An Even More Excellent Way: A Response to Joel Green on the Bible in Global Methodism

Should Global Methodist doctrine define what Scripture is or describe what Scripture does? That's the question posed by Joel B. Green in a new Firebrand article that criticizes my defense of the statement "Scripture is without error in all it affirms," which is language included in the proposed Articles of Faith to be considered by the General Conference of the Global Methodist Church (GMC) later this year. Green's article came in the form of a response to my critique of an earlier Firebrand essay by Scott Kisker that urged the GMC to avoid the langauge that Scripture is without error. If you want to get up to speed on where the discussion is, you can read Kisker here, my response to Kisker here, and Green's response to me here.

Green's basic critique is that he thinks I ask the language of "without error" to do too much theological work. He argues that it would be more "genuinely Wesleyan" to focus our doctrine on the formative power of Scripture as a means of grace rather than having a statement that defines the properties of the biblical text. Green's argument ultimately fails because it depends on a logical fallacy and is based on a selective reading of the evidence. I'll explain what I mean by that. Then I'll offer a few concluding observations about how the feedback we received from across the GMC relates to the proposed language on Holy Scripture. Let's go.

SUBSCRIBE TO THEOLOGY PROJECT

Why one or the other?

The most substantive flaw in Green's argument is that he commits the logical fallacy of creating a false dilemma. When an argument commits a logical fallacy, the problem isn't just with what has been said, the problem is with the way the argument is made. And if an argument rests on a false dilemma, then the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Consider the structure of Green's argument:

• Premise 1: The GMC can either define the properties of Scripture or describe the power of Scripture.

• Premise 2: It's more Wesleyan to describe the power of Scripture.

• Conclusion: The GMC should not define the properties of Scripture.

You need to know that when we talk about the properties of Scripture, we mean things like inspiration, authority, truthfulness, and infallibility. When we talk about the function of Scripture, we mean its power as a means of grace to transform us and restore us in the image of God.

Green's argument is flawed because Premise 1 presents the two possible choices as alternatives when there are actually additional possibilities. The GMC could have a doctrinal statement that both defines the properties of Scripture and describes the function of Scripture, or the GMC could choose to neither define the properties of Scripture nor describe the function of Scripture.

Premise 1 in Green's argument is false because defining what Scripture is and describing what Scripture does are not the only options, neither are they mutually exclusive. To be fair, he seems to walk this back a bit in favor of some synthesis of the options in response to comments on the post that make this same criticism. Nevertheless, the main article doesn't really argue for synthesizing what Scripture is and how it functions. He frames properties and function in contrast to each other and argues it's more genuinely Wesleyan to lean into the function of Scripture as a means of grace.

The good news for the GMC is that we don't have to choose between affirming Scripture's trustworthiness and declaring Scripture's power. A faithful doctrine of Scripture can do both. In fact, the strongest doctrine of Scripture will do both.

Does Green actually engage the proposed Article?

As I read Green's article, I found myself asking over and again: why doesn't he actually engage the proposed language in Article VIII? Because the way Green's essay is presented, it shows no awareness of the language already present that describes the formative power of Scripture. Indeed, if you only read Green's article, you might be left with the impression that the proposed Article says little beyond the claim that Scripture is without error. Throughout his piece, Green argues against a much weaker version of the Article on Holy Scripture than what has been proposed to General Conference.

Green urges the Global Methodist Church to have a doctrine of Scripture that includes "a recognition of the necessity of the Spirit’s ongoing illuminating work." And in a comment on the original post, he writes: "The question is whether 'without error in all it affirms' best captures that synthesis" - the synthesis between what Scripture is and how Scriptures functions. But Article VIII does not ask "without error" to capture that synthesis. That langauge was never intended to capture that synthesis. Instead, Article VIII offers a substantially fuller statement that synthesizes Scripture's properties and function.

The proposed text of Article VIII begins with an opening paragraph that defines Scripture's properties and a subsequent paragraph that describes how Wesleyans understand Scripture to function.

Here's the second paragraph as proposed in Article VIII on Holy Scripture:

The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures continues to work through them, illumining the Church’s interpretation for the edification of the people of God. They are the basis for the Church’s proclamation and a vital means of grace for all who hear them. Through the proclamation of the Word, the Spirit awakens us to sin, calls us to repentance, draws us to faith in Christ, and renews us in the image of God.

