There has been lots of talk recently about doctrine. Whether it is being changed. What it is. Whether it can be changed. What our priests and bishops have sworn to uphold. Mouse will not be wading into the muddy waters of any particular issues of doctrine but thought it would be helpful to set the context for what we mean by doctrine in the Church of England. And whether we actually have any.
The first thing to note is that this is not a new question. The Church of England is unique in its history and development, which means that it lacks a formalised and codified body of doctrine. Its history, forged through the violent times of the 16th century and swinging between reformers and Catholics meant that the Church was designed from the outset to accommodate a range of beliefs, but within a framework which holds them together. As a result, the question of exactly what our doctrine is and should be has been around as long as the Church itself and has been formally examined by the Church’s central authorities on several occasions.
The starting point for an attempt to examine doctrine in the Church of England is the definition given in the Canons. Specifically, Canon A5 says:
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Let’s break that down.
The first statement is not an expression of what the church’s doctrine is, but a statement about the nature of its doctrine. It is also unhelpfully vague. Being grounded in the holy scriptures is, of course, important but there are many ways to read the Bible and what does it mean to be grounded in it?
Similarly, the ancient fathers and Councils said a lot, but Canon A5 says that our doctrine is grounded in such teachings as are agreeable to the scriptures, so again we have to scratch our heads to work out what that might mean in practice. Which teachings of the ancient fathers and Councils are agreeable to the scriptures and which are not?
The second part of the Canon is more illuminating. Our doctrine ‘is to be found in’ the 39 Articles, BCP and the Ordinal. Well, those are more specific documents we can read and digest. They also contain a number of the historic creeds, so here we have something concrete. Don’t we?
The 39 Articles is as close to a foundational document for the Church of England as we have and was finalised in 1571. The Articles that we know and love today started life as a list of 10 articles in 1536 as the first doctrinal statement from the English bishops after the split with Rome, attempting to forge a path between those who wanted the English church to essentially be Roman Catholic but without the Pope and those who wanted a full blooded Protestant reformation. They included such statements as declaring that praying to the saints is permitted, icons may be used but not worshipped and that justification is by faith, but good works are also still necessary.
Image created using Microsoft Designer AI
And all that history means that it is a document of its time and was much debated and revised in the years leading up to the 1571 version. It is designed to address specific controversies and issues at the time of the English Reformation as Elizabeth I sought to unify the Church of England and put the bloody recent past behind her. The principal concern was to establish the points of differentiation between the Catholic Church and the more radically reformed Anabaptists. Consequently, the doctrine of the Church of England has been said to be that of the Catholic Church before the reformation with the changes made by the 39 Articles and BCP added on top.
There is a healthy debate as to whether the Articles should be considered doctrine or law. In essence, they are both, formed of short statements of intent rather than long theological exposition.
If you found someone in the street and handed them a copy of the 39 Articles, telling them this is the foundation of the doctrine of the Church of England they would look at you with a very odd look.
It contains declarations about the rights to private property and occasional slams of the Anabaptists and ‘popish’ doctrines. Statements about whether you are OK to swear an oath when a magistrate requests you to. Statements about the power of civil magistrates. Other articles deal with controversies of the time - whether purgatory exists (nope) and whether the sacraments are valid if the priest who administers them is evil (yep).
The purpose was to codify the issues that needed to be codified at the time. They are certainly not a comprehensive theological position, although they do point to critical positions on a number of issues. Few would argue that issues like the existence of purgatory are key issues for the Church of England, whil a number of central theological topics are absent from the articles, since they were not major controversies at the time.
To add to the confusion, Article 35 says:
The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.
The Homilies are two books of sermons designed to be read in churches at a time when preaching licences were scarce to meet the concern about a lack of preaching of the Word.
So does that mean that two books of sermons assembled during the time of Edward VI and Elizabeth I are also the formal doctrine of the Church of England? Or can we ignore them due to the comment that they are ‘necessary for these times’? They are also documents of their time, including some moments of uncomfortable reading, such as:
For the woman is a weake creature, not inbued with like strength and constancie of minde, therefore they be the sooner disquieted, and they be the more prone to all weake affections & dispositions of mind, more then men bee, & lighter they bee, and more vaine in their fantasies & opinions.
