Reason, Logic, and the Logos: the 3 legged stool and beyond

by Donald Schell

Part 1

Some of the reading that most challenges and expands my theological thinking isn’t theological at all. In the piece that follows this, I’ll offer how some recent reading has me thinking again about Reason, Logic, and the Logos, listening for a non-religious critique of some cultural predispositions that show up when faith is vilified as inherently irrational.

I suspect my reading experience – finding inspiration in texts by unbelievers and practitioners of other religions - is true for many Episcopalians. Believing that any search for truth brings us closer to the Truth, we value honest inquiry. Episcopalians value scripture and tradition, but we also, most of us, think voices outside church tradition may help us know God. Part of what steers us away from Christian exclusivism and toward a more universal understanding of the Spirit’s work is that we ourselves, sometimes at least find God in our conversations with reflective unbelievers and people practicing other religions

When we want to make it absolutely clear that this openness to inquiry and discovery is legitimately Anglican (and Christian), we’re likely to invoke Richard Hooker’s “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. We might add that reason shapes our knowing of God, and that the truth -wherever we’re learning it – must point to the Truth we know in Christ because ultimately all Truth is one.

These are good moves. I trust them, as far as they go, and I want to reflect on some recent reading, because I think we need to go further. Specifically, with large segments of our culture and society interpreting faith and religious practice as inevitably dogmatic, intolerant and unreasonable, we, as Anglicans, will do well to reflect on what we mean by “reason” and how we’re open to it (and how it opens us).

Hooker won’t get us all the way we need to go. To begin with Richard Hooker didn’t actually give us the image of a three-legged stool and likely would protest a simple, balanced treatment that suggested Scripture, tradition, and reason were of equal importance. The oft-cited “three-legged stool” is a bit of Episcopal folklore based on a distillation (and reinterpretation) of Hooker. A three-legged stool suggests equal reliance on scripture, tradition and reason. Several (often conservative) sources will tell us that Hooker was a lot closer to Sola Scriptura than today’s liberal Episcopalians. Sola Scriptura was a Reformation battle cry teaching that Christians can/should acknowledge only the authority of the Bible. Sola Scriptura teaches that we only know God through God’s revelation of God’s self in the Bible. Hooker knew there was something more that allowed us to read Scripture critically and reflectively, but apparently this quotation is as close as he came to our “three-legged stool,”

“Be it in matter of the 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 this 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 overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever. “ (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, 8:2)
If someone who knows Hooker well wants to supply other quotations, I’d welcome them. But at least here Hooker isn’t talking about three equal and inter-dependent sources of authority.

Instead Hooker gives first priority to the plain meaning of scripture, next to what one can bring to it by force of reason, and last to what the church (by ecclesiastical authority) thinks and defines to be true and good. Hooker certainly does mean to offer us a trustworthy means of interpreting Scripture. And he’s insisting on the essential importance of interpretation. While a fundamentalist might proclaim, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it,” responsible Christian theology has always acknowledged that even purported revelation requires interpretation and that, at some level, the test of good interpretation is that it makes good sense. Whether we’re talking interpretation or inquiry (more on those two to come), we’re looking for what seems and feels reasonable and coherent.

Hooker offers reason as part of a transparent interpretative process that couldn’t be reduced to the simplistic proof-texting of the fundamentalist “I believe it, that settles.”
Like many Episcopalians, thinking about Hooker’s helpful invitation to a deliberate and open interpretative process, I’d hope that what he meant by “reason” might, in some way include experience. As a pre-Enlightenment thinker shaped by medieval scholastic theology, I think we can make the case that Hooker’s “Reason” is something more layered and complex than simple “rationality.” But truthfully if he didn’t mean to include it, I’d push to include it myself. Others have said the same thing.

In fact in 1964, Wesley scholar Charles Outler offered that in the 18th century John Wesley had turned Hooker’s three-legged stool into a quadrilateral - Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

For those attendant to metaphor, I’ll note that Outler wasn’t suggesting adding a leg to make a three-legged stool into a four-legged stool. The utilitarian advantage of a three-legged stool is that it stands firm even on rough, uneven ground, because three points, the end of the three legs, always defines a plane. A three-legged stool can sit us securely anywhere. A well-made four-legged chair feels solid in a house if the floors are really flat and level. Staying with the three-legged stool image, I’m inclined to join with those who want to make one leg “Reason-and-Experience.”
But Outler suggests a “quadrilateral,” which isn’t just a four-sided geometric shape – it’s also what the Chicago-Lambeth gatherings of bishop (beginning with an 1886 meeting of our American house of bishops) proposed as grounds of unity and authority in the church:

1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.
2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.
3. The two Sacraments — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.

