Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Scripture Tradition Reason
9 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2008 - 1:00PM #1
Brobrooz1
Posts: 847
How do you nderstand this concept?
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 04, 2008 - 2:43PM #2
PilgrimTim112
Posts: 17
[QUOTE=Brobrooz1;829837]How do you nderstand this concept?[/QUOTE]

I for one Episcopalian understand the Scripture-Tradition-Reason "three stools" conceptualisation to be a kind of shorthand answer to the implied question:  What is authoritative?  I understand that Episcopalians have discerned that Faith is based upon the intertwining of Scripture (specifically The Bible, including Hebrew Sciptures -- the Old Testament -- and the New Testament) and Church/Christian tradition (referring as the Nicene Creed does to the "one catholic church") and Reason (meaning, I think, informed application of intelligence and life experience), where none of the three factors dominates the other two.  In short, I believe that the people of the Book of Common Prayer cannot and do not stop at "It says in The Bible, so it must be so." 

How's that for a first post on the board?
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 04, 2008 - 9:18PM #3
PilgrimTim112
Posts: 17
A correction, if you please.  The conceptualisation should be referenced as "three legged stool."   That's just one stool, but with three legs supporting the platform upon which to sit or stand.  I regret the erroneous reference.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2008 - 7:42AM #4
elanvital
Posts: 34
Yes, the "three stools" just doesn't sound right. lol ;-)

Nonetheless, I think your answer was concise yet complete; you're off to a good start!
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2008 - 8:53AM #5
Dutch777
Posts: 9,144
[QUOTE=PilgrimTim112;935390]I for one Episcopalian understand the Scripture-Tradition-Reason "three stools" conceptualisation to be a kind of shorthand answer to the implied question:  What is authoritative?  I understand that Episcopalians have discerned that Faith is based upon the intertwining of Scripture (specifically The Bible, including Hebrew Sciptures -- the Old Testament -- and the New Testament) and Church/Christian tradition (referring as the Nicene Creed does to the "one catholic church") and Reason (meaning, I think, informed application of intelligence and life experience), where none of the three factors dominates the other two.  In short, I believe that the people of the Book of Common Prayer cannot and do not stop at "It says in The Bible, so it must be so." 

How's that for a first post on the board?[/QUOTE]

Excellent.  Airtight.

Has this been signed, witnessed, notarized and filed with the Cook County Clerk's office?

Welcome to B-Net.  It's a pleasure to have you on-board.
:)
The Path
To Moon
lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own
DharmaPath
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 16, 2008 - 5:44PM #6
PilgrimTim112
Posts: 17
[QUOTE=dutch777;936849]Excellent.  Airtight.

Has this been signed, witnessed, notarized and filed with the Cook County Clerk's office?

:)[/QUOTE]

Not quite, but I am guilty of carrying a law license.  Thanks for the welcome, Dutch.

I have some questions, though, for the original post-er, Brobrooz1.  I see on some other threads that you perceive yourself to be conservative, but willing to and trying to engage in meaningful conversation with progressive Episcopalians.  I, for one, appreciate your candor and your willingness to engage in discussion.  So, did you find the responses to your question here to be helpful?  And, do you think conservative Anglicans reject or differ with the "three-legged stool" concept?

I do perceive an argument from conservative E/A's I've read in the debate for which Bp. Robinson is a personification that at least one purpose of their objection is to strengthen the scripture leg of the stool -- that progressives have the stool a-kilter by overemphasizing the reason leg.  But, as I've reflected upon this S-T-R thread, I began wondering whether conservatives perhaps find the three-legged stool concept itself to be erroneous.   What do you think?

Tim
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2008 - 11:01AM #7
RJMcElwain
Posts: 3,013
Tim,

It's my perception that, although the original concept of the three legged stool envisioned three equal legs, in practice, everyone seems to have a different view of the balance, weight and importance of each leg. We all start from a different point of view and adjust the legs to suit our thinking.
Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2008 - 2:16PM #8
maplewood
Posts: 4,517
My two cents' worth, please....

Tim, I also think your post is spot on.