Other homilies include ‘Against Idleness’, ‘Against excesse of apparel [fancy clothes]’ and ‘Against gluttony and drunkenness’, which are all very much of their time and most would consider not suitable for use in public worship today.
With this doctrinal background a series of theological controversies began to emerge in the early part of the 20th century which could not easily be resolved. In response the Archbishops of Canterbury and York created a Doctrine Commission in 1922, latterly under William Temple, with the remit to pull together the essential doctrines that carry universal agreement within the Church of England. The intent was not to create a definitive corpus of doctrine that carried universal agreement but to find a way to resolve and bring together theological differences that were hot topics at the time. Their remit was:
To consider the nature and grounds of Christian doctrine with a view to demonstrating the extent of existing agreement within the Church of England and with a view to investigating how far it is possible to remove or dminish existing differences.
The Commission took 16 years to report, indicating the scale of the challenge. Their summary, Doctrine in the Church of England published in 1938, is not a bad effort at all. Even so, the remit of the Commission fell short of producing an authoritative statement even on the topics in scope, but was to provide a report for further consideration by the Bishops. As far as Mouse can tell, the Bishops essentially did nothing with the report other than note its existence. Nevertheless, for students of doctrine in the good old CofE, Mouse commends it for use.
The period of the Commission’s work coincided with a major attempt to revise the 1662 prayer book with the introduction of a new version - potentially the most significant doctrinal change in centuries. This was largely an attempt by Anglo-Catholics to introduce more freedom for Anglo-Catholic liturgical practices alongside the traditional Anglican forms. A draft was made in 1923 and after various revisions was passed by the Church of England’s Convocations and Church Assembly. However, this was a time before General Synod, so changes to Church law required Parliamentary approval and Parliament voted down the new prayer book in 1928, due to concerns over the reservation of the sacrament amongst other issues, and opposition from Evangelicals.
The 1938 Doctrine Commission report considered the sources of doctrine described in Canon A5 and observed that they were a 16th-century formulation never intended to form the fundamental doctrine of the church in isolation but to address the specific issues the church was facing at the time. It helpfully had this to say about their application today:
These formularies should not be held to prejudge questions which have arisen since their formulation or problems which have been modified by fresh knowledge or fresh conceptions. Nevertheless, If an Anglican theologian thinks a particular formulary not wholly adequate, he has a special obligation to preserve whatever truth that formulary was trying to secure, and to see to it that any statement he puts forward as more adequate does in fact secure this.
So they concluded that these historic Anglican formularies are important and helpful, but we might have learned something new since the 16th-century and new theological questions have arisen that they do not address. The rest of the document (almost 250 pages worth) walks through the latest consensus positions as they were understood at the time.
Indeed the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer both acknowledge the potential for development. Article 34 states:
To consider the nature and grounds of Christian doctrine with a view to demonstrating the extent of existing agreement within the Church of England and with a view to investigating how far it is possible to remove or dminish existing differences.
The Commission took 16 years to report, indicating the scale of the challenge. Their summary, Doctrine in the Church of England published in 1938, is not a bad effort at all. Even so, the remit of the Commission fell short of producing an authoritative statement even on the topics in scope, but was to provide a report for further consideration by the Bishops. As far as Mouse can tell, the Bishops essentially did nothing with the report other than note its existence. Nevertheless, for students of doctrine in the good old CofE, Mouse commends it for use.
The period of the Commission’s work coincided with a major attempt to revise the 1662 prayer book with the introduction of a new version - potentially the most significant doctrinal change in centuries. This was largely an attempt by Anglo-Catholics to introduce more freedom for Anglo-Catholic liturgical practices alongside the traditional Anglican forms. A draft was made in 1923 and after various revisions was passed by the Church of England’s Convocations and Church Assembly. However, this was a time before General Synod, so changes to Church law required Parliamentary approval and Parliament voted down the new prayer book in 1928, due to concerns over the reservation of the sacrament amongst other issues, and opposition from Evangelicals.
