Everyone here knows that Gene Robinson is one of the great destroyers of the Episcopal Church in recent decades. I inadvertently came across this interesting bit, with the title "Gene Robinson: 'I am wildly conservative theologically.'" According to him, people would be surprised to know he was "wildly conservative theologically." Examples of his wild theological conservatism were his subscription to the literal Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, and Creation of the World by God. At one point saying "Yeah, why not?" Truly, one of the great guardians of the faith. To his credit, when asked by the interviewer if he was sure that Jesus would have sanctioned Gay Marriage, he answered "I wouldn't go that far". He then goes on to demonstrate the full measure of his wild conservatism by saying that even if proof emerged that none of these things were literally true, he'd still believe them, cuz that's just what wild conservatives do. Also featured in his interview were strong conservative statements about how God doesn't so much care about what you believe; just what you do. Another memorable one is that the Bible is the Word of God, but not the Words of God. Another good one was that while his original church, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), could be qualified as Fundamentalist, it wasn't that hateful kind of Fundamentalism. It was quite the comedic performance. It brings me to ask: What passes as conservative (other than Wild Gene)? I heard that CS Lewis once referred to himself as a fundamentalist. I believe he was referring to the the original meaning of that word rather than the cultural one that the term acquired over the years. By this I mean the 5 Fundamentals of faith, popularized in the early 20th century by the Sunday School movement and the book, The Fundamentals, in defiance to modernsim and secularism. The 5 Fundamentals are: The inerrancy of the Bible; the literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation story in Genesis; the Virgin Birth of Christ; the bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ; and the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Do you think, based on these 5 Fundamentals, that Classical Anglicanism could be fairly classified as theologically fundamentalist? If not, why not?
Theological-conservatism in Anglicanism obviously means subscribing to the Virgin Birth, the Atoning Sacrifice of the true Passion & Death on the Cross, and the literal, bodily, spiritual Resurrection & Ascension & efficacious sending of the Person of the Holy Spirit from the Father & the Son on Pentecost. Beyond that, I would say: refusal to ordain women to any level of the clergy, total obedience to the canons, sole use of the BCP, and denying of Purgatory, saint-veneration, intercession-for-the-dead, ritualism, and using only a cassock, surplice, and scarf for divine worship - these would be "wildly" conservative, pre-1840s "evangelical high-church protestant" conservative.