Regarding "disagreements": I think that most Piskies adhere to the three legged stool and the via media, no matter where they are on the spectrum.  I think the issue usually comes down to interpretation/persuasion, not a rejection of the three legs concept.

For example: human sexuality.  Is there such a thing as "gayness"?  If so, that means one thing; if not, that means an entirely different thing.  For example: if so, then the Bible prohibits a variant of human sexuality, which is weird; if not, then the Bible prohibits a deviant form of chosen behavior, which is valid.

What is right?  The science or the Bible?  Some people accept one, and not the other.  Which one they accept is not the issue here, but this serves as an example - for some, the science is not strong enough to trump scripture, while others consider it a trump card to scripture.

They interpret the data as they see it, and are persuaded/not persuaded by it. 

Another example: ordination of women.  Are the traditional prohibitions to the ordination of women still valid?  What are they?  We know, via research and common sense, that women have all the capabilities and capacities to "do the job", so to speak.  They have the talent, the brains, the energy, the wherewithal to be capable, even spectacular priests.  Women have performed admirably in every facet of society.  Does their proven abilities to be priests still bar them from ordination because of a couple of statements by Paul and the fact that Jesus did not chose a woman as an apostle?

At one time, many leaned to the "No women" side, today they lean to the "Yes" side.  Did we abandon the three legged stool?  What is "conservative" here, and what is "liberal"?

It's an interesting puzzled to ponder.  :)  Good topic!
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Dec 30, 2008 - 10:30PM #9
Brobrooz1
Posts: 847
[QUOTE=PilgrimTim112;961178]Not quite, but I am guilty of carrying a law license.  Thanks for the welcome, Dutch.

I have some questions, though, for the original post-er, Brobrooz1.  I see on some other threads that you perceive yourself to be conservative, but willing to and trying to engage in meaningful conversation with progressive Episcopalians.  I, for one, appreciate your candor and your willingness to engage in discussion.  So, did you find the responses to your question here to be helpful?  And, do you think conservative Anglicans reject or differ with the "three-legged stool" concept?

I do perceive an argument from conservative E/A's I've read in the debate for which Bp. Robinson is a personification that at least one purpose of their objection is to strengthen the scripture leg of the stool -- that progressives have the stool a-kilter by overemphasizing the reason leg.  But, as I've reflected upon this S-T-R thread, I began wondering whether conservatives perhaps find the three-legged stool concept itself to be erroneous.   What do you think?

Tim[/QUOTE]

Good evening Tim and everyone!  Sorry that I have been so long gatting back to you.
I tend to understand
S,
T,
R
in a sort of 'chain of command', as it informs our Spiritual walk.
The Scriptures, imho, should be the final authoruty, but informed by tradition (ie church fathers,scholars,commentaries, etc),in turn these inform our reasoning -iow- we should be willing tro change our reasoning to be in line with God's purposes. On still another hand... reasoning is what puts Scriopture and tradition togther for us....  Too many times, I have had conversations that goe something like this: 'Yes I know what the Bible says, what the church has taught-but Ithink it should be this way....' imho, that could be a problem...
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2009 - 3:53PM #10
maplewood
Posts: 4,517
It is interesting to juxtapose the idea of a three-legged stool to a chain-of-command.  One common source regarding such a juxtaposition states....

Authority, Sources of (in Anglicanism)

"The Anglican balance of authority has been characterized as a "three-legged stool" which falls if any one of the legs is not upright. It may be distinguished from a tendency in Roman Catholicism to overemphasize tradition relative to scripture and reason, and in certain Protestant churches to overemphasize scripture relative to tradition and reason. The Anglican balancing of the sources of authority has been criticized as clumsy or "muddy." It has been associated with the Anglican affinity for seeking the mean between extremes and living the via media. It has also been associated with the Anglican willingness to tolerate and comprehend opposing viewpoints instead of imposing tests of orthodoxy or resorting to heresy trials." 

-From "The Episcopal Dictionary of the Church", link found below at national church website.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19625_13797_ENG_HTM.htm

So, if we consider the Dictionary a reliable source, the three-legged concept may well be more traditionally Anglican, and the idea of a chain-of-command less so?...and a newer development in Anglicanism?

Thoughts, please?
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook