Can a ‘Good Death’ be Assisted?
October 29, 2024
Arguing for Solidarity With the Poor
November 9, 2024
by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes
Is it OK for the Archbishop of Canterbury to say that he has changed his mind on something the church has traditionally taught? It’s the stuff of clickbait dreams for journalists, but it raises a more interesting, deeper question. Can the church ever change its teaching, and if so, how does it go about it?
From a historian’s perspective, it seems obvious that the church has frequently – indeed, almost continuously – changed its teaching on all sorts of things. And clearly, the church doesn’t move overnight from one state of complete certainty, with all bishops in full agreement on an issue, to a new altered state of certainty which everyone suddenly agrees on. Change usually comes through a process of challenge, debate and theological development, led by individuals – often bishops – who propose new developments for consideration by the wider church.
From its very inception, the church has discussed and changed its teachings, through processes of discussion, argument, and prayerful discernment – whether informal, or increasingly formalised in councils and synods. For those processes to work, they require and assume that the people who are involved in them will have a range of different views, and that these might change over time.
One of the things I find fascinating about the Bible is the way in which it records for us some of the earliest changes in religious teaching and thinking. It’s remarkably undefended about this –the fact that the church (and before that, the Jewish people) have changed their minds on all sorts of things is quite literally an open book. A very early example that you can trace through the pages of the Old Testament is a slow shift from monolatry (the belief that it is proper for the people of Israel to worship only one God out of a pantheon of many) to monotheism (the belief that there is in fact only one God).
Perhaps the most obvious example from the New Testament comes in The Acts of The Apostles, that nascent history of the early church. Peter’s vision of the sheet let down from heaven, in Acts chapter 10, is a particularly stark example of how the Biblical record captures even time-honoured religious teachings being changed, even dramatically reversed, when the Spirit so guides. Acts lays out in considerable detail the way in which the early church grappled with whether Gentile converts needed to first convert to Judaism or not. The process involved both Peter and Paul having personal experiences in prayer, and encounters with others, which changed their own minds, and persuaded them that change was appropriate for the wider church. They first began acting unilaterally on the basis of their new convictions, which then led to a process of criticism, argument, and communal discernment, in the so-called Council of Jerusalem (Acts chapter 11).
Famously, the doctrine of the Trinity as we have received it – now considered a bedrock doctrine of the church, such that it is a defining ecumenical criteria for membership of bodies such as Churches Together – was formed over a 300 year period of argument, proposition and counter-proposition. It’s said that St Nicholas – yes, that St Nick, the Christmas one – punched Arius in the face at the 325 Council of Nicaea, so furious was he at Arius’ insistence – declared by the Council to be heretical – that Jesus was created by the Father, rather than co-eternal with Him. Disputes between bishops over serious points of doctrine are hardly anything new.
The 325 Council of Nicaea was the first in a series of great ‘Ecumenical Councils’ over the following centuries, where doctrine and canon law were debated. The last of these councils to be recognised by the Eastern Church, as East and West diverged, was held again in Nicaea, in 787. One of the key divisions that was opening up between East and West over this time was precisely the question of to what extent it was possible for doctrine to continue to change and develop. From the mid ninth century, the Eastern Church has largely believed that doctrine has been effectively defined, and has seen the task of the church as being to preserve and communicate it, unchanged down the ages. This has never been the position of the Western Church, which has tended to the view that revelation is a continuing process, in which the church authorities have the responsibility for discriminating between genuinely new revelation and unacceptable speculation.
In medieval Roman Catholic teaching, this was a key function of the church. Over the later medieval period increasing dissatisfaction with this position from emerging academic theologians in the new universities was one of the long-term factors which led to internal critique and the complex of movements that led to the various Reformations. It is ironic that the loudest voices now condemning bishops who propose a development of doctrine are coming from parts of the church which most inhabit a Protestant identity. From a historical and theological perspective, the very existence of a Protestant world view is dependent on a rejection of the view that church tradition and hierarchy has the right to define the limits of acceptable enquiry.
Different church traditions have wrestled over the years with how to think through questions of changes in doctrine, teaching and praxis. No system is perfect, but all assume that individuals in leadership roles will entirely properly raise questions for debate. The Roman Catholic Church is just completing its ‘synod on synodality’, and I had the privilege of being one of ten Anglican guests to a conference in Durham last year where different church traditions shared how synodality worked in our own contexts. Every single one of the delegates, from Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Quaker and other traditions, used the example of wrestling with emerging questions of sexual identity and sexual ethics in their own structures. In that context, it would seem to me to deeply inappropriate for an Archbishop of Canterbury not to be thinking about how our doctrine and teaching might develop in this area.
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes is Archdeacon of Liverpool, a Member of General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council, and author of How to Read the Bible: 21 Ways to Enjoy and Understand Scripture and The Essential History of Christianity.
21 Comments
Very well put and, of course, accurate. Many thanks.
