Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: tradition Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 89 05:43:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 57 Approved: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Well, once again those flaky anglicans have to muck things up. In anglican theology we trot out the "three legged stool": scripture, tradition, and reason. Basically, my intent here is to explain why we have this instead of "sola scriptura". Our attitude to scripture starts with the observations that (a) when we talk about scripture, we refer to "canon", and (b) scripture (our scripture) means many things to many people. The first comment identifies scripture as being normative; it provides a standard against which theology is tested. This shouldn't be taken as an argument for inerrancy, for reasons which will become apparent in the next section. The problem that immediately arises is that we see that, for a standard, the bible seems in practice to justify almost anything. In my own experience, it seems that the more isolated a person is in his interpretation, the more bizarre the reading. And there is a second problem, more subtle than the first: scripture isn't motivating. We don't believe in scripture because of scripture itself; we believe in its authority because the church says, "Here, read this." In both cases, tradition provides the spark. We understand tradition in the very broadest sense, of all that has been said in the church about God, man, and their relationship. And we see it providing two distinct functions. The first is that it is one of the signs of the church on earth. Tradition connects the church in history; it helps the church to remember that it is the church. THe second function is that of teaching and advice. Tradition not only guides us to the bible, but guides us within it, and helps to check our personal quirks and prejudices. This is where I think anglicans are most different from other protestants. We look at tradition as *also* being normative, and mistrust the lone christian with his bible. Lastly we come to reason. Tradition lacks unanimity (to be euphemistic); hence, one cannot simply say to Tradition: "Here: you tell me." One has to invoke Reason (and here we need a digression. Anglican "Reason" isn't just logical, linear thinking. Here it means the entirety of though processes. Don't blame me; blame Richard Hooker. And for most purposes, we can ignore the difference, since ordinary rationality plays such a central role as an enabler for the other modes.) anyway, Reason comes into play here to convert the clamor of Tradition over Scripture into a single voice, our own voice. Anglicans stand behind this view as both normative and descriptive. Without scripture, we drift away from the central truths. As for reason and tradition, they are inescapable. Sola Scriptura is wrong not just because it is a bad idea in practice, but because it doesn't happen in practice. It is tradition which would give Sola Scriptura authority as an idea in the first place! It is reason which assents to what Scripture says or what tradition says (which is where the Roman position goes wrong); people may reason badly or ignore most tradition, but without either, Scripture goes silent. And given this, it stands to reason that we should know as much tradition as we can, and reason as best we can. C. Wingate C. Wingate + "The Peace of God, it is no peace, + But strife closed in the sod. mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu + Yet brothers, pray for but one thing: mimsy!mangoe + The marv'lous Peace of God."