I had better nail down what I mean by 'post-Anglican' before I offer a view on the emergence of a post-Anglican denomination (as promised two days ago for Monday, which is now a broken promise for Tuesday!).
An excursion backwards is called for, in order to better understand what 'Anglican' means.
Once upon a time, let's call it the Old Testament period, Israel developed ways of responding to God which involved action and reflection, sacrificial worship and exposition of texts. The story is told in such a way that suggests that the sacrificial worship (shrines, Tabernacle then Temple) developed first and exposition of texts followed (think Ezra, post Exile). But the complicated textual reality is that all of the Old Testament which we have received from Israel is a post Exilic document, that is, a story told from the perspective of the time when the nascent theology of Israel had been shattered by national catastrophe.
Effectively the Old Testament is a reconstruction of Israel's theology in ways which both explained how the catastrophe occurred and what the consequences of the catastrophe were. If you cannot see what this has to do with 'Anglican' ... hang in there! In this reconstruction, we read of the Temple and of the Law, of the place where sacrificial action occurred and of the text which both prescribes how the sacrificial action should be governed and sets down the key to Israel's future avoidance of catastrophe, that is, it must obey the Law, in every aspect of life, in contrast to pre Exilic Israel which, despite some contrary positive examples (e.g. Josiah), was conspicuous in its disobedience.
Further, the Old Testament as we have received it has a strong strand of history and theology based around the Law and a weaker strand based around the Temple.
The Law-based history is called the Deuteronomistic History (think Deuteronomy, Joshua through to 2 Kings, as well as the prophet Jeremiah, but Genesis, I suggest, is also history told in this perspective). It tells us who was obedient and who was disobedient (now we might see one connection to modern global Anglicanism!!) in accordance with Deuteronomy's view that obedience to the Law brings blessings and disobedience brings curses. In general this version of Israel's history explains the shattering judgement of God via the exile of (northern) Israel (721 BC), the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple (597 BC) and the exile of (southern) Israel = Judah (587 BC) as a judgement on disobedience.
The Temple-based history is told in 1 and 2 Chronicles (with some influence through Nehemiah and Ezra, but they also have Law-leanings). In these books, which begin the history of Israel with Adam (1 C 1:1), attitudes to the Temple are what cut the mustard. Israel (i.e. the northern kingdom which seceded from Judah after Solomon's death) drops out of the telling. Only the kings of Judah are bothered with by the Chronicler. While their misdeeds have some commonality with their stories told in 1 and 2 Kings, generally their attitudes to the Temple come to the fore. David, to give an outstanding instance, is the great king who wishes to build a house for God. Of his adulterous, Law-breaking dalliance with Bathsheba you will not find a whisper (1 C 11-end). Just as strikingly, Mannaseh who is a wicked king according to 2 Kings 21 fullstop, with not a whisper of repentance, is presented by the Chronicler as a wicked king who repents and in his repentance 'restored the altar of the Lord' (1 C 33:1-20).
The conflict between these two theologies comes to a head with Jeremiah. He predicts the demise of Judah. His rival prophets say all will be well despite the gathering of dark Babylonian clouds on the horizon. Jeremiah has a keen eye on the Covenant with Moses, which gave both the Law and the stipulations concerning disobedience to the Law. The rival prophets mistakenly think the Covenant with David, which appears to have no such stipulations, trumps the Covenant with Moses: the house of God will be forever and thus Jerusalem will never fall. Jeremiah, as we know, was right. His rivals were wrong. Fascinatingly, each theological history offers a slightly different version of God's Covenant with David. 2 Samuel 7:14 includes words not found in 1 Chronicles 7:13: 'When he [i.e. David's descendants on David's throne] commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod which mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.' Is this an editorial attempt to reconcile the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants?
The loss of the Solomonic Temple at the hands of the Babylonians fuelled the rise of the synagogues in Israel (and in its diaspora) as places beyond the fortunes of the Temple in which faithful believers could use scrolls to preserve the sacred texts of Israel and read, study and explain them. Worship in the synagogues, based on reading, speaking and prayer would later influence the course of Christianity, feeding into its worship what we describe as services of the Word, whether as standalone services or as one half of eucharistic services.
