The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: An Exceptionally Useful Tool

Last week’s blog was titled “‘You Have Heard That It Was Said . . . But I Tell You . . . ’” In it, I quoted 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.” 

I pointed out that the words “prophecy" (noun) and “prophesy” (verb), when used in the Bible, aren’t limited to predicting the future. No, they more often refer to speaking forth about God and spiritual things—which could include preaching, giving a personal testimony or even writing spiritual instruction, such as Moses did in the Torah.

I talked about how some spiritual advice/rules applied to a particular time and place, while others had universal and timeless application. And 1 Thessalonians 5:21 suggests that we need to evaluate spiritual messages to determine both their validity and their ongoing applicability, not treating them with contempt, in one extreme, or, in the other extreme, embracing them so tightly that we refuse to even consider the possibility that they are no longer applicable as written. 

Rather, we must learn to hold on to what is good and, by implication, discard what isn’t good—at least what is no longer applicable to our current situation. 

But how do we test such advice/rules to make that determination? That’s where The Wesleyan Quadrilateral comes into play as an exceptionally useful tool—one that I highly recommend.

I want to be clear that John Wesley wasn’t the one who labeled the approach that he seemed to follow and that now bears his name. Rather, in reading Wesley’s discourses, others began to note a pattern. As he was “testing” messages about God and other spiritual things, four foundational considerations seemed to always be present: scripture, reason, tradition and experience—thus the term The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Scripture. In last week’s blog, I called into question the current applicability of the Moses-advocated eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth model of revenge and retaliation when one has been wronged. And there would be no better place to start testing its validity than scripture. Do other scriptures support Moses’s advice/rule? 

Obviously, Jesus had qualms about it, as I pointed out in last week’s blog. But even before the time of Jesus, other biblical writers called for a different response. And New Testament writers who came after Jesus likewise advocated a much gentler and more loving response when one was wronged. 

So it’s important to compare scripture with scripture to find out if there’s agreement. Or to find out if there’s a trajectory moving through scripture toward a different emphasis. For example, does the New Testament advocate capital punishment with the same degree of urgency and enthusiasm that we find in the Old Testament? I think the answer is a clear No.

Reason. Just as certain sounds can’t be combined without creating dissonance, and just as certain flavors don’t lend themselves to being mixed, and just as certain colors complement each other while others clash, certain ideas are mutually exclusive. For example, you can’t depict God as simultaneously the epitome of love and the epitome of cruelty. Not and have credibility. 

So Wesley, operating on the assumption that spiritual truth should have inherent congruity, turned to reason as one factor in his decision making. If it didn’t make sense logically, it needed to be seriously questioned. Reason wasn’t the only consideration, certainly, but it was an important consideration when testing the validity and applicability of spiritual claims. 

Tradition. Many Protestants have an aversion to the concept of tradition. They see tradition as our human interpretation of things—an interpretation that eventually becomes the only acceptable interpretation. But that’s not the only way the concept of tradition can be used.

When enough people have given a subject enough study, and when generation after generation have pored over a topic and have come to view it quite uniformly, it’s worth taking note of all that study and all that discussion and the level of acceptance that a particular explanation has achieved.

That doesn’t mean that we can’t be trailblazers and forge a different approach. But it would behoove us to know why we believe our way is more correct than, or in some way superior to, the way all the people before us have concluded. 

I repeat: Taking into consideration what tradition says, doesn’t mean we can’t go a different direction. It just means that every divergence from what is considered the norm will be intentional, deliberate and with full knowledge of what many others have long believed. 

Experience. Closely connected to reason is personal and collective experience. Some ideas may sound good in words. They may look good on paper. But when it comes to putting them into practice, their luster disappears rather quickly.

In Acts chapter 15 we read about the leaders of the early Christian Church coming together and saying, “Most of us have come from Judaism. Thus, most of us are used to the expectations and traditions connected to being Jewish. But should everyone wanting to become a Christian have to essentially become a Jew first?” (Think circumcision.)

It was clear to those assembled at that meeting in Jerusalem that some people were not joining the Christian movement simply because they were being compelled to engage in so many Jewish rituals and practices.

So the Christian leaders said, “Let’s not make it hard for people to become Christians.” And based on their experience and observation, the leaders tried to limit Christianity’s entry requirements as much as possible.

Summary. In The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, scripture is first and foremost. But scripture isn’t the only consideration given credence in decision making about spiritual things. Reason, tradition and experience also need to be satisfied. 

It seems that by including these four components, Wesley has given us a highly balanced and effective model for putting into practice what the apostle Paul calls for in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 about testing—and then holding on to what is good.