Anglican Communion

Are there many saints that are unique to the anglican communion? either anglicans that became saints, or saints only recognized by us? thanks!

As Episcopalians, what are your feelings on other Anglican denominations in general? This includes the greater members of the Anglican Communion (Church of England, Church of Nigeria, etc) non Communion members (Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Catholic Church, Reformed Episcopal Church, etc.) and the Anglican Ordinariate (controversial but they label themselves as Anglican).

Are there any parts of their denominations you agree with? Any parts you disagree with?

Also were any of you formerly members of another Anglican Church? If so, what was the reason for switching to the Episcopal Church? Would you be happy going to another Anglican Church if it weren't part of the Communion? How about attending one that's part of the Communion but not fully aligned with your personal stances?

Welcome to the Anglican AMA! I have included introductions from most of the panelists below and a I have written a semi-brief historical introduction into the early history of the Anglican Communion.

Feel free to skip the history section entirely as it is probably way too long! We look forward to answering your questions.

I will be in London researching all day but will be checking and answering questions throughout the afternoon when available. My apologies if it takes me some time to respond to you directly. Also - time difference.

"Anglican living in Canada but currently studying medieval history back in England. I returned to Christianity in my early twenties after lapsing into atheism during my teenage years while my mother was dying of cancer. I came back largely due to my encounters with Roman Catholic and Anglican writers who inspired me with their ability to communicate the Christian faith in a rational and intellectually engaging manner. Rowan Williams remains my most significant theological inspiration in terms of spirituality and sacramental theology and I am deeply interested in the history of the Reformation. I am currently completing my PhD in medieval history, which explores gender and sexuality in the medieval world."

"I'm an Episcopalian from Ohio, but I think I'm the reason included that bit about identifying more with the Communion as a whole. I'll be 24 by the time of the AMA. I converted in early 2012, and I've been discerning a monastic vocation with the Society of Saint John the Evangelist for nearly four years now, with postulancy tentatively scheduled to start in January. I guess I'm high-ish church. Rowan Williams is great. I'm a big fan of Kierkegaard and T.S. Eliot. I really admire the Catholic humanists like Erasmus. As we move eastward, we get into more "monk-ish" traditions, even when not strictly monastic, that are important to me, from the Desert Fathers to the holy fools of Eastern Orthodoxy. Also I'm gay and that seems relevant but I don't know where else to put it."

"Australian Anglican, lifelong. And from Melbourne (there's a bit of a clash between Sydney Anglicans and other Australian Anglicans). Quite involved with administration (both my mother and I are on vestry). Wouldn't point to a single prominent author or similar, but a big fan of Fr Rod at the Anglican Parish of Gosford."

"English Anglican, life long Christian. Adult life as anglican; probably fair to call me a catholic evangelical. Evensong and wednesday lunch time communion kept in me in the faith, but my home church is open evangelical."

"Hey! I'm a 20 year old philosophy student, and a member of both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, depending on whether I'm at home or uni. I was confirmed two years ago and only recently started investigating theology from an academic perspective, as opposed to trying to work things out from an individual perspective - I'm very much still growing into my faith and the wonderful intellectual heritage that comes with it. Theologically, I'm extremely Anglo-Catholic on things like the saints, sacraments, and the divine nature. I've also been discerning a calling to ordination for some time, although this has taken a bit of a knock recently. Also, since I'm on GMT, my answers will probably lag slightly, but I'll do my best to answer every question!"

A Semi-Brief History of the Origins of Anglicanism: The English Reformation and Christianity in Britain from the Third Century to the Early Seventeenth

The history of the Anglican Communion stretches back to the first Christian missionaries in the British Isles who arrived likely in the early third century, although perhaps slightly earlier. Christian communities were initially quite small in Britain and mass conversions to the new faith did not begin in earnest until the missionary activities of Augustine of Canterbury in the late sixth century.

It is important to note that the evangelism and proselytism of Augustine and his Latin Christian counterparts did not merely lead to the creation of a stronger and more numerically significant Church in Britain. Their efforts to bring Christians from Britain into the wider Catholic world triggered a new period of discernment among British clergy and laity regarding the relationship between their "Celtic Christian" communities with the rest of the Latin Christian Church.

