(Part 2) Best products from r/Anglicanism

Welcome. Good luck on your path. Do know that faith ebbs and flows. Right now, you've had a powerful experience that moved you significantly--to a whole new faith. That's great. In a few months, or years, or maybe never, things may settle down and feel less powerful. But that doesn't mean they're less genuine. Be open to the journey and its ebbs and flows. Though if you're a fan of Ignatian spirituality you probably have a sense of that!

As far as books, I think The Anglican Way and Your Faith, Your Life are great introductions to the Anglican/Episcopal traditions. They are basic, but they might help you pick up some facts you're missing out on. For better understanding the Book of Common Prayer and liturgical worship, I'd recommend Inwardly Digest to start and the Commentary on the American Prayer Book if you really want to dive deep on specific aspects of the book. To understand the Nicene Creed, one of our primary statements of faith, try The Nicene Creed. It's written by a Catholic theologian but really helped me understand more pieces of this prayer that Christians share.

If you are interested in the more mystical/Ignatian modes of spirituality, both of these are Catholic but apply well to Anglicanism: Richard Rohr's Center for Contemplation in Action (love their daily reflections!) and many of the books by Father James Martin, SJ.

Lastly, read the Bible just a little bit every day! It will help you get more familiar with things. Try choosing a daily devotional like Sacred Space or Day by Day which will give you snippets of reading and reflection. It'll help you grow to understand scripture better.

I'm technically a Methodist who is also exploring Anglicanism, so the actual Anglicans here can correct me where I miss the mark, but I'll give it a shot.

1. SSM is an issue that can't really be summed up quickly. In short, it boils down to interpreting Scripture and the Church Fathers in light of their culture vs. ours, other Scripture and writings, and Scripture/Christianity's vision of God's Kingdom. I am currently trying to make up my mind on this issue, and I highly recommend Bible, Geder, Sexuality. It's geared heavily toward traditional thought on the issue and breaking it way down from a scholarly standpoint.
   As far as contraception goes, long story short is that Protestants see throughout Scripture a vision of sex that is about much more than procreation - rather, its purpose in addition to procreation is to unite a couple in intimacy and love. My personal answer would be that sex is a foretaste of the ultimate love between Christ and the Church - limiting it to procreation reduces its value and turns it into a "species propagation" thing as opposed to a "unitive, intimate, sacrificial love" thing.
   
   
2. Long story short, Paul's (and other writers) prohibitions against women teaching/speaking/etc. are not a general statement of some divine order, but rooted in particular issues of the day. The book I recommended speaks on this very well in one of the chapters. Essentially, in Paul's day, many women in the Corinthian church were trying to teach/speak over the men to selfishly try and claim superiority (the Greek here indicates this theme, and the book expands on this heavily). Additionally, just like Paul writes under the assumption that slavery exists and how to deal with that, NT writings on women assume gender hierarchy that, when upset, could cause some social problems between people that weren't worth it to risk the Gospel message.
   
   
3. There really isn't a defined doctrine. What I learned from an Episcopal priest is that it's generally "Christ is present in the celebration of the Eucharist, but it's pointless to worry about how and risk division."
   
   
4. The first suggestion I would make is to read the Psalms and reflect on them. Not only are they beautiful poems, they are, at their core, prayers and praises. Personally, I also found it very helpful to think about the things I most often pray for (wisdom, discernment, to be gentler/kinder, etc.) and I searched Scripture and Christian history (including the Book of Common Prayer and prayers from the Methodist church) for Psalms / prayers that reflected those thoughts. I wrote those down in a notebook and started praying those prayers regularly. The difficult thing is that prayer life is a very personal thing. Christ tells us in Matthew 6:6 to go "into your inner room and pray." I took this very literally and made a small "prayer corner" in a little nook in my closet that has candles, a cross, other things that remind me of Jesus. Above all, it often just relies on you making a habit of it. When you build prayer into your schedule, it's easier to keep praying.
   
