by
Donald A. D. Thorsen

Christians in the Wesleyan tradition have always had a love for scripture. Since the time of John Wesley, there has been an ongoing concern for scripture, which includes reading and studying scripture and applying it to all matters of Christian faith and practice. To love, study and apply scripture represents a primary way in which Christians love God with their whole heart, soul, mind and strength, and their neighbors as themselves.

Wesley frequently expressed his passionate love for scripture. In the preface to his "Sermons on Several Occasions," the primary compendium of his theology, Wesley exclaimed: "O give me that book! At any price give me the Book of God! I have it. Here is knowledge enough for me."²

Thus it was appropriate that, at the thirtieth anniversary of the Wesleyan Theological Society in 1995, the theme was "Asserting Our Biblical Heritage." Scholars in the Wesleyan tradition-as well as pastors and lay people-have placed high value on the primacy of scriptural authority, its inspiration and trustworthiness.

The theme "Asserting Our Biblical Heritage" was also appropriate because Christians outside the Wesleyan tradition sometimes misinterpret and caricature the biblical heritage of the holiness movement, represented by the Wesleyan Theological Society. To be sure, sometimes we are to blame for this dilemma because we appeal too quickly to the theological heritage that informs our Christianity rather than to our biblical heritage.³ Certainly we have not always been sufficiently careful to give thorough and critical responses to those who have questions with regard to that which we affirm in the Wesleyan tradition.

Recently the Wesleyan tradition - specifically the holiness branch of Wesleyanism - has come under attack as being part of the so-called fundamentalist leaven of anti-intellectualism among American evangelical Christians. In the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, which Christianity Today named the 1995 Book of the Year, Mark Noll laments the damage supposedly done by the holiness movement - along with pentecostalism and dispensationalism - to American evangelicalism. He says:

Noll presents a litany of accusations against the holiness movement, ranging from the advocacy of "the comforts of separated piety," "anti-intellectualism," "the dogmatic kind of biblical literalism," "naivete concerning science," and so on.⁵

It remains highly questionable whether Noll's accusations can be fairly substantiated. But the indictment remains and will undoubtedly influence countless Christians throughout the world. We in the Wesleyan tradition must ask ourselves how we should respond to such accusations, especially with regard to an understanding of scripture and theology that emphasizes holiness.

The Heart of the Matter

Although we have not always maintained high standards of scholarship, the Wesleyan tradition makes an important contribution to Christianity because of its emphasis on biblical holiness. Holiness represents only one of the many important themes of scripture. But it is scriptural, and the Wesleyan tradition should do all that it can to uplift the banner of holiness. If it is to accomplish this task, there needs to be ongoing concern on the part of those who affirm the Wesleyan tradition to maintain a high standard of scholarship, especially in the area of biblical studies.

In order to continue making our distinctive contribution to Christianity, we need to assess our heritage of biblical scholarship and project for the future so that we can maintain our contribution to a biblical understanding of Christianity, regardless of whether or not it is widely recognized outside the Wesleyan tradition.

Our approach to this subject matter will be from a theological perspective. That is, we will assess biblical scholarship in the Wesleyan tradition as it pertains to the historic theology of the tradition. The author writes as a theologian rather than a biblical scholar. However, theological investigations in the Wesleyan tradition are founded on scripture. So the present and future status of biblical studies in the tradition are of tremendous importance.

Our assessment will proceed by investigating the theological foundation of the Wesleyan tradition-John Wesley, and his approach to biblical studies. Next we will investigate the present status of biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition. In particular, we will focus on work presented in the Wesleyan Theological Society on the theme "Asserting Our Biblical Heritage," which includes assessments of biblical studies in the past and present. We will then try to give a coherent summary of the situation by asking the following questions: Is there a Wesleyan hermeneutic? What is the role of historical criticism? What is the role of contextualization? Finally, we will assess contemporary critics of the Wesleyan tradition, particularly as found in Mark Noll (1994). Although it will be argued that Noll's accusations against the Wesleyan tradition are largely unfounded or poorly argued, we will endeavor to glean from his book advice that is of grave import to the future of biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition.

Wesley on Scripture

Much has already been written on the topic of Wesley's view of scripture, so there is no need to recite all that has been written on the subject.⁶ But it is healthy as well as enlightening to review the biblical foundation on which Wesley developed his thoughts and ministry.

