Question: Have you ever considered becoming Anglican? Are you familiar with the books by Robert E Webber? It raises some interesting church history/theology questions for churches.

What an odd question. Will we become Anglican? The short answer is no.
 
My long answer about becoming Anglican and Robert Webber is as follows (it's kind of long):
The Anglican Church traditionally venerates tradition over scripture; this is actually seen very clearly in Webber's writings. He writes romantically (I say that because I can't think of a better metaphor) about tradition, liturgy, and philosophy while seeming to neglect the weight and authority of the scriptures.
 
Don't misunderstand me, I believe Webber has many valid points. He writes that "Seeker-oriented contemporary churches argue that worship does not need to present the whole gospel. The purpose of worship, they say, is to get people in the door. Then, after they have gained a hearing, they present the gospel in small-group settings. This argument may be good marketing but it fails to understand the biblical purpose of worship." Again, this point is valid, but I do not think it applies to Element as we present the gospel every week, and many times more than that.
 
Webber is typical of most post-modern writers today, he criticizes Christianity's emphasis on "creation--sin--redemption" and replaces it with "creation--incarnation--recreation" - He seems to think that the two are mutually exclusive (where I think they go hand in hand). He thinks Christianity also concentrates too much on the sacrificial view of the atonement…he thinks this excludes seeing Jesus as Christus Victor (Jesus as the victor triumphing over sin, death and the powers of evil). In Webber's mind this has led to an individualistic form of Christianity in which people are concerned too much about redemption from sin and not enough about the rescue of fallen creation in the new heaven and earth (the new creation).

I hope you can see my dilemma. Just as Webber accuses the church today of not understanding the fullness of the gospel, he doesn't either because he neglects part of it as well. This is why I have issues with him, because he is so right and so wrong. Webber talks about the "redemption of the whole world," and while I know what that means to me; what does he mean when he says it? In his book Ancient - Future Worship he says:

• It "has to do with God's rescue of the entire created order and the establishment of his rule over all heaven and earth" (pp. 57-58).
• "Deliverance is for the sake of the world" (p. 59).
• He complains that "worship now places greater attention on the individual's condition before God. The vision of God to reclaim the whole world and redeem all flesh and matter through the victory of Christ over sin and death scarcely appears" (p. 77, cf. pp. 90, 94, 96-97, 121).

These statements sound great, I might even make them on a Sunday morning or in a blog, but the issue is Webber never clearly defines the gospel. Is he saying that all mankind, along with all matter, will be redeemed and re-created? If so, then the message of personal redemption is indeed an over-emphasis, in fact it wouldn't be the point of the cross at all. However, if it is believers in Christ that Jesus paid for at the Cross, because of the sacrificial death of Christ, then we ARE saved individually (though our salvation is not meant to be lived in isolation).
 
My largest problem with Webber is that he makes statements like this, "I affirm the Bible as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice...However I draw on the foundational interpretation of the Church Fathers and the creeds and practices of the ancient church." (p. 19, cf. p. 68). In other words, final authority in reality does not rest in Scriptures, but in the church…that is a huge issue because it's wrong.
 
Webber also calls for us to resist intellectual analysis that he believes stems from the Enlightenment and read the Bible as true but "not for truths." In communion he encourages us to free our thinking from reason and science and embrace "mystery." We are to read the Bible "holistically, relationally, and passionately" (p. 125), rather than intelligently and rationally, for, "the intellect always dissects, makes judgments, analyzes, and sifts, but the heart listens, sees, feels, loves, fears, and believes" (p. 127). This is a false dichotomy between head and heart and an overreaction to those who think too much. Even the profit Jeremiah reminds us in 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

Webber prefers Eastern over Roman liturgy that is centered not around Scripture, but around the Lord's Table; he writes much on this subject. He rejects all the major positions on the purpose and nature of the communion  and claims that the "ancient" view is, "When bread and wine are received in faith, we are transformed. Bread and wine nourish our union with Jesus. It transforms us into his image and likeness" (p. 140). This is not what communion is, it is a remembrance of what Jesus had done. Our redemption and hope…Jesus even said (Luke 22:19) "Do this in remembrance of me."

I do agree that there are so many things we will never totally comprehend about our God and His ways (mystery), but Webber's approach abandons the clear approach of Scripture itself and leaves far too much to our own imagination and to what others call "subjective mysticism." Webber is asking us to accept a form of Christianity not emerging from Scriptures but from the practices of men years after God had spoken His final word in the New Testament. This is the same approach that led to corruption in the "ancient" church and ultimately necessitated the Reformation.
 
I hope this makes sense. I personally call myself a believer, a follower, a Christian, rather than taking a label of a particular mode of church called "Anglican." I don't want to limit what God calls me to be and follow just one portion of the gospel, I want to follow all of it.