Confused or bemused about what Anglicanism is or ought to be, Anglicans plough on with working out who we are, why we exist, what we could or should become. Ahead of a post or two I have previously signaled re diverse matters such as rubrics and GAFCON, I offer a couple of paragraphs posted on Euangelion by Michael Bird, cited from Stanley Hauerwas, with his own an interesting editorial note. Hauerwas, incidentally, could be described as an accidental Episcopalian:
"“Anglicanism is the name for the ongoing attempt to enact the interdependent character of churches in a manner that, in Kaye’s words, accomplishes ‘Catholicity without Leviathan’” (275). [NB from MB, I should add that in some cases Anglicanism can be like Protestantism without the Reformation or like Catholicity without Nicea].
“Anabaptists and Anglicans are seldom thought to share a common ecclesiology, but Kaye and Yoder have very similar understandings of the Catholic character of the church. I have often described my ecclesial identity to be that of a ‘high church Mennonite’ – to be sure, a descriptor originally designed to confuse my critics. But in light of the account of the catholic character of the church Yoder and Kaye provide, I hope my self-designation can be understood as a viable future for the church”"
The whole post, with reference to the original article by Hauerwas is here.
'Kaye' must be 'Bruce Kaye', a noted Australian Anglican writer and scholar (whom I had the pleasure of re-meeting at the recent SNTS conference in Perth).
Is anyone reading here a 'high church Mennonite'?
As a counterpoint I think I would describe myself as a low church conciliar (i.e. synodical) Catholic!