Just as Wesley possessed a passionate love for scripture, he also presented a theology of scripture that affirmed its divine inspiration. "All scripture is inspired of God," said Wesley, and he offered four arguments for demonstrating divine inspiration.⁷ Wesley also affirmed the primacy of scriptural authority, representing a mainstay of Reformation theology. He said:

Wesley never viewed himself outside the circle of Reformation theology, though he did see himself as a corrective to biblical themes underemphasized in Protestantism. Most notably for our discussion was his emphasis on holiness of heart and mind. Perhaps John Wesley's brother Charles best summarized their intention to "unite the pair so long disjoined, knowledge and vital piety: learning and holiness combined."⁹

Although Wesley lived before the rise of historical criticism, which challenged the inspiration and authority of scripture, we can infer a sense of his position. The eighteenth-century British deists, who were forerunners of nineteenth-century historical criticism, propounded non-supernatural interpretations, which Wesley rejected.¹⁰ But Wesley was open to critical historical questions that did not presuppose an anti-supernaturalism antagonistic to the intentions of the biblical authors. For example, Wesley made the following comments with regard to the stories of Noah in Genesis:

Another example can be found in Wesley's comments on the Old Testament books listed after the Pentateuch, including Joshua through Esther. He said:

Although Wesley was concerned to begin biblical interpretation by attending to its literal meaning, he did not preclude historical and critical questions relevant to the text.

Did this historical and critical questioning result in Wesley doubting the trustworthiness of scripture? On the contrary, his affirmation of the inspiration and authority of scripture resulted in him saying: "I allow no other rule, whether of faith or practice, than the Holy Scriptures."¹³ Did this preeminent regard for scripture prevent Wesley from entertaining any other religious authorities when reflecting upon matters of Christian faith and practice? No, Wesley contextualized his beliefs and actions within the context of church tradition, reasoning, and religious experience. That is, he interpreted scripture in light of traditional theological interpretations, logical coherence, and relevance to personal and social experiences. Scripture remained primary in his conception of religious authority, but tradition, reason, and experience were integrate~ as secondary, albeit genuine, religious authorities. This so-called quadrilateral of religious authorities-referring to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience-represents one of the distinctive contributions to the historical development of religious authority and theological method in the history of the Christian church. 14

How are we to assess the past and present status of biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition post-Wesley? That is a complex question which extends beyond the scope of this work. But we can begin to assess it by reflecting on works already designed to assess biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition, especially that work presented on the theme "Asserting Our Biblical Heritage" at the thirtieth anniversary meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society (1995). These works by scholars and pastors attempt to provide a prospective as well as retrospective regarding biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition. Let us review that work within the context of several key questions related to contemporary biblical scholarship.

Is There a Wesleyan Hermeneutic?

One of the criticisms of any theological tradition-regardless of whether it is Lutheran, Calvinist or Wesleyan-is whether that tradition has so taken on a theological perspective that its interpreters of scripture are no longer capable of relatively objective, inductive studies. This question is especially relevant to biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition because inductive Bible study has been an important self-description of its hermeneutics, that is, methods of biblical interpretation.¹⁵ On the other hand, the question is often raised as to whether or not anyone can or should be objective in the approach to biblical studies. Regardless of this latter ongoing debate, should we not try to discern that which is characteristically Wesleyan or holiness-oriented in biblical hermeneutics?

Frank Spina surveyed biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition over the past thirty years in the attempt to do an inductive investigation into how biblical studies has been done. The title of his study is "More Criticism, More History, More Bible: Wesleyan Faith Seeking Biblical Understanding." There Spina argues that hermeneutical approaches within the Wesleyan tradition are diverse, spanning pre-critical, critical, anti-critical, and post-critical approaches to the study of scripture so that no one hermeneutic can "be said to derive legitimately from Wesleyan theological sources."¹⁶ Spina notes, however, that biblical scholars undoubtedly benefit from "a number of valuable insights into the biblical text that result from the application of methods which Wesleyans employ."¹⁷

That in which Spina is more interested is not the determination of a Wesleyan hermeneutic, but how "Wesleyans may benefit and even benefit greatly from the many hermeneutical options currently available."¹⁸ Spina concludes by suggesting ways in which contemporary developments in biblical studies outside the Wesleyan tradition contribute to our future biblical studies. He neither expects nor desires someone to devise a Wesleyan hermeneutic, though he appreciates the intentions of those who attempt it.¹⁹ Instead he desires adding greater scholarly quality to current and future approaches to the study of scripture used by those in the Wesleyan tradition.

