The Three-Legged Stool

On the principle of "Better Late Than Never", here is last week's sermon!

"and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord" for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them" saith the Lord."

Or, as Isaiah put it, "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children."

Our personal, immediate communication with God is constantly stressed in the Scriptures. We are, certainly, to be guided by church leaders and official pronouncements (or Moses if we happen to be children of Israel) but ultimately we are in life, as in death,alone with God; it is a a question not of acting according to the church’s rules, not of having the correct belief about the exact nature of the Trinity, but of knowing God, the personal God, whoever, however or whatever you understand him or her to be; it is clear that our God is a God who does communicate with each of us.

Jesus, picking up the words of Isaiah, responded thus to the people who were wanting doctrinal definitions from him about the Bread from heaven: “No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me.”

And this learning does not even need to involve a conscious relationship with the church. Paul, who knew what he was talking about when it came to direct communication with God, put it very strongly: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves”.

So what am I doing standing up here, then? You may well come to a conclusion about that during the next ten minutes or so.

Almost from the beginning of Christianity there has been some disagreement about the source of our knowledge about God and how he wishes us to live our lives. To oversimplify the position as it is now and has been since the Reformation: Protestants claim that Scripture alone is the source, Roman Catholics would add Tradition - that is, the teaching of the Magisterium of the church (let’s say “the Vatican”) - and Anglicans, which includes us Episcopalians, would add Reason. Scripture, Tradition and Reason, are the "three-legged stool" upon which faith rests.

This so-called "three-legged stool" probably originates with the work by Richard Hooker, an Anglican divine of the reign of Elizabeth I in his work "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity". He never used the phrase, but the concept is clearly there.

However, it must not be misunderstood. One of the beauties of the Anglican part of the church - in theory at least - is its inclusiveness, its refusal to over-define, its openness to people as they actually are. Yes, certainly. But if we accept Hooker's understanding of the source of our faith, we should do him the courtesy of listening to what he actually said. Which was this: "What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; 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 judgements whatsoever"

"What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due". Sometimes - I would even say usually - it is perfectly clear what Scripture is saying. But sometimes is it is not, and then we have the choice between taking another’s word for it, or struggling to understand for ourselves. The Roman church, and possibly most Anglicans, would assume that using our own judgement comes last; but that is not the original Anglican tradition, and it is not the belief of Hooker: “the next is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.”

Can we really decide for ourselves what a particular passage of scripture means? Yes, I think we can (and must?).

The Roman church, when pronouncing on an area of doctrine, may give three broad judgements: This is what you should hold; this is something you should not hold; or: This is the safe position to hold. I really like the thinking behind this third possibility. In this case, you are told you are free to think differently if your reason and your understanding of the scriptures leads you so to do, but if you wish to be safe, then you know what the "safe" belief is.

In fact, I think my appreciation of this Roman Catholic concept has helped me to understand, and appreciate, what some see as "Anglican woolliness". We have the choice, I believe, to accept the "safe" way. Some people may choose that all the time; probably all of us choose it some of the time, or on some subjects; it would be arrogant to think that one person has such acuity and is so close to God that they could, in Kierkegaard's phrase, "float above five hundred fathoms" unaided at all times. And we must not look down on those who do choose the safe way, the way of seeking out and accepting without question whatever the church teaches.

But we also have the choice, where it cannot be said that "Scripture doth plainly deliver" - and only there! - to try to make out "what we can necessarily conclude by force of reason". We shouldn’t forget that the Psalm calls God “Deus scientiarum Dominus”, a phrase taken up as a motto by Cambridge university.

But God is more than the God of intellectual knowledge. Some have spoken of a “four-legged stool” which adds experience to Scripture, Tradition and Reason. As someone said, "I would rather feel contrition than be able to define it". Now this does not mean ”feeling” as in “if I feel it is so, it is.” It is best expressed by Melanchthon's equally famous phrase "this it is to know Christ - to receive his benefits - not to contemplate his natures, or the modes of his incarnation".

Of course, we need to do both; and the Scriptures are there for us to interpret, and god is there for us to know.

So what AM I doing standing up here, if God speaks to all of us through Scripture, reason and experience? Why have I got a special right to instruct any of you? I don’t think it is a question of right to instruct. I think I am here to do a bit of encouraging. To say “Do not be afraid”.

Our God is not a God who lies in wait for us to put a foot wrong. He is not even a God who stands and cheers us on from the sidelines. he is a God who is with us ever inch of the way: the safe way and the risky way; the joyful way, the sorrowful way, and ultimately the glorious way, for he has walked them before us. A God who said “I am with you in tribulation” and “Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I have called you by your name; you are mine.”

So let us pray: “O you who are the source of our faith, Christ our God, you have fulfilled th law and the Prophets in their entirety. Fill our heart with love and our minds with understanding each time we take your holy Scripture in our hands; you who live and reign with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God now and for ever. Amen.”