   
5. No. Basically anyone who isn't Evangelical trusts Scripture and tradition when they say "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you're good. Also, depending on the person/parish, Patron Saints aren't really a thing. The more ultra-trad "Anglo-Catholics" are usually friendly to Saints/Mary in a similar way to Catholics, but the typical Episcopal/Anglican parish won't really pay any mind to Saint prayer, patronage, or veneration. The 39 Articles originally called it all "a vain thing," but in practice, it's one of those "non-essentials" that the Anglican church just doesn't really make a definite statement about as good or bad.
   
   
6. A universal church. Unlike Catholics/Orthodox, Anglicans don't say that Anglicanism is the "one true Church" and that any tradition outside it is flawed. My understanding is that Anglicans follow St. Vincent of Lerins when he says the true faith lies in what has been believed "always, everywhere, by everyone." Anglicans generally draw this line at the traditional Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and I believe Athanasian) / the first few Councils. Anything beyond that is non-essential and up for discussion/interpretation.
   
   
7. This discussion is always loaded with touchy semantics. I take it what you're asking is if Anglicans treat the Bible like, say, a Southern Baptist would (totally literal "God's word," creation was literally 6 days, etc.), and the answer is no. Anglicans, like other mainline denominations, are totally kosher with historical criticism and things like evolution. Scripture is not a science or history textbook.

Depending on the translation you'd prefer:

There's the Oxford ESV Study Bible that's $47 on Amazon. It's a hardcover.

The NOAB RSV goes for $35 on Christian Book for the hardcover. That's probably the best price you can find for this publication right now.

NRSVs with the Apocrypha are pretty easy to find nowadays in a lot of different formats, so you can do some browsing and price checking for them. I always do a preliminary comparison between Amazon, Book Depository, and Christian Book for general Bibles, prayer books, and theology publications.

KJV with the Apocrypha is surprisingly limited in options to pick up. The Oxford World Classics Authorized King James is a paperback that for $15 on Amazon, and its text is identical to the NCPB edition, which is excellent. The hardcover version of the NCPB KJV with Apocrypha is currently a couple dollars cheaper on Amazon than Christian Book right now at $34.

There's also the Ignatius Press RSV2CE you could check out, along with the Orthodox Study Bible. These two work, and are both fairly popular in certain circles, but I find them both a little wonky.

If you're planning on doing academic work, I'd recommend the NOAB RSV or the NRSV. But if you just want a Bible for the reading of scripture, stripped of almost all the scholarly apparatus and text-set for sheer textual beauty and reading pleasure, I honestly think the NCPB KJV is the most beautifully edited Bible on the market right now. It's my most prized possession on my shelves by a pretty big margin.

I’m in the discernment process, just a little further along than you. My priest assigned me the book Listening Hearts: Discerning Call in Community to help me better understand my call. You might find this book useful as well.

Besides that, I second others - speak with your priest and at least get an informal conversation going. The thing about something like the priesthood is that it really isn’t something you can rush into, but it’s also something that once set into motion, the Holy Spirit may decide to move along at a rapid clip. But, we humans can’t influence that time scale very much.

Some things my priest has suggested as I go through discernment that might help you -

• serve at the altar in more capacities, and learn how the liturgies work “on the front lines”
  
  
• get licensed as a Eucharistic minister
  
  
• act as a lector more often to get used to reading scripture in public
  
  
• take a leadership role in organizing parish activities
  
  
• study theology more (in my case, I am participating in Education for Ministry [EfM] and trying to augment with more diligent personal bible study)
  
  I don’t know if you have opportunities to try something like those, but I think it’s nice to kind of experience lay ministries that are similar to what priests are called to do, and see how that resonates (or doesn’t) with you. Especially since you mention being not as comfortable with social situations (I can completely relate!) stuff like the public reading and helping to organize might be good ways to push your comfort zone a bit.
  
  And, it’s important to remember that discernment is not just about pursuing a set path. It is truly about understanding our vocation as Christians, and really seeing where we are called to serve. Trying out these things may awaken a different calling and that is okay too!