Robert Wall is more optimistic with regard to the shaping of a Wesleyan hermeneutic that can inform interpreters of scripture without distorting the Bible. He understands all of the criticisms leveled at any contemporary effort to develop a hermeneutic per se. But the distinctive thought, life, and ministry of the Wesleyan tradition demands some accounting from a biblical perspective. Likewise, if the Wesleyan tradition is to continue contributing to contemporary Christianity, then it must work toward developing a Wesleyan perspective on hermeneutics. He says:

Wall argues for a Wesleyan hermeneutic that includes four general characteristics. First, the sacramental nature of scripture suggests that "Scripture bears witness to a God who compels assent by loving concern and not by power plays. Its canonicity as a sacrament of divine revelation is understood finally in a profoundly relational way: Scripture discloses God by inviting faith in a God-for-us, who is then confirmed by our concrete experience of God's grace."²¹ Second, the simultaneity of scripture suggests "that the critical aim of exegesis, which successfully exposes the pluriformity of Scripture, is 'to put the text back together in a way that makes it available in the present and in its (biblical) entirety.' "²² In particular, Wall considers the grand themes of the Wesleyan tradition to include those that frame the ordo salutis (order of salvation): justification and sanctification, divine grace by human faith and works, love for God/neighbor, and holiness of life.

Third, the soteriological use of scripture suggests that the proper interpretation of scripture should lead people into the way and experience of salvation.²³ Wesley and his followers have always emphasized the sufficiency of scripture for salvation. Fourth, the sermonic midrash of scripture suggests that there "can be no single, original sense of a multivalent Scripture that can effectively broker the Word of God for every people of God; meaningful meanings change with time and place."²⁴ For example, biblical interpretation that takes place within the context of sermonic preaching (e.g., holiness preaching) helps to provide a midrash-like commentary on the Bible that is relevant and applicable to life.

In order to be faithful to scripture during changes in time and place, those who do biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition need to take great care in doing a thorough and critical job of biblical studies. In particular, Wall states that they need to be faithful to the message of scripture rather than to any particular reading of scripture, even within the Wesleyan tradition. He says:

Scholars who represent the Wesleyan tradition are colleagues of others within the tradition and should be treated with appropriate collegiality. Sometimes people think that scholars are to be subservient to the Wesleyan tradition, serving primarily an apologetic function. But scholars deserve the same right to pursue their vocation as freely as other clergy and lay people within Wesleyanism.

What Is the Role of Historical Criticism?

Historical criticism represents the method or methods attempting to evaluate historical evidence in the biblical text. Such an intent is not in itself antithetical to biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition because historical questions are of utmost importance to Christianity. Therein lies the problem, however, because biblical scholarship since the nineteenth century has progressively viewed the Bible as a human rather than a divinely inspired book. What, then, should the role of historical criticism be for biblical studies?

Spina clearly states his opinion in the title of his work: "More Criticism, More History, More Bible." The problem is not with historical criticism, but with the presuppositions that undergird one's hermeneutics. Likewise, Wall encourages biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition not by avoiding critical issues, but by doing a more scholarly job of presenting one's views in light of current hermeneutical trends.

Paul Livermore is an example of one who tackles head-on the presuppositions that too often undergird historical critical approaches to scripture. He describes "deconstructionism" as

Such presuppositions are antagonistic to the intentions of scriptural authors and to the consensus of historic Christian teaching. Thus, an unrestricted use of historical criticism should be rejected for its reconstruction of "the history and ideas of the Scriptures along strictly naturalistic lines."²⁷

Livermore, however, does not reject historical criticism outright. Instead, he states that historical criticism "has made a real contribution to the study of the Scriptures. It has added to our knowledge of the various settings of the Scriptures, a significant gain."²⁸ Thus, if biblical scholars look carefully at what the church has taught over extended periods of time, extending back to the ancient church as well as to the Wesleyan tradition, they will be safeguarded from straying too easily from the truths of scripture.

The integration of historic Christian beliefs and biblical studies represents a theme of George Lyons' presidential address entitled "Biblical Theology and Wesleyan Theology."²⁹ Lyons has long advocated greater scholarly expertise in biblical studies, but laments the lack of interaction between his discipline and theological studies. In particular, he laments the lack of work in biblical theology, which can be defined as the organization of theological teachings in terms of the portions of the Bible where they occur rather than by topic. Biblical theology is not precisely the same as the academic disciplines of theology or biblical studies; thus, neither have emphasized its relevance or study. But Lyons is convinced that the future of biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition requires greater consideration of the interconnectedness of the study of scripture and our theological views.

The primary way in which Lyons hopes to develop this interconnectedness is through the redevelopment of biblical theology as a scholarly pursuit in its own right. Regardless of the future of biblical theology, Lyons would want to emphasize that any development of biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition requires greater consideration of historical-critical concerns, as well as those of other contemporary developments in biblical studies.

A similar concern for thorough and critical scholarship can be found in the systematic theology of Thomas Oden. Although Oden claims to present theology that is orthodox and ecumenical, his personal roots are deeply embedded in the Wesleyan tradition. Many within the Wesleyan tradition-as well as others in the Christian world-have looked to his theology as a way in which to dialogue with contemporary scholarship in a fashion that affirms historic Christianity as well as being critical of it. Oden affirms the value of historical-critical method, but proposes reforms which will prevent naturalistic and other presuppositions from distorting the truths of scripture.³⁰ His efforts to dialogue with contemporary biblical scholarship and attempted reforms in that area should motivate some in the Wesleyan tradition to engage in similar efforts for the sake of those biblical emphases dear to us.

