From the AT Archive; Jan/Feb 1996

Even though John Wesley never used the term, he is credited with a distinctive way of thinking about controversial issues called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. This term honors the way Wesley did his theological work as leader of the Methodist revivals and spiritual grandfather of Adventism. It is a method that formulates Christian views and values by interweaving interpreted lines of evidence from four sources: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

Instead of basing his convictions on any one of these, Wesley interpreted and drew on evidence from all four. I believe we Adventists should do the same.

This method presupposes that God, though greater than the whole universe, is omnipresent. We can therefore learn about our Creator from Scripture and from other sources as well. Wesley's method also presupposes that humans are finite and fallible. We therefore need a system of checks and balances to keep us from going astray. The Wesleyan Quadri- lateral invites us to follow truth about God and about ourselves wherever we find it. It also reminds us that, if they are all valid, our various interpretations will converge and cohere in mutually reinforcing ways.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral provides a wholistic method of studying Scripture. Let's apply it to the vexing issue of women's ordination facing the Seventh- day Adventists, Wesley's spiritual children, today.

"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church" (1 Cor 14:34,35 NRSV).

"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent" (1 Tim 2: 11,12 NRSV).

In view of these verses, would we let Ellen White deliver a sermon in our church on Sabbath morning if she were alive today? No one alive today knows precisely and completely why women in the congregations to which these ancient letters were first addressed were advised to keep silent. Some make reasonable conjectures about the matter, but it would be a mistake to make such accommodations to human difficulties the standard by which everything must always be measured. Let's apply each of Wesley's four sources to this question.

Bible

We learn from Scripture that no group of people is more human or more valuable than others. The creation stories of the Bible, unlike those found elsewhere, declare that all groups of humans are created out of the same dust of the ground, and that men and women, as symbolized by the rib of Adam from which Eve was fashioned, are composed of the same material. Neither is intrinsically superior to the other. Instead, men and women are created in the divine image as equal partners.

The Bible recognizes, of course, that men and women sin and that their faithlessness toward God results in a disruption of their relationships. In this disordered state of affairs, men often become more and more tyrannical. In the same sinful state, women often become ever more skillful in the arts of devious manipula- tion. The whole of Scripture traces this accelerating cycle of mutual abuse with stark and painful clarity. Although it is not pretty, this picture of things is true to life.

The good news is that this is not the end of the story. God is actively at work in every moment of every life to bring about healing and reconciliation. The high point of this biblical drama so far occurred in the life, death, and resur- rection of Jesus of Nazareth--the One who most clearly revealed what God is like and what we can become. The stories Jesus told, the friends Jesus enjoyed, the sup- porters Jesus appreciated, and the disciples to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection all included women in sur- prising and soothing ways. For Jesus, healing the wounds between men and women caused by sin was a very high priority.

Christian History

Unfortunately, this was not always the case for all of those who were disciples of Jesus in subsequent generations. Some historians have found that, already in the 1st century, it is possible to trace the origins of struggle between an impulse to prolong and extend the healing gestures of Jesus toward women and the contrary impulse to keep women in subservient roles as long as possible.

It is difficult to imagine, for instance, attitudes toward women more hostile than those of Tertullian in the 3rd century or more ignorant than those of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th. And yet there are occasions, as in some of the sermons to women by Martin Luther in the 16th century and in remarks about marriage by Jeremy Taylor in the 17th, in which the healing impulse emerges, even if only in partial and painful ways. It is not difficult to discern which of these impulses, the healing or the hurtful, is more harmonious with the life and ministry of Jesus--something that should make us exceedingly reluctant to do anything today that might place us on the wrong side of this ongoing and sometimes difficult struggle.

Reason

We come to the same conclusion when we consider the matter from the perspective of that form of human reason we call moral philosophy. One of the basic rules of moral thought is that "equals in equal circumstances ought to be treated equally." This rule does not deny that people differ and that these variations, if pertinent to the issue at hand, can justify treating people in alternative ways. It insists, however, that the differences be clearly relevant. For example, it is not necessary to be able to see, in order to perform as a singer; but it is necessary to have good vision in order to serve as a surgeon. For this reason, we are justified in excluding persons who cannot see from surgical specialties but not warranted in denying them singing careers if they can truly perform. Likewise, differences in gender, though in some contexts they justify treating men and women differently, appear irrelevant to questions of an individual's qualifications for speaking at church. The burden of proof in this matter clearly rests upon us who assert otherwise. We must be able to show why the gender of a woman necessarily and automatically disqualifies her from being a speaker.

Experience

We can learn what we ought to do from our own experience as well. Jesus said we can distinguish true from false spokespersons for God, not by their race, nationality, economic class, or gender, but by the harvest of their lives and words. "You will know them by their fruits," he said. "Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit... .Thus you will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16-20 NRSV).

This is a most important test. An individual's qualifications for speaking in church on Sabbath morning rest, in large measure, on the results, good or bad, of allowing him or her to do so. If there is serious doubt about the matter, there is no substitute for giving the individual an opportunity to be heard, albeit at first in contexts where his or her capacity to do damage is limited even if things don't go well. Only in this way can we avoid the twin errors of including people who are not qualified and excluding them for the wrong reasons. What Gamaliel, who was "respected by all the people," said of Peter and other friends of Jesus applies here as well: "If this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them--in that case you may even be found fighting against God!" (Acts 5: 38, 39 NRSV).

The various lines of interpreted evidence we have considered--Bible, Christian history, reason, and experience--all lead to the same conclusion: When it comes to deciding who will be permitted to speak in our churches on Sabbath morning, our guiding phrase must be "gifts, not gender." This outcome is so compelling, all things considered, that if we resist it we often feel a need to introduce distinctions that soften our conclusions. One such distinction: allowing women to speak in church, but only in a way that does not challenge the authority of the male leaders of the con- gregation. But the very fact that we feel a need to introduce this distinction, which is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, demonstrates how difficult it is to apply the Bible's rare prohibitions of allowing women to speak in church both literally and universally. If we apply these verses literally, we do not apply them universally. If we apply them universally, we do not do so literally but introduce distinctions that qualify their plain meaning. I find it more faithful to Scripture, Christian tradition, human reason, and our own experience to interpret these verses as they read, but to apply them only where they fit local needs.

As these considerations suggest, I am convinced the Wesleyan Quadrilateral enables us to think about the roles and places of men and women in the church in helpful ways. I am also convinced, however, that this method of studying the Bible is very fruitful, no matter what the topic. Besides, as spiritual grandchildren of John Wesley, we Adventists will do well to preserve and promote this valuable treasure from our own past. 

EDITORIAL NOTE:

The full, unabridged version of this article is available online or write to David Larson, Faculty of Religion, LLU, Loma Linda, CA 92350.