New York, New York

We landed in Newark this morning safe and sound (thanks, AirTran), and then made our way to the hotel before completely conquering the city by early evening. That might be a slight exaggeration, but Wendy moves at such a pace that it felt like we covered all of Manhattan in a half a day! By the way, among the millions of things I love about NYC is the fact that you can just say, "the city," and no one asks, "Which city do you mean?" There really isn't another, is there? We enjoyed a delightful Italian dinner some sidewalk cafe in Soho or Greenwich Village or some such hip place.

Tomorrow morning (while Andrew and Benjamin run a few miles) Wendy and I will visit the great Riverside Church, Union Theological Seminary, and St. John the Divine be fore heading down to "ground zero." The day holds a lot of promise. Then again, most of them do.

On Watching Your Language

I never used “bad” language around Momma. Expletives were rarely heard in my parents’ home, and never from my mother. I can remember pushing the envelope around my dad a few times, and I remember paying for it, too. Daddy wore a size 32” belt. He wasn’t terribly strict, but he drew a definite line as far as language went. But around Momma we didn’t test the limits. There was no wiggle room. Crude, rude, discourteous language was simply never allowed in her presence. Not because she thought she was born 15 miles from the nearest sin, but because she knew our words would, in part, determine what sort of people we would be. Whenever my tongue dared venture too far, Momma reined me in with this warning, “Watch your language.”

I mention all of that because it's past time we Christians learned to watch our language. I’m not so concerned that we’re using the popular, if crude, words for flatulence, feces and fornication (though that may well be an issue). My unease is over our failure to use first person pronouns properly. I, me, mine, we, us, our are simply killing our conversation. They can be harmful, dangerous, even fatal.

Huh?

Maybe this is not altogether clear, but I want you to help me keep my tongue in check. Help me watch my language. Sometimes I forget who I am. Occasionally I don’t remember where I’m from. Sometimes I can’t seem to recall my family name.

So, when I say “I” it should be in reference to one who follows Jesus. That should also be true when I refer to “me.” Especially help me make sure that when I say “us,” I mean church. When I say “we,” I need to mean God’s people. And when I say “our,” I want always to have in mind “us” because that’s who God wants “me” to be.

If "we" can win the battle for “our” language, and if "we" can remember who "we" are maybe, just maybe God can use “us” to make a difference in His world. There's little chance of that happening until "we" are sure who "we" are -- as well as who "we" are not. Our words form us at least as much as we form them.

Divine Abundance

Chapter Three of William Willimon's book, Who Will Be Saved? just read me.

That's not a misprint.

The book read me.

Just as I was getting comfortable with the book, asking my questions, making assumptions, questioning the direction the author was heading, in general assuming the posture of an active reader, it suddenly became clear -- I was no longer the reader. I had become the text. The book was reading me.

Good books turn the tables on us in precisely that way, and this is a very good book.

Here's where the book got me: "If we think about salvation at all, it is curious, and a bit sad, how we tend to move from the claims that 'Jesus saves' immediately to the question, 'Who is saved?'" (44). Ouch. That's exactly what I was asking: Who is saved? Who's in? Who's out? Willimon's talking about how "the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to all" (Titus 2:11), and the only response I can think of is, "Yeah, yeah -- but just who does it mean by 'all'" (38)?

I am getting ahead of myself, and ahead of the book. Chapter three begins by noting that questions having to do with salvation are first and foremost questions about "the identity of God. Who saves?" (35). The Bible answers the question with stories. A farmer sows seed; a fisherman's net catches all sorts of fish. The God of Israel throws seed about indiscriminately, haphazardly even, not concerning himself at all with what type of soil the seed finds. The God who saves us doesn't keep the good fish and throw out the bad, but happily pulls in the entire catch.

"Who saves?", we ask. And the Bible answers us by telling us about a farmer whose crop of wheat had all sorts of weeds in it (the work of an enemy). Don't try to remove the weeds, we're told. That's God's business. God seems to be "more into careless sowing, miraculous growing, and reckless harvesting than in taxonomy of the good from the bad, the worthwhile from the worthless, the saved from the damned" (36).