What Is the Role of Contextualization?

Contextualization represents a contemporary concept often misunderstood and maligned. Simply understood, contextualization represents the attempt to adapt the expression of biblical and theological ideas to a given time, place, culture, or audience. Put more simply, contextualization represents the attempt to state biblical truths in up-to-date forms.

Dean Flemming, in his work entitled "The Third Horizon: A Wesleyan Contribution to the Contextualization Debate," argues that a Wesleyan perspective is important to the ongoing development of Christian contextualization. Flemming states that two fundamental approaches to contextual hermeneutics exist today. The first approach assigns the primary control of meaning to the contemporary context itself. This "relativistic posture is currently found both in many Two Thirds World theologies and within modern Western historical-critical scholarship."³¹ The second approach, which normally is advocated by evangelical contextualizers, gives primary control to the biblical text for the meanings that are contextualized. Although Flemming advocates this kind of contextualization, he warns that there may occur a kind of "absolutism which dogmatizes one's own particular interpretation or theological position, 'making it applicable to everybody and demanding that others submit to it.' "³²

Flemming argues that the Wesleyan understanding of the "catholic spirit" resists either form of contextualization. He states:

As in many cases, a Wesleyan approach to Scripture and interpretation is able to recognize the tensions in some key issues and offer a mediating position that could help to lead us beyond some of the current polarities in the discussion: (1) the Wesleyan emphasis on the soteriological purpose of Scripture and its ethical and social implications can provide the basis for a transformational hermeneutic that moves beyond narrow concerns for contextualizing of truth content alone, but at the same time affirms that Scripture and not the context must control the process; (2) the Wesleyan openness to the historical conditionedness of Christian life and thought resists static hermeneutical models that espouse either a wooden commitment to Biblical forms or reducing the gospel to an abstract "supracultural core" of truth . . . ; (3) the Wesleyan catholic spirit is open to a truly "transcontextual" hermeneutic-one that rejects on the one hand all forms of provincialism and "contextualism" and, on the other, seeks in humility to learn from the interpretive insights of Christians in other cultures and confessions, to the end that we all come to a deeper and richer understanding of the faith.³³

Of course, Flemming considers contextualization to be more than an academic exercise; it is a missiological necessity for the whole church. But first it is important to understand clearly the nature of one's biblical studies in order to avoid the pitfalls that sabotage both theology and ministry.

The Wesleyan quadrilateral provides an excellent context in which to do integrative work in the area of biblical and theological studies. Woodrow Whidden makes this point in the work entitled "Sola Scriptura and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Is 'No Creed But the Bible' a Workable Solution?" His answer is that sola Scriptura, simplistically understood, fails to answer the questions of diversity that arise even among those Christians who consider the Bible to be inspired and trustworthy. Whidden advocates that we be honestly self-critical with regard to how we do biblical and theological studies because all Christians entertain considerations of tradition, reason, and experience when deliberating on matters of faith and practice.³⁴ Such considerations are usually unconscious in the minds of Christians. Wesley and those who followed in his tradition simply want to become more conscious - more critical of how they actually go about doing their biblical and theological studies. The Wesleyan quadrilateral provides a helpful paradigm with which to gain greater clarity and confidence with regard to that which is believed and practiced.

The Wesleyan quadrilateral does not lead down the slippery slope to relativism, as some fear. Instead, Paul Bassett offers words of reassurance:

The fact that tradition, experience, and reason are sources of theological authority and reflection in dynamic conjunction with Scripture necessarily keeps religious thinking open to the creativity of the Spirit and it implies that the Spirit is not limited to the here and now. But this does not open the door to relativism. The creative Spirit is the same Spirit who enlivens and gives witness to the truth of Scripture. And it is the specific task of Scripture, within the quadrilateral, to serve as the foundation for "norming" the other norms, by the inspiration of the Spirit.³⁵

Greater self-reflection, greater critical focus, and greater regard for the concerns of contemporary scholarship in biblical studies do not need to threaten the Wesleyan tradition. On the contrary, such considerations should encourage the tradition toward greater self-understanding and greater persuasiveness with regard to its presentation to others of that which is considered the biblical foundation of Wesleyanism.

A Non-Wesleyan Assessment

Mark Noll is a well-known and well-respected professor of history at Wheaton College in Illinois. He has written numerous books and articles, and his opinions are read as authoritative in the evangelical community of Christians in the United States. That is why, in part, his opinions about Wesleyan and holiness-oriented groups are so troubling.

