While Anglicans differ on many issues, they share not only a common history but a common interest in telling and retelling it. Essays in the present issue exemplify the concentration of these stories on three areas: the Bible, Liturgy and the Church itself. Historical or systematic attempts to define Anglicanism founder if attempts to identify essential elements are too prescriptive; but the shared reality and reflection on it constitute a characteristic form of Anglican theological practice.

The origins of the term consensus fidelium lie in the rhetorical tropes of pagans who exhorted unity between friends and within cities – tropes supporting the hierarchy of imperial elites. The earliest Christians adapted this language for the same purpose within churches: to speak of unity and lay involvement in support of Church hierarchy. After the Reformation, Church of England writers used this rhetoric to enforce conformity to church polity and morality. The Tractarians and their successors employed a rhetorical ‘voice of the laity’ as a bolster for episcopal power. While the early twentieth century saw some in the Church of England and Anglican Communion use this same rhetoric to bring the laity into actual decision-making processes, the rhetoric of recent statements by the Communion has left power firmly with bishops.

This essay examines the Anglican claim for the early church as the normative standard for liturgy, as reiterated throughout our history from the time of Thomas Cranmer through the liturgical revisions of the late twentieth century. A secondary claim of general uniformity through similarity in texts of common prayer is then discussed as a point of historic resonance for Anglican identity. Some very general examples of early church evidence follow, as a means of debunking the notion of a unified and simple structure for primitive liturgy. I will then discuss the notion of ‘early church’, and what we mean by terms like it, and follow this with a consideration of liturgical diversity. The gospel call to privilege Christian unity, I will assert, remains the primary stumbling block to the full embracing of the God-given diversity of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church.

The Revised Version is recalled in the history of English language biblical versions because of the intense public debates over its potential to supplant the Authorized Version of 1611. These highly politicized contests over text and translation have continued through to the present day and have sidetracked attention from the deeper issues of identity and status associated with scholarship and national standing. Philip Schaff led a committed and ambitious group of American Protestant and Unitarian scholars in efforts to be credited as equal participants with the English Revisers in the massive project of the revision of the long-standing and much-loved English translation. The formation of the American Revised Version Committee within a year of the commencement of the work of revision by the two English Revision Companies ushered in an immense behind-the-scenes struggle over the requisite standing for decisions over the wording of the revised translation. Linguistics and text became the arena on which contests for recognition, national pride and scholarly achievement were fought. The choice of weapons of influence ranged from promotion of academic ability to rhetorical appeals to threats of commercial subversion. This paper explores the significance of American efforts to be involved credibly and influentially in the work that culminated in the Revised Version of 1881/1885 in England and (as a testament to the standing of American biblical scholarship and the failure of international cooperation) the distinct American Standard Version of 1901.

A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England (1908) by G.R. Balleine (1873–1966) is the classic narrative history of the Anglican evangelical movement, still enduringly popular more than a century after its publication. It has long outlived its author but is usually read without reference to him. This paper examines Balleine's approach to historical research and demonstrates how his personal theological priorities shaped his History. In particular, it highlights his concerns in his parish ministry in Bermondsey, south London, for innovative evangelism, political activism and loyal Anglican churchmanship; his disinterest in doctrinal definitions and his abhorrence of ecclesiastical controversy. The paper argues that Balleine's lively account of Anglican evangelicalism's past in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was also an apologia and mandate for the future direction of the movement as it entered the twentieth century. It concludes by pointing to the sharp irony that while the History has gained a reputation for impeccable evangelical credentials, the historian was on a divergent trajectory away from his evangelical roots.

How can we explain the fact that the Anglican Covenant divides people of equal integrity and comparable wisdom around the world? We need to ask whether we have correctly understood both the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion and the terms of the Covenant. What is implied in being a Communion of Churches, where the churches are the subjects of the relationship of communion (koinonia)? What does the Covenant commit its signatories to and, in particular, what does it say about doctrinal and ethical criteria for communion? Is it legitimate to apply biblical covenant language, in which the covenant relationship is between God and Israel, to relations between churches? By addressing some of the concerns of those who oppose it, a case is made in favour of the Covenant and some reassurances are offered. In conclusion, the mystical dimension of being in communion is affirmed.