Anglican doctrine is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology / Anglicanism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Redlinks are on purpose, as I think there should be articles with those titles eventually. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not convinced by the comment that the Methodist schism resulted from Arminian/Calvinist conflict. As far as I understand it, although there were (and still are) Calvinist Methodists, they do not represent the direct tradition of Wesley, whose views were as Arminian as those of the mainstream Anglicans. Wesley was himself an Anglican, and the schism was over quite different matters, such as the church's authority to appoint preachers and ordain ministers, and the bishops' deep suspicion of "enthusiasm". Myopic Bookworm 10:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok - deleted that bit. I had read it somewhere, but I can't remember where, and I thought it was uncontroversial. Like I said on the project talk page, this article is in desperate need of some good sources. By the way, I am puzzled by your phrase ... Arminian as those of the mainstream Anglicans. Had Arminianism become mainstream by the 18th century? I certainly don't hear much of it from Anglicans nowadays - though Predestination and Election don't seem to get talked about much anyway. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what Anglicans you talk to. In the UK, in my experience, explicit Calvinist doctrine is restricted to the Evangelical wing of the Anglican church, and is not universal among Anglican Evangelicals. I think other Anglicans (whether liberal, middle-of-the-road, or high church) are broadly Arminian in theology, but frequently have not come across the term "Arminian" (because they think of the doctrine as simply "Anglican", and associate Calvinism with Scottish Presbyterians). Myopic Bookworm 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have mostly spoken with Evangelical Anglicans. Problem solved! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contributions to Women as theological figures and Religion and politics welcome (or add to Christianity and politics if more appropriate). Jackiespeel 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure the non-juring schism is relevant, since it was more a matter of politics and personal conscience (was the oath of allegiance to James II binding after his deposition?) than any doctrinal issue. Myopic Bookworm 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what little I know about it, both the Jacobites and Williamites had distinctive theologies. At least one distinctive doctrine was the Divine right of kings - although that is partly a political doctrine. Also, I think oaths are particularly important in Anglican history, as they distinguished Anglicanism from some dissenting traditions, notably Quakerism, and actually became one of the 39 articles.

Anyway, non-jurors are quite low down the /to do list. We may never get there! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did some substantial revisions, and only now have just noticed the "to do" list....which is a daunting list, indeed! Fishhead64 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am quick-failing this article because it lacks the appropriate inline citations. See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. See WP:GA? for the GA criteria. Awadewit | talk 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to GA review Anglican doctrine. The point you made will help in copy editing the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apart from the fact that large swathes of this article are unreferenced, it often presents the Anglo-Catholic as the main or only position, noteably that the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral is universally agreed upon, and that Anglicanism "retained some Catholic teachings which were rejected by true Protestants, such as the three orders of ministry and the apostolic succession of bishops." There seems to be a political motivation behind distancing the English Reformers from 'true Protestants' that is wholly unwarranted.Sbmackay (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sbmackay - Obviously there are people who disagree with the Quadrilateral, as one can find persons who disagree with just about anything. I find the text describing the Quadrilateral as fitting, while I am not an Anglo-Catholic. It remains the most important "founding text" of the Communion though it could be said, strictly and literalistically, not to be exactly a "founding text." It is more a kind of statement, after the fact of the association of the Communion, of what the Communion recognizes as a church, and which types of churches can be candidates for acceptance as full communion partners. It was accepted as such a "sine qua non" and it has not been put aside. I suppose the Communion could officially put it aside with a Lambeth resolution, but this has not occurred.

I do find parts of this quite NPOV in characterizing the current schism, from a TEC point of view. E.g. "comprehensiveness and tolerance of diverse practice." "Comprehensiveness" is not the same as allowing bishops to teach, e.g., that Christ did not rise from the dead; or to teach contrary to the very guidelines of the Quadrilateral, it's simply a slogan used by some TEC activists to allow all types of teaching, including those which are directly contrary to the Communion's purposes. I.e., it's a slogan that means that we officially believe nothing and can teach everything.

This warrants another look at the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.118.129 (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is true that certain anti-Trinitarian teachings are popular in TEC. However, outside of TEC, they tend to be utterly rejected, and not even discussed. In actuality, the doctrine of the Communion is roundly Trinitarian. E.g., the uniqueness of Christ tends to be rejected by top TEC leaders, and has been for at least five years, though in Lambeth 2008 Rowan Williams countered GAFCON by saying that the doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ is not questionable in the Communion - or some very, very strong statement to that effect.