Noll's current thesis about the scandal of the evangelical mind is that evangelical Christians contribute little to the intellectual fabric of the country. He attributes this weak if not anti-intellectual characteristic to a number of socio-cultural factors, including revivalism, revolution, and a cultural synthesis that occurred in the nineteenth-century United States.³⁶ With regard to hermeneutical and theological sources of anti-intellectualism in contemporary evangelical Christianity, Noll places primary blame on the holiness, pentecostal, and dispensational movements for what he calls the intellectual disaster of fundamentalism. He admits that "as one who does not believe that the distinctive teachings of dispensationalism, the Holiness movement, or Pentecostalism are essential to Christian faith, it is not surprising that I find the intellectual consequences of these theologies damaging."³⁷ Noll thinks that these traditions deserve some commendation, but, in their defense or ministries on behalf of the supernatural, they resemble "cancer patients" who, "for the life of the mind, what survived was a patient horribly disfigured by the cure itself."³⁸

Noll's specific concern with the holiness movement, which consists of more than the Wesleyan forms of the movement, is that it "bespoke a growing concern to experience the realities of Christian spirituality" at the expense of thorough and critical thinking in terms of biblical as well as theological studies.³⁹ Thus, it is Noll's opinion that people in the holiness movement too quickly "turned their eyes to Jesus, and the world grew very dim indeed," compounding "damage done when those excesses were grafted on to even longer-lived intellectual weaknesses" in the larger evangelical world.⁴⁰

How Should Wesleyans Respond?

How should we in the Wesleyan tradition respond to such damning criticisms? On the one hand, we could say that such claims are outrageous and not worthy of a response. But the problem with that option is that many agree with Noll, including the majority of contributors and subscribers to Christianity Today. So Wesleyans would be wise to take Noll's criticisms seriously and respond thoughtfully and not with knee-jerk reactions. Another response could be to say that Noll himself exercises poor scholarship in proving his thesis, at least with regard to the holiness movement, in terms of both the form and content of his historical and theological investigation. We could also become righteously indignant, I believe, with good reason. But then our concerns might quickly be dismissed as being too defensive. So, like Wesley, we must critique Noll's work with calmness and reason.⁴¹

First, Noll employs poor scholarship in his treatment of the American holiness movement. In chapter five of his book, entitled "The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism," he makes his primary attacks against the holiness movement. Noll provides only three notations for his understanding of the holiness movement. The first two notations are references to four secondary resources, not all of which are directly related to the holiness movement.⁴² The other notation is a critique of the Keswick higher-life movement in Great Britain by the Welsh preacher D. Martyn Lloyd- Jones.⁴³ None of the notations inspire much confidence in Noll's knowledge of the holiness movement in America, much less his severe critiques of it. An historian of Noll's stature would be appalled by a similar lack of documentation in the work of another scholar, especially considering his overall attack on the lack of intellectual expertise among his fellow evangelical Christians. Despite the fact that Noll considers his book a cri du coeur ("cry of the heart") rather than a scholarly historical investigation per se,⁴⁴ Noll must recognize that most of his readers assume that his work is based on impeccable historical knowledge.

By comparison, pentecostalism fares even worse than the holiness movement with regard to a lack of scholarly documentation. In chapter five of his book, Noll only provides one notation for his background information about pentecostalism, and there he provides only three secondary resources.⁴⁵ Similar to his discussion of the holiness movement, no primary resources are addressed in order to substantiate the severe criticisms of the two movements.

However, when we come to the discussion of dispensationalism, Noll provides numerous notations of both secondary and primary resources. More than twenty-five background resources are mentioned by Noll in discussion of dispensationalism, and - more significantly - approximately twenty-five primary dispensationalist authors and resources are mentioned in order to substantiate his criticisms of dispensationalism.⁴⁶ This preoccupation with dispensationalism rather than with the holiness movement and pentecostalism is reaffirmed throughout Noll's book.

Clearly Noll is more concerned with the effects of dispensationalism-good or bad, though mostly bad-than with the holiness movement and pentecostalism. Why is this the case? Perhaps Noll thinks that he needs to be very careful about how he criticizes dispensationalism. Perhaps dispensationalists are especially adept at defending their theology, or perhaps there are personal and professional reasons for why Noll takes such care to present his case against the effects of dispensationalism. For example, Wheaton College-where Noll teaches-has been influenced in the recent past by presidents who came from dispensationalist backgrounds. Since Noll dedicated his book specifically "To the faculty and trustees of Wheaton College," perhaps there is something going on within that institution which would be difficult for an outsider to ascertain.

Regardless of Noll's motivations for writing The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, his paucity of documentation seems to reflect little care about how he criticizes the holiness and pentecostal movements. Perhaps he is not interested in what they think, or perhaps he does not think they will respond, or - when if they do respond - what difference would they make. None of the previous options, however, presents a very positive view of our respective traditions.

