For decades, when speaking of theological authority, Episcopalians have talked about the “three-legged stool” [1] of Scripture, tradition, and reason. [2] I wonder if a better, if less-metrical, metaphor might be three oak logs in a fireplace or a campfire.
Oak is densely packed. It needs an external heat source to release its stored energy. In scientific terms, it has a high activation energy. But once you get it going, it will give off abundant heat
Where oak is concerned, three logs seems to be the magic number. A three-log oak fire, when properly arranged and -kindled, will catch with just the tiniest spark to light the flame. The heat from each log helps keep the other logs alight. Together, the three logs can burn for a long time, far better than any one or two of them can.
Maybe it’s somewhat the same with Scripture, tradition, and reason. Each of the three is densely packed. When the three are properly arranged in relation to one another; when we provide sufficient kindling in the form of education and study; and when the Spirit provides a spark — that’s when the three “logs” burn the best, together helping to release each other’s abundant energy.
This isn’t a perfect metaphor, of course. No doubt some will attack it for treating tradition and reason as equivalent to Scripture. (I happen to think that’s warranted, for reasons written about in numerous other postings on this blog.) The metaphor still seems intriguing.
———————
[1] An article at the Web site of the Prayer Book Society of the USA argues convincingly that, contrary to legend, the three-legged stool metaphor did not originate with Richard Hooker. The article quotes Hooker as saying, not that Scripture, tradition, and reason are roughly equal, as suggested by the metaphor, but that:
What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that 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. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” (Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).
[2] There’s a school of thought that adds personal experience as a fourth source of authority. Traditionalists hate that idea. It seems to me that personal experience can properly be a source of authority only for comparatively minor things. For major matters, personal experience standing alone is too prone to be unreliable or even dangerous. The Apostle Paul had a personal experience. So did Muhammad. So did Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter-Day Saints. So did David Koresh, head of the Branch Davidians. Better to filter personal experience through the mind of the community, past and present, before relying on it — but then that would seem to take us right back to tradition.
Leave a Reply