterious” by Matthew Sichel via Firebrand Magazine. “The emergence of the Global Methodist Church has initiated conversations on a variety of theological topics. In each case, the objective is to build something that is faithful to Wesley’s vision and theology. One such conversation centers on how Wesleyan Christians handle the Bible, and old positions persist, turning on words like inerrancy, infallibility, and authority. Because of this, moving the discussion forward toward consensus is challenging.”
“Wesleyanism in the Academy & Biblical Interpretation – A Conversation With Dr. Andy Miller III” by Jeffrey Rickman via PlainSpoken Podcast. Miller, a GMC elder, is an advocate for inerrancy language in connection with Scripture.
“Scripture and Tradition: Revisiting Henri de Lubac as a Resource for Protestants” by Benjamin Aich via Firebrand Magazine. A GMC elder, a Ph.D. Candidate at Asbury, discusses the interplay of Scripture and tradition.
“A “Pain in the Brain”: Is the Bible Divine Revelation? [Firebrand Big Read]” by David Watson via Firebrand Magazine. The Academic Dean of United Theological Seminary, a GMC clergy, discusses the divine revelation of scripture via the work of Billy Abraham and I. Howard Marshall.
“The Bible and Revelation: Another View” by Thomas McCall via Firebrand Magazine. A response to David Watson’s article on the authority of scripture in which this Asbury professor offers the Roman Catholic view as an option for Methodists.
“The Global Methodist Church and the Quadrilateral” by David F. Watson via Firebrand Magazine. “My point is not to reject Scripture, tradition, reason, or experience, but to suggest that without greater definition the appeal to these will leave us knee-deep in a hopeless swamp of confusion.”
“Sola Scriptura with Ben Witherington III” by Andy Miller III via More to the Story Podcast. “Ben Witherington III suggests that churches and Christians are taking their signals and sense of direction from the culture rather than the biblical witness itself. That’s why he has written Sola Scriptura, a book that clarifies Scripture as the “final authority in the modern world.” Ben was one of my teachers and has written a commentary on every New Testament book. Baylor University Press calls this a ‘magisterial study’ and it is fitting for a scholar like Ben to give the church this volume now.”
“Moving Beyond the Wesleyan Quadrilateral” by David Wisener via The Earnest Wesleyan. “I think through Canonical theism, Abraham was trying to incorporate into Protestant consciousness a reality that our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters have recognized all along, and that is the uncomfortable truth that, in some ways, there isn’t all that much of a difference between the Bible and other forms of Christian tradition.”
“Biblical Authority Calmly Considered” by Thomas McCall via Firebrand Magazine. “…we of the Methodist family would not be well-served by another internecine “Battle for the Bible.” I don’t think that we will be helped by attacks on the catholic account. But I do think that we should be patient and charitable where there are different understandings and even misunderstandings. We need to stand united in our confessional orthodoxy and commitment to gospel proclamation.”
“What are the Marks of Methodism?” by Matt O’Reilly via The Theology Project (YouTube). The topic of Biblical Authority is discussed as a mark of Methodism.
As a “lay person “ myself, I probably have a different perspective on the practice of itinerant ministry. By simply reading how the early church as recorded in the NT, selected their leadership, it becomes pretty clear at least in my mind, that the only itinerancy was among the apostolic workers, the prophets, and evangelists. The elders and deacons, the recognized leadership of local congregations, seemed all to have been raised up within those local assemblies. The listed qualifications for such functions as stated in 1 Timothy and Titus, would require that these folks would have already been a part of these communities, and had an established reputation as far as having a Christ-like character, to even be considered. The modern approach of bringing in from the outside, and then moving around congregational leadership, is in my opinion, an invention of man.