I got my first copy of First Things in the mail yesterday, a respected Catholic periodical that welcomes contributions from different (conservative) traditions on the subject of faith in the public square. One of the many articles of particular interest in this month’s issue was one entitled “What Is Anglicanism?” by Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda (not available online). In it he draws attention to the crisis in Anglicanism, yet acknowledges that it difficult to reduce to a one-size-fits-all description. Is it over human sexuality? Globalization? Authority? Identity?

For those not familiar with The Anglican Communion it has always been an odd duck in the history of the church. It is no mere denomination (though if one wants to label things like that—think The Episcopal Church of the United States), and it is perhaps the most “unified” expression Protestantism in the world today. Yet it remains a kind of “black sheep” in the family of Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox if one is to think of it in terms of the universal church.

From its beginnings it was mired in controversy. Unlike the continental Reformation of European Christianity inspired by the theological protests of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, the Church of England (the mothership of Anglicanism) broke away from Rome over a political issue. In contempt for his wife Catherine of Argon, Henry VIII sought an annulment from Pope Clement VII so that he could marry the pregnant Anne Boleyn in hope of siring a male heir to the throne. The pope, however, was reluctant to give sanction to the divorce as Catherine of Argon was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, a deep political ally that provided military security to the Roman See. True to his arrogant nature, King Henry simply made an act of supremacy and found someone who would. Thomas Cranmer, the new archbishop of Canterbury, was found willing to ratify the divorce and married Henry and Anne Boleyn in January 1533.

In a sense, it is not inaccurate to say that the Anglican Communion was founded upon compromise. Of course, there were many other factors in play as well. Certainly, the English Reformation had affinity with the European one and benefited economically by leaving Rome’s authority, but compromise would not cease to haunt Anglican identity and has been with it in every age since. English Puritans who were nonetheless pleased with the break with Rome still found the Church of England to be too “popish” and sought to rid it of all Catholic influence. When this failed the Puritans, in search of a new and improved religious state made pilgrimage to America. It might be a bit of a stretch to say, but the perceived compromise in the Anglican community helped give birth to a nation. Of course, there were those that stayed and tried to revive the Anglican churches, but they were ridiculed and ostracized. The names of its most famous self-identified reformers were John and Charles Wesley, both who considered themselves Anglicans. With the “failure” of their reform came the Methodists and the rise of Evangelicalism. Even today, one cannot read about the Anglican Communions in the West and not run into debates about homosexuality and the episcopate. Orombi’s insightful article most certainly touches on the issue of compromise in survey of this state of affairs.

However, it would be entirely wrongheaded to surmise that the Anglican Communion has been nothing more than a Laodicean Church imbibed with worldly values. It has had a monumental impact on the world for Christ. The continent of Africa would not be evangelized today if it were not for its devout missionaries and martyrs. It’s consistent stance against slavery inspired by the work of William Wilberforce (an Anglican) even inspired the so-called “African Apostles” like Samuel Ajayi Crowther to reach out to their native lands (though they were not without their obstacles from European racism). Today, Anglicanism’s passion for evangelism lives on in the Global South and boasts influential evangelical leaders like John Stott, J.I. Packer, Peter Toon, and N.T. Wright. 

For Orombi, the crisis of Anglicanism is between what he terms “doctrine” and “discipline,” or the authority of Scripture and the influence of culture. Anglicanism’s vast experience with mission work has taught that cultural influence and expression is unavoidable and that it takes profound wisdom to carefully discern in what is appropriate in faith and practice. For the Global South the authority of Scripture cannot be compromised, for it has transformed their cultures from primitive tribalism to worship of the triune God. This is no Eurocentric interpretation of history. It comes from the mouths of Africans who testify to Christ as Lord.

The crisis has manifested itself all throughout Anglicanism’s history. Thomas Cranmer might be fairly construed as a worldly opportunist by Catholic opponents, but it was his faithfulness to Scripture that formed the Anglican liturgy and the famous Book of Common Prayer. Nominal Anglicans in all parts of the world have been blessed by this bedrock of orthodoxy when revival came to believers through the work of the Wesley’s or African missionaries. Even today’s archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams seems to fit this mold in an uncanny way with a mixture of faithfulness to orthodox tradition and compromise with changing culture mores. Still, one has to wonder if he would go to the stake like Cranmer did in the face of the notorious figure like “Bloody Mary.”

How Anglicanism will shape itself into the 21st century is for God to decide, but I would predict that it will be in the mold it has been in for centuries and it difficult to say whether that is a good or bad thing.