The God Jesus called "Father," is like a shepherd who risks all his "found" sheep in order to go on a search for the one sheep who is lost. He's like a woman who tears the house apart to find her one lost coin. God is a broken-hearted father who welcomes home his selfish and wasteful son: "This son of mine was dead but now is alive; he was lost and is found"and who then throws a party to celebrate the finding.

[Unfortunately] most of us have been conditioned to read the Bible anthropologically rather than theologically, asking, "How is this story about me?" Therefore we need a general interpretive principle for reading the Bible: Scripture always and everywhere speaks primarily about God, and only secondarily, and then only derivatively, about us (37).

So rather than addressing our question, "Who is saved?" the Bible focuses on the more important question: "Who is the Savior?" The Savior is the One who comes for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, social standing, age or any other qualifier. He is the Savior of all.

There is a tension that exists in Scripture, a tension between "all" and "not all." On the one hand, the Bible says that there is punishment, a "place" reserved for all who are disobedient to God. On the other hand there are passages in the Bible stating that "God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he might be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). Who, then, is saved? Everyone? Much of the Bible points away from that conclusion, attractive though it is. Three things we know for sure: we are all sinners in need of saving, God alone saves, and God desires salvation for all.

There is, of course, a distinction between "Jesus died for all," or "God seeks to save all," and "All will be saved." We trust in the God of abundance, the God who always wants more fish in the net. But what about the people who refuse the gift of God in Jesus Christ, who take a long look at Jesus and say, "No thanks"? First we can agree that we don't make the call of who is in and who, if anyone, is out. That is God's call and not ours. C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'THY will be done'" (79). Following Karl Barth, Willimon suggests

To the person who doggedly denies the Lordship of Christ and turns away from the open hand of salvation, 'God does not owe eternal patience and... deliverance'... But if there are limits to the love and patience of God, or if there are no limits on the love and patience of God, those matters are in God's hands, not ours. Though we cannot expect certitude in such matters...we can still hope" (49).

I do hope that God will save everyone. It is difficult to conceive of Jesus' Father doing otherwise as it is also difficult to get around the hard words of Scripture regarding punishment. Our role in the meantime, therefore, is to preach the good news that God saves -- all.

Beware of Dogma?

Most of you probably don't read such high-brow social commentary and theology as that found in the National Enquirer. That's okay, because I do, and I promise to keep you informed. Maybe you saw this cover in the supermarket. Take a good look. No, not at Kirstie Alley's now famously fluctuating waistline, and not at the story of the sad departure of Tim Russert. Just between Alley and Russert there is a story entitled, "World's Only Church for Dogs."

A church for dogs? I'd never heard of such a thing (despite what you might think given our annual blessing of the pets), so I decided to investigate. After a few Google searches - sure enough - I found a story on a church just for dogs. I found some other interesting things, too. I found the Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua. There was also a headline that read something like, "Legal Woes Dog Church," but after staring at it for a few minutes I discerned that it was talking about something altogether different. There were the usual sites with Pet Blessings and stuff, along with lots of people wanting to know if their dog went to heaven (and lots more people to reassure them that they had).

All this thinking about dogs and church caused me to reflect on my two Labs. I must admit that my two dogs, "Seven" and "Comet" do not go to church willingly, and I am pretty sure they are sinners of the worst sort. My guess is they are in serious jeopardy. They run away whenever they can. They bark at night - a lot. They never, ever share with each other. They sniff perfect strangers in highly inappropriate ways. They have even been known to express amorous intentions with the leg of just about anyone who stands still and appears willing. Yes, my dogs need church. Once a year for the PCC Pet Blessing/Animal Baptism doesn't seem to be doing the trick. Question is, what church will take them?

Which brings us back to the "World's Only Church for Dogs." It was founded by a Vermont artist, Stephen Huneck, whose five dogs kept him company during a long and difficult illness. He built a chapel in their honor, complete with stained glass and everything. Even little doggie pews. "I want dogs and people to feel as if they are in a cathedral," he said. The ecumenically minded church has no formal creeds, and dogs of all faiths are welcome. It's hard to envision, but from what I've read they simply throw the doors of the dog-cathedral wide open and allow dogs of all sorts, smelly ones, big ones, little fluffy French ones, dogs from the AKC and dogs with questionable pedigrees, even God-awful strays -- all of them are invited in. Now, that's what I call a church. An amazing place -- where any ol' dog who shows up is truly welcome.