I’m guessing Outler offers a different Quadrilateral because he wants to offer as Wesleyan (and Hooker-based) response to what American and Lambeth bishops were asking, “What’s essential and how does it work?” It’s too bad to lose the stool, but Outler’s new metaphor reminds us that our real question is how we meet and know God. How does God speak to us?

As a somewhat contrarian Anglican, hearing Outler explain how Wesley addressed those questions, I’d say that Outler betters the Lambeth Quadrilateral by offering not just a small library of received texts and a couple of forms for sacramental practice – yes, what I see in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, but an implicit process of engaging scripture by means of tradition, reason and experience (so, to that extent, doing something like Hooker himself did). In other words, like Hooker, Outler says Wesley was sticking with the question of interpretation.

Does Wesley add something essential that Hooker had missed? I think the answer is both yes and no. It’s worth noting that between Hooker and Wesley, the Enlightenment took center stage and made some exaggerated claims for Reason. Descartes suggested thinking was what made us human (and could prove to ourselves that we existed).

As theologian of the first Anglican generation after the Reformation, Richard Hooker was a Renaissance thinker. He was a contemporary of William Shakespeare and wrote in the reign of Elizabeth I.

John Wesley, also an Anglican theologian, lived and worked in the last generation of the Enlightenment and saw its best fruit in the American and French revolutions, and had also seen its inconsistencies up close in a visit to Georgia’s slave economy. Wesley died shortly before the French revolution’s rationalist embrace of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity devolved into the reign of terror.

Hooker’s Renaissance understanding of reason carries forward and renews the complex scholastic inquiry into how we know, how understanding works, and how mystery and fact are inescapably intertwined. As an Anglican formed in the medieval scholastics, Hooker would understand that Reason includes more than logic or pure rationality.

In the wake of the Enlightenment, Wesley was breaking ranks with established cultural and intellectual norms when he put experience alongside reason, giving weight to both. Whatever Hooker or other Renaissance thinks may have meant by “reason,” with the Enlightenment, Reason had become the precise, logical reasoning that era exalted as our highest human function.

Would Hooker or Wesley claim we know God through natural theology, that the world we know around us can teach us valuable lessons about God and how God works? Well, they’d be likelier to than their own era’s fundamentalists. But would they go as far as we (I) might hope they’d go? Probably not.

So, full disclosure, whatever Hooker (or his later interpreters) might say, the Episcopal church’s acknowledging that way of knowing, even informally or by broad lay consensus was part of what drew me to our Church. I’d grown up in a Christian context where we were taught that we could learn nothing of God from our reasoning or experience. Hoping it was wisdom rather than hubris, I knew I didn’t trust that narrowing of the doorway or window to truth. I felt the presence of God or the Spirit in the human bravery and inspiration that creates works of art and in human acts of kindness, mercy, or compassion.

And the Logos of human kindness, creativity, mercy, and compassion is what I find compelling in the non-Christian books I’ve been reading. More on that in the piece that follows this.

The Rev. Donald Schell, founder of St. Gregory of Nyssa Church in San Francisco, is President of All Saints Company.

Comments (5)

Good essay. I would add that Hooker suggests that even "plain reading" requires Reason:

"Unto the word of God... we do not add reason as a supplement of any maim or defect therein, but as a necessary instrument, without which we could not reap by the Scripture's perfection that fruit and benefit which it yieldeth... If knowledge were possible without discourse of natural reason, why should none be found capable thereof but only men; nor men till such time as they come unto ripe and full ability to work by reasonable understanding?" (III.VIII.10f)

He also notes, of course, especially in Book I, how reason precedes Scripture historically in a kind of evolutionary process; Scripture ultimately revealing certain things that could not be found out by reason alone.

Tobias,

Thank you for the splendid Hooker quotation. I think the question of what we mean by "reason" becomes urgent in our dialogue (or response to polemic) from the new atheists. And apologetically talking with friends and neighbors outside church and formationally in our life together, the culturally common construct of "Faith vs. Reason" is a deathly distortion. From Hooker's foundational contribution, we've got to show and teach Reason and Faith in graced, constructive engagement. Thanks for such a valuable addition to this conversation.

Thanks, Donald. That engagement of Faith and Reason is exactly what Hooker was trying to describe, and encourage.

