"Via Media" and the "Three-Legged Stool" sample

Greetings, again, to all:

With all that is going on these days in the Anglican Communion, there is much talk about "via media" and the need to avoid extremes. Many times this kind of talk comes from "moderates" who don't think we should go quite so full steam ahead with our lovely innovations but who also think we shouldn't get our shorts in wad about those who doing precisely that. To their credit, many of these folks truly want to see the Church "forbearing one another in love" as St. Paul exhorts the Ephesian church. But more often, I think, it is a conveniently "historical" veneer for a lack of committment to truth one way or the other. Or, perhaps, there is committment to the truth, but the truth is such that it is too-great-for-us-to-apprehend. This is wonderfully humble and all, but Jesus said that he IS the truth, and that truth will set us free. So if the truth cannot be apprehended, then we will never be free and all this preaching and teaching the Church is supposed to be doing is at best a hit-and-miss attempt and at worst a prodigal waste of time.
So then, back to "via media." Orginally it referred to the character of the Elizabethan settlement in the late English Reformation, in which Ecclesia Anglicana eschewed the two polar opposites of Puritan protestantism or Roman Catholic recusancy (this is my understanding, I stand quite willing to be corrected...) The Caroline Divines would later elaborate the idea that the C of E could be a biblical church without being Puritan and could be a catholic Church without the Papacy.
Unfortunately, this understanding of "via media" is being pulled out of historical context. It is now being put to service by those who think that Anglicans need to find a middle ground between those who have the "anything goes" mindset and those who say any innovation is right out. So, in other words, "via media" is supposed to mean that there is a way to steer between these two extremes of committment to cutting-edge innovation and the preservation of Holy Tradition.
The only problem with this is summed up in a comment I heard a friend say years ago: If you walk in the middle of the road you're going to get hit by traffic from both directions. Perhaps the most unpopular people in the Church are not the crazy revisionists or the wagon-circling orthodox, but the muddy-middle, those who aren't really committed either way. And this is supposed to be Anglican.
There is a kernal of truth, here. Anglicans, by virtue of their lack of central magisterial authority, have always been free to explore the truth wherever it may be found. This was not a search without boundaries, but it was free enquiry nonetheless. Perhaps the golden example of this is the Liberal Catholic movement in the C of E, with such luminaries (although some will disagree with me on this) as Charles Gore, Henry Scott-Holland, and more recent figures such as A.M. Ramsey. Their liberalism allowed them to reach out into the world of ideas and seek for truth in all spheres. But their Catholicism never allowed to go beyond the bounds of what the Church taught in her most basic expressions (i.e. the Creeds). Our classic "control" has been that ubiquitous "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
But even this has been taken out of its historical context and original meaning and drafted into the service of those who would rescue the Church from "fundamentalism (i.e., committment to historical Christian orthodoxy)." The three-legged stool is hardly an adequate image to explain what Hooker meant in his Laws. The three-legged stool gives us three interdependent sources of truth. Take one leg away, and the whole stool falls. Mostly this means that take reason (new "understandings" of certain issues...mostly moral ones) away from Scripture and Tradition, and you have an unreliable understanding of the truth of a matter. But this is NOT Hooker's vision of the interplay between these three sources.
For Hooker, and for historical Anglicanism, Scripture has been the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. Indeed, for Hooker, Scripture is the foundation upon which the "beautiful pillar" of tradition and reason (i.e. the Church's faith) is built. Make no mistake, Hooker believed that what "scripture doth plainly deliver" was to be given first priority of belief.
That's not to say that we view biblical authority the same as a Baptist, for instance. There is indeed an interplay and interdependence between Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Tradition is that venerable history of interpreation in which the Church has used her sanctified reason to discern the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. But the mutual relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Reason is not one of impotent "leaning" one upon the other. Rather, is could be looked from the perspective of the doctrine of the Trinity. Here we have God, one Being in three co-eternal, and substantially equal persons existing perichoretically in mutual love and interdependence. But clearly the Father has headship and superiority. The Son and Holy Spirit do the bidding of the Father. In the same way, Scripture holds the supremacy in the "three-legged stool," but with tradition and reason exists as a marvelous unity of truth.

I realize that I have used an entire lunch break to write this, and should probably get back to work. I apologize for the length of my ramblings, but this whole misuse of "via media" and the "three legged stool" has really been a bee in my bonnet for quite some time. I invite any discussion on these things, as they are part of what makes us unique among Catholic Christendom.

RED+