But the loss of the Solomonic Temple also fuelled intense desire to build a new Temple, a desire fulfilled in the post Exilic period. Once again sacrifice occurred as the core action in the worship of Israelites. In the long run, for Israel, the synagogue developments proved the better bet. When the Temple was finally lost to Israel in 70 AD it was set forever on a course of text-based worship. But meanwhile Christianity appropriated sacrificial action in the Temple, guided by Jesus' own instruction and Paul and other Christian interpreters of the cross, to formulate the eucharistic acts of taking bread and wine, giving thanks, and distributing the bread and wine as symbols of the supreme fulfilment of sacrifice in the Temple, the crucifixion of the Lamb of God. Eucharistic worship for Christians is the appropriation of the great Temple stream of theology and history in the Old Testament. Like the Old Testament with its rules and regulations for pure Temple worship, so we have our rules and regulations for the proper ordering of eucharistic worship, including the paraphanalia of ordination and ordained ministry (who wears what robes, who may do what part of the eucharistic service).
Where am I going with this?
I suggest that the Anglican church, with its peculiar history of being once part of the undivided catholic church, then part of the Western church, then reformed in the English Reformation but retaining elements of catholic Christianity other reforming churches gave up on (especially concerning the ordering of worship, i.e. ordination in three orders), then later partially re-appropriating other elements of catholic Christianity through the Anglo-Catholic movement, is a blessed beneficiary of the fullness of both strands of ancient Israel's worship. No other church (I think it can be argued) places equal weight on both ministry of the Word and ministry of the Sacrament. Other churches come close such as the modern Roman Catholic church and the Plymouth Brethren, but the former does not place as much importance on exegetical preaching as Anglicans do and the latter has a very light 'ordering' of its eucharistic worship. Nevertheless it is also true that the Anglican church is a peculiar church in this way: it does not require of itself that equal weight is given everywhere and in every service to Word and Sacrament.
Thus we find that a typical service in one Anglican parish is a Word-based service, with no breaking of bread; while in another parish a typical service is a Word and Sacrament service, but the weight of the service falls on the celebration of communion, perhaps represented by a shorter sermon than a Word-based parish would desire. Put another way, parishes emphasising the ministry of the Word through preaching often reduce the number of celebrations of communion (say, from weekly to monthly) in order to enhance the time available for a longer sermon.
Further, it may be observed in some of those parishes which happily have a shorter sermon in order to have a weekly celebration of communion, that there are extra elements added into the service, drawn from Roman rites, which are designed to develop the theology of the Sacrament (and only that part of the service) in ways which the reformation of the Church of England had eschewed.
That is, in Old Testament terms, we can find 'synagogue' Anglicans at worship, and 'Temple' Anglicans at worship. The genius of modern Anglicanism, that is, since the beginning of the twentieth century, has been its unwillingness to resolve the tension between 'synagogue' and 'Temple', between Word and Sacrament. Consequently we have been a church which has both espoused through liturgical revision around the Communion a desired balance between Word and Sacrament while tolerating congregations within our midst that do not seek to live out that desired balance.
In order to get to where I want to get tomorrow, when I open up the possibility of the emergence of a post Anglican denomination in New Zealand, it will help to have this background in mind. In a church of Word and Sacrament, of Bible and eucharist, in which the opportunity for equal weighting of both is offered but not imposed, there is always the possibility that an emphasis on one and not the other will lead to dissonance with the mainstream of Anglican life ...
Also in the background here is an important observation about the Bible, especially in this post concerning the Old Testament, that it is a 'wide' rather than 'narrow' set of scriptures, in which a variety of theological approaches to the work of God in the world are presented. A key to understanding modern Anglicanism flows from this observation ...
Thus, as a provisional working definition of 'post-Anglican', I offer this: the state in which Anglicans find themselves in when they can no longer live out what it means to be church within the peculiarity of modern Anglicanism's refusal to resolve the tension between Word and Sacrament.