How very true. We need the equivalent re-think about what we mean by ‘God’ as happened when we discovered that the earth was not the centre of the Universe, just another small insignificant planet. The inability, or unwillingness, of the mainstream churches to respond to a changed intellectual, moral and scientific context, is, I believe, a major factor in the rejection of Christian faith and practice in the modern world. The Bible has to be seen in its time and place, not as the final authority on everything. The classic Creeds should be next in line; they no longer articulate or affirm what it means to see the Jesus story as a paradigm of discovering the Divine with the human. They are not about how to live, just about requiring assent to propositions; not about what it means to walk in his ‘Way’. But which Christian leader is prepared to stand up and say so? When they have in the past they have been ignored, stripped of their title or worse. I am not sure that anything significant has changed, but maybe death of the status quo, as is clearly happening, will lead to new life one day. But it will be painful.
‘Sceptical Christianity’ by Robert Reiss (Jessica Kingsley, 2016) is extremely good in articulating the need for a change in approach. The issues it raises have, of course, been largely ignored.
If this is true, why is it the case that evangelical churches seem less susceptible to this decline?
There’s a decent counterargument to suggest that the church is in decline (and disproportionately in the theologically liberal denominations and churches) because we’ve decided that we need to change the gospel to suit people’s ears (2 Timothy 4:3) rather than to challenge the culture with the gospel of Christ.
Why wake up on Sunday morning if I’m just going to hear the same things that my atheist mate could tell me at the pub?
At some point we simply end up with secularism in religious garb.
I agree. And by the same token I wonder why I would go to church to hear the same things my homophobic enemy would tell me?
The question to that one is is disagreeing on sexual ethics or marriage hatred, particularly if it is out of a desire to listen to what God has revealed to us in Scripture?
My take is that it very much isn’t.
The original point remains – if there’s little to no discernible difference between what we’re hearing in church and what we’re hearing in the secular world, why bother?
If the theologically liberal / progressive side do not have an answer to this question it’s pretty clear that church decline will continue.
Evangelicals have an answer, it’s to be transformed by Christ in listening to what God has spoken to us by His Spirit in community and to live for Him even if that requires costly sacrifice in turning from sin. It’s counter-cultural and distinctive and not something I’m probably going to hear down the pub on a Saturday evening.
[We seem to have an “Anonymous 1” and “Anonymous 2” above: I’m replying to Anonymous2.]
“be transformed by Christ”: Great!
“listening to what God has spoken to us by His Spirit in community”: listening to who—Where?!
For example, “Holy Trinity – Brompton” (I’m an ignorant Yank, but from what I’ve gleaned via Thinking Anglicans): what the “community” of such places TELLS ME what “God has spoken”??? Uh, No. These communities have fetished their 19th century sexual/ anthropological mores and, unlike the Protestants they claim to be (thank you, Miranda!), stubbornly (as in the idolatry of stubbornness, 1 Samuel 15:23) refused to change and surrender them. Members of such idolatrous churches would display more Godliness if they DID abandon them for the pub!
…but there is an even more faithful way of living in/being transformed by Christ: those faith communities that can fully see, and fully celebrate ***ALL*** of the Imago Dei, in ***ALL*** of the sacraments. [Oh gee, y’all are Prots: “ordinances”, if you prefer?]
And the question to that one is, who is this ‘us’ that you claim God has revealed ‘His’ anti-LGBTQ sexual ethics and marriage views to? Not me, for one. But as you have already said: ‘Evangelicals have the answer…’
To the two commenters below.
I note that you’ve not engaged with the substantive question raised which is if the church simply agrees with the secular world on every topic then why bother?
It’s an important one to deal with if we’re interested in churches thriving.
As for how God speaks, the traditional Christian understanding is that He’s spoken through the prophets and through His Son (Hebrews 1:1), that Scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that God has spoken both in creation and in Scripture (Psalm 19).
What are you proposing instead?
I have engaged and I said I agreed with you re the pointlessness of ‘going to church to hear the same things your atheist mate could tell you down the pub’ — but nobody does that, because the church does not ‘agree with the secular world on every topic’. Apart from anything else the secular world does not agree on every topic in case you hadn’t noticed. Moreover the church does not disagree with the secular world on every topic either — to keep it to the question of equality, do you think the church should be able to discriminate on the grounds of disability? If not then you agree with the secular world in that respect, and so the situation is not as binary as your line of argument suggests. But the substantive question is why should I agree with your sexual ethics? I understand that you believe that it’s ’what the Bible clearly says’, but you really need to recognise that not all Christians agree with your interpretation. Until you do so I suggest that it is you who is not really engaging with the question.
Is it that our interpretations of the text have changed, or is it that we don’t want to hear what Scripture says when it challenges how we live?
We know that the text itself largely hasn’t changed and we know that texts aren’t a post-modern interpretative free for all.
It just seems to be the classic dichotomy between whether Scripture is to challenge culture, or whether culture is to challenge our view of Scripture.
