In a critique of the 1972 Theological Task ( as found in ]] (Kingswood, 1991)) two authors share something I think is spot on:
“Finally, though not indifferentist by intent, in practice the quadrilateral seems to be infinitely permissive. It is difficult to conceive of even a single serious theological proposal which, upon application of the four guidelines, one could exclude unambiguously from consideration as beyond the range of permissible utterance within the Christian community. By arbitrarily defining the degree of force one or another guideline is to have in a particular discussion, one could establish almost any belief as Christian.” (56)
“In addition to installing intramural theological pluralism on principle, Part II is correspondingly bent upon the eradication of what it recognizes as ‘classical forms of the confessional principle.’ Perhaps it has won favor because in The United Methodist Church, as doubtless elsewhere, theological ‘indifferentism’ has for long been nurturing a favorable climate.” (74)
HT, Dr. Kevin Watson via Vital Piety.
Let me explain. The quadrilateral is an essential part to the United Methodist experience, but we cannot even agree on what “experience” means. Because of this, you have different sections approaching doctrine differently. Sometimes this is good, helpful, and healthy — with legalists reminded of the practical and the practicers reminded of the holiness and so on — but is it the case still yet? No, I would say not.
As a devil’s advocate, on the other hand… I might suggest the Quad is really trying to prevent the UMC from developing doctrine that is not Christian which would, if it did, lead to the UMC separating from historic/orthodox Christianity. Because the three legs of the Scriptural stool are often interpreted so vastly different, then no new doctrine could be added.
Note Howe’s warning: “…any belief as Christian.” I would amend that to say “orthodox Christian.” Anyway, do you really think the Theological Task works?