The 1938 Doctrine Commission report considered the sources of doctrine described in Canon A5 and observed that they were a 16th-century formulation never intended to form the fundamental doctrine of the church in isolation but to address the specific issues the church was facing at the time. It helpfully had this to say about their application today:
These formularies should not be held to prejudge questions which have arisen since their formulation or problems which have been modified by fresh knowledge or fresh conceptions. Nevertheless, If an Anglican theologian thinks a particular formulary not wholly adequate, he has a special obligation to preserve whatever truth that formulary was trying to secure, and to see to it that any statement he puts forward as more adequate does in fact secure this.
So they concluded that these historic Anglican formularies are important and helpful, but we might have learned something new since the 16th-century and new theological questions have arisen that they do not address. The rest of the document (almost 250 pages worth) walks through the latest consensus positions as they were understood at the time.
Indeed the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer both acknowledge the potential for development. Article 34 states:
it is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike, for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed of countries, times and man’s manners.
Similarly, the preface to the BCP states:
Similarly, the preface to the BCP states:
Every particular or national Church, has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority.
This has broadly been taken to mean that the Church does indeed have authority to change its rites and ceremonies, which by nature of the fact that they are contained within the Book of Common Prayer and 39 Articles means alter doctrine, but must do so through a legal process either by Act of Parliament or more recently by General Synod using its legislative powers and that such changes should never be contrary to scripture or the historic formularies (i.e. creeds and 39 Articles).
The Doctrine Commission addressed this issue with the 39 Articles head-on in its 1968 report, ‘Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles’. Increasing numbers of priests were finding the nature of assent required to historical forms of words difficult to uphold. The Commission considered whether the church should update the 39 Articles so that they are a better articulation of the church’s doctrine or if it was better to leave them as they are with caveats in how we use them. They plumped for the latter path. Certainly an easier route, but one that creates room for further ambiguity.
The Commission also address the interpretations of the Church’s historic creeds. These are much clearer statements of belief, which are asserted today in Church of England churches every week, so surely these provide a solid foundation for our doctrine?
Well, the Commission concluded that we should consider the statements within the creeds to be ‘true’ but that this truth could be considered a spiritual ‘symbolic’ truth and not necessarily a historical factual truth.
It is not therefore of necessity illegitimate to accept and affirm particular clauses of the Creeds while understanding them in this symbolic sense.
This has broadly been taken to mean that the Church does indeed have authority to change its rites and ceremonies, which by nature of the fact that they are contained within the Book of Common Prayer and 39 Articles means alter doctrine, but must do so through a legal process either by Act of Parliament or more recently by General Synod using its legislative powers and that such changes should never be contrary to scripture or the historic formularies (i.e. creeds and 39 Articles).
The Doctrine Commission addressed this issue with the 39 Articles head-on in its 1968 report, ‘Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles’. Increasing numbers of priests were finding the nature of assent required to historical forms of words difficult to uphold. The Commission considered whether the church should update the 39 Articles so that they are a better articulation of the church’s doctrine or if it was better to leave them as they are with caveats in how we use them. They plumped for the latter path. Certainly an easier route, but one that creates room for further ambiguity.
The Commission also address the interpretations of the Church’s historic creeds. These are much clearer statements of belief, which are asserted today in Church of England churches every week, so surely these provide a solid foundation for our doctrine?
Well, the Commission concluded that we should consider the statements within the creeds to be ‘true’ but that this truth could be considered a spiritual ‘symbolic’ truth and not necessarily a historical factual truth.
It is not therefore of necessity illegitimate to accept and affirm particular clauses of the Creeds while understanding them in this symbolic sense.
The Commission was, in essence, concluding that if we require priests to assent to doctrine, they needed sufficient wiggle room to allow for interpretation in good conscience.
Which raises the interesting question of the legal status of Church of England doctrine. Unlike the Catholic Church which has a more clearly defined corpus of authoritative doctrinal statements made as dogma by the magisterium of the Church, an ecclesiastical lawyer has some work to do when seeking legal clarity.
The legal position in this area was clarified somewhat under the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. This measure was passed as a result of controversies at the time between those who wished to preserve the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and those who wished to use more modern language and forms of service.
The measure puts limits on what changes General Synod can and cannot make. In the section designed to ensure a preservation of the 1662 BCP the measure states that changes permissible “shall be such as in the opinion of the General Synod is neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.”