At the Synod of Whitby in 664 the King of Northumbria agreed to a set of theological reforms that would effectively "Romanize" their Church in certain doctrinal matters and bring them solidly into the fold of Latin Christian ecclesiastical governance. The Synod of Whitby, with its complex theological and historical legacy, has been a deeply controversial episode in Protestant scholarship for centuries. Some have contended that this Synod was the moment when a theologically unique and independent "Celtic Church" was subjugated by the imposition of Roman Catholic authority while others have questioned the entire premise behind the idea of a separate "Celtic Church" or "Celtic Churches." The retrospective interpretation of these events have naturally been subject to much partisan scholarship written by those seeking to provide justification for the the Reformation through their invocation of what they claim to be the English Church's historically independent character. It has been claimed for instance that the Church in England continued to be a largely "autocephalous" or self-governing body that was resistant to foreign intervention in its own affairs throughout the medieval period despite the successful imposition of notional Roman authority.

This would seem to be a contentious position given the authority of the papacy in England and its historical record of direct intervention into secular and ecclesiastical affairs. The nullification of Magna Carta by Innocent III and his successors serve as instructive examples of just how seriously the papacy viewed their supremacy of the English monarchy who were their papal vassals.

This tension between ecclesiastical authority and the authority of the monarchy has a long history in England. For much of the early medieval period until the beginnings of the Gregorian Reform movement in the late eleventh century the monarchy had exerted enormous influence over the Church. The King relied on English bishops to be his closest advisors and serve as tenants in chief and thus needed to ensure that men loyal to himself filled these positions. The fact that bishops could not pass on these holdings to their children made them all the more attractive. However Royal involvement in the selection of bishops began to be confronted in a much more significant manner during the late eleventh century after Pope Gregory VII entered into a long running dispute with Henry IV, the Holy Roman Emperor over the investiture of bishops in Germany. From Gregory's perspective, the intervention of the HRE into the affairs of the Church was a violation of the Church's rights and independence, no matter the practical concerns offered by Henry. The consequences of this conflict would be felt in Britain as the papacy embarked on a major campaign to create a Church that was more doctrinally unified, closer in purity to the supposed apostolic purity of the ecclesia primitiva, and removed from secular influence.

This latter point, the independence of the Church from secular authority, would be a recurring issue for the English Crown throughout the medieval period. The clash between St. Thomas Becket and Henry II was a particularly infamous example of this conflict of interest in which a quarrel over the immunity of clergyman from Royal law ended in Becket's death at Canterbury Cathedral at the hands of Henry's retainers. From the Crown's perspective the King required a degree of authority over the governance of the Church in his own realm because he relied on highly educated clergymen to serve in vital posts such as Lord Chancellor, tenants in chief, close advisors, administrators, canon lawyers, chancery officials, and so forth. However the Church obviously perceived any sort of overt imposition of Royal authority into its own affairs as an unacceptable transgression that could necessitate papal intervention as his notional liege lord. It was after all not uncommon for English kings to be excommunicated for periods of time in the medieval period as a means of curbing undesirable Royal behaviour. Such disputes between the Crown and Church would naturally become a defining feature of the English Reformation as will be discussed below.

Religious heterodoxy was also a common feature of the English medieval landscape. Despite the best efforts of the Church, dissident religious groups continued to emerge and proselytize, particularly from the early eleventh century onwards. The Lollards of the fourteenth century, led by the passionate and articulate preacher John Wycliffe, advocated for the translation of the Bible into English and the reform of the Church long before Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses. They decried religious hypocrisy in the Church and expressed some radical beliefs about the sacraments. They were suppressed for their beliefs by the authorities but nonetheless survived underground throughout the end of the medieval period, reemerging with the new religious climate of the sixteenth century.

