A post or two ago a question was raised about the theological consistency of a commenter who drew attention to the importance of a Nicean Canon while also supporting the ordination of women. In other comments over the years I have been pressed by my critics in respect of the consistency of my theological arguments expressed here. Effectively these are charges that if I believe X I also ought to believe Y and Z, and since I don't my 'theological system' is weighed in the balance and found wanting. A further charge implied or even made explicit is along the lines that if I believe A, B, and C then I may as well go the whole hog, pop my swimming trunks on and swim the Tiber, or sign up to GAFCON. You will understand my disappointment that no one is offering me a free flight to Geneva or a cruise across the Bosphorous!
The question of theological consistency for Anglicans is actually quite an interesting one and I hope to explore it a little in a small series of posts. In the meantime here are links to two posts worth reading in their own right, but also worth reading as prolegomena for my small series.
Philip Turner on the achilles heal of Anglicanism.
Bryan Owen on the essence of Anglicanism.