The Bishops realised that doctrinal discussions within the torturous LLF process hit the rocks in part because people were talking past each other with different understandings of the nature of doctrine. What does it mean to 'change' doctrine? Is that even possible? What actually is doctrine? And can the church hold more than one doctrine at the same time?

Their response was a theological study, commissioned by the Faith and Order Commission, called The Nature of Doctrine and the Living God.

Mouse has a few observations.

The role of the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) is as an advisory body to the Bishops, General Synod and the wider Church. It is made up of 16 members, around half of whom are bishops, and is appointed by the Archbishops. As a result of this, the group has no formal role in the Church of England. Its role is simply to consider topics as requested and publish reports. Previous incarnations of this group have included the Faith and Order Advisory Group and the Doctrine Commission. These groups are all a 20th century innovation, starting with the Doctrine Commission in 1922.

In not addressing the purpose and role of the group, its deliberations or positioning how it will be used by the church, it reads merely as an abstract discussion of a topic with no particular purpose or direction.

The Church of England regularly offers doctrinal sounding statements from the House of Bishops. Synod votes on matters with clear doctrinal implications. Liturgies are revised with consequential doctrinal implications. Yet the role of each of these is not discussed and the FAOC does not position its own work in the context with which the Church is expected to read it in relation to these other official seeming acts.

When Mouse first sat down to read the new report, he had assumed that it would start with a review of previous authoritative statements by the Church of England on the matter. His own article on the subject looked at the foundational documents of the Church of England (39 Articles), the Canons, then the major publications from the Church of England on the subject, starting with the first Doctrine Commission report of 1938, Doctrine in the Church of England. The 1938 report was commissioned with the remit:

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 diminish existing differences.

Sound familiar?

The 2025 report, does not mention the 1938 report. It does not mention the Doctrine Commission's 1968 report on the nature of the 39 articles and their role in defining the essential doctrine of the Church, entitled Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles. There is no mention of the 1981 publication by the Doctrine Commission Believing in the Church. It does not consider the role of General Synod and the House of Bishops in the Church's theological considerations. Most astonishingly, there is not a single mention of either the 39 Articles or the Canons or an attempt to analyse how they establish the parameters of doctrine in the Church of England.

Perhaps the most significant contribution to the discussion on the nature of doctrine within the Church of England is found in the Doctrine Commission's 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?’.

For Mouse, the failure to recognise or build on these past sources represents a gaping chasm in the report, which reads as if it is the first time anyone in the Church of England has ever had the idea of attempting to define the nature of its doctrine. This is particularly problematic as the specific remit of the report is, 'to provide clarity around how doctrine can develop or change within the Church of England.' [Mouse's emphasis]

In place of building on previous work in the Church, the report instead starts from first principles with a theological review. Included as authoritative sources for this work were:

• Thomas Aquinas
• John Calvin
• Richard Hooker
• John Henry Newman
• Brooke Foss Westcott
• Michael Ramsey
• Kevin Vanhoozer
• Anthony Thiselton
• Alister McGrath
• Sarah Coakley
• Ellen Charry
• Mike Higton

The works of these theologians is reviewed and the conclusion is reached that they are, essentially, of one accord. Sadly, this conclusion has been somewhat undermined by one of the theologians themselves. Writing at Via Media Mike Higton has rejected the report stating plainly, 'I for one, however, do not recognise my own work on doctrine in this formulation.' He writes that he had no idea his work was being included until someone pointed him to the report post-publication. He concludes, 'There are several divergences between the account I offer in the book and the ‘consensus’ that I am supposed to support.'

Yikes.

Perhaps a more fundamental question, however, is who decided that this group of theologians are the authoritative source for such a study? Mouse's hunch is that the idea was to gather the views from group from diverse theological perspectives and show that since they all essentially agree on this question it isn't really up for grabs. But in order to do this, they have to shoehorn complex views (such as Higton's) into a narrow conclusion and we are left to wonder if these really are some kind of representative sample of theologians and who else could have been included who might have offered a different perspective, not least the work of Tom Wright in the Doctrine Commission's own 1981 report on the very same subject. 

The Nature of Doctrine and the Living God was not commissioned as an abstract theological reflection on doctrine, but specifically to address a series of questions arising from the LLF process. These include how doctrine develops or changes within the Church of England. The report offers no examples of doctrine that has or hasn't developed, or attempts the church has made to handle theological difference in the past. The question is simply not dealt with.

The commission from the bishops also included the questions:

But the report doesn't even attempt to answer these questions. This could have been tackled by reference to the previous Doctrine Commission reports Mouse has mentioned and a historical review of the subject. The outcome is a report which offers a perspective, but does not conclude on the key matters and we are left to wonder our position if we simply disagree. 

Sadly Mouse is not optimistic that this report will help the Church move forward. The 1938 report of the Doctrine Commission took 16 year to produce. Once published it sunk without a trace and has barely seen the light of day since. In part, that is because the Doctrine Commission, like its present day successor, holds no formal position. Its reports are merely advice to the Bishops and the wider church which it can freely ignore at will. It did not help the church come together and find unity on the controversies of the day. Mouse fears the same fate for this one. The good ship LLF has been dashed on the rocks and there is no hope that this report will offer us a life boat.