The Wesleyan Quadrilateral

 is comprised of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Well, what if tradition contradicts Scripture?

What if reason dictates that the tradition contradicts Scripture?

Before I proceed any further, I want to quote from Paragraph 102 of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (2020/2024):

"We share with many Christian communions a recognition of the authority of Scripture in matters of faith, the confession that our justification as sinners is by grace through faith, and the sober realization that the church is in need of continual reformation and renewal."

Why would the church be in need of continual reformation?

Answer: Because the church isn't flawless.

The church isn't flawless because its leadership isn't flawless.

Paragraph 105 of the Book of Discipline states, "But the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal and sin. Scripture remains the norm by which all traditions are judged."

As I understand it, that last sentence means that the validity of a tradition is determined by Scripture, not the other way around.

Well, what if a tradition is a particular way of interpreting a Bible passage? What if the actual Bible passage does not support the tradition?

I will give an example of a "traditional" Bible interpretation that conflicts with Scripture and reason.

During my study of Scripture, I encountered this written statement by a preacher:

"Paul was a leader in a delegation to a conference in Jerusalem to protest the requirement that all new converts obey the ceremonial laws of Judaism (Acts 15:1-35)."

The instant that I saw the word ceremonial in the preacher's statement, I knew that the preacher was reading into Acts 15:1-35 something that is not there.

Here is Acts 15:5 as given by the NRSV translation:

"Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.' "

Here is the same verse as given by the Complete Jewish Bible:

"But some of those who had come to trust were from the party of the P’rushim; and they stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Torah of Moshe.' "

The Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish elements in the verse that Gentile-translated versions tend to obscure.

When the Pharisees said that Gentile believers should be required to keep the Torah (Law) of Moses, the former meant the entire Torah, not just some portion of the Torah that Gentiles have labeled ceremonial.

As I see it, it is antisemitic, either intentional or unintentional, for Gentiles to change what those Pharisees meant by Torah.

So, why did the preacher I quoted change what the Pharisees meant? Why did the preacher add the word ceremonial when that word is not in Acts chapter 15?

To be blunt, the preacher was repeating a tradition, probably one taught to him by other preachers. To make matters worse, members of laity will often accept the tradition without questioning it.

Yet, what do the Apostles say in Acts 15:28-29?

From the NRSV:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

As I see it, the "ceremonial" tradition repeated by that preacher was created in order to coerce Gentile believers in Jesus to following at least one "requirement" that the Apostles declared not to be a requirement.

What that "requirement" might be is a topic for another post. 

However, the continued existence of the "ceremonial" tradition demonstrates that the Book of Discipline is correct in saying "the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal and sin."

Thankfully, Paragraph 217 of the Book of Discipline contains an antidote to the "ceremonial" tradition. That paragraph lists the vows that one makes when one initially joins a United Methodist congregation.

The 6th vow is "To faithfully participate in its ministries by their prayers, their presence, their gifts, their service and their witness."

The 6th vow does not require a church member to conform to any alleged non-ceremonial law that an ordained person might incorrectly try to impose on church members.

By the way, I have a question related to the so-called "ceremonial law" that the aforementioned preacher referred to.

Is the Sabbath Commandment in Exodus 20:10 ceremonial law?

That verse reads, "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work." (NIV)

The seventh day is Saturday. If Exodus 20:10 is not ceremonial law, then why are Gentiles allowed to disobey it?* No, the New Testament does not say that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

[*Seventh-Day Adventists insist that Gentiles are not allowed to disobey Exodus 20:10.]