Match Made in Heaven? NT Wright & Stephen Colbert

NT Wright seems "surprised by silliness," so you have to wonder if he'd seen The Colbert Report before agreeing to the appearance.

Blessed are the peacemakers...

True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to an evil power...it is rather a courageous confrontation with evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it... (The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., IV, 479.)

You see, this method has a way of disarming the opponent. It exposes his moral defenses. It weakens his morale, and at the same time it works on his conscience, and he just doesn’t know what to do. If he doesn’t beat you, wonderful. If he beats you, you develop the quiet courage of accepting blows without retaliating. If he doesn’t put you in jail, wonderful. Nobody with any sense likes to go to jail. But if he puts you in jail, you go in that jail and transform it from a dungeon of shame to a haven of freedom and human dignity. And even if he tries to kill you, you’ll develop the inner conviction that there are some things so dear, some things so precious, some things so eternally true, that they are worth dying for. And I submit to you that if a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live (Speech at the Great March on Detroit, June 23, 1963).

Who Will Be Saved? (continuing our discussion of Will Willimon's book)

Chapter 2 -- "The Eros of God"

Erotic is not the word Christians usually employ to describe the love of God. Erotic speaks of lingerie, candles, soft music, and massage. It's the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition (not that I've ever seen it), or it's an open-shirted Fabio gracing the cover of a romance novel. The word erotic is used in a lot of ways, but until I opened the book Who Will Be Saved?, I don't think I'd ever seen the word "Eros" or any form of it used to describe the passion God has for creation, for humanity.

When you see the word "Eros" or "erotic," what comes to mind? I invariably think along the lines of the steamy stuff suggested above, and I imagine you do, too. Surprisingly, however, my mind wanders away from the swimsuit edition toward C.S. Lewis' wonderful exploration of The Four Loves: storge (fondness of family), philia (love among friends), eros (sexual, romantic love) and agape (unconditional goodwill). If all of these loves are good, and they surely are, then we can safely say all of them originate with God. Of the four it is the word agape that is typically used of God's love. Anders Nygren calls it "the distinctively Christian love," the love (unlike eros) that is not motivated by its object. "[But] we make a mistake to separate agape from eros in speaking of the love that is experienced as the Trinity" (21).

Drawing on generally disfavored traditional interpretations of the Song of Solomon (for whatever that's worth), Willimon suggests the love Song is not simply "the erotic thoughts of two heated adolescents" but is rather "an allegory of the love of Christ for his church. Isn't it scandalous that the closest analogy for the love of God in Christ is the infatuated, sensual ramblings of two adolescents consumed with lust -- I mean love -- for each other (22)?

Consider the shocking suggestion that the church is the "Bride of Christ." The relationship between Christ and the church becomes that of a husband and wife. Seeking each other, wanting each other, their relationship is passionate and unrestrained. "Jesus looks upon the poor old church the way a proper groom looks upon his bride" (22).

"God erotically risks, desires union with humanity. So God comes close enough to be not only God for us, but to be God with us. In what the Biblical writers call 'the fullness of time' god steps up, steps in and steps out in a most amazing overture of love" (22).

Willimon may well overplay the subtext of eroticism in the Bible (maybe), but the notion of intimacy is unmistakably present throughout the NT. God abides with us; he is our shepherd; he is the vine and we the branches. He is the Bread on which we feed, the Living Water that we drink. He dwells in us and we dwell in Him.

God as a passionate lover is a difficult concept for children of the Enlightenment (that's us, by the way). Modern individuals view ourselves as our own sovereigns, separate, single, solitary, solo. We are special because of our individuality, and we are very capable (thank you) of standing alone, "self-sufficient, self reliant, and self made." We are at our best when as rugged individuals we need and rely on no one.

From a Christian point of view, in the Enlightenment the modern self did not grow; it shrank. The thin contemporary self, a creation of the individual's choices of the moment, responsible only for itself, having no greater project than itself was the self shed of the very qualities that previously were thought to be most humane (24).

