“Because we believe in Scripture, tradition and reason – in that order.”

Archbishop David would do well to read ++ Rowan's foreword. Or he might read Richard Hooker especially on this his Feast Day.

There is no order on a three legged stool, though that was not Hooker's metaphor. But more importantly anyone who has actually read Hooker knows that Tradition carries the least authority for him, compared to Reason's capacity to acknowledge how changing times and circumstances affect the authority and applicability of the text. Moreover Scripture has no authority independent of the reasoned consent of those who read it. So, Reason is the parent faculty for discerning authority of anything.

Pitiable comment.

Yes, I agree, pitiable. Actually, it is "reason" that has no authority except as informed by Holy Scripture.

It wasn't the Bible that said "we believe in Scripture, tradition and reason – in that order". It was Archbishop David.

It wasn't the Bible, nor Tradition, which said "Actually, it is 'reason' that has no authority except as informed by Holy Scripture." It was Mr Bergen.

It is neither the Bible, nor Tradition typing this comment now (said Yours Truly).

That is, it is the human minds---the human REASON---of these individuals. It is Reason which canonized Scripture, which creates Tradition, which "read, marks, interprets and inwardly digests" them today.

That's not a statement of ideology or theology, it's a simple God-created-in-the-Image-of-God biological fact. Thanks be to God for it!

JC Fisher

My dear children, I'm so sorry but you have clearly misread Mr. Hooker's plain text. And as far as I can see the formulary above "it is reason which canonized Scripture" removes the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once reason becomes the ground of faith, then the articles of the faith become tainted with all sorts of false doctrines. But then, that does seem to be precisely what has happened to the Episcopal church.

Without reason - you would not be able to read or understand anything - we all filter the Bible

Nikolaus,

With all due respect, I'm with Ann and the posters previous. In my understanding, all human religious activity is filtered through human beings and cultural/social/communal ideas, symbols and interactions. The Holy Spirit CERTAINLY works through the realities of this world and the people in it. But we (you and me, the Church Fathers, the Four Evangelists, St. Paul himself) cannot do or read or write anything apart from those very human (flesh-and-blood-and-reason-entwined) realities. That's kind of what Incarnation and Sacramentality are all about, right? God being present IN and THROUGH the stuff of the world. After all, God came among us in the flesh as a JEWISH MAN in the FIRST CENTURY in a place called PALESTINE. Right? Or am I missing something?

(Caps for emphasis. I'm not e-yelling. Promise.)

It is clear that you do not understand what is meant by "Reason" in this context. What I see is a reference to a very base form of reason, akin to that of a child. Just because we all filter the Bible does not mean that any of us is correct. What I see here is a relationship whereby God becomes subservient to Man's will. But the opposite is true. God does not err, Man does. Mankind can "reason" all it wishes. But unless that "reason" has been educated by the teachings of Scripture, it is wrong. Yours & mine both.

A sort of Reason "akin to that of a child" eh? Sounds familiar, Scriptural even...