With the ascent of Henry VIII to the English throne the Church and Crown were initially on very warm terms. Henry VIII was an extremely devout Catholic who went so far as to pen a vociferous condemnation of Martin Luther's theological ideas during the first years of the Reformation. For his efforts to defend the Catholic faith he earned the title "Fidei Defensor" in 1521 from the Papacy and was regarded as a strong ally in the fight against Lutheranism. This relationship between the Crown and Church became much more complex as dynastic concerns began to weigh more heavily on Henry's mind into the later 1520s. Despite his long marriage to Catherine of Aragon she had given birth to no sons, leaving the realm in a dangerous position should Henry die without a male heir. England had been torn apart by civil war only a few decades before his reign during the period known now as the Wars of the Roses. If his dynasty were to end with him he knew that the realm would likely slip back into turmoil.

The emergence of Anne Boleyn at the English Court changed matters very quickly. Some scholars are quite reluctant to place a great deal of importance on Henry's infatuation with Anne and the effect that she had on Henry's decision to split from Rome. She is often seen as being too convenient of an explanation for such a complex series of events that would radically repattern England's relationship with the Church and the rest of Catholic Europe. However the fact remains that she was instrumental in turning anxieties over the succession into an obsession. Henry was convinced that his marriage was cursed by God due to prohibitions in Leviticus that condemned those who married their brother's wives. He was certain that Anne would give him the son he needed to preserve his dynasty and the stability of the realm. Moreover, Anne was a committed Protestant who had placed the writings of William Tyndale into Henry's hands, which provided him with a compelling theological argument that as King he was subject to none but God. From Henry's perspective the solution to his problems was obvious. If he was indeed subject to none, and master of the Church in his own realm, he possessed the authority he needed to annul the marriage (not divorce), marry Anne and get the heir he desperately needed.

The Reformation in England at this time was therefore only partially a theological one and in a sense it was much more concretely political. Henry had come to believe that as a Christian prince he had the authority to make radical decisions and bend the Church to his own will if it served his own interests and the interests of the realm. However he had no real interest in adopting the more significant Protestant reforms circulating on the Continent that were progressively finding a home in the minds of some English courtiers.

Henry's position on the Reformation would oscillate throughout his reign as the Supreme Head of the Church. He gave his assent to Cromwell's radical programme of monastic reform, which was less of a reform movement and more of a Crown directed policy of seizing assets and selling them off to boost the treasury. Monks were pensioned off following their eviction but there is no question that enormous numbers of people employed by the monasteries, let alone the monks themselves, were deeply harmed by this policy. Anne Boleyn was herself scandalized by the use of the funds, which she had hoped would be directed towards charitable endeavours. Instead they paid for the refurbishing of the English navy, the creation of defensive forts along the southern coast to defend against invasion from Catholic powers, and the expenses of court life with all the decadence that entailed.

Henry did ultimately come down on the side of religious conservatism. He remained committed to Catholic sacramental theology and believed in the episcopal Church hierarchy that he had preserved in the new Church of England. In his Six Articles of 1539, which laid out his vision for the English Church going forward, he demanded that the Church was emphatically to remain Catholic in its doctrine while denying papal authority in favour of his own.

Thus Henry's reformation was intermittently theological and did descend into extremity with his treatment of the monasteries. However in virtually every case the theological was subordinate to the political, personal or economic. Henry had opened the door to the Reformation in England but had stopped any effort to reform core doctrines of Roman Catholicism beyond papal authority. Outside a few Protestant families at Court the countryside remained committed Catholics and there had been no concerted effort by the Crown to proselytize reformed principles to these communities. Henry died more or less the devout Catholic he had always been.

The religious Reformation in England properly can be said to begin under the reign of Henry's son by Jane Seymour, Edward VI. Unlike his father Edward VI was a highly devout and committed Protestant who was intent on accelerating the process of religious reform that his father had initiated but generally inhibited over the course of his reign. He had been raised to embrace this worldview by his deeply Protestant tutors who had inculcated Calvinist principles into his education from the start. Following his ascent to the Crown he had quarrelled with his sister Mary over her refusal to abandon her Catholicism in favour of the reformed faith. He supported Thomas Cranmer's efforts to create a new English liturgy, sponsored the acquisition of Church property from Catholics, abolished chantries, and created a new system for training ministers to spread the Gospel.

