This is problematic and hopefully not a representation of the majority of Anglican churches in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). That said, there were some positives, and I would like to highlight those first.
The sections on church calendar were great. The most encouraging part of the book was Part II - Walking the Anglican Way. This is a section they highlights, how those who are looking for a Christian heritage and tradition can find a theologically robust expression and share it with their Catholic brethren. There is much here, that even if you were not Anglican or Catholic, you could adopt. For example, who doesn’t want 12 days of Christmas! I think this book does a great job of explaining the value of tradition and why it’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel.
The author accurately captures Christian cultures within the different denominations. However, there are several points that stick out as problematic. But there are still problems, several problems in fact.
1. Starting with Love; this sounds like a good theology, but Love is not defined the same by everyone. This is affirmed by McKenzie in the early parts in the book and later where he discusses the ordination of a gay bishop as the “straw breaking the camels back.” This clearly shows that the way to love individuals in the Episcopal Church, versus the ACNA Church, differs due to their theological positions and the reason for the split. This is one of the authors main points of the book, and is odd that he would blatantly contradict himself. This is the same line of argument that many mainstream evangelical churches are taking and it’s troublesome to see a priest take the same approach here in a tradition with a rich history of taking stands for their theology.
2. Equivocation on the Anglican Way. The author regularly attempts to cover for heresy by his episcopal counterparts by merely stating that heresy in the Episcopalian Church is simply “not following the Anglican Way”. This is not the case; these churches explicitly reject the teachings of Christ and the creeds; creeds that McKenzie states are required in order to be recognized as “Christian”. This equivocation is not merely the result of two denominations having different “preferences” of theological expression, they are substantially different theologies and should not be muddled by ambiguous language in order to preserve a pseudo-unity. At one point McKenzie states that he has “lied to keep the peace”. He states this WITHOUT acknowledgement that it’s wrong, especially for a priest! One cannot help but wonder, with all the ambiguity, is he being deceptive here to make Anglicanism more appealing to those on the outside?
3. Relativism: the book has, as one person in our catechism class said, “a relativistic flavor throughout”. This is accurate. There are big differences in the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and McKenzie does not seem overly concerned with ensuring that you know the difference, but rather presents a live-your-truth kind of message. The only difference is, instead of your truth being universally relative, he thinks you should live your relativistic Christian faith however you see fit; this also seems to contradict the whole purpose of the ACNA. Which was founded in response to episcopal churches living their flavor of Christianity. At one point, it even appears that McKenzie is ok with participating in a Catholic Mass without having been confirmed, something we discovered is a deceptive action and disrespectful of the denomination of Catholics.
4. Finally, lack of consistency. During the ecclesiology section, the discussion is around Bishops and charismatic experience. McKenzie discusses the role of Charismatic experiences of his own and how God had changed his views on his belief about God and femininity. However, he gives no discussion on the obvious question that comes from the description of Bishops and their authority over priests with charismatic expressions; mainly, to ensure that priests aren’t out of line theologically. So what happens when a Bishop informs a priest that the theology he has adopted due to a charismatic experience is invalid? McKenzie doesn’t tell us. This is problematic and feels like a half truth. Come join the Anglican Way, and you get liturgy and charismatic theology without any smack down from a Cessationist. This seems misleading again, and clarifying the disciplinary authority on bad charismatic experiences, of which we all know occur, would be helpful for those to have a clear view of what Anglog-Charismata is under authority of Bishops.
Granted the Anglican tradition is huge and very diverse. However the author should be clear that those who deny the faith, creeds, the resurrection of Christ, etc. are not “outside the Anglican way” they are not Christians. If there is a revision, there should be a new part added that discusses the differences between the Anglican Way, the non-Anglican way but still Christian, and those who claim Christianity but are not. Pretending like we are on the same page does not help the church flourish; it makes the church a relic that is unclear and incapable of accomplishing its goal of discipleship and sacramental worship. I hope McKenzie recognizes that clarity of thought is the first rule of a book, and that someone of his caliber is either intentionally making his words ambiguous defeats the purpose of the book. Some have responded to my criticisms saying the subject is difficult, implying that grace for the task and his attempt to tackle are admirable, maybe; or the other way to look at it is that he was not ready to take on the task and has failed to accomplish clearly articulating what it means to be Christian at the expense of presenting the Anglican Church as more tolerant than it actually is (just read the Jerusalem Declaration). If a revised copy ever appears, I will look forward to reading it.