The 1974 measure included a definition of the doctrine of the Church of England as set out in Canon A5 and also stated that documents such as those from the Doctrine Commission, Lambeth Conference or House of Bishops have ‘persuasive authority’ such that an ecclesiastical court may consider them should the need arise. These documents fall short of forming the Church’s doctrine, however.
As a result, the 1974 measure created a new function for General Synod as the ultimate doctrinal arbiters of what can and cannot be changed. Of what is doctrine, a departure from it and what is an essential matter. While any changes must be proposed by the Bishops, nothing can be done without Synod’s consent and whatever they consent to change, based on their judgement that it is not contrary to scripture on an essential matter, then it is so. It also created the requirement that such changes to forms of service be approved with a two-thirds majority in each house of General Synod where changes to Canons are required.
Since then, the Doctrine Commission has prepared a variety of reports and has continued to be formed periodically. The Commission has been replaced more recently by the Faith and Order Commission, a standing group producing theological works for General Synod.
Perhaps the most significant report in relation to the Church’s doctrine was the 1981 document Believing in the Church in a chapter partly authored by an up-and-coming young theologian called Tom Wright entitled ‘Where is our doctrine to be found?’.
The report argued that the Church has its doctrine in three places. Doctrine as declared in its formularies, doctrine as implicit in the liturgical and worship practices of the church and doctrine as believed but not explicitly stated - the mind of the church.
Which raises the interesting question of the legal status of Church of England doctrine. Unlike the Catholic Church which has a more clearly defined corpus of authoritative doctrinal statements made as dogma by the magisterium of the Church, an ecclesiastical lawyer has some work to do when seeking legal clarity.
The legal position in this area was clarified somewhat under the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. This measure was passed as a result of controversies at the time between those who wished to preserve the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and those who wished to use more modern language and forms of service.
The measure puts limits on what changes General Synod can and cannot make. In the section designed to ensure a preservation of the 1662 BCP the measure states that changes permissible “shall be such as in the opinion of the General Synod is neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.”
The 1974 measure included a definition of the doctrine of the Church of England as set out in Canon A5 and also stated that documents such as those from the Doctrine Commission, Lambeth Conference or House of Bishops have ‘persuasive authority’ such that an ecclesiastical court may consider them should the need arise. These documents fall short of forming the Church’s doctrine, however.
As a result, the 1974 measure created a new function for General Synod as the ultimate doctrinal arbiters of what can and cannot be changed. Of what is doctrine, a departure from it and what is an essential matter. While any changes must be proposed by the Bishops, nothing can be done without Synod’s consent and whatever they consent to change, based on their judgement that it is not contrary to scripture on an essential matter, then it is so. It also created the requirement that such changes to forms of service be approved with a two-thirds majority in each house of General Synod where changes to Canons are required.
Since then, the Doctrine Commission has prepared a variety of reports and has continued to be formed periodically. The Commission has been replaced more recently by the Faith and Order Commission, a standing group producing theological works for General Synod.
Perhaps the most significant report in relation to the Church’s doctrine was the 1981 document Believing in the Church in a chapter partly authored by an up-and-coming young theologian called Tom Wright entitled ‘Where is our doctrine to be found?’.
The report argued that the Church has its doctrine in three places. Doctrine as declared in its formularies, doctrine as implicit in the liturgical and worship practices of the church and doctrine as believed but not explicitly stated - the mind of the church.
Doctrine declared refers to explicit statements of belief, which is the focus of this post. Doctrine refers to 'the way of doing things and the values they attach'. The report argues that these beliefs are most potent than doctrine declared as they seep into the underlying assumptions we all have about the basis of our faith, but are less precise and rarely explicitly discussed. Quoting Bishop Montefiore, they argue that:
Dogmas are written in the language and the thought forms of the age that defined them ... every formulation of faith is "imperfect, incomplete, partial and fragmentary", Usually they have polemical bias; they are responses to questions which may be framed very differently today. But beliefs that are expressed only by implication are less exposed to incredulity or correction and, on the contrary, are invested with the mystique of custom and ceremony ...
Doctrine 'difussed' is the term used for doctrine captured only in the widespread beliefs of the church. These are again even nearer the core of our collective belief system, reflecting the broad constituency of the Church of England, such as belief in a good God, a personal God and a 'Christian God'.
