Scripture, Tradition, and Reason Revisited

A casual observer of the Episcopal Church today might summarize the state of the church using a descriptive phrase from the book of Judges: "And everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (cf. Jdg 17.6) One bishop will ordain women to the priesthood (a practice which has been approved), while another won't. One bishop will ordain an openly practicing homosexual (a practice which has not been approved) while others will not. One bishop will permit the blessing of same sex unions (another practice which has not been approved), while another will not. Some clergy support missionary work among unreached peoples who may subscribe to another religion, and some clergy are vehemently opposed to the "Western imposition of our religion on someone else." "Local option" is the terminolo-gy being used throughout the denomina-tion to describe this situation. Many in the church are polarized around these culture wars. But, the real crisis, it seems to me, is not so much a moral one, though there is a moral crisis; but, the "issue behind the issue" is one of authority. On what basis do we make decisions and deter-mine norms for the common life of the church?

Historically, Anglicans have cited the time-honored three-legged stool as the basis for Anglican authority: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Richard Hooker, a 16th century Anglican theologian, is credited with articulating this formulary in his seminal tome Of the Laws of Ecclesiasti-cal Polity. What seems to be in dispute is the relationship among the three legs. Furthermore, at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in 1988 a fourth leg was added to the stool, namely, that of experience. What is the interplay among Scripture, tradition, reason, and experi-ence? Are they all equally-weighted in considering matters of doctrine, discipline, worship, and practice in the church? Or, does one - and, which one - have priority over the others?

The classic passage in Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, which lays the foundation for the relationship among the original three legs of the stool, is from Book V, chapter 8, verse 2:

The Church hath authority to establish that for an order at one time, which at another time it may abolish, and in both it may do well. But that which in doctrine the Church doth now deliv-er rightly as truth, no man will say that it may hereafter recall, and as rightly avouch the contrary. Laws touching matter of order are changeable, by the power of the Church; articles concerning doctrine not so.... Be it in matter of one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.

Hooker, in writing before the Enlightenment, understood reason to include not only rational discourse and logic, but also what seemed "sensi-ble." In other words, I contend that our understanding of "experience" was a part of Hooker's understanding of reason. But, during the Enlightenment, and now in a post-Enlightenment period, reason and experience have become disconnected and must be articulated separately. Therefore, in considering the place of experience in light of Hooker's understanding of authority, it would be included under "reason."

Hooker makes it very clear that of the three legs of authority, Scripture has the primacy and must be authoritative. "Be it in matter of one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due." This is not a matter which Hooker determined based on his reason alone, but one also born out of his Christian faith and trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. Furthermore, Hooker's submission to Scripture reaffirmed the position set forth in the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requi-site or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testa-ment, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. (Article VI: Of the Suffi-ciency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation)

While some in the church do not consider the Thirty-Nine Articles to have authority, the identical sentiment concerning Scripture can be found in the Ordinal, which does have authority. An ordinand for the presbyterate is obliged to take the Oath of Conformity: "I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church." (BCP, p. 526, emphasis mine)

The Holy Scriptures themselves contain internal evidence for their divine veracity and authority. The classic passage is found in 2 Timothy 3.15-17: "...the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteous-ness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Several issues from this passage deserve attention.

1.	At the time when Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the 
	New Testament had not yet been collected in a canonical form.  
	Consequently, the mention of the "holy Scrip-tures" refers 
	to the Hebrew Scriptures.  Paul is saying that the "Old 
	Testament" is able to make one "wise for salvation" which 
	has come in Jesus Christ.  The prece-dent is set here for 
	acknowledging divine authority in a body of Sacred Writings 
	which would later include the New Testament.  In fact, there 
	are hints of this even within the New Testament.  Peter, in a 
	side comment in 2 Pt 3.15-16, essentially equates Paul's writings 
	with the "other Scrip-tures."  He wrote:

		"He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, 
		speaking in them of these matters.  His letters contain 
		some things that are hard to under-stand, which ignorant 
		and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, 
		to their own destruction." (2 Pt 3.16, emphasis mine)

2.	Scripture is said to be "God-breathed."  Other translations render 
	the Greek as "All Scripture is inspired by God...".  Scripture's origin 
	in the very breath of God hearkens back to the creation accounts where 
	God's Word had creative, life-giving power.  Through God's breath, 
	Scripture was spoken and came into being.  God, in other words, is the 
	source, origin, and author of Scripture, thus giving it its pre-eminent 
	authority.

