Well, although I find this an interesting piece in that it represents what some in the outside world think of Episcopalians, I find the conflation of political and religious identification troubling.  Evangelicals and Catholics have often been “progressive.”  Evangelicals stood against the state; Catholics have marched for the poor against corporations. 

I see what he’s saying.  My congregation, however, has a number of politically conservative people who would take issue with some of the vocabulary, although they would agree that the African view of homosexuality is bigotry, and that scripture is more plastic than others claim.  One can celebrate the humanistic traditions in Christianity without being a pawn of the Democratic party.  I hope.

This is Anglicanism?  Ciao.

Astonishingly ignorant historical analysis.

This is clearly revisioned history.  Relation to reality is dubious where tenuous.

Re: #3. Astonishingly ignorant historical etc etc.

You got that right Senior.

Who is Harold Myerson? Did he ever hear of the War of The Roses? The primary duty of Henry VIII was to assure that this horrific dynastic conflict did not erupt again. He must have an heir, and saw to it, confounding the scheming occupant of Peter’s Chair. If later Henry committed excesses-well that’s another story and has nothing to do with his putting to an end for all time the Roman attempt to retake its lost cash flow and real estate. It is just tiresome to see this nonsense come back over and over again.

Well said, John (#1) - thank you.

Good point about ‘theologically conservative but politically progressive’: true of Anglo-Catholics for much of their history.

The article has its biases (implied: if you want consistent doctrine you’re like the 9/11 terrorists) but in its broad outlines of Anglicanism is correct (pedantry: Henry wanted and got an annulment not a divorce but so what?). Given Anglicans’ principle of authority they don’t have a leg to stand on when criticising Canon Glasspool’s election. (That is, all Protestants are only a vote away from that.)

But there won’t be a split. That won’t come unless one of the Anglican national churches turns unitarian.

All I care about in all this is defending the Episcopalians’ right to govern themselves, their property rights and, when this is all over, defending their religious liberty as well as the Episcopalians’, that my conservative friends who are still Episcopalians still have someplace to go to church.

I wouldn’t call his interpretation wrong, but it is selective.  There are multiple traditions that have competed and engaged each other.  And it is amusing to presume that the Episcopal church was ever really “liberal”. 

The polity of the Episcopal church, has made it ill-suited to have a single voice that visibly contrasts against the countervailing claims of the culture at large.  To some it will has simply demonstrated that it’s responses are reactive, thoughtless, faddish and ephemeral; to others it remains antiquated. 

Although I’m more of a left contrarian on most political issues, the church loses its voice when it indulges too easily in the political conventions of the day, which is what this author has unintentionally revealed.

People really shouldn’t write about things about which they are so ignorant.

Times Editor:  Bishops are consecrated, and conservative former Episcopalians aligned themselves with foreign provinces.  Here we go again about Henry VIII.  Washington’s association with Virginia parishes seems to have been more than just passive.  Just love that Anglican jihad stuff.