This report addressed the status of the 39 Articles observing that the ‘brevity and latitude’ of the Articles was:
itself a point of theological substance. It is saying, by implication, that there are several widely debated theological issues on which a loyal Anglican is not enjoined to take up a particular stance. It implicitly sets out categories of primary and secondary truths.
The inclusion of a section on ‘doctrine as believed’ was perhaps the most significant. In most of the historic theological disputes within the Church, there were few tangible theological threads which could be grasped from ‘doctrine as declared’ in our formularies, but where where many people felt strongly. In other words, where doctrine as believed began to splinter.
The 1981 report concluded that Church of England doctrine can be found first in Scripture then in a kind of pyramid below that in ever-expanding formulations, from the 39 Articles and Creeds, the BCP then a less clear mix of more detailed but less authoritative sources, seeking to expand and explain those higher sources for more practical purposes.
So where does this leave us when attempting to decipher what the doctrine of the church is on any particular matter? If we ask the question, “what is the Church of England’s doctrine on the topic of …?” where can we find the answer?
Canon A5 tells us that we can rely on the 39 Articles and the BCP, but in many instances that is unlikely to directly answer the question. Further, the Doctrine Commission told us that we might have learned some new things since the 16th century so they might need updating, paying due regard to the weighty authority those formularies carry. We have thousands of pages of reports from Doctrine Commissions, the Faith and Order Commission, the Lambeth Conference and the House of Bishops setting out teaching on almost every subject conceivable, but the weight that those documents carry varies and they should not be considered sources of doctrine in their own right. Or we could simply ask what we think the principal body of the Church believes.
And from that, we must form our own view. In a nutshell, that is the Anglican position.
It is a position which leaves some tensions, particularly when the question of legality is raised.
Canon C15 sets out the oath priests must make as they are ordained in this context:
[The Church of England] professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
This places a legal duty on priests to assent to these doctrinal statements, but both the nature of that assent and the flexibility in the doctrinal statements themselves means that there is a reasonable degree of latitude in what the nature of that assent means in practice. They are asked to be loyal to the inheritance of faith as their ‘inspiration and guidance under God’ to bring the grace and trust of Christ to this generation. There is plenty of room for interpretation in exactly how this inheritance of faith will inspire and guide.
There is a theoretical possibility for members of the clergy to be pursued through the ecclesiastical courts for heresy should they publicly advocate doctrine contrary to that of the Church, however, this is complex for many reasons, and the priest would have to be expounding views that are clearly contrary to essential matters and as a point of fact, such action has not happened for a very long time.
Bishops have an additional duty when it comes to upholding doctrine. They have a duty under the Canons to ‘uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions.’
In 1986 the House of Bishops issued a statement on what this means and concluded that it as well as their duty to ‘guard’ they should be ‘guardians of the process of exploration as well as of received truths’. They added that bishops ‘may properly enter into questioning on matters of belief’ although a bishop should ‘refrain himself from statements contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England’.
All that puts the Bishops in a tricky spot, given the limitations on nailing down exactly what the doctrine of the church actually is in many areas. However, there is a subtle distinction at play between developing and deepening our doctrinal understanding and changing or contradicting it. The concern of the Bishop’s 1986 statement was about beliefs that are ‘contrary to’ the church’s doctrine, not beliefs that expand or develop our doctrine, in light of all we have said about the nature and sources of our doctrine.
The Catholic Church has a similar understanding that Dogma cannot be changed, but it can be expanded upon and further developed. In this regard, to suggest that a previous element of doctrine was outright incorrect is not possible, but to further develop it, expand it, and add new dimensions to it is part of the natural development of doctrine.
To this end, talk of ‘changing doctrine’ needs to work out which side of that line we are discussing. Are we contradicting established doctrine, or are we further exploring and developing what was previously understood? And further, are we discussing doctrine in the sense of core beliefs (akin to Catholic dogma) or in the sense of all teachings and opinions of the church on theological, moral and spiritual matters? We hold these wider theological views more lightly. And is that doctrine declared, implicit or believed doctrine, in line with the 1981 Doctrine Commission distinction?
The legal position of the Church’s doctrine has also been under the microscope recently in secular courts. Church law is established in its Canons, alongside a hugely complex range of other legislative measures and case law. The Canons themselves are a body of law, however, there is clearly a relationship between the requirements of the Canons and the doctrines they are seeking to embed in law.