So Anglican theology is deeply liturgical - i.e. we see our theology as being expressed, experienced, and enforced in our worship - "lex orandi, lex credendi." This principle comes to a zenith in our theology behind the sacraments, which has often relied on liturgical texts and actions in a way unique among other Christian churches. This makes our theology as much of an experience as it is a set of intellectual commitments (not to artificially split the two though). However, it means that Anglicans, especially today's Anglicans, often have an implicit theology behind the sacraments, a theology relying on liturgy more than explicit explanations, which can make expressing a coherent theology difficult.


Regardless, the first place you should go if you want a taste of Episcopal "sacramentality" today is our current worship, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Our service for Baptism begins on p.298 (be sure to look at the Baptismal Covenant on p.304). We have two rites for the Eucharist, Rite I on p.323 and Rite II on p.355. As an example of Episcopal sacramental theology, it is very significant that Baptism and Eucharist are considered important enough to warrant their own liturgies.

But don't just read the texts - attend worship to understand! Theology is practiced and trained by worship.

Two other documents in the Prayer Book are of note: first, a very brief contemporary Catechism, which covers the Sacraments on pp.857-861. The other are the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (dating back to the 16th century), which are not considered authoritative for Episcopalians today, but are an important historical document that highlights the deeply Reformed dimension of Anglicanism's development during the English Reformation (a fact that frankly embarrasses many today, for better or worse). Articles #25-31 cover the sacraments on pp.872-74.

Here's a link from a contemporary Episcopalian's attempt to coherently explain the basics of sacramental theology in our church today. It was written in response to a practice that he (rightly, imo) identified as a perversion of proper sacramentality: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/sacramental_theology_101_baptism_and_eucharist/

There are several good books on sacraments within Anglicanism by Anglican authors:

• Being Christian: Baptism, Bible, Eucharist, Prayer by Rowan Williams - an introductory book on the essentials of Christianity by a former Archbishop of Canterbury. Beautifully written, profound, short, and accessible.
  
  
• Inwardly Digest: The Prayer Book as Guide to a Spiritual Life by Derek Olsen - treats the Episcopal '79 BCP as a coherent system of spirituality. Also accessibly written for non-specialists. Derek Olsen is an amazing author and blogger in contemporary Anglo-Catholic circles. I believe this is the best work on our Prayer Book available today. Look especially for "Section 3 - The Holy Eucharist" for Episcopal sacramentality. You can read a rough draft of it at Olsen's blog here.
  
  
• The Study of Anglicanism - informative collection of essays. Look for "Part V - Church, Sacraments, and Ministry", especially V.4 ("Initiation" by David Holeton) and V.5 ("Holy Communion" by William R. Crockett)
  
  
• The Mystery of Baptism in the Anglican Tradition by Kenneth Stevenson - historical overview of baptismal theology
  
  
• The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition by H.R. McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson - historical overview of eucharistic theology
  
  
• A Guide to the Sacraments by John MacQuarrie - takes a more Anglo-Catholic view. MacQuarrie was a respected systematic theologian of the 20th century.
  
  
• "V. Anglicanism and Eucharistic Ecclesiology" and "VI. Anglicanism and Baptismal Ecclesiology" in The Identity of Anglicanism by Paul Avis - Avis is a major figure in the question of ecclesiology in Anglicanism, molded by his years in the Church of England's ecumenism office.
  
  
• The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by John Stott and J. Alec Motyer - both are evangelical authors. Stott in particular is well-regarded. I think this book is important because it displays the Reformed dimension of our sacramentality.
  
  I hope this post did not give you a heart attack.

Allan Rohan Crite has a lovely little book of sketches depicting what is now the Rite I Eucharistic Prayer that wonderfully depicts the language of the prayer through a visual medium -- some of the best are images in which the eternal worship of God is drawn in all of its splendor all at the same time as and in conjunction with the celebrant praying.

