A RESPONSE TO GEORGE LYONS

Thank you for the paper, for the research, and for the issue with which you are struggling. The integration of our theological position and our Biblical methodologies is indeed crucial.

Allow me to define the purpose or thrust of your paper, as I see it, as a setting for my observations and responses. The paper is an attempt to identify the role of "Higher Criticism" or "the historical—critical method" in a Wesleyan system under the umbrella of the interaction of theology and hermeneutics. The careful work of definition in each of these areas is crucial. The solution which your paper proposes, as I see it, is three—fold.

A. Biblical criticism is a necessary and a crucial element in the whole understanding of the Word. The incisive use of the concept of distance between then and now is valid.

B. Wesley is an excellent model, for he broke out of traditional interpretation to use the contemporary Biblical criticism of his day.

C. The use of philosophical understanding enables us to glean the valuable from any and all contemporary Biblical criticism while screening out the invalid due to inadequate presuppositions.

Allow me to respond to the paper as a whole.

A. The problem is articulated and the dilemma raised to help us face the issue. The delineation of significant positions and the history of the problem are instructive and helpful.

B. The use of Wesley as a model is also instructive, but not binding as Lyons implies. Wesley provides patterns, but justification for employing these techniques and methodologies must rest on a more viable basis than simply imitating someone else who used them.

C. The necessity for Biblical criticism due to the increasingly apparent gap between the meaning for the first audience and the meaning for the contemporary audience faces all who dare to stand under the authority of the Word and proclaim its good news for contemporary man.

D. The primary issue with the paper, then, is the significance of a Wesleyan theological stance for guidance and identification of boundariesgranted the unavoidable necessity of wrestling with Biblical criticism. I propose that the crucial and freeing elements of the Wesleyan stance can be found in the understanding of the nature of Biblical authority and the nature of inspiration. The Wesleyan understanding of the dynamic role of the Holy Spirit in both the validation of the authority of the Word and in the inscripturating of that Word frees us to intersect with Biblical criticism in quest of meaning and understanding. We are then freed to move directly from that understanding to the application for contemporary man through the process of Biblical theology. Dr. Lyons has given us a good case for the nature of, and the necessity for, Biblical theology as a control factor to avoid subjective exegetical anarchy. An extreme concern for application often creates such anarchy.

The freeing and enabling element for Wesleyans is the dynamic of the Holy Spirit flowing through the whole process. We are freed from the necessity of trying to squeeze the last drop of exegetical juice from the holy orange through a rigid fundamentalistic methodology on the one hand, and from a subjectivism which only seeks existential application without regard to the meaning for the first audience, on the other hand.

Further, the same freedom enables us to find the boundaries of interpretation. A slavish submission to a Biblical authority which has no boundaries is a terrible tension under which to operate.

The boundaries for a Wesleyan's use of Biblical criticism are defined and controlled by a number of elements:

A. The constant willingness to bring our presuppositions under the authority of the Word for correction and enrichment. The Word continually intersects with favorite beliefs and forces growth in understanding.

B. The traditions of the Church including the church fathers and the checks and balances of our contemporaries in the Body of Christ provide excellent guidance.

C. The internal witness of the Spirit "validating the truth of Scripture," as Dr. Lyons states, freed Wesley to take a mediating position between the Calvinists' emphasis on the Spirit's illumination of the Word and the Friends' emphasis on intuitive immediacy of the Spirit's work.

D. The constant concern for the Biblical—theological whole provides a context for understanding individual doctrines and Scriptures.

E. The widest possible use of the methodologies of Biblical criticism, as Dr. Lyons suggests, enables us to gather light from all quarters.

F. A further boundary is found in the emphasis upon experience in the Wesleyan tradition. Such an emphasis continually brings us back into the intersection of the Gospel and the traumas of a bleeding world (soteriological hermeneutics or spiritual exposition). That intersection soon disposes of superficial or non—applicable interpretations of the Word. Dr. Lyons' point about the distinction between the descriptive and the prescriptive is well taken.

The question of the use of Biblical criticism in Wesleyan theology is not only not dangerous, but is absolutely necessary. As Dr. Lyons has maintained, the use of Biblical criticism is a privilege enriched by the Wesleyan stance.