The current set of Canons largely originates from a total revision promulgated in 1969. Prior to that, Canon law had been almost entirely unchanged for over 350 years from the 1604 Canons. In contrast to the previous period of canonical stability, since 1969 the Canons have been under almost constant revision. This period coincides with the establishment of General Synod in 1970, which assumed the role of ultimate legislative assembly, and is the only body other than Parliament which can pass primary legislation. The Church of England’s website lists 48 occasions on which dozens of Canons have been amended since 1969.
Occasionally Church of England doctrine also becomes the subject of the secular courts. Equalities legislation passed by successive governments includes provision for religious organisations to hold policies which reflect their religious beliefs, giving exemptions to laws which would otherwise require equal treatment on the basis of religion.
A recent case involving an employment law tribunal faced these questions and dealt with the issue of how to define the doctrines of a religion under secular law compared with how a faith itself may define its doctrine, concluding, ‘the "doctrines" of the religion [in secular law] must refer to the teachings or beliefs of that religion, not to what might more narrowly be understood by "doctrine" within a specific religious community such as the Church of England.’
This is a fascinating conclusion, in essence saying that in secular law ‘doctrine’ refers to all teachings and beliefs of a faith, while the faith itself may make a distinction between a narrower set of beliefs which it considers doctrine (core) and a wider set of teachings and beliefs that it holds to more lightly. This is the case for all religions and aligns with the Catholic approach to dogma as well as the Church of England definition in the Canons. It also recognised that a secular court, ‘cannot be expected to enter into theological debate to determine those doctrines for itself.’ Nevertheless, for the purposes of law, it must conclude.
When the court then attempted to work out what this doctrine was, the court looked at the Canons, concluding that they must be considered a representation of the Church’s beliefs, and the related statements from the House of Bishops and concluded that this can fairly be considered the doctrine of the church under the law. This seems an entirely fair way for the court to make its determinations but adds another layer of complexity when considering doctrine within the church and gives additional importance to doctrinal statements that we have previously said would not be expected to form core doctrine of the church. We now have to consider not only the theological implications but also the implications in secular law.
Mouse’s reflection is that this means we should be very careful when talking about the doctrine of the Church. Those who would like the clarity and certainty of Catholic Dogma will not find it in the Church of England. However, it would be wrong to claim that there is nothing there - on the contrary, there is a wealth of historical formularies and teachings down the ages. It would be foolishness in the extreme to fail to get to grips with this before daring to propose developments or innovations.
Despite that wealth of writing and teaching, the quantity which can be considered authoritative official church doctrine is surprisingly small, however, with quite a bit of wriggle room for interpretation. For the most part, we have varying levels of authoritative teachings from which we continue to explore.
What that tells us is that our doctrine has evolved and will continue to develop. To carve our doctrine in stone tablets, either as articulated in 1571 or 1938, would be to fail in our responsibility to keep reading the scriptures, keep listening to the Holy Spirit, keep discussing what we are learning and do so in the unity of one church, determined to follow Christ above all else.
Perhaps a helpful conclusion is the one reached by John Frith writing on the Eucharist. He argued that it was not doctrine that saves, but Christ. He argued that those with theological differences should not divide over them but unite in Christ:
First, we must all acknowledge that it is non article of our faith which can save us, neither which we are bound to believe under the pain of eternal damnation: for if I should believe that his very natural body, both flesh and blood, were materially in the bread and wine, that should not save me, seeing many believe that, and receive it to their damnation. For it is not his presence in the bread that can save me, but his presence in my heart through faith in his blood, which hath washed out my sins and pacified the Father’s wrath towards me … And so ought neither part to despise the other, for each seeketh the glory of God, and the true understanding of Scripture.
Amen
This report addressed the status of the 39 Articles observing that the ‘brevity and latitude’ of the Articles was:
itself a point of theological substance. It is saying, by implication, that there are several widely debated theological issues on which a loyal Anglican is not enjoined to take up a particular stance. It implicitly sets out categories of primary and secondary truths.
