The Essence of the Problem of Anglican Identity

It seems to me that the problem is pretty simple: to the extent that Anglicans identify as Protestants rather than Catholics, then what we call "Anglicanism" is going to be all over the place, because Protestantism is all over the place.  Not only could the original Reformers not unify eccesially or dogmatically, Protestantisms became increasingly variform with the passing of time.  Just look at "Anglicanism's" history: reform, followed by Englightenment-style deform, followed by various and sundry "conservative" reactions and "revivals", precisely what happened in the Continental Reformations.  Anglicans don't know who they are because Protestants don't know who they are.

One defender of Anglo-Protestantism recently answered my argument thusly: "One cannot sever the catholic super structure of Anglicanism-Andrewes' tidy one canon, two testaments, three creeds, four councils and five centuries is a good, albeit noncomprehensive expression-from sola scriptura, justification by faith alone and all the other emphases of Reformation Christianity, without distorting the essence of Anglicanism as a historic Christian tradition"

But who gets to say that Andrewes' formula constitutes the superstructure of Anglicanism? (Why 4 and not 7? Why 5 and not 10?)

What is "classical" Anglicanism? Reformed, Old High Church and Anglo-Catholic "Anglicans" all give different answers. The charismatics chime in and say, "we're classical Anglicans too."

Sola scriptura? But what about when a noted Anglican patrologist, J.N.D. Kelly, correctly says of the Fathers "Anglicans" say they follow, "Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness" (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48).

Sola fide? Seems to me that one got bent beyond original recognition by some of the Caroline divines. Then along comes N.T. Wright. Which is the truly "Anglican" view of justification?

This is why I think Abp. Mark Haverland nails it in his 1995 article, "What Is Anglicanism?". There is simply no way to solve the problem of Anglican identity other than to believe and proclaim that an Anglican:

"-- . . ." Church" essentially is a community of Christians gathered around a bishop in the Apostolic Succession in a given territory. "The Church" is the community of bishops, and of Christians in union with them, throughout the world. Since ancient times bishops and their dioceses have been grouped under the authority of metropolitans in provinces. Metropolitans and their provinces in turn have been grouped under primates (or patriarchs) in "Churches", which often have had national or ethnic identities. While the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople have ancient primacies of honor over other patriarchs, no primate has universal jurisdiction or infallible authority apart from the whole Church and the community of other bishops.

-- There were seven Ecumenical Councils in the undivided, ancient Church whose doctrine, discipline, and moral teachings bind us. There have been no Councils of similar authority since.

-- There are seven sacraments, as both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches teach. Two of these sacraments are "generally necessary for salvation", but the other five are no less sacraments."

I would add to this list that Anglicans are Augustinians, which means that they should hold to Augustine's doctrine of grace AND his doctrine of the Church. The pre-Reformation Augustinian trajectory should be enough for us: we don't need Luther as long as we have Anselm, Bernard, et al., and we won't be guilty of believing what McGrath admits is a "theological novum" that Augustine would never have affirmed.