If the editors here wish to say that interpreting the resurrection of Christ as simply "metaphorical" is "acceptable doctrine" in the Communion, they need to stipulate WHERE, and also make very, very clear that this is anathema in other parts of the Communion. Jenkins was more or less quietly ignored by most, and lambasted by many in the Church of England. The situation in the Church of England is nothing like that of TEC. You will find that there are some "errant priests" in many provinces, but one thing which matters is the degree of reception - i.e., do they tend to be isolated, if not disciplined, as in the case of Jenkins? It is also utterly important that the view of Anglicans regarding the rejection of the bodily resurrection (i.e., stipulating that it may be taught that this is merely a metaphor, and thereby rejecting the bodily resurrection of Christ) - that this does amount to a bringing of another gospel into the church, and subject to Paul's condemnation "let them be eternally condemned."

I realize that this is delicate territory, dear editors. I would suggest however that if you wish to tread on this delicate territory, that you also do so honestly. Otherwise we are in danger of making a mockery of "liberal theology" and all that is "liberal" within the Communion. "Liberal" theology does not have to entail denial of Christ's resurrection - and it's important that readers know about the Communion that such is practiced in the non-dogmatic manner of the way it is sometimes practiced in TEC.

All you gay activists, please also understand: you can engage in gay activism without trying to teach people that the Communion teaches that it's okay to teach people in church that Christ didn't rise from the dead. I am sorry I bring this up in this particular manner but the two are so frequently coupled in TEC. It is possible to do the one without the other. Trying to do both at the same time is ridiculous. You should also have a good look at Galatians 1:6-9. If you want to succeed with gay activism in the church, you need to stop trying to push this "Christ didn't rise from the dead, it's all a lovely metaphor for social activism and transformation" etc. etc.. Don't look to TEC for guidance, it will just screw you up.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.85.189 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

As it stands this article is likely to simply bring more polarization in the Communion - it makes it seem as if that which is widely taught in TEC is "acceptable" in the rest of the Communion. It is true that the issues of Christology have offically only been raised and we haven't yet seen any process regarding them - partially because we have had more than ten years of steps regarding questions of how/if we wish to bring TEC to accountability regarding Lambeth I.10. This is a huge issue, and actually most don't even want to bring Christology to discussion. The likes of Spong and Borg are usually just completely brushed off, with the thought that discussing such things would also bring more exposure to such views.

IF we wish to bring these things up, it is ESSENTIAL that we also bring up the huge tension here: I.e., TEC finds this very acceptable and to a large extent this is taught by its Presiding Bishop; the rest finds that it is not Trinitarian Christianity and is "bringing another gospel into the church" and subject to Paul's condemnation in Galatians 1:6-9. Yes, it's like a bomb, I don't think you would want to tread here.

It would be better to simply leave "liberal" out of the "influences" here - really, the way that you describe this is already too "textbook-like" with distinctions that aren't easily made. It looks to me like a large part of it is motivated by the gay-oriented issues, and we have seen a lot of gay activism going on in these Anglican pages. The truth of the matter is that the "liberal" isn't really a "strand" unto itself - things associated with it have been practiced amongst those we call "evangelicals" and "Anglo-Catholics." Another problem here is editors may be assuming that "evangelical" in the Church of England means the same as "Evangelical" as it tends to mean in American media. It does not. The various "liberal" figures also tend to be either Anglo-Catholic or evangelical - of course, with Borg and Spong the exceptions. Our problem is: it is difficult to say, at this moment, what "liberal" is, and many "liberally-minded" theological thinkers are no longer considered such because of Borg and this utterly non-liberally-minded person Spong, who is more like a fundamentalist in many ways.

Actually, one way of teaching Anglican doctrine is simply this: that Anglican doctrine is simply Christian, without extra creeds - but that as such, the Holy Trinity means a great deal to us (not to say, more than others) - but that we must take Trinitarian Christology utterly, utterly seriously. It is difficult for us to say now what will happen to TEC. It has been following so many different paths it is difficult to tell what will happen from one year to the next. Ten years back it announced the 20/20 vision, hoping to double the church's membership by 2020; and its membership has decreased by about 15% since then. It may come back to sound Christology - it may become part of the family of non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian religions which have an important emphasis on Jesus. But at this point to characterize the Communion's theology by TEC's theology is utterly inaccurate. It makes it look like Anglicans all over the world are spitting on the other Trinitarian Christians: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, etc. etc.. And from an Anglican viewpoint, it encourages spiritual death in making it seem as if we actually advocate the view that it's ok to teach Trinitarian Christians in their own churches to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ.

