linguistic sophistication of cognitive approaches to doctrine.26 For example, Lindbeck’s suggestion that the “cognitive-propositional” view of doctrine treats any given doctrine as “eternally true”27 fails to take account of the evident ability of proponents of this approach to reformulate, amplify or supplement a doctrine in response to changing historical circumstances.28 Lindbeck attributes an unmerited inflexibility to cognitive systems of doctrine by playing down the notion of “relative adequacy”