A vigorous discussion over the weekend here has reminded me that several lines (faultlines?) of Anglican discussion and debate intersect when we ask 'what is Anglican?'
One line, in my estimation, is the line of thought about what constitutes classical or ideal Anglicanism.
On a ramble around the internet, to say nothing of a walk backwards through Anglican history, we see different proposals: here the free spirit of Celtic Christianity in ancient England, there the glories of the English Reformation (with that line split into those somewhat comfortable with the Elizabethan Settlement and those thinking that the Reformation was something of a still-born child who should be revived and grown to Puritan maturity), over there the wonders of Laudian high church predilection, off to one side the energies of the Evangelical Revival of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, close by which are the similar energies of Anglo-Catholicism, and newly arrived on the scene is Fresh Expression Anglicanism. By no means is this list of possibilities for classical or ideal Anglicanism exhaustive.
Another line is the line between (or is it through?) worship and mission. Is Anglicanism at its best when concentrating on the provision of wonderful worship (this being a means to engage in God's mission in the world)? Or at its best when focused on marvellous mission, making up as the mission goes along, the liturgies required to enable new converts to Christ to worship decently and in order? Is it an 'either/or'? Perhaps Anglicanism is 'at its best' when engaged simultaneously in provision of worship and opportunities for mission?
In each case of thinking liturgically and thinking missionally, the crucial decision we take is to be obedient to Christ's command. Go and do. Love.
When we are thus obedient we face subsequent decisions. Mission, for instance, has scarcely been successful if it does not lead to baptisms. Baptism raises questions about the content of the baptism liturgy we use (and how we will gather together to answer those questions). Eucharist, to take another example, is scarcely successful if it is not a 'Mass', an occasion from which we are dismissed into the world to extend the grace of God which we have just received. Such mission raises questions about the content of our message, including the language (words, signs, symbols, actions) we will use to proclaim the gospel.
Some difficulties being reflected on here in comments arise (I venture to suggest) because we have become weighed down with the concerns of one line or the other or both.
Our liturgies, for instance, can be the means by which we express our commitment to ideal Anglicanism and all too easily that expression can be the priority in worship rather than the mission worship is intended to precede (and proceed to).
Our missional activity can overwhelm us (so many people have not heard the gospel, need feeding/housing/healing, etc) to the point where we dismiss liturgy from the concerns of our mission (rather than attend to liturgy so that it can dismiss us, refreshed and renewed, into our mission).
Discussion is good about what is Anglicanism and where is it heading in the twenty-first century. But is Jesus calling us beyond discussion to decision? And is the decision to make a new resolve to integrate mission and worship?