Is There a Scandal of the Evangelical Soul?

The questions that I raise are ones that need to be raised and continue to be raised so long as the holiness movement, along with other movements, is unfairly maligned. It is a scandal of the evangelical soul as much as of the evangelical mind that the holiness movement and pentecostalism should be singled out for such criticism without providing a thorough historical evaluation of them. In the past I have lamented that the holiness movement has been relegated to the fringe of both Protestantism in general and evangelical Protestantism in particular. Hardly anyone seemed to notice or care about Wesleyanism. Now, however, I fear we have become a scapegoat for problems for which other evangelicals are equally if not more responsible.

It lies beyond the scope of this brief essay to present an apology for the holiness movement, especially as found within the Wesleyan tradition, in the face of the accusations Noll makes. It is sufficient for now to point out the limitations in Noll's own scholarship with regard to his treatment of the holiness movement. But it seems clear that Noll is unaware or unappreciative of the positive contributions made by Wesleyan and holiness people on the intellectual well-being of Christianity. For example, Noll idealizes Jonathan Edwards but ignores the far-reaching effects of John Wesley - a contemporary of Edwards - as an intellectual as well as spiritual role model to many in America. Noll also fails to note that, from the beginning of the American holiness movement, there existed a concern for education and for developing institutions of higher education in many of the holiness denominations. Perhaps Noll overlooks this because the holiness colleges did not have the benefit of an intellectual foundation based on the centuries of theological and intellectual scholarship available to the Lutheran and Calvinist Reformed institutions of higher education. It is unfair to compare the intellectual developments of fledgling evangelical movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with those that had their origin in the sixteenth century.

Noll also seems to minimize or overlook many of the intellectual liabilities of his own Calvinist Reformed tradition, including the vaunted Princetonian theologians about whom Noll idyllically reminisces. For example, in his discussion of fundamentalism, Noll makes no mention of The Fundamentals written during 1910-1915. Despite a few progressive ideas that can be found in them concerning such topics as evolution, these publications more than anything written by the holiness movement and pentecostalism (and perhaps even dispensationalism) define fundamentalism and the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the first decades following the turn of the twentieth century. Deane William Ferm, for example, considers The Fundamentals to be the defining works of conservative and fundamentalist Christian thought, which affirms five so-called fundamentals of Christianity.⁴⁷

Nowhere does Noll consider the potential negative as well as positive impact of The Fundamentals on subsequent evangelical Christian thinking. Yet the issues discussed in The Fundamentals provided the doctrinal fodder for fundamentalist-modernist debate for decades to come. In fact, the so-called "battle for the Bible," as articulated by such evangelical scholars as Harold Lindsell, continue to defend verbal inspiration in terms of inerrancy-a concept sometimes associated with the intellectual impoverishment of evangelical Christians.⁴⁸ But debates over verbal inspiration and inerrancy, continuing since the beginning of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, have been more of a concern for those in the Calvinist Reformed tradition than for the holiness movement. So why is the holiness movement, along with pentecostalism and dispensationalism, singled out as the theological leaven for intellectual impoverishment among evangelical Christians?

This author actually agrees with Noll's thesis that evangelical Christians as a whole have been lackadaisical and thus irresponsible with regard to the intellectual dimensions of Christian faith and practice. There is only disagreement with regard to how Noll determines the sources of intellectual impoverishment in American evangelicalism and, subsequently, its needed solutions. It grieves me that Noll should single out the holiness movement, pentecostalism, and dispensationalism as scapegoats for the intellectual woes of evangelicalism. He fails to investigate sufficiently the broader socio-cultural influences on America as a whole, as well as on American religion that is in opposition to the intellectual dimension of life.⁴⁹ He also fails to investigate sufficiently the other theological and denominational influences on evangelicalism that are at least equally blameworthy with regard to its intellectual shortcomings.

Conclusion

The Wesleyan tradition has a message of biblical holiness to proclaim to the world as well as to other Christians. It is not the only message that needs to be proclaimed, but it is a necessary one. However, if we want to be effective in our proclamation, then we in the Wesleyan tradition need to be as serious about our biblical studies as we are about any other aspect of the church. We do not need to be defensive about our tradition, though neither should we allow ourselves to become the scapegoat of anyone. How then should we live? More specifically, how should we live with regard to the future of biblical studies in the Wesleyan tradition?

Let us conclude with several exhortations that can be gleaned from the investigation contained in this work. We will begin on a very general level and then proceed with more specific comments regarding biblical studies.

