Global Methodists and Holy Scripture: A Response to Scott Kisker
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
What do Global Methodists believe about the Bible? How shall we express what we believe about the Bible? These questions, among others, are on the table as the denomination discerns whether it will adopt the proposed Articles of Faith, which have been submitted to General Conference for consideration. In a recent Firebrand essay, Dr. Scott Kisker offered a critique of some of the language in Article VIII on Holy Scripture. He cited my interest in having a statement that made at least four affirmations about Scripture, namely that it is (1) authoritative, (2) inspired, (3) trustworthy (or not liable to err), and (4) effective (or not liable to fail). While affirming those categories, Kisker lamented a perceived lack of clarity in the way the categories were addressed and leveled multiple criticisms regarding the way the article was worded.
It’s worth noting at the start that the Articles of Faith were substantially revised based on the feedback provided before being submitted as legislation to General Conference. The call for increased clarity was heard and acted on. The revisions will alleviate some of Kisker’s concerns but not all of them. Beyond that, some aspects of his critique are deeply problematic. Before getting to those problems, let me say that I appreciate the earnest dialogue and the charitable tone with which Kisker has raised his concerns. While I disagree with him, I remain grateful that the GMC is engaged in a thoughtful and robust discussion of doctrine, especially as it relates to Scripture. That’s a good thing.
The Word of God
Kisker’s first criticism is the use of “Word of God” to describe the Bible. The problem as he sees it seems to stem from the notion that the Bible does not refer to itself as “Word of God.” Because that is language used of Jesus, the criticism seems to be that using the same language about the Bible muddies things unnecessarily. Allow me two comments. First, Kisker will be glad to know that the phrase “Word of God” was omitted from the revised Articles so that the first line of Article VIII now reads: “We believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Old and New Testaments in their entirety.” Second, I don’t think it would have been a major problem to keep “Word of God” here; after all, “Word of God” is a common synonym for the Bible across theological traditions. I really doubt it muddies things too much. Despite that and in agreement with Kisker, I favor the succinctness and clarity of the revised sentence and believe this language serves us well.
Without Error in All It Affirms
There are substantive problems with Kisker’s critique of the statement in Article VIII that “Scripture is without error in all it affirms.” This affirmation was kept in the submitted version, though what follows that claim was revised so that the proposed sentence reads this way: “Scripture is without error in all it affirms and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”
First, Kisker states that “without error in all it affirms” is problematic because anyone can affirm that language, including, he says, “every progressive bishop in our former denomination.” This, in my view, is simply incorrect. Despite Kisker’s claim, there are plenty of people, especially among progressive bishops, who would insist that Scripture errs in its affirmations. Consider, for example, Bishop Karen Oliveto, who faced a formal complaint for teaching that Jesus needed to overcome his ethnic bigotries. Bishop Hee-Soo Jung taught that some things allowed in Scripture are no longer allowed and “what scripture condemns may need grace-filled and loving updating.” The suggestion that Scripture needs updating stands in stark contrast to the language in Article VIII, and the claim that anyone could affirm the proposed language is patently false. Progressives are often happy to point out when the Bible gets it wrong. Are we really supposed to believe that someone like Karen Oliveto would accept that Scripture is without error in its affirmations? That assertion strains credulity.
The statement that the Bible is “without error in all it affirms” is well-established language that resists the wooden literalism of fundamentalism on the one hand and the denigration of Scripture by theological liberalism on the other. A cursory look at the literature on the doctrine of Scripture reveals that “in all it affirms” generally means that Scripture must be rightly interpreted according to each text’s genre, literary form, and the ancient conventions under which the text was written. It takes account of symbolism and metaphor, and it rejects the anachronistic application of modern standards to ancient texts. It means that texts should be understood as they were intended, and not otherwise.
Is it Reformed?
Second, Kisker suggests that the language “without error in all it affirms” is a “non-Wesleyan theological category” and risks importing Reformed theological categories that Wesleyans do not share. But this contradicts his later statement that the language is an instance of “big-tent squishiness” that comes from the Lausanne Covenant, which he characterizes as a project meant to bring together “disparate theological traditions.” But this is incoherent. Which one is it? A Reformed category? Or a category embraced by disparate theological traditions? It can’t be both.
To the question of whether the language aligns the Global Methodist Church too closely with the Reformed tradition, we need only consider this quote: “the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself…since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings” (emphasis added).
Now there’s an emphatic statement that Scripture is without error in its assertions, but it doesn’t come from any hero of the Reformed tradition. These words were written in 1965 by Pope Paul VI (Dei Verbum, 9), and they remind us that “without error in all it affirms” is as Catholic as it is Reformed.
