“It’s almost endearing. Almost. The problem is - we Americans are revolutionaries. We can’t help it. It’s in our blood - we were never disappointed by despots storming the Bastille and chopping heads off aristocrats and their flunkies. We manage to retain elements of our English forebears who reminded us that manners are helpful and order is necessary, but that is more to be tolerated than embraced. We put cowboys in the Oval. We do stuff and ask questions later.”

-This is the problem.  And it is not nearly as “endearing” as English politeness.  It is disruptive and gotten us into all kinds of trouble, in the church as well as in the world.

If you want to create a church based on Jeffersonian deomcracy and Revolutionary ideals, it has already been done a thousand times over.  Pick one.  We’re trying to arrest the process in TEC, where in spite of rumors to the contrary, it has not triumphed yet.  At least not in the pews.

Randall

A slightly modified comment I made over at Baby Blue:

Your analogy has interesting implications if applied to ecclesiology. In that case, it seems to me that your view inescapably leads to the conclusion that Americans are by temperament predisposed to a Protestant-type, and arguably even an evangelical, style of ecclesiology in which real or perceived necessary causes will launch a “revolution” that results in the creation of new segments of the body of Christ. The corollary would be that we’re not very catholic (or at least that it doesn’t come naturally to our temperament), even of the small “c” variety.

The problem I have with your thesis, which I believe is true to an extent (i.e., on a general level), is that America is a melting pot. Some of us are predisposed to revolutions; others are not. Some of us have French ancestry, while others have English (or fill in the blank, not to mention the myriad of combinations possible).

One question that we as orthodox Anglicans are facing today is whether there’s a big enough tent for both—or whether the differences in our dispositions toward revolution are hurdles that cannot be overcome.

When push comes to shove. Lambeth cant do either. Great Analysis Baby Blue. Randall and Ralph, chew on this:
The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline:

I wonder, what would Jesus do after the last seven years of “politeness” dominating our communion’s instruments and decades of theological detritus mixed with episcopal tyranny?  I doubt he would call for another committee.  Rather, I suspect he would reach for a rope of three cords.

I’m sure Jesus did not have any American blood, but I can say with equal certainty that when the new temple arrived, it was not centered in Canterbury England.

I thought it was the French who stormed the Bastille?

#5: yes, one of their many military victories:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Interesting and amusing to see babylue projecting all that stuff on to us Brits.  Stereotypes may be useful as invective but they generate more heat than light.

I didn’t find this very helpful. The stereotypes are, well, a bit outdated , and the analysis of American character and Christianity was just as broad. This isn’t analysis: this is caricature.

Being “revolutionary at all costs” results in just the kind of mess we currently face. There is no obedience, no discipleship, no faithfulness in such a “christianity.” I want nothing to do with it—any more than I want anything to do with the pseudo-Anglicanism of much of TEC’s current leadership. I’ll take Bp. Wright’s thoughtful approach over this sort of vituperation.

I too find this not terribly helpful and surprisingly unscriptural. Even were it true that one could truthfully speak about American and English cultures in this kind of way then it is not enough for a christian reflection. One would want then to look at how Scripture should challenge, reshape and transform our cultural reflexes.