Generally speaking, Noll is correct in saying that we have not adequately cared for the intellectual aspects of our biblical and theological studies as much as we should. He is only incorrect in saying that the holiness movement, along with pentecostalism and dispensationalism, are the fundamentalist leaven of anti-intellectualism. Noll is also correct in saying that all who are a part of the Wesleyan tradition, as well as evangelicalism as a whole, need an alteration of attitudes which too often have downplayed rather than uplifted the promotion of intellectual pursuits. He says:

Wesleyans need to place higher value on education and specifically on scholarship, especially within the areas of biblical and theological studies. Wesley was not afraid of education or scholarship, so neither should we be afraid of it in the endeavor to hold in creative balance both knowledge and vital piety.

Lest we be too idealistic, however, those of us in the Wesleyan tradition need to become more intentional about needed superstructures. For example, we should try to strengthen the scholarship of our institutions and periodicals. We should try to develop more funding or development expertise in general for the purpose of improving biblical scholarship. We should seek to work collegially with biblical scholars rather than see them as servants of the tradition. In addition, we should seek to extend our influence over matters of a biblical nature beyond our own tradition. None of these suggestions can occur easily or without personal and institutional cost. Thus, the question of attitude is of paramount importance. To what degree do we believe that we have been called to love God and our neighbor with all of our mind as well as our heart, soul, and strength?

Let us continue by reflecting more specifically on the field of biblical studies and ways in which to develop it in the future. Frank Spina is correct to say that we need more biblical studies that include the insights of historical criticism. We do not need to fear historical criticism per se, but only do a more thorough and critical job of evaluating naturalistic presuppositions that underlay biblical studies - a task that is exemplified in the work of Paul Livermore.

Robert Wall reminds us that Wesleyans do have a distinctive approach to their biblical and theological studies. Although we should not allow our theology to restrict our biblical studies, we should be able to make increasingly compelling cases for why our theology is biblical and relevant to Christianity as a whole as well as to the world at large.

The development of biblical theology, as suggested by George Lyons, may provide a way for encouraging greater integration of biblical and theological studies. With regard to academic institutions, biblical theology may help to bridge the two disciplines of biblical and theological studies often separated by drastically different approaches to religious studies. With regard to the church, there needs to be ongoing concern that we do more than instill our history, doctrine, and polity. We should instill a lifelong desire to renew, deepen, and apply our biblical foundations.

We should rejoice in and develop the distinctive heritage of the Wesleyan quadrilateral, as mentioned by Woodrow Whidden. The interdependent religious authorities of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience have influenced the development of the Wesleyan tradition more than we realize. Rather than finding ways to avoid the quadrilateral, we should try to find ways in which to own that part of our heritage and develop it in ways that enrich our biblical studies, as well as the biblical studies outside the Wesleyan tradition.

Dean Flemming challenges us to contextualize our biblical and theological studies, that is, to make our Wesleyan tradition relevant to any given time, place, culture, or audience. This should be the mission of the church as well as its academic institutions. Although there may be inherent differences that inhibit mutual understanding, appreciation, and cooperation between the church and the academy, we all need to work toward the development of biblical and theological studies in ways that express the gospel in the most responsible and effective ways possible.

Notes

¹In his role as the 1995 president of the Wesleyan Theological Society, Dr. Thorsen prepared this essay for the theological seminar which he conducted at the annual convention of the Christian Holiness Association that convened in Portland, Oregon, April, 1995.

²Preface, 5, "Sermons on Several Occasions," Works (Bicentennial ed.), 1:105.

³For example, Melvin Dieter discusses the "Theological Milieu" of the Wesleyan view of sanctification before discussing the "Biblical Milieu" in Five Views on Sanctification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 21-36. This methodological approach was critiqued by authors presenting alternative views of sanctification (see pages 47-57).

⁴Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 249.

⁵Noll, Scandal, 120, 123, 124, 127.

⁶For example, see William Amett, "John Wesley-Man of One Book" (diss., Drew University, 1954); Eugene Carpenter and Wayne McCown, eds., Asbury Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 15-162 (Part I: General Articles); Wilbur Mullen, "John Wesley's Method of Biblical Interpretation," Religion in Life 47 (Spring 1978), 99-108; and Larry Shelton, "John Wesley's Approach to Scripture in Historical Perspective," Wesleyan Theological Journal 16.1(1981), 23-50.

⁷2 Tim. 3:16, Notes Upon the New Testament 794. Cf. "A Clear and Concise Demonstration of the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures," Works (Jackson ed.) 11:484.

⁸"On Faith, Hebrews 11:6" (1788, sermon 106), 1.8, Works (Bicentennial ed.) 3:496.

⁹Charles Wesley, "A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists, 1780," Hymn 461, 1.5, Works (Oxford ed.), 7:644.

¹⁰See "On Faith, Hebrews 11:6" (1788, sermon 106)11.2 Works (Bicentennial ed.), 3:499; and "Hypocrisy in Oxford" (1741, sermon 150)1.3-4 Works (Bicentennial ed.), 4:395.