The effect of Edward on the country was however cut short as he died at the age of fifteen long before he could ensure his reforms would take root. Yet he had made significant reforms. He had supervised the creation of the Book of Common Prayer, a work of exceptional literary beauty that would define Anglicanism to this day. He had also completely reformed the English liturgy in favour of something that was concretely Protestant in its ideas and sacramental theology. Edward was nonetheless unable to father a successor and once again the realm faced a succession crisis that could jeopardize the stability of England and the long term future of Protestantism in England.

Instead, his devout Catholic sister Mary ascended to the throne with the objective of using everything in her power to undo all that her brother and father had done to Catholicism in England. She was committed to restoring the country to full communion with Rome and crushing the Protestant heresy that had entrenched itself at court. She married Philip II, King of Spain, and proceeded to embark on a series of reforms that specifically targeted those members of the Protestant court faction. Men like Thomas Cranmer, who had flourished under the Protestant reign of Edward, were now arrested and executed. Mary had consequently been called "Bloody Mary" for her harsh measures taken towards reformers yet it is important to note that Elizabeth executed far more religious non-conformers that Mary. There is a sense of a double standard that has developed given the glorious nature of Elizabeth's reign and historical legacy that should perhaps be considered.

Despite her passionate efforts at saving Catholicism in England she faced the same fate as her brother and died early in her reign, this time from a tumour that she had originally mistaken for pregnancy. She was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn, a committed Protestant and architect of what we now recognize as Anglicanism.

Elizabeth's reign is often regarded as the culmination of the English Reformation. This is likely untrue as Anglicanism continued to change and evolve in later centuries becoming more Protestant then more Catholic in its orientation. However there is nonetheless a reality to this assessment as her reign witnessed the conversion of vast sections of the country to the new faith and the creation of a distinctive theological tradition that we can still recognize today in the Anglican Communion of the modern world.

Elizabeth's reformation of the English Church was defined by several important religious policies. She restored the Book of Common Prayer and revised it according to her own comparatively moderate theological views. Secondly, she supervised the creation of the 39 Articles, which would be the basis for what became known as the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. These articles charted what has been called a middle way or "via media" between Roman Catholicism and the more radical strains of continental Protestantism. It was to be a more moderate articulation of the reformed faith that denied transubstantiation and certain critical Catholic beliefs while accepting the episcopal structure that defined the Catholic hierarchy. Thirdly, her reformation was meant to be comparatively pluralistic as she was less concerned with what people believed so long as they outwardly conformed to the new faith and did not support efforts to dethrone or assassinate her in favour of Catholic claimants. Fourthly, she was not to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England given the problematic nature of the formulation. She was instead to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, in order to distinguish herself more explicitly from Christ.

Elizabeth famously said "I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls." What this meant in practice was that she desired to create a Church where a degree of theological latitude was permitted for the sake of preserving unity. It was to be a "big tent" while still promoting certain core Protestant principles. This is not to say that there was extreme intellectual freedom in matters of religion. Catholic martyrs continued to be executed for opposing her reforms or allegedly plotting against the Crown and she was ruthless in pursuing those who sought to restore Catholic power in the country. However those Catholics who resided in the country and continued to believe in the old faith were still tolerated so long as they outwardly conformed to the new Settlement and did threaten the Crown.

It was the length of Elizabeth's reign that allowed for Protestantism to take root firmly in England. After her decades on the throne Protestantism and Englishness had become combined into a deeply interlinked social and religious identity. Loyalty to the Crown and the Protestant faith came to define Englishness, and Catholicism came to be seen as a dangerous other that threatened both on a fundamental level.

Thus the English Reformation and the birth of Anglicanism was not a simple event, carried out in 1534 by Henry VIII. It was a long and complex process that was informed by a history that stretched back into the medieval world to the origins of Christianity in the British isles. What had begun as a political reformation to preserve a dynasty became a devout expression of Protestant principles that nonetheless embraced a degree of confessional pluralism as a feature of English Christian intellectual life.