		At the same time, there are human authors who put pen to paper 
		to record God's Word.  Were these human authors "divine typewriters?"  
		Surely not.  Were they aware that they were writing Holy Scripture?  
		Certainly, Moses knew he was writing God's Word when he was given 
		the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai.  Prophets were aware of being 
		given God's Word in prophetic oracles.  Jesus, knowing he was the 
		Beloved Son of God, was intentional in altering the rabbinic formula 
		in teaching by saying "You have heard that it was said, but I say unto 
		you...".  So, certainly in some cases, there was awareness on the part 
		of the human authors that they were writing/speaking God's Word.  But, 
		when Paul wrote to Timothy later in the same book (where he asserts the 
		divine source of Scripture) that he was to "bring the cloak that I left 
		with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments," one has 
		to wonder whether or not Paul would have written this if he were aware at 
		the time of recording God's Word.  Nevertheless, it does not seem a logical 
		necessity to suppose that awareness of writing God's Word is essential 
		for accom-plishing the same.  God, in his sovereignty, is quite capable 
		of so ordering the lives, minds, and circumstances of human authors in 
		such a way that their thoughts perfectly capture the Word of God.

		An analogy for the possibility of dual authorship for Scripture can be 
		found in the early church.  The Chalcedonian Definition of the Union 
		of the Divine and Human Natures in the Person of Christ (BCP, p. 864)  
		asserts that in Christ there are two distinct natures - divine and human 
		- and, at the same time, a profound unity of one person.  The same can 
		be said of Scripture.  Scripture is both the Word of God and the words 
		of human authors, but there is a profound unity and consis-tency in 
		setting forth the Word of God.  This dual authorship implies that there 
		is a place for the historical-critical method of exegesis.

3.	The criteria used in determining canonical status to books 
	of the New Testament was chiefly apostolicity.  Were they 
	written by an Apostle?  Were they written by one in a "school" 
	of an Apostle?  Does it accu-rately represent apostolic 
	thought?  Is it consistent with apostolic teaching and kerygma?

4.	In considering the formation of the canon, one could 
	be led to errone-ously think that the Church conferred 
	authority on the Bible, and that therefore the Church 
	(and its Tradition) are above Scripture.  But, rather 
	than conferring authority on the Bible, the canonization 
	process simply recognized the authority of God's Word 
	already present in the written Word.  This would seem 
	to be the process behind Peter's comment that Paul's 
	writings were considered equal to the "other Scriptures."

5.	The purpose of Scripture is two-fold:  (1) to make 
	one "wise for salvation" in Christ Jesus.  And, (2) 
	for sanctification or growth in "righteousness, being 
	equipped for every good work."  The Anglican position, 
	as articulated by Richard Hooker and the Book of Common 
	Prayer, can be seen chiefly in this first purpose.

So, in considering matters of doctrine and faith, Scripture is the primary authority for its determination. But, what about matters of worship, discipline, and practice? Does Scripture thoroughly address all these concerns in their various manifestations in different eras? What if Scripture provides only a partial answer or is silent altogether? What then? At this point, Hooker indicates that it is appropriate to use reason: "the next whereunto [after Scripture] is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason."