Yet God presents himself as the one without whom we are lost. The One who wants to have us claims to be the One we must have -- if we have any hope of being saved. Rugged individualists don't like being told that. So we shrug in rebellion when we hear that salvation is being bound to a characteristically relational God that not only desires intimacy with us, but who stops at nothing to have it, to have us.

"Apparently God has got this thing for us almost like lust" (22).

Who Will Be Saved?

Chapter One -- "The God Who Refuses to Be Alone"

First and foremost, salvation is about something God does.

So says United Methodist Bishop William Willimon, author of our current read, Who Will be Saved? Contrary to what many otherwise smart people believe, the salvation of humanity, the promise of creation restored, comes not as a result of our own fine efforts, or from the skills of "the brightest and the best" among us. The salvation of the world will result not from collaborative work, or from nations agreeing to live together in harmony. History laughs at such nonsense, and it is almost silly that any of us (who actually live on this planet) can still be so credulous. Maybe there's a lesson in there for us as November approaches.

"Salvation is learning to live with the God that we've got, now and forever, learning to love the God who saves" (10). The problem with such a statement is that the meanings of the words "God" and "love" are not self-evident. These are words awaiting content, content that is supplied by the stories of Scripture. "We must attend to Scripture, listening carefully, enjoying the particulars, looking for the overall picture that emerges, so that we may know the God that we've got, or, more specifically to the way Scripture tells it, the God who has got us" (10).

We can begin, for example, with the story of the Good Samaritan in which a man, mugged, robbed and lying in a ditch, is passed unassisted by a priest and then a Levite, two very devoutly religious people. Finally a despised half-breed Samaritan comes along and helps the victim. "This is your ultimate hope for rescue," Willimon writes, "but you are aghast to learn that your hope, your salvation is none other than a good-for-nothing, anything-but-poor-and-pious, lousy Samaritan" (10). The story of the Samaritan is about "the odd, threatening, humiliating and extravagant form by which God draws near to us for our rescue. And in noting our reaction to the story, it's a story about our shock at the peculiar One who risked all for us" (11).

Like most of Scripture, the story of the man in the ditch is a story about God before it is a story about us, about the oddness of our salvation in Christ. I've used this interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan before, and I can tell you my congregation didn't like it. They like stories about themselves more than they like to hear stories about God. They are resourceful, educated, gifted people who don't like to be cast in the role of the beaten poor man in the ditch. They would rather be the anything-but-poor Samaritan who does something nice for the less fortunate among us. In other words, they don't like to admit that just possible they need to be saved.

Why is this story not about us? Doesn't the story end with Jesus saying, "Go and do likewise"" "Go" and "do" what? I'm saying that more difficult even than reaching out to the victim in the ditch (which is difficult enough for us) is coming to conceive of yourself as the victim, learning to live as if your one last hope is the Savior whom you tend to despise (11).

Salvation is when God finally gets what God wants in creating the world. Salvation means finally, safely to arrive where you have always been intended by God to be. One might expect God's restored good creation to be a redeemed garden to make up for the paradise we botched up in Genesis. Instead, Revelation says that God's crowing act of restoration is communitarian: New Jerusalem, a populous, raucously singing city, rather than a serene garden. You get this sort of result from a God who loves a crowd.

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 Nothing accursed will be found there any more. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him; 4 they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 And there will be no more night; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. (Revelation 22:1-5)

Litany of Resistance

Here is a litany that captures the spirit of the book, Jesus For President.

Jesus For President Litany of Resistance
Created by Shane Claiborne, Jim Loney and Brian Walsh