Why does the Anglican communion venerate so many non-Anglican people as saints? (Saint Gregory of Palamas for an example)

I really don't want to turn this into a .....shall we say, contest. I don't mean what makes us "better" than others. What I mean is, what makes us Episcopalians (or Anglicans in general) really stand out? What makes us shine as a denomination and as a Christian movement?

About the Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion is a global cooperative of [38 member churches] () and an estimated 85 million members, making it the third largest Christian Communion in the world. These churches are separate, but in communion with one another (though recent conflicts have complicated that somewhat). Though beliefs and practices throughout the communion vary widely, member churches uphold the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and maintain Apostolic Succession. The Communion began when the Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th Century, and spread largely through colonialism. The Communion as it exists now was formed at the first Lambeth Conference in 1869. [The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral] (), a document which is often cited as a basic outline of Anglican identity and used as a reference for Ecumenical talks, is the closest thing to a unified statement of belief we have.

Anglicanism is a "big tent" and contains a wide variety of beliefs and practices, including everything from the Pre-Vatican II Roman Rite, to strict Calvinism, to charismatic Evangelicalism. The Communion has no central authority, even though the Archbishop of Canterbury is a first-among-equals of sorts. However, member churches are largely unified in their use of some sort of Book of Common Prayer (based on the [1662 Book of Common Prayer] () used in England), some sort of belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, belief that they are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Episcopal Polity with Apostolic Succession.

There are also a great many church bodies which consider themselves Anglican but are not members of the Anglican Communion.

The Panelists

Doctoral candidate studying gender and sexuality in medieval Europe.

I'm a 25 year old bioinformatician. I've been Episcopalian for three-ish years unofficially, and I was confirmed two years ago. I'm currently a PhD student in computer science as well.

I was raised culturally Christian, though my family started attending a southern Baptist church around my senior year of high school. I was baptized there and served as their youth minister for two years, which was an incredibly meaningful part of my life. I officially declared there that I wanted to and felt a call from God to go into ministry, and I'm still working out what that means in my current tradition.

Hi, I'm Music, a 24-year-old medical student. I was raised in a Southern Baptist (later independent Baptist) church, and left as soon as I turned 18. I read some Church Fathers and C.S. Lewis, and wandered semi-accidentally into my campus Episcopalian ministry when I was 21. And the rest, they say, is history. I'm at the Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum. I'm getting married in 6 months even though I'm terribly behind on wedding planning. I have one pet cat and am trying to convince my fiancé to get another one. I love sci-fi, fantasy, Oscar-bait movies, and debating theology on reddit.

I'm a 28 year old postulant for the priesthood in the Episcopal Church and have recently finished my first year of a Masters of Divinity degree. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy with a minor in Geology. I've been Episcopalian for just over a decade now but was raised non-denominational and spent a few years of high school in Roman Catholicism.

I would probably describe myself as a "Prayer Book Catholic" and am a provisional member of [The Society of Catholic Priests] (). I also work fairly closely with an Anglican religious order. Theologically, I've been most heavily influenced by Post-Liberal movements that have called for Protestants to return to pre-modern theology, particularly Patristic and Medieval theology as well as calls for the Church to become more critical in its engagement with our modern, secular culture.

I'm a member of the Anglican Church of Canada, a 26 year old Ph.D student in a religious studies department. I was born in South Carolina, and have moved many times during my childhood. Religiously, my childhood was spent in evangelical contexts due to my mother and my maternal family - mostly Presbyterian but some Baptist - until I was baptized as a Catholic and attended Catholic schools. During my teenage years I left Christianity entirely, though I was intensely interested and curious about Christian theology. It was only after I left the Church that my theological studies began in earnest, ironically enough, and doubly so given that it was reading Nietzsche that fuelled this for the first few years.