¹¹"Walking by Sight and Walking by Faith" (1788, sermon 119), 9, Works (Bicentennial ed.), 2:583.

¹²Preface to the Book of Joshua, Notes Upon the Old Testament, 1:701.

¹³"To James Hervey," 20 March 1739, Letters (Telford ed.), 1:285.

¹⁴See Donald A. D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1990), 19-20, 62, 100-102, 231-240.

¹⁵For example, the inductive Bible study method of Robert Traina widely influenced hermeneutics in the Wesleyan tradition; see Methodical Bible Study (Wilmore, KY: Asbury Theological Seminary, 1952). See also the material by and about Traina later in this issue.

¹⁶Frank Spina, "More Criticism, More History, More Bible: Wesleyan Faith Seeking Biblical Understanding," plenary address, Wesleyan Theological Society Annual Meeting, Dayton, OH, 4 November, 1994 (found elsewhere in this issue).

¹⁷Spina, "More Criticism," 6.

¹⁸Spina, "More Criticism," 10.

¹⁹For example, Spina speaks appreciatively of the attempt by John Stanley to develop what Stanley calls a "holiness hermeneutic"; see John Stanley, "Elements of a Postmodern Holiness Hermeneutic Illustrated by Way of the Book of Revelation," Wesleyan Theological Journal 26.1-2 (1993), 23-43.

²⁰Robert Wall, "Toward a Wesleyan Hermeneutic of Scripture," plenary session, Wesleyan Theological Society annual meeting, 4 November, 1995, 5 (found elsewhere in this issue).

²¹Wall, "Toward a ...," 8.

²²Wall, "Toward a ...," 9, quoting J. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 79.

²³Wall, "Toward a...," 10-11.

²⁴Wall, "Toward a...," 12.

²⁵Wall, "Toward a...," 12.

²⁶Paul Livermore, "The Peril of Deconstruction," plenary session, Wesleyan Theological Society Annual Meeting, Dayton, OH, 4 November, 1995, 2.

²⁷Livermore, "Peril of Deconstruction," 15.

²⁸Livermore, "Peril of Deconstruction," 15.

²⁹George Lyons, "Biblical Theology and Wesleyan Theology," presidential address, Wesleyan Theological Society annual meeting, Dayton, OH, 4 November, 1995 (found elsewhere in this issue).

³⁰For example, see "Addendum: A Modest Proposal for Christological Reform: The Theandric Person as History," in Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, Systematic Theology: Volume Two (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 2:527-534.

³¹Dean Flemming, "The Third Horizon: A Wesleyan Contribution to the Contextualization Debate," plenary session, Wesleyan Theological Society annual meeting, Dayton, OH, 4 November, 1994, 11; cf. 3 (found elsewhere in this issue).

³²Flemming, "The Third Horizon," 11, quoting D. Bosh, "Toward a New Paradigm of Mission," Mission in the 1990's, ed. G. H. Anderson, et al (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 428.

³³Flemming, "The Third Horizon," 12-13.

³⁴Woodrow Whidden, "Sola Scriptura and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Is 'No Creed But the Bible' a Workable Solution?" plenary session, Wesleyan Theological Society annual meeting, Dayton, OH, 5 November, 1994, 5ff.

³⁵Paul Bassett, "The Holiness Movement and the Protestant Principle," Wesleyan Theological Journal 18.1 (Spring 1983), 21, quoted by Whidden, "Sola Scriptura," 17.

³⁶Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 3; cf. 59ff.

³⁷Noll, Scandal, 142.

³⁸Noll, Scandal, 145.

³⁹Noll, Scandal, 116.

⁴⁰Noll, Scandal, 144, 130.

⁴¹For example, see Wesley's "A Calm Address to our American Colonies," Works (Jackson ed.), 11:80-89, and "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion," Works (Oxford ed.), 11:37-94.

⁴²Noll, Scandal, 115-116.

⁴³Noll, Scandal, 123-124.

⁴⁴Noll, Scandal, ix.

⁴⁵Noll, Scandal, 116.

⁴⁶See Noll, Scandal, 116-145.

⁴⁷The fundamentals include the following: the verbal inspiration of the Bible; the virgin birth of Christ; the substitutionary atonement of Christ for the sins of the world; Christ's bodily resurrection; and Christ's second coming. See Deane William Ferm, Contemporary American Theologies: A Critical Survey, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1990), 9.

⁴⁸5ee Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).

⁴⁹Other scholars differ with regard to the sources of the so-called scandal of the evangelical mind, evaluating the scandal from a broader socio-cultural as well as theological perspective. For example, see David Wells, No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), and Os Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).

⁵⁰Noll, Scandal, 249.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.