I think we are primarily a liturgical faith.  Even at its heyday, the Episcopal church was smaller than its mainline rivals, because those to whom a reverential and ordered, disciplined and decorous,  liturgy is essential to worhip are, and always have been, a distinct minority of Christians.  Those who relish a more fervent and communitarian, less formal and solemn, service will inevitably find their way to Methodism, the Baptists, the Crystal Cathedral or some other mega church.  Were we to emulate that mode of worship, we would have no real reason to exist.  We offer a unique, and essential, alternative for a certain segment of the population, but we should remember that it is a small segment.  We are not, should not, and can never be, a mega church.

It means exactly what you *want it to mean*.  If you want to be in communion with Muslim laymen, fine.  Also if you want to be in communion with canines:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5j67_DKCGv6Jlkuus4Hcf2NYMQzQg
Couldn’t make it up.

“because those to whom a reverential and ordered, disciplined and decorous,  liturgy is essential to worhip are, and always have been, a distinct minority of Christians.”

Psst, ever heard of Catholicism or Orthodoxy or Lutheranism?

Re #2
Nwlayman,

It means exactly what you *want it to mean*.

Bingo!  I know of no article of faith or creed to which anyone is meaningfully obliged to subscribe in order to be an Anglican.  With respect to #1’s point I would agree in part.  Liturgy does appear to be an important aspect.  But I would characterize it more as liturgical Unitarianism.

In ICXC
John

I will add a quick caveat to my above (#4).  There are some corners of the Anglican Communion (notably not in Great Britain, Canada or the United States here there is a stronger Christian identity.  But even there there is a breathtaking degree of diversity on matters of doctrine.  Some of these divergent opinions are clearly irreconcilable. (ex. The High Church types and those supporting W/O or the Evangelical wing’s support for lay presidency at the Eucharist.)

In ICXC
John

Note to self: Proofread before hitting “submit!”

My apologies to #4. I could, and should, have added that to be an Anglican means to accept the orthodox, traditional, Christian faith, unalloyed by the zeitgeist.

Oh, joy, another discussion.  To be Anglican is to discuss.  No one with half-a-brain left (at the door or otherwise) could dispute that definition.  It need NOT be about anything substantive or even The Faith.  Mere fatuosity is grandiloquent when it when it comes to Anglicanism and supersessionistically replaces all prior definitions!  Oh, joy!

Now, it is #8 who has confused Anglicanism with U-Uism.

Satulan,
While I think your #1 is a laudable ideal, it simply does not reflect the reality on the ground.  The unhappy fact is that is that Anglicanism is indeed whatever one wants it to be (as long as you don’t try to impose your vision on anyone else).

I am afraid I have to stand by my #4.

In ICXC
John

#8 - some have translated “logos” as including dialogue or discussion.

It is the nature of God to “speak.”  In community, that would mean, of course, God communicates with himself, via the trinity.

None of this is heresy, but well documented.

Just sayin’

One can call oneself a conservative and vote for Dennis the Menace, The Messiah, or Mao.  One can call oneself an Anglican and delight in handling snakes, or publically doubt the Resurrection, or be, in the worst, and original, sense of the word, “enthusiastic.” One can call oneself a Roman Catholic and yet insist that American BIshops have the right and duty to preach or practice doctrines denounced by the Curia.  (I deeply regret my inability to italicize the word “call.” ) So, Ad Orientum, I don’t think we disagree at all.  But the question is not “what does it mean to call oneself an Anglican,” but “What it is to be an Anglican.”

The question of Anglican identity is a difficult but important one. My own slight effort to begin to answer that question appears this year in

“Thoughtful Holiness: The Rudiments of Anglican Identity.” Sewanee
Theological Review 52 (2009): 266–75.

It is not a great article, but something in there might provoke someone else to do a better job.

Dr. Moore,
Greetings in the name of Jesus.

I am one who is fully supportive of the quest, “a vigorous and informed discussion of Anglican identity.”  Such a conversation took place in the late ‘70’s and early 80’s in the USA, and, of course, has continued on in various ways, mainly, I think, because we have yet to be conclusive.  As a tutor to those having taken ordination exams and finding them to be in need of remedial work to finish, I have posed the same question myself, and with some passion for adequate response.

I have no empirical evidence, but I have observed that there seems to be one area of Anglican identity which, if not taken for granted, is simply overlooked.  You said, “Anglicanism that is true to its classic identity is Catholic, Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical”, and that seems to be a conclusion that has broad concensus. It must be said, though, that part of the classic identity of Anglicanism is England, even more historically pointed, that of Angles, or else the island would never have had that cartographical reference, brought into mainstream use, and never made as a reference to the nature of the Christian faith found there.  That is simplistic, of course.
But one does not neglect (as you know) understanding Lutheranism without considering the man Luther; one does not attempt to understand Mormonism, or Millerism, or Calvinism, or even Australianism (I just threw that in for fun), without considering the namesake. 
In my opinion, it is a highly neglected area of consideration and study in understanding Anglican identity because of ethnic ethos and what we might call cultural genetics, filters through which Christianity has been proclaimed, i.e. an Anglican way of bearing and proclaiming Christ.

Greetings.

I have seen something similar to the following statement attributed to William F. Buckley:

Is there anyone on earth, from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung, who can be entirely certain that he is not an Episcopalian?