Many years later, after a protracted struggle, I returned to Christianity and my mentor gently brought me to the local church he attended - an Anglican church. I have been a parishioner at this church ever since, and I currently serve as an acolyte. I am the first and currently only Anglican in my extended family. I certainly fall on the "high church" end of things, particularly when it comes to doctrine and ecclesiology, but I'm also pretty loyal to the Prayer Book and tend to be fairly critical of a lot of contemporary "Anglo-Catholic" practices. Though I am constantly critical of the Anglican Church, I have a deep love for her as well. That I am a Christian today fills me with wonder at times, and that my return to Christianity took place through an Anglican parish is not something I take for granted.

I'm a 28 year old member of The Episcopal Church and a professional church musician who works for an Episcopal Parish. I was raised and confirmed in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (and my grandfather is a Pastor in ELCA, though he also attends an Episcopal Church now) and began attending a nearby Episcopal chaplaincy while in college. I've been attending Episcopal Churches for about 10 years now, and have worked for a wide range of Anglican churches (from a country club Low Church parish to a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic parish which separated from TEC over ordination of women). Personally, I'm very much on the Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum, though perhaps not as conservative socially as some other traditionalist Anglo-Catholics (I find it hard to get worked up about LGBT inclusion and ordination of women).

I am a 21 year old, confirmed (by ++Curry!) Episcopalian from the Southern US. I recently graduated with a BA in Religious Studies from my state's largest public university and will be starting work on a Master of Divinity at Union Presbyterian Seminary this fall after I get married and move. I will also be starting a part-time job overseeing the children, youth, and family ministries at an Episcopal church after the move.

I was raised Southern Baptist, and attended Christian schools from 7th grade through 12th grade. During my sophomore year of high school I rejected Christianity and became an atheist, which I remained until I was called back to faith in my sophomore year of undergrad. I now hope to serve The Episcopal Church vocationally as a priest, but that is a long road that I have just barely started moving down (despite going to seminary I'm not actually in the ordination process at all yet).

I am 26 years old and was confirmed in the Episcopal Church at the age of 16. After studying Military History and National Security in undergrad, I had a crisis of vocation my senior year. After some consternation I joined the Episcopal Service Corps to try and intentionally explore vocation within the church. In the ESC I served as an assistant youth minister in Houston Texas, after which I ultimately felt called to continue showing the gospel to kids and young adults. I became a full-time youth minister two years ago and have been serving in the Episcopal Diocese of West Texas ever since. I hope to explore a call to ordained ministry ministry sometime soon, but for now I am fortunate to be kept busy in Youth and Young Adult ministry.

I'm Rob, a student from the UK. I was raised (arguably only culturally) in the CoE, but did the usual wobble into edgy atheism during my teens. I decided to return to being a regular, practising member of the church when I started university and was confirmed in 2011. I'm definitely at the Anglo-Catholic/high church end of the Anglican spectrum.

I'm 24 and a recent college graduate who majored in religion. I'm currently looking for work and aspiring to become a seminarian in the near future. I wasn't raised in a churchgoing family and didn't care much about faith until high school after about a year of hanging out with a local Young Life group. I went to an evangelical church for my formative years of faith and joined the Episcopal Church in college as I learned about the liturgy, became exposed to the wider history of Christianity, and became more socially progressive. My theological interests are wide but I still consider myself fairly Protestant and evangelical in my ethos. The Anglican way roots me in the catholicity of the Christian faith that both humbles and empowers me to live a life of faith, hope, and love, to the glory of God. I'm often still shocked that I am Christian now, and I try not to take it for granted. Soli Deo Gloria y'all.

Hello!

To give a short background of myself for context — I am an Ethiopian-American charismatic evangelical with ties to both the Ethiopian Coptic Orthodox Church (baptized as a baby) as well as the Pentecostal Church and evangelical/charismatic movements in America (baptized later in life as a teenager).

I was not raised in the Faith and infant baptism is more of an “initiation” of being Ethiopian in our culture than being seen as anything sacramental or carrying spiritual connotations. When I was 15 I encountered the Lord in a series of visionary experiences and privately began to believe in Christ. I was baptized by a Pentecostal minister that I was providentially connected to and he baptized me on the confession of my faith in Christ as the Son of God risen from the dead. While I have been involved in many contexts I am firmly still an Eastern Evangelical/Ethiopian Evangelical in my self understanding.

