Yes, experience has now been added as a fourth leg, and it often seems to dominate, especially among the charismatics who remain orthodox with regards to the Creeds. In fact, reason and experience both represent man-centered approaches, representing 2 aspects of the Enlightenment (or possibly the Enlightenment and the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment). Stylistic definitions are, ultimately, existential and relativistic ones without firm norms and a clear authority to articulate and defend those norms.

I like Middleton’s book. I do believe that Anglicanism is at its best when it tries to understand Scripture as interpreted by the whole Church. This takes work, of course, but I think it’s the wisest and safest way forward.

It very much feels ACNA requires tacit engagement with ‘three streams’ or ‘four chords’ for actual dialog to transpire. However, this is a real tight rope, and I have yet to hear a convincing account how charismatic revival fits into Reformed Catholicism since I don’t see folks who subscribe to worship as ‘subjective’ and ‘informal’ wanting the older prayer books.

Despite this ‘fourth leg’, the stylistic definition has come in handy especially with WO, enlisting tradition to help explain scripture. I find that once you realize a person has entirely rejected the normative approach, usually the stylistic is your final thread to hang upon. That’s when you really need to argue for proper methodology. Without proper method, there’s no chance two persons who are without a shared profession of belief are going to draw agreement. This has been the approach of the continuing church(es), invoking tradition when scriptural proofs fall short, especially with something like the female diaconate. It also is the method Arthur Middleton recommends in his book, Restoring the Anglican Mind. My rector has been promoting Middleton’s book. Do you think it sound advice, but can it cope against the fourth leg, “experience”?