A Review of The Rev. Dr. Charles Erlandson’s Orthodox Anglican Identity: The Quest for Unity in a Diverse Religious Tradition
WHERE ARE WE HEADED?
The trajectory of Anglicanism is bleak or blossoming – depending on how you define Anglicanism. The Rev. Dr. Charles Erlandson provides a multifaceted definition for Anglicanism after weighing a variety of possible definitions along trajectories of ecclesial, normative, practical, and historical lines in his book, Orthodox Anglican Identity: The Quest for Unity in a Diverse Religious Tradition. The long title of this book indicates how difficult it is to adequately, much less sufficiently, and succinctly define Anglicanism. The Rev. Dr. Erlandson’s analysis is crucial for understanding why under the banner “Anglican” there exists contradictory diversities and dual “integrities” – much to the confusion of outsiders. This inability to articulate and define Anglicanism as a comprehensive and singular entity or theology frustrates non-Anglicans and Anglicans alike. Difficult as it may be, the Rev. Dr. Erlandson provides the clearest and most succinct definition of Anglicanism presently available: “Anglicanism is the life of the catholic church that was planted in England in the first few centuries after Christ; reshaped decisively by the English Reformation that reformed the received catholic traditions and also by the Evangelical and Catholic Revivals and other historical movements of the Spirit; and that has now been inculturated [sic] into independent, global churches.”[ii] However, such a definition fails to reveal an Anglican ethos that can guide orthodox Anglicans in the 21st Century and beyond. Before such a definition can be realized, Anglicanism’s present crisis must be properly diagnosed before a more sufficient and clear description can be articulated.
TROUBLE DEFINING ANGLICANISM
The ultimate definition chosen by the Rev. Dr. Erlandson is historical in nature, albeit through a healthy lens of the three stages (and emerging fourth stage) of Anglicanism he outlines in his work.[iii] Unfortunately, he rejects a normative definition in favor of a historical definition. He rejects a normative framework due to the present crisis in Anglican identity – namely the failure of ecclesial authority to enforce Anglican formularies.[iv] But this begs the question. Anglicanism’s present crisis, nay its disease, is a failure in ecclesial discipline enforcing its normative identity. Were Anglican provinces and the Anglican Communion as a whole to agree to enforce its normative foundations, the formularies, then it would not suffer from the disease of being ill-defined due to lax canonical discipline. As the author notes, “Anglicanism may be defined in terms of two kinds of formularies: general and special.”[v] These formularies include the universal catholic orthodox Church formularies[vi] and the uniquely Anglican formularies: “The Book of Common Prayer (especially the 1662), the Ordinal, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the canon law” of Anglican churches.[vii]
Defining Anglicanism – actual Anglicanism and not those who merely use the term “Anglican” in their name or as a description of their ecclesial tradition – must occur at the normative level.
We see through a mirror darkly 