So, Green's charge that we are putting too much theological weight on the single claim that "Scripure is without error in all it affirms" loses credibility when the second paragraph of Article VIII is considered. The first paragraph carries the weight of defining the properties of Scripture. The second paragraph carries the weight of defining the function of Scripture.

Now I grant that the revised text was not publicly available very long before Green's article was published, Nevertheless, it was available. I noted at the start of my own Firebrand piece to which Green was responding that the Articles had been substantively revised, and it would have been prudent to engage the fully revised text prior to publishing a critique of the Article in question.

Beyond the actual wording itself, I participated in a panel discussion earlier this week that explained the proposed Article VIII in this multi-faceted way precisely because we want to affirm classical Christian consensus on what Scripture is and articulate our Wesleyan emphases on what Scripture does.

All of this raises the question: If the proposed Article already contains a statement on Scripture's function, why does Green still argue that such language be added?

Is it Wesleyan?

Another major concern is the way Green handles the evidence from Wesley himself and from other theologians in the Wesleyan tradition. Green affirms that references to the truthfulness of Scripture in Wesley should not be dismissed, but then he dismisses those references in favor of what Wesley says about the formative power of Scripture. The reality is that Wesley both affirmed the truthfulness of Scripture and taught the formative power of Scripture. Green's selective reading of the evidence might be a convenient narrative, but it does not meet the standard of scholarly rigor in historical theology.

Green does the same with all the major Wesleyan theologians I cited who also affirm that Scripture is without error in its affirmations. He notes that they are interesting historically and then summarily dismisses every one of them as overly influenced by the Reformed theology of their day. With one sweeping generalization Green has discounted a century's worth of major Methodist theologians. One might even find it insulting to our theological heritage to imply our leading theologians couldn't parse Wesleyan theology from "accommodation to a Reformed theological culture." Do we think so little of our theological heritage? Turns out it's easy to make Methodism what you want it to be if you disregard the evidence that falsifies your view.

I appreciate the point made by Daryl McCarthy as a comment on Green's Firebrand article that many of the theologians I cite did their work prior to the Reformed debates came to a head. In response to that, Green wants us to remember that the langauge of "without error" might still represent "a convergence with a broader Protestant apologetic."

But that is exactly my point. To say that Scripture is without error is to say something that is deeply Wesleyan but not distinctively Wesleyan. And this is where Green seems to misunderstand the multiple functions of the Articles of Faith. The proposed Articles function to: (1) align the GMC with classical Christian consensus, (2) place the GMC within the Protestant tradition, and (3) articulate Wesleyan emphases that make the GMC distinct from other Protestant denominations.

Quite a few of the proposed Artices are not distinctly Wesleyan, and it would be a very big problem if they were. To illustrate: Article I on the Holy Trinity is not distinctly Wesleyan. Article II on Jesus Christ is not distinctly Wesleyan. Article III on the Holy Spirit is not distinctly Wesleyan. Article IV on Creation and Providence is not distinctly Wesleyan. Article V on Human Nature is not distinctly Wesleyan. And none of them should be.

Article VI on Sin and Free Grace introduces the Wesleyan emphasis on prevenient grace. But Article VII on The Church takes us right back to the realm of not distinctly Wesleyan.

As it is presently written, Article VIII on Holy Scripture, (1) aligns the GMC with classical Christian consensus by affirming authority, inspiration, truthfulness, and infallibility and (2) includes the Wesleyan emphasis Green wants by articulating a doctrine of illumination and the power of Scripture as a means of grace in spiritual formation. This, I propose, is a particularly strong way of putting it.

Back to our categories. Article IX on The Sacraments is not distinctly Wesleyan. Article X on Public Worship is not distinctly Wesleyan. The next four Articles on Repentance, Justification and the New Birth, Good Works, and Entire Sanctification do all include Wesleyan emphases. However, finally, Article XV on Judgment and The Future State is, once again, not distinctly Wesleyan.

Here are the questions: why should we assume with Green (and Kisker, for that matter) that the GMC docrtrinal statement on Scripture should be distinctly and exclusively Wesleyan when the majority of Articles are not distnctly and exclusively Wesleyan? They don't need to be, nor should they be. Such an assumption misunderstands how confessions of faith function in the life of the Church. Further, why should we highlight our Wesleyan emphasis on the function of Scripture without also affirming our commitment to a classical Christian account of Scripture?

