This echoes my feelings on the recent discourse surrounding the article in question so completely. There is not a point made here that I disagree with. And I think it's just so important.
I have felt that if Anglicanism does not have a theological content and richness of heritage beyond affiliation with Canterbury (as I can tell is some peoples stance on the matter), then the need to gatekeep it and preserve its identity in the first place becomes questionable. Not that the Communion has no value, I believe it does. But that doesn't and shouldn't mean it defines what Anglicansim is.
Thankfully, I don't think that Anglicanism is just communion with Canterbury. And I believe that Anglicanism is valuable and worth having, precisely because it has profoundly enriched my faith and relationship with Jesus.
It's frustrating and tragically common to witness some within The Episcopal Church deny our Anglican identity or advocate further discarding our theological, liturgical, and patrimonial heritage. Such horror is done at our peril.
I dearly hope and pray a greater embrace of Anglican identity and Anglican resourcement is the future in The Episcopal Church. I certainly will work to that end.
Edit: I should also say that I deeply appreciate the nuance regarding assumptions about how inclusion of LGBTQ people or a support of women's ordination is related (or rather, not related) to ones commitment to Anglican theological heritage and identity.
Thank you for this. I appreciate your clarity, as always. I do have questions. The C if E sis in fact have a Prayer Book revision planned in the 1920s, right. Very much like the Episcopal Church's 1928 version. It's rejection was a political decision, not the reaction of the governing bodies if the church. (Unless we count parliament as a governing body.) Why has the standard focused so heavily on 1662 when the Episcopal Church already had new versions of the prayer book beginning in 1789? As one who was firmed with the 1979 BCP I find the centrality of Holy Eucharist actually consistent with Cranmer, who assumed, as do we all, that the worshippers would also pray the Daily Office. What is it you find in 1979 that so radically diverges from Anglicanism? And you've no doubt written extensively about this, so links to relevant articles would be fine. I have great respect for your reasoning. Just wondering how we find ourselves apparently on different sides here.
I think focusing on particular rites, styles of rites and historic documents misses elements that truly make Anglicanism. I think "via media", worship in the vernacular (and I would also say style and community practice) of the congregation and community, and the three-legged stool of scripture-tradition-reason are far more definitive of being Anglican than particular rites and historical documents. These elements portray a tradition that would modify with its own experience and the social context that it finds it in, and therefore, wouldn't appear to be that of a previous era. It is meant to be living and breathing rather than nostalgia over cold imagery and practices. The presence, experience and integration of GLBTQ folks like me, for example, are an example of staying true to these important Anglican characteristics.
I remember many, many decades ago when I, as a very young seventh-generation (or perhaps more) Virginia Episcopalian first encountered a Black person who was not descended from African-American slaves (and, as a general rule, either Baptist or AME). She was, I recall, from Barbados. She seemed exceptionally familiar with church matters, so I asked her what her denomination was. She said, "I'm an Anglican." I was thunderstruck. A Black Anglican! To this day I recall a new sensation...a nascent feeling of pride and gratitude that I belonged to the worldwide Anglican Communion. That has been, ever since, a primary source of my identity.
Thank you for writing, Father Ben. As an LGBTQ person who is still fairly new to the Episcopal Church, I love how your piece both helps further inform me of our Anglican heritage and how it exposes the false disjunction of LGBTQ people/inclusion and the embracing of orthodoxy, as well as our particular tradition and Anglican heritage--not to mention it's helping me understand more of the history of how we got here! I appreciate your style that is generous to all parties cities while simultaneously voicing your critiques--an art form we need more of in our discourse in general today. God bless!
Rev, I think you hit the nail on the head. I (Mia culpa) was on of those who stated the article was scandalous. And I stand by that. We hold a very similar view towards "Anglican ethos" and I appreciate you highlighting the same concerns I had. It is scandalous to say Queer people like me are making the Episcopal Church lose its Anglican character, not the fact that we reject the Formularies. Thank you for your clarity 🙏
The author here forgets that from 1549 on, the Church of England, and the later provinces around the world have been wrestling with the Protestant-Catholic contrast, synthesis or dynamic, and most of all in the evolution of the Prayer Books. 1979 is the fulfillment of the long struggle to re-appropriate the theology and practice of the whole church before the Reformation. And that without pushing Protestant-minded Anglicans out of the communion. Many Anglicans have aways looked beyond the "Formularies" to understand them. For some the 1979 American book was the fulfillment of all the "Catholic" movement of all the years of Anglican history. But I don't remember many "evangelical" or "low-church" folks rejecting the 1979 Book on that account. And there is a reason for that.The ecumenical liturgical movement was going behind the 16th Century disputes to find a broad consensus across that 16th Century divide. To say nothing of the riches of the Easter church which continued an ancient church identity well beyond the West's Middle ages and 16th Century.
"This is why my hope for the future of Anglicanism in North America is not in turning back the clock just a bit to the late twentieth century but embracing a yet older Anglican tradition." Quite compelling. Of course, the question is whether biblical theological anthropology and stable notions of gender are disposable in the Prayer Book-Ordinal-Articles tradition, or not. When one lives deep in those Formularies is becomes difficult, I would suggest, to avoid the cosmic significance of male-female anthropology based, as it is, on the deep mysteries disclosed in the Chalcedonian Definition itself, expositing Holy Writ. The difficulties in ACNA currently show how problematic that revision is and the next step for Episcopalians will be the hallowing of poly relationships, obviously, completing the departure from Chalcedon's nuptial significance. ACNA only trails behind by about 30 years on its current trajectory of Formularies-lite. The current Global South rush to women bishops appears to be calcifying this move globally in the constitution of the GSFA. It is an interesting time to be an Anglican.
This echoes my feelings on the recent discourse surrounding the article in question so completely. There is not a point made here that I disagree with. And I think it's just so important.
