Equal authority, or essential to the primary authority?

“In the Episcopal Church, our theology reveres Scripture as but one of the three sources of authority, co-equal with Reason and Tradition. We have always required clergy to be educated, and most of our seminaries have been open to historical and critical scholarship. Few priests believe that the bible is inspired literally word for word. As a result, few Episcopal parishes require you to hang up your mind when you enter; we are not beholden to a confessional statement or to a majesterium’s conclusions.”
This quote is from an essay written by Louis Crew for the book Combating Homophobia, edited by James Sears & Walter Williams (Columbia Univ. Press, 1997: 341-353).
My question is whether Scripture is really co-equal to Reason and Tradition in authority over the Church and Christians. Is Scripture THE authority, informed by Reason and Tradition, as we attempt to understand the intent of the original writers (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and how it all applies to us today? Is Reason an authority tamed by Scripture and Tradition? Is Tradition an authority mitigated by Scripture and Reason?
I grew up with Scripture being the absolute center. Traditions of man were always suspect. Reason, the thinking and philosophies of man, are always available for corruption. Yet, what is needed to understand Scripture? Tradition and Reason! The Church of Rome tends towards Tradition as its authority. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend towards Scripture as their authority. Unitarian/Universalist Christians tend towards Reason as their authority. Anglicans proclaim all three, co-equal, as our authorities. I accept that, but still tend toward Scripture when the rubber hits the road.

Identity Politics

Frankly, we need to get away from identity-politics as the motivator for decision making. This isn’t an issue of avoidance in considering and remedying the profound forms of prejudice and bigotry that are still rampant in our society. It is a recognition that as we move away from considering people according to their merits – character, abilities, education, experience – and consider their identity as paramount – skin color, ethnicity, orientation, etc. – we will inevitably cause more harm to the advancement of equality than not. Maybe this is a period we must move through, but I am not convinced that the long-term good will be honestly achieved in this manner.