I urge you please: do something about this. Do not allow this article to be misrepresentative of the Communion simply because some amongst you may be fervent, fundamentalist evangelists for whatever viewpoints it may be which you wish to promote.

In the meantime, I have prefaced the article, pointing out that it does not attempt to describe the situation of doctrine in the whole of the Communion, but simply speaks of an amalgamation of the teachings in different provinces, even though the teaching in one province may be anathema in another. Doctrine in the Anglican Communion is not trivial; the tone of the article makes it sound as if it is, e.g. mentioning the denial of the resurrection. I would urge you to please maintain this preface until writers who are sensitive to issues of doctrine are able to revise the article. Doctrine is what is actually commended to belief - and not simply what people are allowed to discuss, theorize about, or write academic articles about. It is more what we associate with pulpit ministry than, e.g., scholarly articles or books. Books and articles are the vehicles for reception of doctrine; they themselves do not pronounce doctrine. This is very clear in the case of the Church of England and Robinson / Jenkins. Their ideas regarding the resurrection were not received into doctrine.

I have put this as a preface since I believe it's accurate about the aspirations of the article; and because I attempted to revise some parts, indicating that certain doctrines were received in TEC which were largely rejected by the rest of the Communion, but these were reverted by user Afterwrite as "personal." I thus may not be the appropriate person to do this writing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.85.189 (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--problem with "liberal"-- Our own page in Wikipedia on Liberal Christianity demonstrates somewhat the problem with the word "liberal" in the Communion (and in Christiainity in general) today. Certain networks associating themselves as "Progressive Christian" which are certainly less than Trinitarian, and in some sense anti-Trinitarian (note the first point of the Center for Progressive Christianity ... "we have found a way to God ..." - openly Pelagian - as Trinitarian Christians believe in a self-revealing God, and not that people somehow find "ways" to God - indeed, Christ himself, for Trinitarian Christians is the only way to the Father") have gained some traction in The Episcopal Church (and also to some extent in the United Methodist Church in the U.S.A., with a very tiny minority of Methodists in that church). It is movements like these - and the Sea of Faith movement, which denies that God is real outside of language (i.e., God simply being a word referring to various subjective feelings) that tend to be associated with the word "liberal."

One would have thought that we would have an article on "Liberal theology." There was one, once, quite a while ago. The problem is that "liberal theology" is a rather substantial term, referring mostly to theology of the nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, with its heyday being in the nineteenth century. It had a great deal of influence, but can not be said to have found official reception into any church. It remained a way of thinking about things, but never got to the point of becoming doctrine. It was through the work of theologians like Barth, Niebuhr and Tillich that the incoherence of this type of thinking with what we generally associate with Christian practice became clear. Such "liberal theology" would deny such things as the bodily resurrection of Christ ... through a period of reflection on the interwovenness of belief in the bodily resurrection and the incarnation, it became clear that such theology was most certainly not Trinitarian Christian theology, and thus rejected by Trinitarian churches. Throughout the seventies and eighties, there were still some bishops who had been trained in seminary during the ascendancy of "liberal theology" and such views were, in some quarters, still frequently found, though they usually did not bring much attention to their beliefs. This is why some refer to the death of "liberal theology." Today, seminaries which once taught the old-style "liberal theology" will now focus more on what some call "post-liberal theology," with e.g. an important emphasis on narrative. It remains important, however, that the church continue to embrace a liberally-minded spirit when engaging culture, scholarly work, and the arts. This is different from actually crossing over into dogmatics - i.e., church teaching - and e.g., teaching people within the church that Christ did not rise from the dead. Once one does such a thing, one becomes very "dogmatic" in one's own right - albeit contrary to Trinitarian Christianity. This is probably also why the page on "liberal theology" was deleted. There is a movement of "liberal Christianity", and it is different from this old "liberal theology," and obviously it wouldn't want to be associated too closely with "liberal theology" given the differences and the fact that "liberal theology" more or less died. One must see, however: there is a very heavy POV bias here at Wikipedia when it comes to treating such things - so much so, that the whole page on liberal theology was deleted in favor of referring everyone to the page on "liberal Christianity" (when we also have a page on "Progressive Christianity" as well, simply because some article writer thinks that "Progressive" means more open to lively worship than "liberal"). All this focus on "Liberal Christianity" and "Progressive Christianity," and none on the great and grand drama of the fate of liberal theology in the church?