I have felt that if Anglicanism does not have a theological content and richness of heritage beyond affiliation with Canterbury (as I can tell is some peoples stance on the matter), then the need to gatekeep it and preserve its identity in the first place becomes questionable. Not that the Communion has no value, I believe it does. But that doesn't and shouldn't mean it defines what Anglicansim is.
Thankfully, I don't think that Anglicanism is just communion with Canterbury. And I believe that Anglicanism is valuable and worth having, precisely because it has profoundly enriched my faith and relationship with Jesus.
It's frustrating and tragically common to witness some within The Episcopal Church deny our Anglican identity or advocate further discarding our theological, liturgical, and patrimonial heritage. Such horror is done at our peril.
I dearly hope and pray a greater embrace of Anglican identity and Anglican resourcement is the future in The Episcopal Church. I certainly will work to that end.
Edit: I should also say that I deeply appreciate the nuance regarding assumptions about how inclusion of LGBTQ people or a support of women's ordination is related (or rather, not related) to ones commitment to Anglican theological heritage and identity.
Thank you for this. I appreciate your clarity, as always. I do have questions. The C if E sis in fact have a Prayer Book revision planned in the 1920s, right. Very much like the Episcopal Church's 1928 version. It's rejection was a political decision, not the reaction of the governing bodies if the church. (Unless we count parliament as a governing body.) Why has the standard focused so heavily on 1662 when the Episcopal Church already had new versions of the prayer book beginning in 1789? As one who was firmed with the 1979 BCP I find the centrality of Holy Eucharist actually consistent with Cranmer, who assumed, as do we all, that the worshippers would also pray the Daily Office. What is it you find in 1979 that so radically diverges from Anglicanism? And you've no doubt written extensively about this, so links to relevant articles would be fine. I have great respect for your reasoning. Just wondering how we find ourselves apparently on different sides here.
I think focusing on particular rites, styles of rites and historic documents misses elements that truly make Anglicanism. I think "via media", worship in the vernacular (and I would also say style and community practice) of the congregation and community, and the three-legged stool of scripture-tradition-reason are far more definitive of being Anglican than particular rites and historical documents. These elements portray a tradition that would modify with its own experience and the social context that it finds it in, and therefore, wouldn't appear to be that of a previous era. It is meant to be living and breathing rather than nostalgia over cold imagery and practices. The presence, experience and integration of GLBTQ folks like me, for example, are an example of staying true to these important Anglican characteristics.
I remember many, many decades ago when I, as a very young seventh-generation (or perhaps more) Virginia Episcopalian first encountered a Black person who was not descended from African-American slaves (and, as a general rule, either Baptist or AME). She was, I recall, from Barbados. She seemed exceptionally familiar with church matters, so I asked her what her denomination was. She said, "I'm an Anglican." I was thunderstruck. A Black Anglican! To this day I recall a new sensation...a nascent feeling of pride and gratitude that I belonged to the worldwide Anglican Communion. That has been, ever since, a primary source of my identity.
Thank you for writing, Father Ben. As an LGBTQ person who is still fairly new to the Episcopal Church, I love how your piece both helps further inform me of our Anglican heritage and how it exposes the false disjunction of LGBTQ people/inclusion and the embracing of orthodoxy, as well as our particular tradition and Anglican heritage--not to mention it's helping me understand more of the history of how we got here! I appreciate your style that is generous to all parties cities while simultaneously voicing your critiques--an art form we need more of in our discourse in general today. God bless!
Rev, I think you hit the nail on the head. I (Mia culpa) was on of those who stated the article was scandalous. And I stand by that. We hold a very similar view towards "Anglican ethos" and I appreciate you highlighting the same concerns I had. It is scandalous to say Queer people like me are making the Episcopal Church lose its Anglican character, not the fact that we reject the Formularies. Thank you for your clarity 🙏
The author here forgets that from 1549 on, the Church of England, and the later provinces around the world have been wrestling with the Protestant-Catholic contrast, synthesis or dynamic, and most of all in the evolution of the Prayer Books. 1979 is the fulfillment of the long struggle to re-appropriate the theology and practice of the whole church before the Reformation. And that without pushing Protestant-minded Anglicans out of the communion. Many Anglicans have aways looked beyond the "Formularies" to understand them. For some the 1979 American book was the fulfillment of all the "Catholic" movement of all the years of Anglican history. But I don't remember many "evangelical" or "low-church" folks rejecting the 1979 Book on that account. And there is a reason for that.The ecumenical liturgical movement was going behind the 16th Century disputes to find a broad consensus across that 16th Century divide. To say nothing of the riches of the Easter church which continued an ancient church identity well beyond the West's Middle ages and 16th Century.
Thanks for this. Some thoughts of my own occasioned by this and the living church piece: https://lastschoolmen.substack.com/p/on-are-episcopalians-anglican-and?
"This is why my hope for the future of Anglicanism in North America is not in turning back the clock just a bit to the late twentieth century but embracing a yet older Anglican tradition." Quite compelling. Of course, the question is whether biblical theological anthropology and stable notions of gender are disposable in the Prayer Book-Ordinal-Articles tradition, or not. When one lives deep in those Formularies is becomes difficult, I would suggest, to avoid the cosmic significance of male-female anthropology based, as it is, on the deep mysteries disclosed in the Chalcedonian Definition itself, expositing Holy Writ. The difficulties in ACNA currently show how problematic that revision is and the next step for Episcopalians will be the hallowing of poly relationships, obviously, completing the departure from Chalcedon's nuptial significance. ACNA only trails behind by about 30 years on its current trajectory of Formularies-lite. The current Global South rush to women bishops appears to be calcifying this move globally in the constitution of the GSFA. It is an interesting time to be an Anglican.