by Becky Garrison
In Christopher Armstrong’s brief history of U.S. fundamentalism, he cites that in the 1970s, “the movement began a tectonic shift from protecting theological truths in infra-denominational fights to guarding ‘Christian morality’ in a nation specially chosen by God.” As part of this shifting, terms like “evangelical” (Good News) and “Christian” (follower of Jesus Christ) were co-opted by these “gatekeepers,” and as such, these words lost their original meaning. The current blog buzz around author Anne Rice’s decision to leave Christianity raises the question as to whether or not even Jesus Christ would call himself a 21st century U.S. Christian.
In recent years, the term “Anglican” has also become distorted by those conservative evangelicals and traditionalists who have left the Anglican communion stating their opposition to the ordination of gays and women and the blessing of same-sex marriages. As I reported at Religion Dispatches the media’s interpretation, through contemporary evangelical eyes, presents a distorted picture of what constitutes Anglicanism.
The Rev. Dr. Maggi Dawn, Chaplain and Fellow of Robinson College at the University of Cambridge and author of The Writing on the Wall: High Art, Popular Culture and the Bible, provides some clarity in her definition of what it means to be an Anglican priest: “ … you must have been ordained in a recognized corner of the Anglican communion. Despite the current unrest, that does mean still being connected (even if unhappily so) to Lambeth.” She offers these insights into how this media coverage highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of Anglicanism:
It is broadly inclusive of quite a range of theological variation, and, despite the tendency to cultural imperialism in the past, also allows a lot of latitude in localizing itself culturally. So in practice, I suppose you could say that Anglicanism works a bit like a franchise with a lot of latitude in the license, the downside of which is that it isn’t always easy to spot the fakes.
Also, Anglicanism may appear to be Catholic in some of its ritualistic practices but its Protestant colors shine through in its governance, with the Archbishop of Canterbury functioning more as an advisor than a centralized authority figure. As Dawn notes, One of the glories of Anglicanism is that—unlike many older and younger versions of Christianity—you are allowed to disagree with your leaders and say so out loud. They even welcome it.
This diversity is reflected in the localized expressions of global Anglicanism that can differ widely not just by country but even within localized expressions of the faith. For example, here in New York City one can find a range of Episcopal Churches, from high church Anglo-Catholic to low church evangelical services that are more Protestant in nature. Despite some significant differences in theology and ecclesiology, all these churches remain affiliated with the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and as such they are part of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. (ECUSA), which is a branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By following the diocesan paper trail, one can easily make the connections to ascertain if a priest is part of the global Anglican Communion or if they are ordained by one of the more newly-formed splinter groups.
A genuine Anglican priest will originally have been ordained by a Bishop into a parish or other approved ministerial post (you can’t be ordained in the abstract, only into an active ministry) and will continue to be in a formal relationship with her or his Diocesan Bishop, and will usually have some form of license or certificate to prove it. Where priests work for institutions other than a Diocese (for instance hospital, educational or workplace chaplains or some mission organizations) this relationship becomes less immediate, and in some cases the link is less tangible. But appointment to such positions usually requires the endorsement of the Church, so there will probably be a file in a Bishop’s office somewhere to say so, and certainly somebody who can vouch for their validity as a priest.
Such splits between mainline institutions and their conservative brethren, who possess a more reformed theology, can be found in other mainline institutions. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), for instance, split from the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (PCUSA) at a constitutional assembly in December 1973. Hence, a national figure such as bestselling author Rev. Tim Keller should be designated “pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA).” When a media outlet like Newsweek labels Redeemer without the PCA designation, they give the false impression that Keller is part of the mainline Presbyterian church instead of an evangelical offshoot. Likewise, similar designations need to be applied to those Anglican clergy who belong to organizations and individuals who might call themselves Anglican but chose to cut themselves off from the Anglican Communion. Depicting those evangelical and traditionalists as Anglicans whitewashes centuries of church history by replacing the work of Anglican giants such as Richard Hooker with evangelical heavyweights like John Stott.
While one might consider these to be fights of no consequence to those outside the seemingly insular world of Anglicanism, this battle over the blessing of same sex unions and ordination of gay clergy needs to be placed in the larger context of the culture wars being waged by fundamentalist Christians against the rising forces of “secular humanism.” In the eyes of these righteous warriors, their chief enemies are feminists, gay activists and others who advance what they perceive to be the “secular humanist” agenda.