The inclusion of a section on ‘doctrine as believed’ was perhaps the most significant. In most of the historic theological disputes within the Church, there were few tangible theological threads which could be grasped from ‘doctrine as declared’ in our formularies, but where where many people felt strongly. In other words, where doctrine as believed began to splinter.
The 1981 report concluded that Church of England doctrine can be found first in Scripture then in a kind of pyramid below that in ever-expanding formulations, from the 39 Articles and Creeds, the BCP then a less clear mix of more detailed but less authoritative sources, seeking to expand and explain those higher sources for more practical purposes.
So where does this leave us when attempting to decipher what the doctrine of the church is on any particular matter? If we ask the question, “what is the Church of England’s doctrine on the topic of …?” where can we find the answer?
Canon A5 tells us that we can rely on the 39 Articles and the BCP, but in many instances that is unlikely to directly answer the question. Further, the Doctrine Commission told us that we might have learned some new things since the 16th century so they might need updating, paying due regard to the weighty authority those formularies carry. We have thousands of pages of reports from Doctrine Commissions, the Faith and Order Commission, the Lambeth Conference and the House of Bishops setting out teaching on almost every subject conceivable, but the weight that those documents carry varies and they should not be considered sources of doctrine in their own right. Or we could simply ask what we think the principal body of the Church believes.
And from that, we must form our own view. In a nutshell, that is the Anglican position.
It is a position which leaves some tensions, particularly when the question of legality is raised.
Canon C15 sets out the oath priests must make as they are ordained in this context:
[The Church of England] professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
This places a legal duty on priests to assent to these doctrinal statements, but both the nature of that assent and the flexibility in the doctrinal statements themselves means that there is a reasonable degree of latitude in what the nature of that assent means in practice. They are asked to be loyal to the inheritance of faith as their ‘inspiration and guidance under God’ to bring the grace and trust of Christ to this generation. There is plenty of room for interpretation in exactly how this inheritance of faith will inspire and guide.
There is a theoretical possibility for members of the clergy to be pursued through the ecclesiastical courts for heresy should they publicly advocate doctrine contrary to that of the Church, however, this is complex for many reasons, and the priest would have to be expounding views that are clearly contrary to essential matters and as a point of fact, such action has not happened for a very long time.
Bishops have an additional duty when it comes to upholding doctrine. They have a duty under the Canons to ‘uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions.’
In 1986 the House of Bishops issued a statement on what this means and concluded that it as well as their duty to ‘guard’ they should be ‘guardians of the process of exploration as well as of received truths’. They added that bishops ‘may properly enter into questioning on matters of belief’ although a bishop should ‘refrain himself from statements contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England’.
All that puts the Bishops in a tricky spot, given the limitations on nailing down exactly what the doctrine of the church actually is in many areas. However, there is a subtle distinction at play between developing and deepening our doctrinal understanding and changing or contradicting it. The concern of the Bishop’s 1986 statement was about beliefs that are ‘contrary to’ the church’s doctrine, not beliefs that expand or develop our doctrine, in light of all we have said about the nature and sources of our doctrine.
The Catholic Church has a similar understanding that Dogma cannot be changed, but it can be expanded upon and further developed. In this regard, to suggest that a previous element of doctrine was outright incorrect is not possible, but to further develop it, expand it, and add new dimensions to it is part of the natural development of doctrine.
To this end, talk of ‘changing doctrine’ needs to work out which side of that line we are discussing. Are we contradicting established doctrine, or are we further exploring and developing what was previously understood? And further, are we discussing doctrine in the sense of core beliefs (akin to Catholic dogma) or in the sense of all teachings and opinions of the church on theological, moral and spiritual matters? We hold these wider theological views more lightly. And is that doctrine declared, implicit or believed doctrine, in line with the 1981 Doctrine Commission distinction?
The legal position of the Church’s doctrine has also been under the microscope recently in secular courts. Church law is established in its Canons, alongside a hugely complex range of other legislative measures and case law. The Canons themselves are a body of law, however, there is clearly a relationship between the requirements of the Canons and the doctrines they are seeking to embed in law.
