Living Words

Invitation is Greater than Proposition

Jun 09, 2026

A window that has some glass on it — Photo by Silas Lundquist on Unsplash

What if we stopped looking at scripture like modernists? Let’s say we could move past the assumptions of both fundamentalists and the modernists of the early twentieth century? What if we stopped and realized that the fundamentalists were and are just as guilty of what they accused the early modernists of; reducing the authority of scripture?

I have put down a lot of words on scripture and the typical Wesleyan and Wesleyan-Holiness understanding of scripture. But we have an opportunity to watch as a very young Wesleyan denomination works out wether to stay true to their Wesleyan and Methodist roots or to embrace modernism, propositional faith, and generic Reform flavored evangelicalism. While this essay is not about what is going on the the Global Methodist Church (GMC), the arguments being put forth are helpful in understanding two very different approaches to the nature and authority of scripture. Plus, for those of us in the Church of the Nazarene this may serve as a foreshadowing of moves by the fundamentalist modernists within our midst. (Links to many of the essays about the GMC are included below.)

The fact that the proposed Article of Faith on scripture as published embraces inerrancy is a clue to how this will end up. It leans into claiming that the scripture is “without error in all that it affirms.” Here is the text minus the listing of the canonical books according to most modern Protestatnts:

We believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Old and New Testaments in their entirety. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for Christ offers us everlasting life in both. Scripture is without error in all it affirms and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It contains all things necessary to salvation. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be taught as essential to salvation.
The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures continues to work through them, illumining the Church’s interpretation for the edification of the people of God. They are the basis for the Church’s proclamation and a vital means of grace for all who hear them. Through the proclamation of the Word, the Spirit awakens us to sin, calls us to repentance, draws us to faith in Christ, and renews us in the image of God.

The second paragraph is solid Wesleyan thinking although Word might better be lower case. But the first paragraph introduces propositional language of inerrancy of the text. The argument for this begins with the idea of authority. The primary question for supporters appears to be “is scripture true” or “how do I prove scripture to be reliable?” These questions are those of modernism needing propositional certitude for belief or faith. I believe certitude to be the very antithesis of faith because it requires no faith.

Dr. Joel Green points out that John Wesley’s primary concern about scripture was what it does in and for people who read it and who come to understand God through the leading of the Spirit. (Green) For Wesley, you can only understand scripture through the Spirit who inspires it. The authority of scripture is within the invitation and its ability to reveal the God who breathes into it and us. Inerrancy robs scripture of its God breathed nature as it forces propositional assumptions upon a relational text. Green puts it this way:

In other words, Wesley’s doctrine of Scripture is, at its root, pneumatological. The Spirit who animated the composition of these texts is dynamically at work in their faithful reception and interpretation. A Wesleyan account of Scripture’s authority begins and ends here—not with a theory of errorlessness but with the dynamic work of the Spirit in a community being formed toward holiness.

The primary drivers of inerrancy appear to be either a fear that the sufficiency of scripture is only present in certitude, a long grudge against Outler’s Quadrilateral as a hermeneutic, and even keeping up with the generic evangelicals. For the GMC, Matt O’Reilly and the framers of the article are trying to squeeze inerrancy into Wesleyanism by using Wesleyan adjacent arguments. However, Timothy Tennant (past president at Asbury Theological Seminary) makes all of his arguments for this language from either Reformed centered thinking, or even trying to fit in with generic evangelicals as if that is required for global evangelism. Wesleyan traditions cooperate in global evangelism just fine without becoming fundamentalists.

When your arguments are from the fathers of fundamentalism or ridiculously about fitting in with the supposedly cool kids, you’ve lost the plot. A traditional Wesleyan approach to scripture is perfect for our cultural reality of the deconstruction of everything. When you start from the relational rather than the propositional then you have invitation. It is much easier to invite people into relationship that try to prove an unprovable. Apologetics may sound nice, but it is mostly just attempts to logic the illogical.

I just keep wondering why so many Wesleyans are hellbent on becoming fundamentalists. It’s like they watched the train wreck of the Southern Baptist Convention and decided “that looks like fun.” Or, they are being discipled by the internet influencers who don;t seem to understand half the arguments they make but are dead certain that any disagreement with them is heresy.

Scripture never describes itself in terms of inerrancy. in fact, scripture really only describes its purpose in fleeting ways. 1 Timothy tells us it is God breathed, but doesn’t expound much other than to state purpose. And that should be a clue for Wesleyans to pay attention to that which we claim to be important and authoritative for knowing who God is. God breathes life into us and scripture. It is only through the breath of God that we can understand the invitation given to us. Inerrancy wrings the life out of scripture and invalidates core doctrines like prevenient grace.

Green states the following to begin his conclusion and I keep going back to this truth when thinking about scripture.

What Wesleyans need is not a better property claim about the Bible. We need a richer account of how the community of faith reads Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit, toward the end of salvation.

Instead of expending energy on trying to prove something how about we try living like we believe scripture? We spend so much time trying to prove God exists, scripture is without error, and how to have certitude that we forget to live out who God truly is. Instead of a reflection of the image of God, we are dirty glass. What if we quit thinking of scripture like modernists and lived into the Spirit centered idea of a living and breathing text pointing us to the perfect Word of God who is Jesus?

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/the-global-methodist-proposed-article-on-holy-scripture-a-critique

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/global-methodists-and-holy-scripture-a-response-to-scott-kisker