One of the first pictures, for example: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WdtJkHl6Sis/Uv_fbYlouJI/AAAAAAAACmM/sLP7p3RtWeQ/s1600/allglory1.jpg

Another: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hLPRzo_QQlM/Uv_feiKjPpI/AAAAAAAACmU/KjMO06Cum9w/s1600/allglory2.jpg

It's a great little book, well worth buying. All Glory: https://www.amazon.com/All-Glory-Drawing-Meditations-Consecration/dp/1432589156/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495057067&sr=8-1&keywords=allan+crite+all+glory

I would say for questions 1. and 2. It is somewhat dependent on your region. Particularly in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), I believe they decided to leave the Ordination of Women up to individual bishops/parishes.

For 3, I don't have a specific answer however I do remember asking about it before I took communion the first time at my church and I would say they are somewhat medial in their position. The blessed sacrament is not the actual body after the service, and so it does not need to go into a tabernacle or be eaten by the priest, but it is also not "just bread".

4. You may also like the Audio Daily Office at the Trinity Mission.

5. Nope as someone else said, there are rites of reception.

6. I would say they certainly believe in apostolic succession as important, but they aren't going to consider Protestant denominations who do not have this tradition, not the church As Per Article 19 of the 39 Articles, "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."

7. I'm not aware of a blanket teaching. In my own church, people hold slightly different views.


I think if you spend any time on this sub, you'll learn that Anglicans are by no means universal in their beliefs. There just isn't the same type of unity as is expected in the Roman Catholic Church. I encourage you to explore the Anglican churches in your area either via there websites or in-person to find out more. If you are American, you may be interested in the book, Our Anglican Heritage. I found helpful in understanding how the American Anglican Church got to where we are today,

Okay... larger list:

So the 39 Articles sketch out a good view of baptism, justification, salvation, etc.

• The Study of Anglicanism, especially Louis Weil's essay "The Gospel in Anglicanism".
  
  
• The Anglican Spirit - Michael Ramsey
  
  
• Works from this list. Good variety of patristic, early medieval, Reformation, and contemporary works (including The Anglican Spirit).
  
  
• Not for Anglicans specifically, but Rowan Williams' short work Being Christian: Baptism, Bible, Eucharist, Prayer is really enlightening for its size. Likewise, his series of lectures on the Apostles' Creed, Tokens of Trust, is very good.
  
  
• Didn't read this but this catechism centered around the Decalogue/Lord's Prayer/Apostles' Creed looks awesome. It's from the ACNA (if that matters to you) but reading the description it looks like they did a good job. (C'mon Episcopal Church, step up your game...)
  
  
  
  

Though not an academic history I found this book enlightening on the early days of the COE. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060838736/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0060838736&pd_rd_r=JYZZ0GA7B9YR2T616PC4&pd_rd_w=SOm8I&pd_rd_wg=Zf2WD&psc=1&refRID=JYZZ0GA7B9YR2T616PC4
>The King James Bible remains the most influential Bible translation of all time. Its elegant style and the exalted cadences of its poetry and prose echo forcefully in Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot and Reynolds Price. As travel writer Nicolson points out, however, the path to the completion of the translation wasn't smooth. When James took the throne in England in early 1603, he inherited a country embroiled in theological controversy. Relishing a good theological debate, the king appointed himself as a mediator between the Anglicans and the reformist Puritans, siding in the end with the Anglican Church as the party that posed the least political threat to his authority. As a result of these debates, James agreed to commission a new translation of the Bible as an olive branch to the Puritans. Between 1604 and 1611, various committees engaged in making a new translation that attended more to the original Greek and Hebrew than had earlier versions. Nicolson deftly chronicles the personalities involved, and breezily narrates the political and religious struggles of the early 17th century. Yet, the circumstances surrounding this translation are already well known from two earlier books-Benson Bobrick's Wide as the Waters and Alister McGrath's In the Beginning-and this treatment adds little that is new. Although Nicolson succeeds at providing insight into the diverse personalities involved in making the King James Bible, Bobrick's remains the most elegant and comprehensive treatment of the process.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

A fool would deny how poorly the church has historically treated the LGBT community. This much is essentially self-evident. But that's not the pressing issue here; the issue is whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Suppose it is, like the history of the church has taught; I don't see how discrimination is present if homosexual acts are truly immoral. But I digress.