In the 1980's, this changed with Bishop John Shelby Spong. He was, at the time, through the 1990's, widely rejected by most in The Episcopal Church (and just about everywhere else). His scholarship was most lamentable and quite similar in some ways to "scholarship" put out by some extremist Fundamentalist Christian groups - using Scripture "proof-texts," the style of rhetoric, sometimes outright deception. The official positions of the Episcopal Church from the time of the Pike trial, however, remained in order, as well as the thought about dealing with such errant theology: "Instead of disciplining heretical theology, let us write good theology instead, and convince the people with good theology." The problem was: within TEC there was a great lack of theological literacy. Many clergy had been brought up on social-awareness type theology with very little substance of core theological issues and systematic theology; many parishoners had heard, for decades, sermons about love, but little containing substantive theological issues. It wasn't until the advent of the internet that people were largely exposed to what others truly thought about God - and more "God talk" occurred within the churches, and clergy were under more pressure to answer questions about the nature of God, about the identity of Jesus, etc. etc.. Previously, they were safe in dodging such theological issues by preaching sermons primarily about loving one's neighbor, various ethical concerns, etc. etc.. Spong's audience was a largely theologically and hermeneutically uneducated group.

I don't believe the current trend of speaking of "literalism" when one intends to make a statement about hermeneutics was common before Spong. This is a highly deficient manner of treating the thorny and complicated issue of hermeneutics. It skips the difficult question: "how should we interpret Scripture" by casting aspersion on anyone who takes any part of Scripture as not being "metaphorical."

There are important, "liberal" movements of thought happening in the church, but these tend to fall under the radar when there are persons catching the press's attention by preaching that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that "God" can simply be a word for a grand metaphor that refers to the immense size of a sea, the greenness of a leaf, the feeling of falling in love, the smell of springtime, etc. etc.. Or when priests bring up the bogeyman of some dangerous "Fundamentalism" without designating specifically what or who it is that is dangerous, and why. There are many problems in churches which could be described in some way or other as looking a bit "fundamentalist" - however, they often don't have much in common other than often being a kind of reaction of anxiety. However, what better way of provoking such anxiety than preaching from the pulpit that Christ didn't rise from the dead, and that anyone who preaches that He did is a loathesome fundamentalist who is likely to go off on a killing spree (and I kid you not, some materials which are widely used in some TEC churches present the situation more or less like this). This is no longer "liberal" - this is simply polarizing the church, fear-mongering, and provoking fundamentalism itself. Priests who are truly concerned with these types of problems, and the effects of such things on society, do not do such things. Priests wishing to fill their pews with zealots who wish to feel like they are spiritually a part of some great crusade against this bogyman "Fundamentalism" (or for "progress") do preach this way. But liberally-minded, they are not. By the freedom of religion they should be able to practice as they do - however, to attempt to do so within churches which self-identify as Trinitarian Christian churches simply provokes the very things which they pretend they are combatting.

Truly "liberally-minded" Christians do wish to explore Scripture in a manner which pays closer attention to narrative, engage in thoughtful and diligent ecumenism respecting of beliefs, engage history regarding our presuppositions, and thinkingly and questioningly work out our own theological presuppositions with all available scholarly apparati and philosophical means available. This is, however, a very different thing from dogmatically preaching that the resurrection is no longer of importance.

I realize that there will be some here who believe that priests within Anglican churches should have the freedom to "preach according to their conscience" and, if they truly believe the resurrection is unimportant, or a metaphor used to describe a subjective feeling or for struggle for equality ... should be able to do so. I would ask you, however: what is it you think you are struggling for? Why is actually teaching this so important? Isn't it enough to refrain from being dogmatic about it, and simply implore the people to think about such things, reflect, engage the scholarship if that helps, etc. etc..? Doesn't one realize the guarded attitudes one is encouraging by doing such a thing, and the very real problems associated with "fundamentalism" - fear of clergy, fear of doctrines other than one's own church's, fear of ecumenism, etc. etc.., that one provokes?