I neglected to note another important aspect of his thinking that fits in here: and that is that the Scripture, while revealing things that reason could not attain, does not reveal everything. Another favorite quote: "It is no more disgrace for Scripture to have left a number of things free to be ordered at the discretion of the Church, than for nature to have left it unto the wit of man to devise his own attire." (III.IV.1) Hooker responded negatively to those who claimed that Scripture gave answers on every question, "as if Scripture did not only contain all things in that kind necessary [for salvation], but all things simply, and in such sort that to do any thing according to any other law were not only unnecessary but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful and sinful. Whatsoever is spoken of God or things appertaining to God otherwise than as the truth is, though it seem an honour, it is an injury. And as incredible praises given unto men do often abate and impair the credit of their deserved commendation, so we must likewise take great heed, lest in attributing unto Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which indeed it hath most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed." (II.8)

A very wise man indeed!

Donald, it’s a pleasure to see Richard Hooker cited at the Episcopal Café - I wish he and his contemporaries dropped by more often. My husband and I have been worshiping with an ELCA Lutheran congregation for six months or so. [They have graciously extended associate membership status to us, so we don’t have to turn in our “Have you hugged an Episcopalian today?” aprons.] We’ve attended their new-member classes and I’ve also attended the pastor’s bi-weekly Bible study and a couple of adult education forums. There’s a comfortable congruence to Episcopal practice in many respects but one striking difference – really, an astonishing difference – is how much everyone seems to know about the founding figure of their denomination, Martin Luther. Law and Gospel? The Two Kingdoms theory? Sin boldly, and love more boldly still? Sola scriptura? These people can talk about Luther’s ideas with considerable assurance. Martin Luther isn’t a remote figure in a stained-glass window to them. His is a lively, cogent, argumentative, and immediate voice.

I measure this in my mind against my experiences of how the Episcopal Church lifts up our founding thinkers. Some parishes may mark October 16 with special worship or music – but they are exceptions. I believe that if you sat fifteen or twenty Episcopalians down for a talk about their faith, Cranmer’s voice would not anchor the discussion. Still less are we able to talk about Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, Lancelot Andrewes, Richard Hooker. George Herbert and John Donne are more widely known, because of their presence in our hymnody – but Thomas Traherne, that lyrical, universalist visionary, is missing.

It’s all very well to say Cranmer’s thought is present in our liturgy but, you know, we may be kidding ourselves about that. The liturgical movement continues to diffuse among the people of God, and Episcopalians don’t have a monopoly on beautiful liturgy any more. Lighting candles? Chanting? Vestments? Litanies? Collects? Incense? These are achievable in any denominational or non-denominational assembly for worship. I don’t think our liturgy can continue to provide the distinctiveness the Episcopal Church has counted on in the past.

And – more seriously – I wonder if in our Christian formation and in our articulation of our history we have lifted up our liturgical tradition and neglected our vital, urgent intellectual tradition. Our denomination’s discussions of Baptism and the Church of England’s melee over women in the Episcopate seem to me to be so ungrounded in Hooker’s calm rationalism – not “the faith once delivered to the saints” but rather, what may be discerned as serving the needs of the church in this time and place? I doo not have the intellectual background to read Hooker wisely, but even I can find a largeness of vision in his work, a willingness to reflect and adapt.

I share your delight in texts from other religious traditions, as well as in poetry – I often spend a few days in the Church of Wendell Berry. But as regards honest inquiry, I wish we could give the Carolingian Divines a turn at bat. They were a crack team.

Pamela Grenfell Smith
Bloomington, Indiana

Pamela,
As always, I'm glad for your thoughts and comments. I think I can say offer a hearty "Amen" to everything you're saying here. And alongside your valuable insistence that tradition isn't much use to is if we don't know it (in other words, don't teach it, don't raise up voices that shaped us from every era, don't observe practices of other times respectfully), I think Hooker gives us a means (and apologetic challenge) to be in real, open conversation with people of good will who are wholly outside our religious tradition. It's striking to me that our critics who call Episcopalians like you and me "Re-visionists" (a word that suggests to me each generation's healthy practice of claiming and renewing our vision) are also inclined to accuse us of listening to the culture. And again, I want to say, YES! Yes, we must do just that. Neither our faith nor our Scriptures give us all the answers we need to live our lives (as Tobias's second Hooker quotation said so well). And in the work of God's reconciling all people to God's self, our truest and most faithful listening should expect to hear and learn from anyone shaped by human reason and experience. I hope it's clear that I mean this response as an appreciative addition to what you've offered. Thank you.

Add your comments
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Advertising Space