by Andy Messmer

From Vincent of Lérins in the 5th century, to John Henry Newman in the 19th, to contemporary discussion today, much ink has been spilled over the debate regarding the development of doctrine. While all sides agree that the Christian faith has been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jd 3), not all agree on what we are supposed to do with it: preserve it, clarify it, develop it, or perhaps something else. While I can’t solve the problem of doctrinal development here, I would like to bring more clarity to the options on the table. Traditionally, the explication of doctrinal development has been aided by the use of illustrations, and I have done the same here.

1. Fully Matured

To begin, some approach the issue of doctrinal development negatively. Those who hold this position say that the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints by Jesus and his Apostles was complete and fully matured, and thus the doctrine found in the New Testament is to be cut and pasted onto every subsequent generation, such that the theology of 21st century American Christianity should look exactly like that of the 1st century Mediterranean one. This position could be compared to the work of a traditional New Testament textual critic. Traditionally, this work was understood as uncovering the original text and preserving it as faithfully as possible, and any subtraction or addition to the text was seen as a corruption that had to be corrected. People in this group view doctrinal development like they view the Byzantine text-type: the changes and additions are bad, and it needs to be restored to its Alexandrian text-type purity. Perhaps the most famous proponents of this theory were the various 19th century Restorationist movements, which sought to restore Christianity to what they understood to be its pristine and original state. The problem with this view is that nobody follows it consistently. Nearly everyone uses post-New Testament theological terms such as “Trinity” and “hypostatic union”, and unless one’s church is charismatic and meets in homes in the evening over a meal, their liturgy is post-New Testament as well.

2. Foundational

On the other side of the spectrum are those who think doctrinal development is good and necessary. People in this camp argue that Scripture has given us the foundation, and that we are to build upon it. They are quick to add that subsequent building must rest firmly on its Scriptural foundation, but it is a building nonetheless. The best illustrations for this position come to us from Vincent of Lérins and John Henry Newman: a seed and a baby. Just as seeds and babies necessarily and organically grow up into trees and adults, so too must incipient New Testament doctrine develop over the years. Just as it would be strange for a baby to remain the same for twenty years, so too would it be strange for the Church to remain the same after twenty centuries. Perhaps the most famous proponents of this view are Roman Catholics. The fact that some of their doctrines aren’t explicitly found in Scripture is no problem for them, since they claim that they have developed from other doctrines which are found in Scripture. The main problem with this view is that nobody follows it consistently either. For example, many times the foundation of doctrines such as papal supremacy, Mariology, and purgatory are not sought in Scripture itself, but rather on patristic authors, lay piety, and non-canonical writings (ex., the Apocrypha and apocryphal gospels).

3. Clarification

A third view, and one which gets less attention in the West, is that of doctrinal clarification. Those who support this view claim that the term “development” is incorrect, since the faith truly has been once for all delivered to the saints. However, as new circumstances and challenges arise, this same faith must be “clarified”. Perhaps this could be compared to a father teaching his son about life. In an ideal situation, the father would give his son everything he needs to know, but not in a systematic way, nor in a way that has resolved some of the father’s harder-to-understand teachings. Thus, just as the son grows in his understanding of his father’s teaching, so too does the Church grow in its understanding of Apostolic teaching. There is no change or development here, but merely clarification. This is the typical view of the Orthodox Church, although some Protestants tend toward it as well. The main problem with this view is that, at a practical level, the process of clarification seems to have stopped in the 8th or 9th century: in 787 the Church celebrated Nicea II, and since 843 the East has celebrated the “Triumph of Orthodoxy”, and ever since then Orthodoxy has been anchored to these first eight or nine centuries. To return to the previous illustration, it seems as if the East thinks that the baby of New Testament teaching was progressively clarified for eight or nine centuries, at which point it was a full-grown adult, but since then hasn’t progressed much through further clarification.

Further Options

These are the three main approaches to the issue of doctrinal development, but before ending the survey, I would like to add two other positions. They are both derivations of the second option above (doctrinal development is good, like a seed or baby growing into a tree or adult), but try to account for the vicissitudes of historical reality. Thus, while the first three were more theoretical and ideal, these next two are more practical and realistic.

The first additional approach to doctrinal development is the one which generally trusts the process of development, but which also sees that minor, and at times major, revision may be necessary. This approach sees the development of doctrine somewhat akin to Apollo 13’s return trip to Earth (at least as it was portrayed in a famous Hollywood film). Generally speaking, the spacecraft was on a good trajectory toward earth, but due to a miscalculation (not carrying moon rock), the trajectory was off by just enough to endanger the whole mission. So, what was needed was a course correction, which put the vessel back on the correct trajectory. This is the view of many Protestants, especially as they seek to articulate their relationship to the Middle Ages: although the Church did well in developing some doctrines, its development of other doctrines such as the sacraments and papal authority was off due to important misunderstandings of Scripture and tradition. Thus, a course correction was necessary, which was what the Protestant Reformation was all about. The problem with this view is that it could be seen to validate other attempts at course corrections, and the proliferation of Protestant denominations —all of which claim to be offering a course correction— is a sad confirmation of its inherent danger.

The second additional approach to doctrinal development is the one which approaches the issue as one would the development of language: development is unavoidable, and it can be either organic development from within or synthetic change from without. Take the English language, for example. Organic development from within can be illustrated by the contraction “can’t”, which arose from the hurried pronunciation of “can not”, which was then written as one word, “cannot”, and finally “can’t”, which reflected its spoken form. This is all organic development, and every stage can still be called “English”. Synthetic change from without can be illustrated by the Norman invasion of 1066, in which French was introduced to the island, effecting a major shift in the English language at both vocabulary and grammatical levels. This leads to an interesting phenomenon: while both pre- and post-Norman invasion English may be called “English”, pre- and post-Norman invasion “English-speakers” could not understand each other. Some understand doctrine to have developed in a similar way: development is to be expected, but while some can be explained by the internal logic of Christian doctrine itself, other development must be attributed to external circumstances, and these synthetic changes make conversation difficult.

A well-known example of this phenomenon is the rise of prayers to the saints: scholars have noted that the rise of prayers to the saints can be explained as a replacement of pre-Christian prayer to local deities, and not as anything organic to Christianity itself. Thus, prayers to the saints is like a French intrusion to the English language: it came from outside, and while pre- and post-prayers to the saints Christianity is referred to by the same name “Christianity”, conversation is difficult between those who practice it and those who don’t. There isn’t any Church tradition which advocates for this view, but several scholars admit that on occasion doctrine has developed along these lines.

To conclude, these seem to be the primary ways that doctrinal development has been approached over the centuries. My intention here has not been to solve any of the issues, but rather to help us think more clearly about the options on the table. However, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the truth most likely is somewhere in the middle, avoiding the extremes of no development at all on the one hand, and of perfect and infallible development on the other.