Letter to the Editor of the United Methodist Review

by R. Dale Tedder, Jr.

Upon reading T.H. Milby's letter to the editor in The Review's September 5^th edition, several thoughts raced through my mind.

My first thought was to do absolutely nothing. I firmly believed that letting that letter stand alone would be the surest evidence that there was a profound need for The Confessing Movement in our denomination. Secondly, once I was able to wade through the veiled and unveiled condescension of the letter toward laity and proponents of The Confessing Movement, I quickly realized that Mr. Milby's letter portrayed a woefully ignorant and/or naive understanding of Christian history and the theological and epistemological foundations of the Christian faith.

To that end, I would like to briefly address a couple of comments by Mr. Milby. First, I appreciate his passion for the Quadrilateral, however, perhaps Mr. Milby is not up-to-date on what United Methodism believes regarding it (not just the Confessing Movement). The 1996 Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church plainly and clearly says that "United Methodists share with other Christians the conviction that Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine" (Paragraph 63. Section 4, page 75). Though Wesley, emphasized the usefulness of tradition, reason and experience, the greatest authority for Wesley rested in Scripture. One does not have to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, or even in its inspiration to affirm that. As Robert Tuttle has noted, it is the Wesleyan "Quadrilateral" not "Equilateral." Tradition, reason and experience serve the Christian in understanding Scripture, however, they are not autonomous sources of authority.

Second, Mr. Milby recites a litany of "limitations" of Scripture. Yet the sound-bite criticisms leveled against the trustworthiness or reliability of Scripture causes one to wonder on what grounds Milby believes anything in the Bible. After all, if Scripture is so questionable on historic and scientific grounds, do we have anymore than the fallible rantings of what ancient writers believed to be the case about God? Lacking in his tribute to chronological snobbery, is anything remotely resembling support for his assertions. Would it be fair to ask if Mr. Milby has studied any biblical scholar since Rudolf Bultmann?

Finally, the Reformation battle-cry Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture Alone," has never meant that Christians were required to check-in their tradition, reasoning faculties and experiences at the door. Instead, the Reformers, Wesley and The Confessing Movement, merely seek to affirm what should be obvious to all Christians: that God has revealed himself to his creation. Through the prophets, the apostles and most fully in Jesus Christ, God has revealed to us who he is, who we are, and how we might enjoy a relationship with him. Is it then bibliolatry, "the worship of the Bible", to embrace Scripture as revelation from God? Do we really want to sacrifice our only substantive source for the "faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3)? I hope the answers are obvious.

Back