Alright, I have actually been convinced otherwise. According to our constitution and canons, he doctrine of TEC is determined by the Scriptures as interpreted by the Creeds, and by the Sacramental services, the Ordinal, and the Catechism of the 1979 BCP. Mea culpa! https://t.co/GFVCtZEhKW March 12, 2019

Church's teaching for an inquiring stranger who picks up a Prayer Book.





It is quite staggering to think that such a document - "for an inquiring stranger" - is regarded as an official source of doctrine, and not least in a context regarding the responsibilities of ordained ministers to abide by the Church's doctrine.



Mindful of this, the Catechism is, secondly, peculiarly unsuited for this role. For example, there is no reference at all to original sin or the Fall in the Catechism. The relationship between grace and works is not addressed. The historic debates surrounding how we receive the gift of the Crucified and Risen Lord in the Eucharist are similarly not addressed. And the matter of how the authority of Scripture is to be understood, how it functions in the Church's life, is also absent.





Now, of course, one would not necessarily expect such questions and matters to be addressed in a Catechism "for an inquiring stranger" - but one would certainly expect such questions and matters to be addressed in the doctrinal standards for which ordained ministers have a responsibility to teach.





The poverty of such doctrinal minimalism is starkly evident. Exalting basic instruction for "the inquiring stranger" to become a doctrinal standard leaves a Church with a devastating doctrinal deficit.





But all is not lost ... perhaps. The TEC definition of doctrine also makes reference to the Ordinal. In the Ordination of a Priest, the bishop asks the candidate:

Lambeth Quadrilateral is not a statement of Anglican doctrine: rather, it is the basic minimum which allows Anglicanism to pursue reconciliation with other Christian traditions.





A minimalist definition of doctrine tends to be very meagre fare indeed. Such is the case with TEC. Such is the case with an Anglicanism defined merely by the

Lambeth Quadrilateral. It is time for a richer diet, for a rediscovery of the Augustinian doctrine of the Articles.

In reflecting on the role of the Articles in The Episcopal Church in particular, and contemporary Anglicanism in general, this Tweet, and the associated thread, from @benjamindcrosby - a TEC postulant - is a good place to start:This is indeed what the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church declare:(Title IV, Canon 2).What are we to make of such a minimalist definition of 'doctrine'? Perhaps one of its chief weaknesses is that it points to practices, and regards these as doctrine. Reading Scripture, saying the creeds, celebrating the sacraments: these are foundational Christian practices. But what do they mean? As George Lindbeck reminded us, the purpose of doctrine is that "it seeks to teach the language and practices of the religion". In the absence of doctrinal statement, we can be left in an ecclesial context in which the catholic, orthodox meaning of practices is obscured.What does it mean to say 'The Word of the Lord', 'for us and our salvation', 'This is my body'? Without doctrinal statement, we are left to our own devices to answer such questions.What, however, of the TEC Catechism? It is, after all, given a particular status in the official TEC definition of doctrine. A series of problems, however, arise with this. The first is how the Catechism is described in the BCP 1979 The "doctrine ... this Church has received" was defined in Article 8 of the Constitution enacted by the 1789 General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States:This was accompanied by an Address to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York:In 1801 , the General Convention agreed a cautious revision of the Articles of Religion:While, of course, no subscription to the Articles was required - reflecting Latitudinarian hostility to subscription in general - there can be little doubt about the significance of the direction that the Articles be printed in the American BCP, "as in the book of common prayer of the Church of England". And there the Articles are still to be found, in the 'Historical Documents' section of the BCP 1979, standing alongside the Definition of Chalcedon, part of the "doctrine ... this Church has received".This means that the robustly Augustinian Reformed Catholicism of the Articles can be understood as possessing a doctrinal significance amidst the otherwise miserably minimalist definition of doctrine found in The Episcopal Church. They can be a source for doctrinal renewal, offering a doctrinal core incomparably richer than that to be found in a source "for an inquiring stranger".The Articles provide a deeply Augustinian account of Trinity and Incarnation. As John Hughes stated, they give an "account of grace and freedom in the form of a minimalist reformed restatement of the Catholic Augustinian-Thomist position". And on the contested matter of the sacraments, the Articles are again richly Augustinian. Indeed, if we wanted to summarise them we could do much worse than use a phrase from Article 31: "as Saint Augustine saith".Such a rich and robust Augustinian Reformed Catholicism offers a compelling alternative to TEC's doctrinal minimalism. And not just for TEC, but also for a wider Anglicanism in which doctrinal minimalism can be all too apparent. The