That’s the statement, in my view, which has caused all the trouble. Dismissive and downright ungenerous, ignorant and facile in its generalization.

Is the “emerging” of which you speak the current trend toward the attempt to find common ground amongst all religions?

If so, I’m wondering if there is concern that after the Roman Catholic Church is done wooing “stray” Christians back into it’s fold, there might not be a move to somehow make peace with non-Christian religions–thus ultimately “emerging” as a gigantic inter-spiritual conglomerate?

Some sort of Walter Sobchakesque comment seems in order here.

I was, in my mind, incorporating the various discussions I have been a part of in your recent posts on the “Apostolic Constitution” which often as not ended up discussing the phenomenon of Anglo-catholicism in general.

I can appreciate that you don’t find Anglicanism compelling. What is hilarious to my mind is that practically everything you said that keeps you from finding Anglicanism convincing is exactly what I found compelling. For me it was Anglicanism or “emerging” and I’m pretty sure I made the better choice.

However, since we’re now talking about Anglicanism as a whole, its not that I somehow think Anglican theology is “more” determined by its cultural ethos than other traditions. That idea doesn’t even make sense to me. The problem I have with Anglicanism (and the reason I would never become one personally) is the fundamentally national nature of the ethos itself that I find problematic as a unifying principle. The problem is not that Anglicanism is “determined by context” the problem is the material nature of the tradition itself. You’ve down a perfectly fine job of showing how diverse Anglicanism is, but that just makes my point. For all its diversity what does the various parts of Anglicanism have in common? What makes them some sort of unity? Clearly it isn’t episcopacy, or even a firmly articulated body of doctrine as Anglicanism, by its very nature tries to make room for about any theological belief possible.

The only thing that I see unifying Anglicanism is a vague sense of “Anglicanness” that is deeply rooted in a kind of nostalgic Anglophile sentiment. This isn’t to say that I don’t appreciate Anglicanism and many of the great things its produced (I love Rowan Williams and N.T. Wright and many other Anglican thinkers). Merely to say that what defines Anglicanism doesn’t seem to be doctrine or even specific ecclesial practice. Rather it is a sort of sentiment, deeply rooted in a kind of Anglo-Saxon ethos. That’s not the worst thing in the world or anything. I just don’t find it theologically compelling.

And so in the end I don’t give a damn what you call those Anglicans who would have swum the Tiber long ago but for their own sense of aesthetics; call them ‘catholics,’ I call them ‘papists,’ but that isn’t the larger point. What I’m trying to do is draw out your critiques and show how they can’t be used in the broad sense that you tend to use them. You seem to say that the “Anglo” is far too determinative for your sensibilities. Presumably more determinative than in other Traditions, otherwise what would be the point of the critique?

I fail to see how “anglo-catholic” theology is any more determined by context than any other Tradition and so I feel that if we want to extend a critique to a larger stream of Anglican thought which would fall into a self-described “catholic” category you’re just going to have to do better.

And the problem isn’t that there’s a cultural aesthetic. Of course there is. The issue is how much importance is accorded to it (esp wrt the issue under discussion). I don’t see much reason to find a tradition theologically compelling when its primary unifying principle is a sort of ethnically-based mood.