Old School Evangelical You have non-ironically lamented the lack of Real Christianity and remind as many people as possible that "Anglicans actually invented evangelicalism." You see yourself in the tradition of Whitefield, Newton, Wilberforce, Simeon, and maybe grudgingly the Wesleys. You're less concerned about the distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism than you are about salvation by grace and growth in holiness. You may call yourself a moderate Calvinist if push came to shove, but you'd prefer to just refer to yourself as in line with the whole of the Protestant Reformation. You respect the role of formal liturgy and the sacraments in the corporate life of the Church, and think the Book of Common Prayer is the ideal liturgy for such expressions, but prefer to do extemporaneous personal or family devotions at home. You almost certainly have a favorite hymn from Charles Wesley or William Cowper and have felt it your duty to distance yourself from contemporary manifestations of evangelicalism. Take this with a grain of salt because at times I didn't understand the choices.
Apparently I am a tractarian, according to this quiz. Not sure I fully agree with the description that I'd rather worship with evangelicals than high church individuals. But in general a pretty good description of me. Tractarian You have a favorite between Keble and Pusey and you still think Newman was a traitor, even though you have no problem using Tract 90 to the letter as an argument for why it's better to speak about the Church IN England than the Church OF England. You can be found arguing that Anglicanism is a third thing like Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and you have spirited debates about whether the Anglican tradition started in the 3rd century or 597. You have very strong views about Baptismal Regeneration and ex opere operato, but you would rather be in a church with Evangelicals than Old High Church folks. You have almost certainly told someone that "The Oxford Movement was about theology; Anglo-Catholicism came later and is more about aesthetics."
When I see the various different estimations of the blends of 'Christianity' materialising from this quiz, I can't help feeling that the 'FAITH' that Jesus Christ longs to find on earth, upon his return, has been much diluted by 'religion'. .
Whole heartedly agree. This week I was chatting with my father, who is not Anglican, whose church (evangelical) is considering a merger with a church of another denomination (presbyterian), which would make a ton of sense as both churches are small and could benefit greatly by pooling resources and worshiping together. However there are some difficulties around minor differences in style of worship and doctrine which may keep these churches from joining together. We both bemoaned the lack of catholicity (universality) in the modern church as denominations and doctrines have multiplied since the reformation. In this particular regard, I wish our churches (and anglicanism particularly) were more like the RCC or Orthodox, with Christians worshiping in local gatherings based on locality rather than doctrinal disputes, or differing styles of worship. Alas... May Christ come again soon and make all things right and new!
Tractarian. I am on board with some of it, but there are aspects with which I disagree. If I wait a few weeks and take it again, I will likely be something else.
I did it a second time: High Church Evangelical/Evangelical Catholic You're virtually liturgically indistinguishable from a Ritualist or Tractarian, but you're always quick to remind people that "High Church does NOT equal Anglo-Catholic." You have no problems with being called a Protestant, but you would prefer being called a reformed catholic. You can list all the ways Luther was still pretty conservative liturgically and know about High Church movements in Lutheranism and the Reformed Tradition. You make a distinction between dominical sacraments and the five other traditional ones, and you also think we need to be doing a LOT more to evangelize by telling people about Jesus. If you're online, you're almost certainly either Michael Curry or have a relationship with Chris Corbin. You have downloaded every work by William Augustus Muhlenberg from Google Books and lament the fact that there is no more recent scholarship on him.The last sentence is interesting. My primary exposure to Archbishop Michael Curry was the sermon at the wedding of the Sussexes. I have had to google Fr Chris Corbin, and am still none the wiser, and likewise William Augustus Muhlenberg, and I have read none of his works, knowingly. Anglicanism is far more nuanced than this sort of survey can embrace.