'Scripture, Tradition, and Reason' often functions as a shorthand code for what Anglicanism is all about. But what does this code actually point to? I think it is generally held to mean something like this: Anglicanism is a form of Christian faith and practice which has evolved to employ reading Scripture, drawing on Tradition, and working with rational arguments, common sense, and due regard for the evolution of scientific knowledge in a balanced way when making decisions. Perhaps it is also useful to note what is generally being excluded by this way of making decisions: appeals to a pope, a magisterium (unless that be the church-in-synod/convention), or to Scripture (alone) as supreme authority (or, for that matter, to a foundational element of our heritage such as the Thirty-Nine Articles, or the BCP (1662).
At this point some minds go to bed happy in the knowledge that Anglicanism is obviously sane, sensible, and sorted. There may even be some extra satisfaction that we are 'not like' Romans, Pentecostalists, or Presbyterians!
In fact, 'Scripture, Tradition, and Reason' is a sleight-of-hand which hides a number of worrying things about Anglicanism which relies on this formula.
(1) It offers no guidance as to what might constitute a wise balance between Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
(2) It offers no parameters as to what constitutes 'Tradition' (so, for example, evangelical Anglicans might count heavily as Tradition the Calvinist influences of the 16th and 17th centuries, trumpeting the 39A as superbly representative of Anglican tradition, while anglo-catholic Anglicans might count heavily as Tradition the Catholic influences at work prior to Cranmer and later renewed in the 19th century).
(3) It offers no direction concerning the character of 'Reason': in some conversations it seems to mean rational thought mixed with common sense (which itself is interesting, because lots of non-Anglican Christians think similarly), but in other conversations it seems to mean contemporary experience of life. Indeed sometimes Anglicans become (so to speak) Methodists with fourfold talk of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.
(4) It offers no special place for Scripture, notwithstanding the special place of honour given to Scripture through the reforming of the Church of England, the establishment of the Book of Common Prayer, and the laying down of the Thirty-Nine Articles. In the latter case, whatever their inadequacies from current perspectives (e.g. we may not want to say what they say about popes or magistrates), these Articles consistently invoke Scripture as a higher authority than Tradition. One might also note that in Anglican liturgy Scripture retains a special place (we read from it, and not from Tradition or Reason). Is it not odd that when making decisions, some Anglicans then demote Scripture to equal footing with Tradition and Reason?
(5) It offers no account of the role of the Holy Spirit in the making of contemporary decisions! This also is interesting as (in my experience) Scripture, Tradition and Reason Anglicanism is comfortable switching to talk of the Spirit leading the church into new truth. While it is possible to argue logically that it is the Spirit who guides us as we reckon with Scripture, Tradition and Reason in making decisions, it becomes quite irrational to argue (as some do these days) that the Spirit may lead us to a decision which is unsupported by either Scripture or Tradition because there is no rational basis for knowing that we are making the right decision when at best one leg of the Anglican stool (i.e. Reason) is holding the decision up!
(6) For all of the above reasons, merely invoking Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the general character of Anglican decision-making leaves the door open to the decision-makers to play each off against the others so that the decisions made actually reflect the preferences of the decision-makers. If the decision-makers are in control of the manner in which Scripture, Tradition and Reason are balanced in support of the decisions made, then the real authorisation of the decisions are the people holding power. But, conveniently, 'Scripture, Tradition and Reason' can be invoked as supporting the decisions.
Besides which, we may ask, where is the authoritative statement of a recognised Anglican authority, that Anglicanism is most truly expressed when it invokes Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the three legged stool upon which this form of Christianity is established?
6 comments:
“It offers no parameters as to what constitutes 'Tradition' (so, for example, evangelical Anglicans might count heavily as Tradition the Calvinist influences of the 16th and 17th centuries, trumpeting the 39A as superbly representative of Anglican tradition, while anglo-catholic Anglicans might count heavily as Tradition the Catholic influences at work prior to Cranmer and later renewed in the 19th century).”—Fr. Carrell
You just hit on one of my pet peeves: over emphasis on the importance of the Catholic Revival in Anglican/Episcopal history. Catholic Anglicanism was alive and well long before 1850, at least in North America.