Anyways ... Spong was at first largely rejected in TEC. His books were populist and the scholarship was quite loathesome - it sometimes being pointed out that they would never have been published or sold if he weren't prominently identified as "A bishop." In general, he made TEC look rather preposterous. The bishops knew this would be the case at the time they decided not to start a heresy trial; Spong actually mocked Presiding Bishop Griswold and threatened never to retire if Griswold took action against him. However, it was inevitable that some would point out how ridiculous TEC was, having a bishop like Spong in their midst. Unfortuantely, some - especially the theologically uneducated - who wished to defend TEC, actually defended Spong, instead of simply admitting that Spong had put TEC in a tough spot, and that things weren't going so well. When the church got into major tension with the Communion in 2003 and this became an even more pronounced reaction amongst TEC people, the situation got worse. In 2006, TEC ended up actually voting in someone who was a supporter of Spong, who seems to have a similar Christology - and moreover lied on her CV for the election, which was never publicly investigated or clarified.

TEC didn't really "plan" any of these things - I suppose most of them could be seen as neglect within TEC, and neglect of the Communion to address what was happening within TEC. It means, however, that we don't know what will become of TEC. It may join the Mormons, Unitarians, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and Progressive Christians in having a Christology which is anti-Trinitarian.

But to brush the rest of the Communion with TEC's theology is not only ridiculous - it reeks of POV. The issue of Christology hasn't been officially brought up yet - I don't think anyone wants it to be brought up, many are simply counting on TEC leaving the Communion because of the disagreement which is being discussed.

With regards to "liberal," however - it is probably best reserved only for occasions where it must be used, because it leads to so much confusion: Is N.T. Wright "liberal?" He has some profoundly liberal themes in his work. Is Spong "liberal"? He most certainly isn't liberally-minded in the way he creates straw men to criticize non-existent beliefs - he's more of a "fundamentalist" in that way. I don't understand how it is "separate" from Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic for that matter - anyone in the Communion must be in some manner Evangelical and Catholic, but we also allow "conservatives" to be a part, so does that mean that conservatives are also "liberal"? The theological influences in the Communion come from the entire spectrum of Christianity - including Anabaptists, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, etc. etc.. We don't really have "our own theology." This is all mostly a part of "Anglican myth-making." We don't endorse a particular theologian more than another, simply because she or he is "Anglican."

Within Anglicanism, it is actually much more common to refer to the strands of: "Evangelical, Catholic, and Charismatic" - ... or: "Evangelical, Catholic, and Ecumenical." One may be somewhat conservative and any or all of these ... one may be liberal, and be any or all of these three. Most certainly: Liberal Christianity has come up in the press a lot, and in the blogs a lot ... but it hasn't had an effect on any single prayer book, as far as I'm aware ... I know of no "official" statements of doctrine in the Communion which "Liberal Christianity" (a very, very recent movement ... last decade or so) has influenced. Though PB Jefferts-Schori most certainly is a "mover" in that circle, but Episcopalians always say: "You have to look at our prayer book," and seem to insist that what she says doesn't count.

Any movement which has "Liberal Christianity" as one of its essential sources simply is no longer Trinitarian in practice. It could be that the Communion is coming to this ... TEC certainly has a lot of influence in the instruments of unity in the last few years, though it may mostly be out of charity for its appearance as a kind of "underdog," and the hope that if it does once leave for good, Anglicans can faithfully say: "we did give them every possible chance." But the Communion is most certainly robustly Trinitarian in its offical doctrine, and only anti-Trinitarian in large swaths of one province, and just a few places elsewhere.

Therefore I urge ... be careful with this word "liberal" in referring to Christianity, especially in Anglican context. It has a tendency to create polarities where polarities do not belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.103.3 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't claim to have read these lengthy comments in depth, but you assert without providing any evidence that anti-Trinitarian views are common or popular among the higher-ups in the Episcopal Church, which seems extraordinarily unlikely and needs to be backed up with strong sources. As far as I can tell, the article barely mentions such unorthodox views, let alone imply that they are widely held in the Episcopal Church or the communion as a whole. Please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are places to discuss how to improve articles, not places to get rants off your chest. —Angr (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angr - the comments are meant to be informative for writers, to understand first of all what doctrine is - and something of the history involved. The comments aren't sourced, but contain information which is important to one who wants to write on this subject. What is included in the article is the claim that it is common within the Communion to regard the resurrection as a metaphor or to "spiritualize" its meaning rather than commending to belief the bodily resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is central to Trinitarian Christianity. The length here is due to the fact that it appears that the writers engaging in this topic need quite a lot of background information. They are also long because I think that it's likely that, given the current state of the article, and some other articles on Anglicanism in wikipedia, that it may be primarily written by persons who are rather POV, though I could be wrong. I am trying to address such POV persons to help them understand that, even with their POV, there are even POV reasons for that same POV for making sure that this article is actually reflective of the Communion: namely, that one doesn't battle "fundamentalism" by insinuating that a body as large as the Communion has become officially non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian. It is true that we have profound problems in this area; but if we are to be honest about such problems, we need either to designate where (sort of like "naming names"), or leaving out this thorny issue entirely. Many here probably would be adverse in naming which province it is where we have such issues - since that province is also trying to bring about large-scale reforms in the area of sexual ethics, and strategically speaking, for gaining sympathy from Trinitarian churches, it would do best to hold off on its reformations of Christology for the moment (though it isn't even doing this). Anyways: I suppose that the safest course here would be to simply outline what official Anglican doctrine is like (which is even "offically" the case within TEC - the problem there is with the "working theology" rather than the "official theology" - see e.g. Dr. Philip Turner's article http://www.anglicanuse.org/AnUnworkableTheology.pdf for the distinction between "working theology" and "official theology").