Now, I’m not necessarily wanting to debate baptism, etc but more so just giving context.

I currently also work as a church planter and full time in the ministry somewhere in the Middle East (can’t say because of security). In the course of church planting I began to ask the question about church history, what is the Church, sacraments, and ultimately the nature of the Eucharist. I was confronted with realities and ideas that I never had considered. To make this short, I am firmly convinced that the Church is not simply “invisible” with the visibility of her simply being a local church expression (as it is commonly maintained in the evangelical tradition), but rather that a church communion must be catholic and translocal in its scope. I also believe that any church communion in order to properly be called ekklesia must have the altar at its center. If the Eucharist is not honored and the Real Presence not believed in I cannot in good conscience be part of such groups. This is especially true in the Evangelical/Charismatic “Church” which is not necessarily a church but rather a movement of Christians. In many ways I’ve felt like an orphan without a “capital C” Church there to cover me.

Over the past four years I have looked into many communions, wrestled and struggled with questions of catholicity, institutionality, apostolicity, and church history.

I have thought about returning to my roots in the Coptic Church, become Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox, or even Catholic. The issue though is that I, like many Protestants, cannot invoke the intercession of saints (even after hearing all the arguments and explanations). I believe in their intercession for us and like many of the Fathers I recognize the reality of that and am greatly encouraged by it, but the practice of invoking them for that intercession for me falls outside the scope of what is reasonable and balanced. That is simply my conviction. I also cannot seem to reconcile prostrating, venerating, or kissing icons/images. I think icons and images are great, but with the earliest Fathers I view them as being didactic tools and instructional aids for us in our walk with the Lord rather than being any kind of window or “type” of the person depicted that we then give honor to.

That all being said, I am also convinced that the Church is a “multi faceted institutionality”, i.e., what Christians in the Anglican tradition may call “Branch Theory”. Therefore, I don’t necessarily think that the one true Body of Christ subsumes in simply only one communion, patriarchate, denomination, movement, or tradition.

As a Christian, bottom line, I need to be able to engage with a tradition and be historically grounded in something. I have two options available to me: the Anglican Communion and the Church of the East. I love the spirituality of the Church of the East and they have an almost identical ecclesiology and self understanding to the Anglican Church. They also do not have the cult of saints in their devotional life as it developed in the Pentarchy nor do they pay homage to images. I have also been part of the Liturgy in their church and greatly enjoyed it (and they believe in open communion for any baptized Christian so I even partook of the mysteries with them!).

If I joined the Church of the East I think I would find the most life and their open ecclesiology would enable me to still work in church planting in the closed context that I’m in (I minister mostly preaching the Gospel and planting churches among Mus*ims). That all being said, the Anglican Communion is so large and diverse and I truly believe that the ecclesiology as it’s been formulated has given rise to a very genuine form of apostolic Christianity that is much more widespread than the COE.

My question is this I guess: if I joined the Church of the East, would I still be able to commune with churches under the Anglican Communion where a church under the COE was not present? Because both groups have open communion there is a functional communion between the two bodies even if it isn’t “official” or “full communion” per se. I essentially would see myself as a Christian who is a son of the Church of the East — but that whenever one of my churches would not be present I would look for an Anglican church. Is this ok? My main concern is that I somehow am picking and choosing but I’m really just trying to wrestle and grasp with the whole counsel of Scripture and the testimony of the Fathers and church history.

Anglicanism doesn't necessarily have a set of core confessions like other Christian traditions, but we affirm historic orthodoxy. historic orthodoxy's belief in the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasian Creeds, as per the 39 Articles.

Panelists:

- I'm a cradle Episcopalian, youth minister, metal-head, and sentient talking beard. I come from a high church / Anglo-Catholic background. Beyond the bells, incense, and "church language" that generally means a fairly strong emphasis on the Sacraments, and less "protestant stuff" - I never heard of "TULIP" for example until college.

- I grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical church, but always had an ecumenical outlook. I became ortho-curious after living in an Orthodox country for a year, which included serving at a couple of Orthodox youth camps.