Reason, for Hooker, was part of God's gift to humanity at the time of creation. Because of the Fall, however, reason is not capable of bringing one to salvation. While total depravity would assert that human reason is corrupted by sin, there is a part of reason which can still function according to its original plan. Hooker contends that there is a place for reason in ascer-taining God's will. "In Book I of the Laws Hooker speaks of the three ways of knowing God's will for mankind that it may be done: (1) sense whereby we 'perceive such things as this present life doth need,' (2) reason that we may perceive things necessary, beyond the capabil-ity of sense, and (3) revelation 'which doth open those hidden mysteries that reason could never have beene able to finde out, or to have knowne the necessitie of them unto our everlasting good.'(I.15.4)"

While reason may not be capable of discerning special revelation and thinking oneself into salvation, it does have the capacity to apprehend natural laws and general revelation, practiced today by many scientists. Reason is to be applied to the under-standing of Scripture after the regener-ation of the Holy Spirit has lifted the veil from the mind's under-standing and the will's readiness to obey.

One might argue, though, that, because reason is employed in the act of interpreting Scripture, it then is "above" Scripture. To say this, however, is to confuse differing kinds of authority. Millard Erickson writes, "Scripture is our supreme legislative authority. It gives us the content of our belief and of our code of behavior and practice. Reason does not tell us the content of our belief. It does not discover truth....When we come to determine what the message means, however, and at a later stage, assess whether it is true, we must utilize the power of reasoning. We must employ the best methods of interpreta-tion or hermeneutics."

Experience is generally understood to "refer to the inner life of individuals, in which those individuals become aware of their own subjective feelings and emotions. It relates to the inward and subjective world of experience, as opposed to the outward world of everyday life." The role of experience has entered the discussion of Christian authority from two very different theological streams. The first tradition would be that of Pente-costalism which extends the encounter of the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer to include, at least in popular practice, experience as defined above. The second tradition would be existen-tialism, which gave birth to theolo-gians such as Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich. In existentialist thought, human experience is the starting point in theology. How do I experience God, the numinous, the transcendent? Reason, then, seeks to build theology around human experi-ence.

Unfortunately, both of these positions, while admirably celebrating experience as a valid part of what it means to be human, fail to adequately factor in the reality that even human experience is fallen. To affirm that we are epistemologically fallen includes acknowledging that human experience may be distorted in its perceptions of truth and reality. Rather than experience illuminating Scripture, it is Scripture which brings to experi-ence a framework in which to understand it.

Finally, Hooker contends that after Scripture and Reason (including experience) have been exhausted, "the voice of the Church succeedeth." Noll makes this observation about Tradition: "While Hooker places great confi-dence in the plain sense of Scrip-ture and in the ability of reason to work from its central tenets, he adds the "voice" or "ancient practice" of the Church as confir-mation, especially in the sense that other believers have interpreted the text reasonably in the same way." McGrath defines Tradi-tion in this way: "The word 'tradition' implies not merely something that is handed down, but an active process of reflection by which theological or spiritual insights are valued, assessed, and transmitted from one generation to another." If the practice of the Church throughout history is consis-tent with Scripture and not contrary to Scripture, then it may be permitted. Hooker, and many of the Reformers, took this position when it came to matters of worship discipline and church polity.

So, the three (now four) legged stool of Anglican authority - Scrip-ture, reason, and tradition - is not so much a stool consisting of legs of equal height and strength as it is a tricycle in which Scripture is the front wheel which drives and directs the cycle, and is then supported and balanced by the rear wheels of reason (including experience) and tradition. In order for the church to have intelligent debate on the cultural issues facing it, we must be able to agree on the theological method with which we will engage these issues. The Tricycle analogy seems to be faithful to Hooker's understanding of the interplay among Scripture, which is primary, and reason, tradi-tion, and experience which are secondary.

Bibliography

Booty, John. Richard Hooker and the Holy Scriptures. Alexandria, Virginia: SEAD Occasional Papers, 1995.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Hill, W. Speed, ed. Richard Hooker Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. Theology of the English Reformers. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965.

McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell, 1994.

Noll, Stephen. The Righter Trial and Church Discipline. Ambridge, Pennsyl-vania: Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, 1996.

The Book of Common Prayer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.