In the Anglican Church of Australia, clergy are still bound to assent to the articles and sign a declaration to that effect together with the oath of canonical obedience.
In Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South, if I recall correctly, the main character's father resigns from the clergy because he is possibly about to be transferred to a new parish. He realizes that he can no longer honestly subscribe to the Articles as he would have to do again at his new church and therefore in good conscience he can also not dodge the issue by remaining at his current church. (No spoiler; this is right at the start and sets the plot in motion.)
If there is a canon in the Episcopal Church that makes the 39 articles binding I genuinely would like to see it. Do you have a link? I'm relatively new to TEC so if they are, then that is news to me. To me then, that just further illustrates the problem. TEC tries to be (almost) everything for everybody. If I discovered I were truly in dissent, then I'm not sure where I'd go but I probably wouldn't have become Episcopalian. Rome wouldn't like me because I'm LGBTQ+ affirming. TEC, and the rest of the communion, should follow their canons.
I'm an Anglo-Catholic in TEC who is happy the articles have gone by the wayside, but I completely agree with you that this is a problem, along with the larger problem you identified within the Anglican Communion. I think this lack of regard for the canons is rampant at the parish level. It sometimes feels like we are congregationalists and that we don't care much for episcopal oversight
Those "committed to readings like his of Anglicanism as ‘mere Christianity’ (or, for that matter, of Anglicanism as a via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism"--guilty as charged, I suppose. I note that Anglicans are not the only ones who sometimes think of themselves this way--when I became Lutheran (before I was Anglican), this was explicitly part of the pitch for Lutheranism, too, as finding the happy medium between Catholicism and Protestantism. But regardless, it is part of what has appealed to me about Anglicanism.
When the historic documents of Anglicanism rail against the "fond" errors of "Romish Doctrine", I'm here for it, at least to a point. Article 14, for example--that we can't go "above and beyond" what God requires of us, in such a way that He owes us one--seems to me both obviously correct, and fatal to the logic of Rome's position in the disagreements about indulgences that led to the "Protest" of Protestantism in the first place. (--and to Rome's stated positions to this day!)
Meanwhile in Articles 11 and 12, while I agree with them (consistent with the above) that of course we can't earn or deserve heaven (we don't save ourselves or make God owe us one), they seem determined to phrase their claims in such a way as to clarify that they definitely mean a more extremely Protestant version of the doctrine of "faith alone"--that our salvation or justification is a moment in time that precedes any significant good works (that is, moral choices) we make, rather than that our cooperating with God's work in us is a non-optional part of how our salvation or justification is accomplished (i.e., that we are saved through our works as well as faith)--that is not consistent with the biblical text. Our Catholic brothers love to point out that there's only one place in the whole Bible where the phrase "faith alone" appears, and it's in the Epistle of James, where it says "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." But I can concede for purposes of argument that that's too clever; even if we threw out the Book of James entirely, there would still be countless other places in the biblical text that rule out the extreme version of "faith alone", from Christ's earnest warning (in Matthew 18) that God won't forgive us unless we forgive others, to His promises in Revelation that where we end up depends on whether we stick with Him. ("Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life"; "He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death"; "And I will give to each one of you according to your works." Etc.)
Where would that leave us, in your opinion? If I and others are required to subscribe to all the 39 Articles to be Anglican, and we disagree with at least one fundamental doctrine therein, and thus perhaps cannot be Protestant of any confession; and disagree with at least one fundamental Catholic doctrine as well; and throughout remain convinced that Christianity is true--to whom shall we go?
A very helpful corrective. If I were to push back on the applicability of the XXXIX Articles in the ACoC today, I might ask 'do you not think that the XXXIX Articles are unacceptable in their current form?' They require, for example, male only ordination (Art. XXIII). In my own ACNA jurisdiction the XXXIX Articles are similarly denigrated (despite being similarly canonically enshrined as you have well established for ACoC) because such commentators generally want to propagate practices and doctrine contrary to the Articles, like eucharistic adoration (among the spikey A-C folks) and women's ordination (among the more progressive minded).
Or perhaps your point here is more specifically historical and you would advocate abolishing subscription in the ACoC today?