I discovered that quote in a 2016 essay by Dr. Thomas McCall, who serves as Tennent Professor of Theology at Asbury Seminary. McCall argues that the sort of language we have in Pope Paul VI (and now in the proposed Articles of Faith) represents the classical Christian view of Scripture. Here’s how he puts it:
Despite their disagreements among themselves on many matters, Christians of various ecclesial and theological commitments consistently have held this view or something close to it. In fact, I take this to be settled enough that I shall henceforth refer to it as the ‘classical’ account of Scripture (“Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture,” 171).
We are right to reject “big-tent squishiness,” but we should eagerly embrace classical Christian consensus. “Squishiness” is a striking mischaracterization of the proposed Article VIII and of the Lausanne Covenant, which is largely representative of global Protestant Christianity. If the GMC adopts the proposed language that Scripture is without error in all it affirms, that language will more closely align our new denomination with historic and global Christianity.
Is it Wesleyan?
In the remainder of McCall’s essay, he goes on to show that major figures from the Wesleyan tradition have adopted and commended the classical view that Scripture is without error in its affirmations. It is well-known that John Wesley rejected the notion that Scripture is liable to err: “Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth” (Journal, 6:117).
McCall’s essay catalogues additional evidence that other leading Methodist theologians embraced the same classical view. Thomas Ralston discussed the issue extensively and concluded that the superintendence of the Holy Spirit freed the authors of Scripture from “the possibility of mistake or error” (Elements of Divinity, 603). Samuel Wakefield said that the influence of the Holy Spirit enabled Scripture to be written “without error or mistake” (71) and that the writers of Scripture were “infallibly preserved from error” (Complete System of Christian Theology, 81). William Burt Pope wrote that the Bible “cannot contain anything untrue” (Compendium of Christian Theology, 1:174). Randolph Foster said this of Scripture, “Falsity in any part will be fatal to the whole, or so far vitiate its claim as to destroy its authority” (Studies in Theology, 38).
All of these are Methodist theologians. All of them affirm and defend the classical Christian view that Scripture is without error. Consequently, the suggestion that such language is non-Wesleyan gives the appearance of unfamiliarity with what the tradition has said. The classical Christian view of Scripture is also the classical Wesleyan view of Scripture.
If these quotes catch your interest, I encourage you to read McCall’s essay where he discusses these theologians and others (see the summary in this 2023 Firebrand article). McCall also details the later rise of resistance by some Wesleyans to the classical view that Scripture is without error in its affirmations and the mistaken narrative that Wesleyans only embraced such language after undue influence from Calvinists and Fundamentalists. Even a casual survey of the relevant literature reveals that notion to be demonstrably false.
This point is indisputable: the language that Scripture is without error is deeply embedded and very much at home in the Wesleyan tradition. The hesitancy among some Wesleyans regarding a clear statement on the truthfulness of Scripture arose later in our history. If the General Conference affirms the proposed Articles of Faith, it will be a recovery of the classical Wesleyan understanding of the Bible.
Asbury and Lausanne
There’s one additional point to make regarding the false charge that “without error” is not Wesleyan language. The language is embraced and commended by distinctively Wesleyan seminaries in their statements of faith. That includes Wesley Biblical Seminary and Asbury Theological Seminary, which are both GMC-approved institutions. Thus, if some Wesleyan institutions require their faculty to affirm that Scripture is without error in its affirmations, how can we reasonably conclude that such language is alien to the Wesleyan tradition?
Asbury Seminary’s long-standing commitment to “without error in all it affirms” also illumines the Wesleyan relationship to the Lausanne movement mentioned above. The Lausanne language on scripture was added to the Asbury Statement of Faith in 1981 on the recommendation of a Board-appointed Theological Study Commission and with the approval of the Plenary Faculty and the Board of Trustees (O’Malley, For the Whole World, 153). Reflecting on his appointment to the faculty in 1976, Laurence Wood, “noted the Seminary would soon be prepared to embrace the language of the Lausanne Conference…as the best expression of its own position” (39n62). Asbury Seminary’s Steven O’Malley calls Lausanne “the most representative world body of evangelical Christians’ consensus formula for world evangelization” and notes that former Asbury professor, Robert Coleman, served as head of the North American Lausanne committee (For the Whole World, 193n79). All of this strengthens the point that Lausanne’s “without error in all it affirms” is well at home in the Wesleyan tradition and further aligns us with global Christianity.
What Do We Stand to Gain?
I’ll conclude by saying that, while I appreciate Dr. Kisker raising questions about the proposed language on Scripture, his critique is nevertheless self-contradictory and appears unaware of major figures in our tradition and their views on the truthfulness of the Bible. Consequently, his critique of the proposed language in Article VIII is fatally flawed. If the General Conference chooses to adopt the proposed article on Holy Scripture, it will (1) align the GMC with classical Christian consensus, (2) recover a classical Wesleyan doctrine of Scripture, and (3) express unity with global Christianity today. Indeed, we have much to gain.
Matt O’Reilly is Lead Pastor of Christ Church Birmingham and Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary. A senior fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians, he is the author of Free to Be Holy: A Biblical Theology of Sanctification (Seedbed).