I think that you need to know that Michael Jensen, represents a conservative evangelical position, and whilst much of what he says here is OK, the views espoused here are clearly not a generous nor universal view of Anglicanism. Essentially he is arguing that Sydney Evangelicalism is all there is to Anglicanism, and any other view is not Anglican. That is a view I do not accept. Neither do I wish to get into and argument about it point by point, save to say that 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 could have been expressed more generously.
I can’t imagine the parishioners of a church like St. Magnus the Martyr, or a typical Forward in Faith parish, or a parish of some continuing Anglican churches on the Anglo-Catholic spectrum, agreeing with their interpretation. But conversely it is certainly a valid interpretation of the low church and evangelical communities, and some of the congregants in a broad church parish. It is amusing however contrasting that definition with the definitions of Anglicanism that come from the sort of rather-too-high church Anglican parish where there is Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament, which I object to because (a) our Lord said “take, eat” and not “look, but don’t touch”, and (b) that practice is unknown in traditional Anglicanism or in the Eastern churches where I have comfortanly resided since 2013 (due to the impending retirement of my friend Fr. Steve, who was one of the last traditional conservative priests in the Episcopal diocese, and my feeling of total alienation from the local Methodist churches).