I did not name TEC by name here - the preface merely indicated that some of what the article contains is reflective of what is taught in one province in the Communion, while the rest of the Communion may be adamantly opposed to such, or even consider it anathema. Unfortunately, this is the state of the Communion at the current time.

Anyone who does not understand the importance of Trinitarian Christology to the Communion, or who wishes to advocate that the Communion become less than Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian, should either refrain from contributing here, or else engage in such advocacy in an honest manner by creating an honest sketch of the Communion in answering the question: "How is it Trinitarian, and in what ways and what areas is it less than Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian?" This would be acceptable as well if it is truly reflective of the Communion and well-sourced.

With regard to "doctrine" - this is teaching - it is about what is pronounced, not which views might or might not be held. One may hold a particular view but, out of respect for the church, refrain from teaching that view and commending it to belief; or one may simply struggle in faith and realize that one has difficulty in believing that which the church commends to belief.

Sources regarding the National Church promoting anti-Trinitarian notions: see http://anglicanecumenicalsociety.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/what-do-people-mean-when-they-say-that-presiding-bishop-schori-has-denied-the-resurrection-or-the-divinity-of-christ/ and http://anglicanecumenicalsociety.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/what-is-schori-teaching-some-more-puzzle-pieces/ - Church Publishing has also been promoting Marcus Borg's works (who denies that most elements of Trinitarian Christology are important). You by no means need to publish such things. However, if you don't want to, you need to make sure that this page is resoundingly Trinitarian as the Communion's doctrine is - even though some rogue priests (or one province) from time to time make it seem otherwise. The Communion does have doctrinal agreement - you'd need to look at whether the views expressed here and there are ever endorsed by, e.g., one of the Instruments of Communion. This may be the best way to go for this article.

The basic point is: *IF* you wish to make such claims about the Communion, state WHERE these teachings and practices occur, but do NOT imply that they are "acceptable" in the Communion as a whole. E.g., some members of GLAAD might believe that gay people should refrain from having sex with people of the same gender; but if one were to write in the article on GLAAD, "The view is widespread within GLAAD that gay people should refrain from sex with people of the same gender," that one designate in which parts of GLAAD - since the rest of that organization would be resoundingly opposed to this viewpoint.

The above covers such things as: "what does 'liberal' mean with regards to doctrine? how might we be misunderstanding the term 'evangelical' in the context of the Anglican Communion? How have we made mistakes before in Wikipedia in being NPOV with regards to certain causes? How is this initial NPOV behavior now creating an extremely skewed notion of Anglican doctrine?"

The Anglican Communion IS robustly Trinitarian. It is essential that if we begin teaching TEC style theology on these pages, that we indicate: this is TEC stuff, and is NOT accepted in the rest of the Communion, where it is usually dismissed out of hand so as to avoid its further exposure (as a terribly sad thing), if not actually condemned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.103.3 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anglican doctrine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

<quote>There is a bit of a grand irony in what Haller is trying to argue here. He asserts that Anglicanism has no unique doctrine but that we do have a unique polity and that this polity is worth conserving because it is patterned on the ministry of Christ Himself. Yet Haller’s belief about Anglican polity is itself a doctrine which is only commendable to the wider Christian world in so much as it is both unique to Anglicanism (meaning that if Anglicanism disappeared the world would not have access to this teaching) and founded on Christ’s own design (meaning that if this polity disappears than gone with it is something essential about Christian truth). https://conciliaranglican.com/2011/07/01/anglicanisms-unique-doctrine/</quote>

I don't know what Tobias Haller had intended to express, but it seems that the church governance in Anglicanism is a very unique feature. Komitsuki (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]