You're correct in locating the two main texts relevant but I think Romans 1 is the only chapter that really deals with what we modernly speak of as homosexuality. You pose the right question: what is Paul seeing? Is he seeing pure debauchery? Or is referencing monogamous consensual same sex relationships? It's not easy to tell. One way to go about it, as many have done, is simply to side with what the church has historically taught. The other, which seems like what you endorse, is interpreting that text in a new light: in it's proper context as Paul talking about debauchery. I honestly cannot say one way or the other but the Catholics have not changed their stance. While I might disagree with that stance, I can still respect the choice to remain faithful to what they think is true against the changing times.

Have you read The Moral Vision of the New Testament? If not, I would highly recommend it. Hays treats this exact subject with intellectual seriousness but also humility and gentleness.

I don't want to be 'that' guy, however you cannot scripturally justify engaging in same-sex relationships and sex.

I am a bisexual teenage Anglican like yourself. It is important to note that same-sex feelings are OK. They are not a sin, nor evil. But engaging with those feelings is a sin and cannot be scripturally justified. It's these reasons why I remain celibate, and don't allow my same-sex feelings to control me or define me: those thoughts come, and I let them go.

Is it the worst sin? No, it's not. But by having a same-sex relationship, you are engaging in sin; no amount of 'Jesus loves me!' can change that. Jesus does love you. God loves you; you are a son of God like anyone else. But like any Father, our Father in Heaven has rules, expectations and guidelines; when we stray from this, and start to say 'It's okay, he loves me!' although you're right, you're also justifying something contrary to the word of God.

Sam Allberry, a gay Pastor, did a much better job explaining this than I ever could in his book - 'Is God Anti Gay?'. It's a little book, but you can buy it here. He speaks about his personal experience, how to approach this issue as a Christian, and speaks directly to people like yourself who think it's Biblically OK. Fantastic book.

Luther preached that a Christian with a weak conscience could pray the first half of the Hail Mary, up until you ask her to pray for you, and a Christian with a strong conscience could pray the whole thing. He personally never abandoned his Marian piety, though he admitted that in some people, and if required, it can lead to idolatry and other "superstitions" (his favorite word).

Like Luther, I really think it's quite an individual thing. Can you hold the distinction in your mind between veneration and worship while you're doing it? If not, then you shouldn't. If so, then you could consider it.

I found the book Mary for Evangelicals really helpful. Despite not being evangelicals, we should want to honor the Scriptures, and this book examines the history of Marian doctrine and how far it should go. (According to the author, it can actually go surprisingly far.)

The BCP is used in worship and some Episcopalians use it for daily prayer as well. That can be a little hard to figure out without some guidance. I'd recommend talking to a priest about that. I know at our church we've had a BCP class every so often. If you want to get an idea of some ways to use it, here's a good online use: http://www.missionstclare.com/english/index.html and I've heard good things about http://www.amazon.com/Daily-Prayer-All-Seasons-English/dp/0898699231/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411957894&sr=1-1&keywords=daily+prayer+for+all+seasons

I used Phyllis Tickle's collection "Divine Hours" even before I became Episcopalian and it's a great set.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/

This is an excellent resource for seeing all the various iterations of the Book of Common Prayer and how it has changed, in such variegated ways, over Anglican history. My favorite BCPs are the 1929 Scottish, 1928 American, 1928 English Proposed, and the 1954 South African. There's some cool stuff in the Indian 1960 too.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/everyman_history/

Good old St Dearmer! Here's his history of the Book of Common Prayer.

Some podcasts I like: there's the Young Tractarians which definitely has a conservative Anglo-Catholic bent that talks extensively about the Prayer Book and what it is, so I'd recommend that. I'd also recommend understanding the BCP in the context in which it was written, namely the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. And finally, there's also these two special editions, one of the 1662 with an essay at the beginning from Penguin (you may be able to find this without having to buy 1662, but it's a gorgeous essay I would really recommend) and the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer.

We published a much lengthier catechism titles To Be a Christian published in a separate volume.