The current set of Canons largely originates from a total revision promulgated in 1969. Prior to that, Canon law had been almost entirely unchanged for over 350 years from the 1604 Canons. In contrast to the previous period of canonical stability, since 1969 the Canons have been under almost constant revision. This period coincides with the establishment of General Synod in 1970, which assumed the role of ultimate legislative assembly, and is the only body other than Parliament which can pass primary legislation. The Church of England’s website lists 48 occasions on which dozens of Canons have been amended since 1969.
Occasionally Church of England doctrine also becomes the subject of the secular courts. Equalities legislation passed by successive governments includes provision for religious organisations to hold policies which reflect their religious beliefs, giving exemptions to laws which would otherwise require equal treatment on the basis of religion.
A recent case involving an employment law tribunal faced these questions and dealt with the issue of how to define the doctrines of a religion under secular law compared with how a faith itself may define its doctrine, concluding, ‘the "doctrines" of the religion [in secular law] must refer to the teachings or beliefs of that religion, not to what might more narrowly be understood by "doctrine" within a specific religious community such as the Church of England.’
This is a fascinating conclusion, in essence saying that in secular law ‘doctrine’ refers to all teachings and beliefs of a faith, while the faith itself may make a distinction between a narrower set of beliefs which it considers doctrine (core) and a wider set of teachings and beliefs that it holds to more lightly. This is the case for all religions and aligns with the Catholic approach to dogma as well as the Church of England definition in the Canons. It also recognised that a secular court, ‘cannot be expected to enter into theological debate to determine those doctrines for itself.’ Nevertheless, for the purposes of law, it must conclude.
When the court then attempted to work out what this doctrine was, the court looked at the Canons, concluding that they must be considered a representation of the Church’s beliefs, and the related statements from the House of Bishops and concluded that this can fairly be considered the doctrine of the church under the law. This seems an entirely fair way for the court to make its determinations but adds another layer of complexity when considering doctrine within the church and gives additional importance to doctrinal statements that we have previously said would not be expected to form core doctrine of the church. We now have to consider not only the theological implications but also the implications in secular law.
Mouse’s reflection is that this means we should be very careful when talking about the doctrine of the Church. Those who would like the clarity and certainty of Catholic Dogma will not find it in the Church of England. However, it would be wrong to claim that there is nothing there - on the contrary, there is a wealth of historical formularies and teachings down the ages. It would be foolishness in the extreme to fail to get to grips with this before daring to propose developments or innovations.
Despite that wealth of writing and teaching, the quantity which can be considered authoritative official church doctrine is surprisingly small, however, with quite a bit of wriggle room for interpretation. For the most part, we have varying levels of authoritative teachings from which we continue to explore.
What that tells us is that our doctrine has evolved and will continue to develop. To carve our doctrine in stone tablets, either as articulated in 1571 or 1938, would be to fail in our responsibility to keep reading the scriptures, keep listening to the Holy Spirit, keep discussing what we are learning and do so in the unity of one church, determined to follow Christ above all else.
Perhaps a helpful conclusion is the one reached by John Frith writing on the Eucharist. He argued that it was not doctrine that saves, but Christ. He argued that those with theological differences should not divide over them but unite in Christ:
First, we must all acknowledge that it is non article of our faith which can save us, neither which we are bound to believe under the pain of eternal damnation: for if I should believe that his very natural body, both flesh and blood, were materially in the bread and wine, that should not save me, seeing many believe that, and receive it to their damnation. For it is not his presence in the bread that can save me, but his presence in my heart through faith in his blood, which hath washed out my sins and pacified the Father’s wrath towards me … And so ought neither part to despise the other, for each seeketh the glory of God, and the true understanding of Scripture.
Amen
Incredibly helpful. Thankyou.
ReplyDelete"Those who would like the clarity and certainty of Catholic Dogma will not find it in the Church of England."
ReplyDeleteAs very polemical Roman Catholics (especially converts) are fond of reminding us (I say "us" in a wider Anglican sense, as I am an American Episcopalian).
However, I believe that this "wiggle room" is a very GLORY of Anglicanism! As we are all each individually and uniquely created in the Image and Likeness of God, we're all going to "wiggle" in a different way.
But that doesn't mean we can't all come together "where 2 or 3 are gathered" to eat and drink Christ's Body and Blood (and possibly even reserve some extra afterward---"Black Rubric" Art. XXVIII notwithstanding! TBTG we've wiggled away from that one!)