I hardly need to comment these days when More than a via media draws attention to vital and interesting matters. This post is headed Sydney's identity crisis. For those interested in the affairs of the Diocese of Sydney this post is very interesting, not least because it draws attention to a blog post by one Michael Jensen which raises interesting questions about the future character of Sydney Anglicanism. Joshua Bovis also posts on this.
However my own interest is piqued more by what MTAVM says re the role of liturgy in the life of the Anglican church. I agree with him.
Our identity is bound in our liturgy; denude ourselves of our liturgy and our identity changes. At first sight the change may not be apparent - for example a non-liturgical Anglican church may continue to call itself 'Anglican'. Also change may be complex: an apparently non-liturgical Anglican church may, in hidden ways, continue its liturgical tradition, for example via its staff using the daily office.
Anyway, in some parts of the world of churches named 'Anglican', there may be change occurring such that the name 'Anglican' has less and less meaning.
In this (long) essay, A better future for the Anglican Communion?, by Savi Hensman, and posted on Ekklesia, a clever critique is mounted, attacking by turns both Canterbury and the Covenant.
In the course of Hensman's essay the point is made that while some parts of the Anglican world may be agreeable to signing the Covenant if it is a 'discipline TEC' measure, they will be resistant to abiding by the Covenant if it is applied to their own situation!
Even a Covenant supporter such as myself must recognise that there are interesting questions about just which Anglicans are going to sign the Covenant and which ones will abide by the Covenant (these two groups may not be co-terminous)!
Then there is the question of the genuine Anglicanness of the signers: could an Anglican signatory find itself a few years later more or less 'no longer Anglican'?
Lurking somewhere in all of this is the question whether being Anglican involves interdependency with other Anglicans, and whether this interdependency extends beyond the bounds of national churches? Critics of the Covenant, even sophisticated ones such as Hensman, may be missing the point that this is God's time for the Anglican Communion to take an important step towards becoming a world church as well as being a world communion.