Prior to the influence of the Oxford Movement and “Ritualism” there were already many distinctive customs and practices (i.e, “Traditions”) that existed in various American Episcopal churches and chapels. These customs and practices set Episcopal worship apart from that of the Anabaptists, Calvinists, Quakers and most other Protestants in their communities. For example:
The construction of cruciform church buildings; the design of apses and deep, railed chancels; the eastward orientation of altars and chancels; the creation of carved and gilded reredoses; the setting up of pictorial altar-pieces; the appointment of richly colored and woven altar-carpets (“Laudians”); the use of altar-lights and other elaborately worked communion plate; the use of credence tables; the installation of chancel-screens; the employment of hassocks for keeling and tasseled cushions for service books; the utilization of fringed and tasseled damask hangings on pulpits and reading desks; the hanging of Canopies of State (Baldachins) in vice-regal chapels; bowing to the altar upon entering and leaving church and at the Holy Name; daily public services of Morning and Evening Prayer; celebrations of the Choral Eucharist on major Festivals; use of the eastward position in celebrating the Holy Mysteries; adding water to wine in the Eucharistic chalice; prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the consecrated elements; prayer of oblation of the consecrated elements; weekly Sunday celebrations of the Holy Eucharist; celebrations of the Holy Eucharist on Saints’ Days; kneeling at the altar-rail to receive the Holy Communion; the placement of ambries in sacristies; the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament; the use of the sign of the cross; the liturgical use of incense; the employment of surpliced boy choristers; the utilization of service music and of organ accompaniment; the weekly Sunday celebration of the Choral Eucharist; the revival of both Anglican and Gregorian chant; the chanting of the Psalms in both English and Latin; the singing of anthems in procession; the carrying of lighted Flambeaux in procession; the setting up of carved stone Baptismal Fonts; the practice of auricular confession; the utilization of black or purple Palls for funerals; the recitation of prayers for the dead; the burial of prominent parishioners beneath naves and chancels; the installation of elaborately carved memorials; retention of the verge and the office of Verger; the setting up of religious statues; the hanging of depictions of the crucifixion and of the Blessed Virgin Mary and other saints; the installation of Peals of Bells; the “sticking of the church” with boughs of evergreen during Yuletide; the fitting of the first American-made figural stained glass; the wearing of vestments and other clerical accouterments including the alb, cassock, cope, miter, surplice, tippet, hood, Canterbury cap, bishop’s wig, crosier, episcopal ring, rochet, chimere, lawn sleeves, clerical bands, (and probably the chasuble also); the creation of carved, gilded, and canopied bishops’ cathedras; the public display of gilt and polychrome miters signifying a pro-cathedral; etc., etc.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Point taken, Kurt!
I think the real problem is the "three-legged stool" imagery with its suggestion that all three carry equal weight. It's more useful to see tradition and reason as tools to help interpret scripture (in the same way that precedents and reason are used to interpret statutes, at least in common-law countries), not to override it.
Excellent point, Paul!
"One might also note that in Anglican liturgy Scripture retains a special place (we read from it, and not from Tradition or Reason). Is it not odd that when making decisions, some Anglicans then demote Scripture to equal footing with Tradition and Reason?"
- Peter Carrell -
Scripture has to be our 'Founding Document, as the Hebrew Scriptures were the founding document for the Jewish Faith. It was not until the coming of Jesus that new way of understanding (and new scripture) appeared on the scene. Certainly, Jesus brought new interpretation into the understanding of The Old Scriptures.
When Jesus said "When the Spirit comes (He) will lead you into all truth", he surely was not speaking of a static event (Pentecost) when all the ages since have received new revelation through the power of the Holy Spirit.
It is in the light of that reality that the Church gains new insights into the message of Scripture, and progressively acts upon this with the aid of Tradition and insights of continuing Reason. After all, this has demonstrated the changing wisdom of the Church on matters of slavery, usury, and now aspects of gender discrimination.
- The Anglican Way!
One could have an interesting discussion, Ron, as to whether it is Reason or Revelation (of the Spirit) which has led the church to its various changing positions over the centuries on usury, slavery, etc.
Post a Comment