There are more former Anglicans and former Anglican clergy in Orthodoxy than you can shake a stick at. There are obviously a lot to chose to go Catholic as well. Others have elected to try to maintain Anglican distinctives in the Continuing Anglican world. Others have decided to do the best they can within "official" Anglicanism.
I think that if you look at each of these choices, you will find a lot of complex reasons for their choices. At root, I think that a lot of the things that drive these decisions depend on what kind of Anglican one was in the first place, what ones personal influences are, what ones inclinations are, and what one sees as being the deficiencies of Anglicanism.
For the author of this piece, it appears that having centralized authority is important, and it seems that his personal vision of of what Anglicanism (or rather, Christianity) should be involves an embrace of Thomistic scholastic thinking. In this case, it would really not make sense to become Orthodox.
One thing that he says that I basically agree with is when he says:
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism, in my judgment, can be conclusively identified as the one and true Church by these kinds of rational arguments, as interesting and important as they may be in themselves. Arguments and reasons must be presented and considered as we seek to make the necessary choice between Rome and Constantinople, yet ultimately we are still confronted by mystery and the decision and risk of faith.
I would disagree that the choice between Rome and Orthodoxy is "necessary" for Anglicans -- it ignores the fact that some traditional Anglicans are very satisfactorily pursuing their spiritual journey within the Continuing churches and even within official Anglicanism itself, and that they have valid reasons for not wanting to convert either to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
That said, for those who feel that they perhaps cannot remain within Anglicanism, reading books and having discussions are important things, but the centerpiece of any Anglican's decision must be "come and see."
Christianity is personal, not an abstract theology. Christian theology is learned at prayer, not with one's nose in a systematic theology textbook. To see what a church believes, see how they worship and how they live. One should visit the Orthodox churches in one's area several times, and get to know people. One should visit the Catholic churches in one's area and get to know people.
Only then can an Anglican know whether he wants to take another step on a spiritual journey, and what that step should be.
We have a retired Anglican priest who regularly attends our parish. At first, he had a lot of questions about what we believe and questions on books to read. It is interesting that, especially since going through Holy Week with us, he seems more and more to be just absorbing the services, which he attends more and more, now attending virtually every weekday and weekend service. Any discussions are about the hymns that were chanted in the service -- not in a dissecting way, but in the sense of continuing to experience them.
I have no idea whether he will become Orthodox. I don't think anyone has even discussed the matter with him, nor is there any need to, unless he decides to bring the matter up himself. We have a Methodist minister who has been attending our Vespers off and on for years, and a Catholic priest who is at Vespers more often than not. We enjoy them all, and don't presume to tell them where their journey needs to go, and when.
Agreed. If this is Al Kimel, though, I vaguely recall his being very down on the Continuing churches.
Speaking as a 25 year continuer, I must say that I believe the choice is necessary. The collapse of the Anglican Communion has demonstrated, beyond doubt (IMO) that there is nowhere else to go. As much as we would like it to be, Canterbury is not an apostolic see. We must get back to the truly apostolic Church and that means being in communion with one of the apostolic sees.
I think we can all agree though that Anglicanism is white bread, tastes good, but no nutritional value.