The Three Faces of Anglicanism

I have been swimming in Anglican waters for approximately two and a half years. In the course of that time I have been keenly aware of the divide that exists between the conservative and orthodox as opposed to the progressive and liberal wing. This divide is vividly being played out as conservative Anglicans leave the Episcopal church in the United States and seek refuge from conservative bishops in the global south.

But what I was not fully aware of is a divide that lurks beneath the surface, hidden by the more pressing matter of essential orthodoxy and moral heresy. I am coming to understand that Anglicanism consists of three distinct groupings, and I will do my best to describe them here.


The first group would be the Revisionists. As I noted in other posts, this group is best thought of as advocates of what Bob Sanders has called the ecstatic heresy, that is, a belief that God is “ineffable”, not defined by revealed truth but by subjective experience of “God-consciousness”. As such, virtually anything is up for grabs in terms of doctrine and moral teaching. This group is exemplified by the consecration of an openly homosexual man as a bishop.

The second group is the Evangelical wing. It proponents would include folks like recently quoted D. B Knox, or John Stott or JC Ryle. Their main emphasis is the central tenets of evangelicalism, a commitment to the authority of scripture above all other authority and the firm commitment to salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ.

The third group is the Anglo-Catholic wing. It’s most visible figure would have been John Henry Newman, who in the end converted to Roman Catholicism. It’s main tenets would be a belief that the early, undivided church of the 1st-5th centuries should be the main arbiter of faith and practice, that apostolic succession, worship and sacrament are the great hallmarks of the church, and that many, of the "Romish" practices the Reformers rejected might be acceptable in a purified form. They are often referred to simply as “high church” Anglicans.

There is a great deal of cross pollination among these three groups. Many Anglo-Catholics would describe themselves as Evangelical, and vice versa. Many liberal Christians and even many gays would describe themselves as Anglo Catholic. One splinter group which describes itself as Evangelical is deeply committed to “inclusion” of gays. So the divisions are not clear cut, but hopefully some central tenets can be described.

It is my growing conviction that in spite of the overarching desire for orthodox Anglicanism to be the “middle way”, that even though High Church and Low church Anglicans are both in the “orthodox” camp, affirming the Nicene Creed and essential theology of God and central Christology, that there are major and possibly irreconcilable differences over soteriology and sacramental theology.

High Church and Low church conservatives have banded together to resist the heresies of the Revisionist wing. What remains to be seen is whether they will be able to resolve their own differences if and when the final separation from the liberals occurs.

For the record, I would definitely sympathize with the low church camp. As much as I long for a “mere Christianity” that does not divide over non-essentials, I am coming to believe “high” and “low” church distinctions are not about formal or informal worship style. There are deep differences regarding the relationship of sacrament to soteriology, and those differences are not easily dismissed as non-essentials.

So I will over the next few posts, attempt to describe those differences, fairly if I can. What is unclear to me, is whether in the end any of the three strands of Anglican religion will ultimately be compatible. I believe most cradle Anglicans would rather die than leave their Anglican tradition, so they are quite willing to carry on as Anglicans, knowing that they may have little in common theologically with the fellow sitting in the next pew. Yet once one understands a couple of the key issues, it gets difficult to see a compromise...one side would have to 'win' to resolve the conflict, and it is doubtful true believers on either side will give up.

Theology and church history are massive, confusing topics. There are a few things I wish I had known a few years ago...

Next post: The Evangelical Face of Anglicanism.