I accept what you’re saying in respect to disability and other aspects of secular culture which aren’t in contradiction to our faith, and I’m not suggesting that my atheist mate down the pub won’t have any insight for me at all. They likely will.
If we simply adapt our faith continually to what secular culture suggests or what we want to hear when it diverges from the apostolic gospel we’ve received from Christ and the apostles I can’t see how we’re going to have much left to say by the time we’re done that we can’t get elsewhere.
Which brings me back to the question – what should get me up on Sunday morning if I ditch a traditional view of Scripture here?
What am I going to get at a theologically liberal church that I can’t get elsewhere?
In answer to your first question, I’d say it’s that our interpretations of the text differ (and always have, in different respects, at different times)
In answer to your last question, if you happen to not be exclusively heterosexual for example, you might find a space where you can honestly explore your faith among people who won’t tell you that you are going to hell (that’s what ‘first order/salvation issue’ means, no?) On the other hand, if your religion is dependent on defining yourself in opposition to such people, you might find a space where self-justification is challenged. Interesting that you are focusing on what you can get by the way.
I’m simply interested in listening to the Scriptures on this and all issues because I’m confident that God knows better than we do on all kinds of issues, including sexuality and that His word is good for us.
(I suspect the crux of where we disagree on this issue is that you don’t share the conviction that the traditional Christian position is good and right. There are probably other questions on what we consider makes us truly human, and the role of gender in God’s design so on.)
Honestly exploring faith, also means honestly considering what Scripture teaches even when it is difficult and challenging.
What I am saying is that if the church doesn’t offer something distinctive to wider society we won’t find people joining us.
I’m definitely not seeking opposition to anyone, I’m simply looking to see what exactly you’re arguing will bring people to the pews in the absence of a traditional view of revelation and Scripture that challenges people to live sacrificially for Christ even when it is hard.
Dropping the asking price doesn’t seem to make sense when Christ told us to count the cost before being His disciple (Luke 14:25-33).
Thanks for some insight into your worldview even if I struggle to make sense of it.
“Dropping the asking price doesn’t seem to make sense when Christ told us to count the cost before being His disciple (Luke 14:25-33).”
Thanks for the biblical reference, but if you’re going to talk about the ‘asking price’ you might read a little further on in Luke’s gospel, to 18.18, where Jesus’s answer to the young man is ‘Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor’ This is hardly a pew-filling message, which is probably why it is far less often preached as a ‘salvation issue’ than exclusive heterosexuality — and can you point me to where that is preached by Jesus?
I’m all in with the idea that we should seek to love God over loving money. The presenting issue for the rich young ruler.
Jesus is happy when Zacchaeus offers to give half of what he has to the poor and fourfold to those he defrauded in the next chapter. Jesus mentions that salvation has come to his household (Luke 19:9-10).
All of us have to work through various sins that take us away from the love of God and the love of neighbour. We have to choose to obey Christ rather than our own desires.
Christ clearly preached against sexual immorality in both Mark 7 and Matthew 15 without qualification to a Jewish audience demonstrating the law is not fulfilled. He defined marriage as being the union between a man and a woman and the apostles affirmed the same.
Just one area amongst many where we are called to follow Christ and count the cost.
I’m in, and if people can help me to make progress in my faith I’m all ears.
Totally agree with you Miranda.
Perhaps the Church might learn to honour the original understandings of Jesus and his teaching via the so-called non-canonical gospels – which amongst other things, suggest a reappraisal of the crucial role of women.
A fine article. In my own writing, I have confronted the changing doctrine question on many subjects. The old distinction between doctrine and morals is still pertinent: moral judgments to be valid must rest on solid doctrine. And solid doctrine changes as new insights into the dogmas of the faith occur, guided by the Spirit. I do not believe that the creeds need changing; they need new interpretations.
On Christology, for instance, I follow Rowan Williams in his Christ the Heart of Creation arguing that new Christologies should always take account of the history of christological development so as not to repeat old mistakes. The same applies to other doctrines.
[…] Miranda Threlfall-Holmes Modern Church (How) Can the Church Change Doctrine? […]
I’m afraid that I read the comments below the line in newspapers, so I know what many people think about the Christian Faith, and it’s this – ‘The teachings of the Bible are clear and unambiguous. They forbid sex outside marriage, divorce, homosexuality (especially homosexuality, and getting involved in politics’. On top of this, the Church of England sprang fully-formed from the loins of Henry viii, and has no history before that.
I think that as Anglicans we should be much more clear about the place and authority of the Bible and its shortcomings as a manual for human behaviour, especially sexual behaviour. C S Lewis, with his usual wisdom and clarity said this, ‘It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to Him. We must not use the Bible as a sort of encyclopaedia out of which texts can be taken for use as weapons.’
This debate about doctrine should reflect that view.
[…] Threlfall-Holmes, Archdeacon of Liverpool and a member of General Synod, has written for Modern Church on the debate engulfing the CofE on sex and marriage. It follows an interview given by the […]