In the Anglican Church of Australia, clergy are still bound to assent to the articles and sign a declaration to that effect together with the oath of canonical obedience.
In Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South, if I recall correctly, the main character's father resigns from the clergy because he is possibly about to be transferred to a new parish. He realizes that he can no longer honestly subscribe to the Articles as he would have to do again at his new church and therefore in good conscience he can also not dodge the issue by remaining at his current church. (No spoiler; this is right at the start and sets the plot in motion.)
If there is a canon in the Episcopal Church that makes the 39 articles binding I genuinely would like to see it. Do you have a link? I'm relatively new to TEC so if they are, then that is news to me. To me then, that just further illustrates the problem. TEC tries to be (almost) everything for everybody. If I discovered I were truly in dissent, then I'm not sure where I'd go but I probably wouldn't have become Episcopalian. Rome wouldn't like me because I'm LGBTQ+ affirming. TEC, and the rest of the communion, should follow their canons.
I'm an Anglo-Catholic in TEC who is happy the articles have gone by the wayside, but I completely agree with you that this is a problem, along with the larger problem you identified within the Anglican Communion. I think this lack of regard for the canons is rampant at the parish level. It sometimes feels like we are congregationalists and that we don't care much for episcopal oversight
Those "committed to readings like his of Anglicanism as ‘mere Christianity’ (or, for that matter, of Anglicanism as a via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism"--guilty as charged, I suppose. I note that Anglicans are not the only ones who sometimes think of themselves this way--when I became Lutheran (before I was Anglican), this was explicitly part of the pitch for Lutheranism, too, as finding the happy medium between Catholicism and Protestantism. But regardless, it is part of what has appealed to me about Anglicanism.
When the historic documents of Anglicanism rail against the "fond" errors of "Romish Doctrine", I'm here for it, at least to a point. Article 14, for example--that we can't go "above and beyond" what God requires of us, in such a way that He owes us one--seems to me both obviously correct, and fatal to the logic of Rome's position in the disagreements about indulgences that led to the "Protest" of Protestantism in the first place. (--and to Rome's stated positions to this day!)
Meanwhile in Articles 11 and 12, while I agree with them (consistent with the above) that of course we can't earn or deserve heaven (we don't save ourselves or make God owe us one), they seem determined to phrase their claims in such a way as to clarify that they definitely mean a more extremely Protestant version of the doctrine of "faith alone"--that our salvation or justification is a moment in time that precedes any significant good works (that is, moral choices) we make, rather than that our cooperating with God's work in us is a non-optional part of how our salvation or justification is accomplished (i.e., that we are saved through our works as well as faith)--that is not consistent with the biblical text. Our Catholic brothers love to point out that there's only one place in the whole Bible where the phrase "faith alone" appears, and it's in the Epistle of James, where it says "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." But I can concede for purposes of argument that that's too clever; even if we threw out the Book of James entirely, there would still be countless other places in the biblical text that rule out the extreme version of "faith alone", from Christ's earnest warning (in Matthew 18) that God won't forgive us unless we forgive others, to His promises in Revelation that where we end up depends on whether we stick with Him. ("Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life"; "He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death"; "And I will give to each one of you according to your works." Etc.)
Where would that leave us, in your opinion? If I and others are required to subscribe to all the 39 Articles to be Anglican, and we disagree with at least one fundamental doctrine therein, and thus perhaps cannot be Protestant of any confession; and disagree with at least one fundamental Catholic doctrine as well; and throughout remain convinced that Christianity is true--to whom shall we go?
A very helpful corrective. If I were to push back on the applicability of the XXXIX Articles in the ACoC today, I might ask 'do you not think that the XXXIX Articles are unacceptable in their current form?' They require, for example, male only ordination (Art. XXIII). In my own ACNA jurisdiction the XXXIX Articles are similarly denigrated (despite being similarly canonically enshrined as you have well established for ACoC) because such commentators generally want to propagate practices and doctrine contrary to the Articles, like eucharistic adoration (among the spikey A-C folks) and women's ordination (among the more progressive minded).
Or perhaps your point here is more specifically historical and you would advocate abolishing subscription in the ACoC today?