Becky Garrison’s books include Jesus Died for This? A Satirist’s Search for the Risen Christ (Zondervan, August 2010) and Starting from Zero with $0: Building Mission-Shaped Ministries on a Shoestring (Seabury Books, September 2010).

8 comments
becky says:
Aug 11, 2010
Point of clarification based on a comment made via my facebook page – Yes, John Stott is an Anglican, but I find his books are much more popular in evangelical rather than mainline circles.
Brian McKinlay says:
Aug 11, 2010
In Australia, and in much of the Anglican world, a priest is first ordained by his or her bishop and subsequently and separately appointed and licensed to a particular role. One is ordained in perpetuity, not to a specific post.
Jeremy says:
Aug 12, 2010
Must disagree with this analysis. It focuses on a single definition of Anglicanism — the institutional one — which turns on what is in, or what is out, of the Anglican Communion.
But there are other ways of looking at it — including the historical, according to which one would deem Anglican any denomination that was sprung, in some sense, from the Church of England, and that wished to retain its Anglican identity.
The Anglican Communion, after all, is a mid-19th-century creation. Was the US Episcopal Church, as of 1800, Anglican? Institutionally the answer is no. Historically and culturally, however, the answer is yes.
Anglicanism is a family of churches. Some of them go to the family reunions. Others don’t. But they’re still party of the family.
becky says:
Aug 12, 2010
Brian – thanks for your comment. I agree that once a priest is ordained, they remain a priest until death unless on the very oft chance they become defrocked. Many bishops will not ordain someone without a gig, others require the person has a post. There will be some exceptions but as a general rule, priests who function outside of a parish setting need to register with a specific diocese.
What I’m trying to clear up is confusion by the media who designate a priest “Anglican” without any qualifiers. This implies they are either members of the Anglican Communion or representative of true Anglicanism because by allowing for the ordination of gay clergy (and in some cases women as well and the blessing of same sex couples, the AC is no longer Anglican. (The majority of Anglican clergy who hold different views on this topic have chosen to stay as members of the Anglican Communion.) I will let history sort this one out but for now, those who have broken away from a denomination should be identified as such e.g., PCUSA or PCA, ELCA or Lutheran Missouri Synod, Anglican or AAC.
For example, Todd Hunter is designated in news stories as an Anglican bishop (http://bit.ly/1f8Sh5) without any qualifiers. Also, the means by which he was being elected as a bishop of the Anglican Mission of Americas is ad odds with how bishops are consecrated within the Anglican Communion.
I first raised this issue over at Religion Dispatches (http://bit.ly/amTV6J) when the media coverage of the formation of the AAC failed to make this distinction.
becky says:
Aug 12, 2010
Jeremy – My point isn’t to define what constitutes legitimate aka “authentic” Anglicanism. As noted in the previous comment, I’ll let 22nd century church historians parse that point. But I’m chiding the media for using the term “Anglican” without noting the variances, which are broad, vast and of consequence.
BTW, there’s a difference between refusing to attend a family reunion because you’re mad at some family members and seeking an actual divorce.
Valerie Tarico says:
Sep 1, 2010
I found this useful. Thank you. I recently met Anglicans in Africa who were small ‘f’ fundamentalists, a startling reminder of the diversity within denominations.
Many people assume that “Anglican” means whatever kind of community they are a part of, which creates a false sense of consensus about what matters. There’s no easy nomenclature. When I first wrote my book, The Dark Side (now ‘Trusting Doubt’), a friend read the manuscript and said, “The word ‘Christian’ here doesn’t fit for me.” I changed it to ‘Evangelical.’ At my first reading, a member of the audience came up and said, ‘I’m Evangelical’ and what you just said doesn’t fit for me. So it goes. There is no way to make statements about Christianity without overgeneralizing and oversimplifying, but I think the effort to wrestle with language is valuable.
Brain Gudmundsson says:
Sep 15, 2010
Wonderful way of considering, I’ll take this into consideration when examining following time. Appreciate it for discussing this matter nevertheless for a second time.
Ordained Into Wet Cement: What Does ‘Anglican’ Mean? Not @TheRevealer after all « Exploring Intersections says:
Sep 28, 2010
[...] by Christine A. Scheller Way back in August, when Becky Garrison wrote a little article “Ordained Into the Abstract: What Does Anglican Mean?” for The Revealer, which describes itself as “a daily review of religion and [...]