The above is from memory, and like many such quotable quotes, I’ve never been able to find an actual citation to it (if anyone has one, I would appreciate it).

regards,

JPB

ROFL @ #15

Rob (14),

“It must be said, though, that part of the classic identity of Anglicanism is England”

Yes, that’s right—and important, as it is when considering any religious tradition. Both Rowan Williams, in Anglican Identities, and I, in the little article cited above, emphasize the importance of the historical (including chronological and geographical, as well as socio-cultural) situatedness of the Anglican enterprise. And, of course, some aspects of that identity—a decorous reserve, for example—will change as the center of Anglicanism changes. I have a good quotation from Abp Orombi of Uganda on this point, based on an interesting experience he had at an ordination.

Without decorous reserve, there is no good reason to remain an Anglican.  Until the fall—say somewhere between the Reign of Presiding Bishop Hines and GC 1979—, all Episcopalians, low and lazy, broad and hazy, and high and crazy, followed the same orders of worship as set forth in the 1928 BCP, without the noxious smarminess and banality introduced by liturgical “reform” and the quest for “relevance.”

Anglicanism is not Mere Christianity.  To be sure, it is orthodox, but then there are many Christian faiths that are orthodox.  What is attractive about Anglicanism—at least to those of a certain age and temperment—is the solemnity, discipline, decoum, reserve, and good order of the traditional Anglican service.  Without that, there is no good reason to remain an Anglican.

No. 18: “Anglicanism is not Mere Christianity.”

Well, no Christian tradition is “mere Christianity.” Each is embedded in its distinct cultural narrative.

The question is whether a certain worship style is always and everywhere part of the esse of Anglican identity. You have mentioned that “decorous reserve”—I don’t remember if that’s the phrase Orombi used or not; I don’t have my article in front of me—is your preference. But I’m not sure that any traditional Anglican would really have objected to the service described by Abp Orombi; he discussed this great celebration (bringing two hostile tribes together) in an article in First Things, and the celebration sounded like something anyone would have affirmed and enjoyed. So he raised the question about Anglican identity in Africa and whether what we think of as essential to Anglicanism might change over the next few decades—and indeed is already changing.

I understand that you enjoy a particular solemnity in worship, but is it necessary to mandate that for everyone, always, in order to preserve the essence of Anglicanism? Probably not. But I think both of us agree with the more important point that Anglicanism cannot be defined or at least characterized merely by citing via media, Prot/Cath/Evangelical etc. Something about its historical and cultural identity must also be factored in, and that’s what Rowan Williams does in Anglican Identities, a very good little book.

#19 David Hein
You remind me of a succinct and encouraging view of Anglicanism by Rowan Williams:

We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place - to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices - with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable…...

The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness.

The Challenge and Hope of being an Anglican Today - 27 June 2006
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/640?q=challenge+anglican

From a time when the Archbishop articulated a clear vision for the future of the church which I go along with.

Mr. Hein:
I would not mandate anything to anyone.  I merely think that the Anglican Church is a liturgical church.  Herewith a cut and paste lift from one authority:

“What is a liturgical church?

Most churches have some form of liturgy that guides the flow of service, but a “liturgical church” conducts its services by a strict, prescribed liturgy — a formal structure or order of worship, which has been passed down from tradition. This type of church generally places much emphasis upon ceremony and ritual, and may use various forms of religious icons.
.....
Well known liturgical churches who follow a similar form are the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Eastern Orthodox churches.”

Of course, we are also a sacramental church, believing in the “real presence of Christ” in the bread and wine of communion, at least for believers (Articles 38 and 39). 

There are three, and for many, four things that define Anglicanism:  1) Mere Christianity; 2) a formal liturgy; 3) a belief that the sacraments of communion are not merely a memorial but contain the real presence of Christ; and (as noted in a previous post) for some, a nostalgic Anglophilia.

Liturgy that is not reflective of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi is empty and meaningless ceremonial.  Which returns us to the question what does the Anglican Communion really believe?  What are the non-negotiables of its faith?  Once you have that nailed down then you can start to talk liturgy as you will have something on which to build your sacred rites.

In ICXC
John

#22 We believe in God ‘A’d ‘O’rientem.

Re # 23
Which one?
http://tinyurl.com/3bhejz

There is only one <><

Did you check with Ms. Schori on that?

Would she know?  Anyway which part of the Orient did you end up in if I may ask?

I’m OCA.  Although we have historic roots in the Russian Church we are poli-ethnic.

#28 Many thanks - I heard a lovely recording from Valaam Monastery who I believe have a link on another blog

Pageantmaster,
Thanks for that quote from Williams.

#9, there are many who think that Anglicanism in its US polity-elite-claimant is U-Uism in fancy clothers (I have heard the term drag).

#11, what heretic, where, when, alleged by (y)whom?  And while the analogy of God speaking is like in that there is Word and word, the difference is that God’s Word is effective and that is demonstrably not true of Anglican discussion.

#15 Just Passing By says:

The above is from memory, and like many such quotable quotes, I’ve never been able to find an actual citation to it (if anyone has one, I would appreciate it).

The best citation I’ve ever been able to find—which is tentative, in that it comes from people quoting it on the web—is to the English novelist Evelyn Waugh, in the form, “No one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung can be certain that he is not an Anglican.”