One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All: Have mercy on us
One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All: Free us from the bondage of sin and death
One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All: Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.
One: For the victims of war
All: Have mercy
One: Women, men and children
All: Have mercy
One: The maimed and the crippled
All: Have mercy
One: The abandoned and the homeless
All: Have mercy
One: the imprisoned and the tortured
All: Have mercy
One: The widowed and the orphaned
All: Have mercy
One: The bleeding and the dying
All: Have mercy
One: The weary and the desperate
All: Have mercy
One: The lost and the forsaken
All: Have mercy
One: O God -- Have mercy on us sinners
All: Forgive us for we know not what we do
One: For our scorched and blackened earth
All: Forgive us
One: For the scandal of billions wasted in war
All: Forgive us
One: For our arms makers and arms dealers
All: Forgive us
One: For our Caesars and Herods
All: Forgive us
One: For the violence that is rooted in our hearts
All: Forgive us
One: For the times we turn others into enemies
All: Forgive us
One: Deliver us, O God
All: Guide our feet into the way of peace
One: Hear our prayer.
All: Grant us peace.
One: From the arrogance of power
All: Deliver us
One: From the myth of redemptive violence
All: Deliver us
One: From the tyranny of greed
All: Deliver us
One: From the ugliness of racism
All: Deliver us
One: From the cancer of hatred
All: Deliver us
One: From the seduction of wealth
All: Deliver us
One: From the addiction of control
All: Deliver us
One: From the idolatry of nationalism
All: Deliver us
One: From the paralysis of cynicism
All: Deliver us
One: From the violence of apathy
All: Deliver us
One: From the ghettos of poverty
All: Deliver us
One: From the ghettos of wealth
All: Deliver us
One: From a lack of imagination
All: Deliver us
One: Deliver us, O God
All: Guide our feet into the way of peace
One: We will not conform to the patterns of this world
All: Let us be transformed by the renewing of our minds
One: With the help of God’s grace
All: Let us resist evil wherever we find it
One: With the waging of war
All: We will not comply
One: With the legalization of murder
All: We will not comply
One: With the slaughter of innocents
All: We will not comply
One: With laws that betray human life
All: We will not comply
One: With the destruction of community
All: We will not comply
One: With the pointing finger and malicious talk
All: We will not comply
One: With the idea that happiness must be purchased
All: We will not comply
One: With the ravaging of the earth
All: We will not comply
One: With principalities and powers that oppress
All: We will not comply
One: With the destruction of peoples
All: We will not comply
One: With the raping of women
All: We will not comply
One: With governments that kill
All: We will not comply
One: With the theology of empire
All: We will not comply
One: With the business of militarism
All: We will not comply
One: With the hoarding of riches
All: We will not comply
One: With the dissemination of fear
All: We will not comply
One: Today we pledge our ultimate allegiance… to the Kingdom of God
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To a peace that is not like Rome’s
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Gospel of enemy love
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Kingdom of the poor and broken
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To a King that loves his enemies so much he died for them
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the least of these, with whom Christ dwells
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the transnational Church that transcends the artificial borders of nations
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the refugee of Nazareth
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the homeless rabbi who had no place to lay his head
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the cross rather than the sword
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the banner of love above any flag
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the one who rules with a towel rather than an iron fist
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the one who rides a donkey rather than a war-horse
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the revolution that sets both oppressed and oppressors free
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Way that leads to life
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Slaughtered Lamb
All: We pledge allegiance
One: And together we proclaim his praises, from the margins of the empire to the centers of
wealth and power
All: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb
One: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb
All: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb

Jesus for President? -- (I've voted for worse)

(This is NOT a picture of Jesus)

During the Presidential Debates way back in 2003 (I think it may have been a Republican Primary debate) the would-be candidates were asked to name their "favorite philosopher." I can't remember who the others named, but I do recall cringing just a bit when George Bush answered confidently, "Jesus Christ." While I resort to stock Sunday school answers as much as anyone, I don't think Jesus was much of a philosopher. I do wonder, however, how much Jesus' "philosophy" actually influences the decisions of the ostensibly Christian President of the United States, not to mention the many church going members of the Congress.

I wonder even more, however, what sort of a President Jesus himself would make. Shane Claiborne is doing more than wondering; he's already nominated Christ for that highst of offices in his new book, Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. In case you don't know, that's Shane pictured above. He's an interesting guy who, as you can likely surmise from the photo, is not exactly corporate. Shane calls himself, "an ordinary radical," which has less to do with his dreadlocks and earrings and more to do with his taking the Sermon on the Mount seriously.

As you can imagine Claiborne has in mind "A different kind of campaign. A different kind of party. A different kind of Commander in Chief." What I'm going to do over the next few weeks is attempt to whet your appetite for this extremely interesting book. In the meantime, click this for someone who can do a far better job than I.

Who Will Be Saved?