To be clear, I favor including a statement in Article VIII of our Wesleyan emphasis on the formative power of Scripture, but not to the exclusion of a statement that defines Scripture in alignment with classical Christian consensus.

The proposed statement does both.

Putting the interpretive cart before the textual horse?

This response is getting lengthy, but these are serious matters that deserve careful attention. Before wrapping it up, let's briefly note that Green's suggestion that it's more genuinely Wesleyan to have a doctrine centered on Scripture's power instead of one focused on Scripture's properties seems like an attempt to build a theological house without first laying a biblical foundation (with apologies for what is now a mixed metaphor).

Here's what I mean. And I'll be brief. How can we say that Scripture is powerful to form us in the image of God without first saying that Scripture speaks to us trustworthily? If we cannot state our confidence that the Bible tells the truth, how can we state any confidence in its power? The truthfulness of the text needs to be established before the text is interpreted and proclaimed. And if the Bible is not true, then we should not proclaim it's power.

The trustworthiness of Scripture is something we should celebrate in our doctrine precisely because it is the foundation of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

Is there really an impasse?

The last point I'll make is that Green's article makes it look like there is more of a debate in the GMC than there really is. He cites the book Evangelicals at an Impasse as having proposals that could help us in the midst of this debate, which leaves the impression that the GMC is indeed at some sort of impasse when it comes to our doctrine of Scripture. I don't think we are.

Through the process of writing and revising the proposed Articles of Faith, we have at multiple stages asked for critical feedback to strenghten the proposal with hopes of discerning where we are as a denomnation and building consensus around that. We have also shared publicly when we made changes to the proposed Articles in light of the feedback. The feedback process included an invitation to any and everyone to provide input on the earlier drafts. Some aspects of the Articles received were criticized more heavily than others (think Article V). The Articles that were heavily criticized were substantively revised.

One Article that was not extensively criticized in the denominational poll was Article VIII on Holy Scripture. In fact, only 2.7% of respondents (13 of 479) made comments that could be construed as objections to the statement that "Scripture is without error in all it affirms." Some of those were obviously explicit objections; others could be interpreted as objections by raising questions asking for clarification. Alternatively, some affirmed the language and a few asked for stronger langauge. This was not a random sample. People self-selected into the feedback process. Still, if anyone wished to object to the language on Scripture, there was an open opportunity to make that known.

The key point is that when the people called Global Methodists had that opportunity to object to the Articles of Faith stating that Scripture is without error, most chose not to. Consequently, when the Articles were revised, we didn't omit that language.

To repeat, we are not at an impasse.

Now let me be clear. I am not asserting that we have achieved a final consensus. It remains for the General Conference to make that determination. But I am saying there is evidence to suggest that Global Methodists largely agree that the Bible is true and are content for the denomination to say so. That should not surprise us. The GMC is made up of many, many people who incurred significant financial costs to disaffiliate and others who walked away from their church buildings precisely because they were unwilling to compromise the full trustworthiness and authority of the Word of God. Based on the feedback we've received, the proposed Articles of Faith appear to resonate with that general conviction.

What we should not do is allow a couple of articles to leave the false impression that Global Methodists are in this huge disagreement about the truthfulness of Scripture.

Let's not be mistaken. It really isn't a widespread debate. And we are certainly not at an impasse.

Is there an even more excellent way?

In the end, I agree with Green that "a more excellent way" would be to include in our doctrinal standards a statement about the illumining work of the Spirit and the formative power of the text. We've done that. It's there. You can read it. And if the General Conference adopts the current language of Article VIII, we'll have just such a statement as an ongoing part of our doctrine.

I disagree that we should avoid including a statement about the properties of Scripture that it is inspired, authoritative, true, and not liable to fail. An even more excellent way than the one Green proposes would be to resist the false dichotomy between what Scripture is and what Scripture does. Instead, let's join Wesley and the tradition that bears his name in affirming and celebrating both that Scripture is true and that Scripture is powerful. Once again, if the General Conference adopts the proposed language, we'll have exactly that.

Dr. Matt O'Reilly is Lead Pastor of Christ Church Birmingham in Alabama, Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary, and a Senior Fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians. A two-time recipeint of the Stott Award for Pastoral Engagement, he is author of Free to Be Holy and Paul and the Resurrected Body.

Click to see it on Amazon

This page contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.