Several years later I was ready to jump aboard the apostolic ship, but at that time I also realized I was gay, and soon after became affirming. That ruled out Orthodoxy and directed me toward Episcopalianism. I now have an MDiv, but have not pursued ordination. However, through my parish while in seminary I have been the principal author of some Episcopalian educational materials. (I'm keeping that vague so as to not doxx myself.)

I appreciate the deep liturgical roots of the Episcopal Church in combination with theological generosity. I do miss the evangelical fervor of my past, which I'm told more-or-less left the TEC building with the ACNA split. That was before my time.

I think Episcopalianism is at its best when its traditional resources, chief among them the Book of Common Prayer, inspires a passion for both social justice and personal piety.

- found my home in the Anglican tradition because of its middle-of-the-road approach to Christian faith and practice, its willingness to accomodate a 'broad tent' of Christians across diverse backgrounds, be they Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics or classical Liberals.

For example, if a priest was ordained in the Episcopal Church and wanted to serve in the Church of England, would that be a normal request for a newly ordained priest?

I'm a newer Episcopalian, but I am curious on the ACNA members' stance on the Anglican Communion. From my understanding, the ACNA is actively interested in membership within the communion, but is that still the case? And if so, is it with the intent to replace TEC or exist alongside TEC? Or am I understanding it all incorrectly 😅😅

Update: thanks to everyone who gave me their insight and honest opinions, though I fear I have incited a riot unintentionally😬😬😬. Persinally, I'm all for the ACNA having a place in the communion, but as a few of you pointed out, that doesn't seem possible, especially in regards to the latest Lambeth Conference. I wasn't intending to start a ACNA vs TEC fight; I was just genuinely curious to hear opinions of those of another background.

It seems from quick observation that the Lutheran communion and the Anglican communion seem so close to each-other. Besides the liturgy being slightly different. What are the reasons we are not in communion with them.

I heard a claim that around 75% of Anglicans around the world belong to churches that are not a part of the Anglican Communion. I belong to one such church myself, but we are a small denomination, having decreased from 20,000 members (apparently) in the 1970s to probably close to 300 around the world nowadays.

I'm curious to know whether there really is such a high percentage of Anglicans outside of the Communion and if so, why most references to Anglicans tend to refer to the mainstream Anglican Communion instead of the broader tradition as a whole?

Or if simpler, which ones are not? Like I know The Episcopal Church is not bound to them nor does it even specifically agree with all the content therein.

I have particular interest in the ACNA (because I'm 'murican and confessional), but I'm also interested in hearing from International Anglicans and American Episcopalians if you're here. For the latter two, and especially Episcopalians, what is the experience individuals holding traditional views within the much more diverse communion (whether or not you hold those views yourself)?

In my reconstructive phase this past year, I've been increasingly drawn, for whatever reason, to Anglicanism, despite never setting foot inside an Anglican Church. I think part of it has been the name brand; I've found people like John Stott, C.S Lewis, Richard Bauckham, N.T Wright, Michael Bird, and especially J.I Packer extremely helpful this past year. Another part of me is attracted to a confessional, traditional, lower case c-catholic, liturgical church that also allows for a diverse range of views within orthodoxy.

There are no Anglican Churches near me (bunch of Episcopal ones though), and I'm attending a faithful Reformed Baptist church that will likely be my church home while I'm still attending college. That being said, I'm looking towards the future and I'm wondering if maybe the only thing that's attracting me is what's on paper.

How common are evangelical/reformed churches in the ACNA and how does their faith and practice contrast with more Anglo-Catholic adherents?

Hi guys, I’m just wondering what your ideas would be for a hypothetical situation in which the two bodies reunited into one, what do you think would need to happen with some issues like papal primacy and female priests for this to happen? Would it have to be completely pro-Anglican or pro-Catholic or somewhere in between? As a Catholic myself I would love for everyone to be reunited under a single church once again but it seems neither side would ever be willing to bend to the other for this to happen, but what would you need to see happen in order to accept this?