If anyone was going to write a book entitled Who will Be Saved?, you almost knew it had to be Will Willimon. My only disappointment was the good Bishop didn't provide a definitive list of names. Believe me, the first thing I did was to flip through the pages looking to see if I was one of the chosen. Alas, there are no names; there is no list. But there is in this little book a wealth of insight into what it means for Christians to speak of salvation, and more importantly what it means to live as saved people. Here's a little taste:

Most Christians think of salvation as related exclusively to the afterlife. Salvation is when we die and go to heaven. To be sure, Scripture is concerned with you eternal fate. What has been obscured is Scripture's stress on salvation as invitation to share in a particular God's life here, now, so that we might do so forever. Salvation isn't just a destination; it is our vocation. Salvation isn't just a question of who is saved and who is damned, who will get to heaven and how, but also how we are swept up into participation into the mystery of God who is Jesus Christ (3).

If salvation for you has always meant an escape from this life, if it has always been "pie in the sky by and by," if it's never been clear to you what salvation has to do with how you live day to day, then check out Who Will Be Saved? I once heard a scholar poke fun at William Willimon telling him he'd never had a thought that he didn't publish. I think that's a good thing for the church.

So, how was your weekend?

Mine got a little interesting early Friday evening. I spent the day Friday at the theological library at Emory University. At a few minutes before 5:00PM I had an arm full of books and was walking back to my desk when the lights went out. The library was closing -- not what I was counting on.

So on an evening when I thought I'd be safely tucked away in a stack of books I was on my way home fighting Atlanta traffic. Little did I know!

Just after I turned onto West Wesley Rd. off of Moore's Mill a pick up truck moving at excessive speed swerved across the double lines and gave me a little kiss on the mouth. The other driver walked away. I walked away. And Friday the 13th became a really, really good day.

I don't want to jump to conclusions or make easy comments about "God watching over me" or speak too freely about how my walking away is "proof of God's goodness" or His love. I, like you, have known too many people who did not walk away. I've buried youngsters whose parents had to be pried off the coffin so we could have a funeral. Was God not watching over them? Was God not good then? Had I not walked away from this accident on Friday the 13th, would my family and friends still speak of "God watching over me" or of "God's goodness"? I believe so. I hope so.

When the lights went out in Pitts Theological Library yesterday afternoon I told the nice young lady who was closing up the place that a graduate school library should stay open late on weekends. I was right.

Gabi & Mara to speak at PCC Sunday school - 6/15

Be sure to come early to Sunday school on the 15th of June to hear about the work God is accomplishing in eastern Europe. The Agape and Open Word classes will combine to hear the wonderful testimonies of our missionary friends in Hungary, Gabi and Mara. Here's a video they put on Godtube.com.

Sources of Authority for What We Believe and How We Live

How do we determine what we, as Christians, are supposed to believe?
What are the appropriate sources of authority for Christian living, ethics, and virtues?

Protestant Christians, having no teaching magisterium to hand down correct doctrine, are left to discover answers to these questions via other means. Even though his use of what is called "Wesley's quadrilateral" is debated, it is most often assumed that Johns Welsey, the founder of Methodism implicitly relied on four sources of authority: 1) Scripture, 2) Tradition, 3) Reason and 4) Experience. The devil, of course, is in the details. My concern is not so much how did Wesley use them (although the answer might be instructive), but how do we? How might we?

The two diagrams above picture two ways of using of the four sources. Which of the two diagrams most accurately represents the way you approach theological reflection? Why do you approach things as you do?

One of the earliest memories of my life in church is learning the slogan: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent." That is to say (in good Campbellite fashion), Scripture trumps everything else. If my intellect demands a view contrary to that espoused in Scripture, the Bible wins. The same holds true for tradition and experience and anything else one might envision as a potential "authority." I'm not claiming that we actually practiced this when it came right down to it, but that was the un-stated, but nonetheless very clear belief of my childhood church. Wesley's four fold approach would have been seen as dangerous.

1. What are the differences between the two diagrams of Wesley's Quadrilateral?
2. What are the strengths of each of the two approaches pictured above?
3. What are their potential weaknesses?
   
4. Is it a given that we will use each of these four sources?
5. How do the four interact with each other in your theological reflection?