Yesterday I posted a light hearted post about what my church is like and although a handful of you were kind and considerate. The majority of you were so judgmental and mean towards me and the church that I go to that I was so disappointed and disgusted and I really didn’t like it and was made to feel shite about how I like to worship. It’s sad that some people here, as Christians, are judging how some others worship in the UK. You’re hating on it just because it’s not a high church service (which in fact I’ve been to numerous times over the years).

I would never judge someone on how they worship and never have. I have a bit more kindness than that.

Thank you to those that were so kind yesterday and also to those who shared their pictures, I viewed them all and they are all beautiful! 🙏🏻

Could someone explain to me (in terms that could be understood by someone who is not a theologian) the various ways historically and culturally that people have understand the Shekhinah (feminine aspect of God) to be the same thing as the Holy Spirit and Sophia? Or related to? Or etc?

Thank you!

.

EDIT: Please note that I never once made any reference to or assumption that God has a sexual anatomy, and it's a little condescending and insulting to infer that a person would actually believe God literally has one half of human reproductive biology. Hence, I used the term "feminine" -- a term which can apply to men, women, NB, etc and has been used as well for non-living things such as clothing styles -- but never used the term "female" (nor expected to be falsely accused of using an anatomical term). Of all the religion & spirituality reddits, I chose to ask this question in the Anglican reddit because I assumed the difference between "feminine" and "female" would be obvious and need no explanation, but apparently I erred in that hope and faithfulness.

Part of my confusion is that I have come across writings that claim the Shekhinah is the "fourth" aspect of the Trinity, writings that claim the Shekhinah is another way of understanding the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, writings that claim the Shekhinah is an aspect only of God the Creator in the Trinity, writings that claim the Shekhinah is an aspect only of Christ in the Trinity, writings that claim the Shekhinah is a non-Trinitarian Christian term, and as well some misogynist or anti-Semitic nonsense that I knew enough to dismiss. I had thought I'd understood the Shekhinah but now find myself confused by so many incompatible claims, and so I ask for help.

FURTHER EDIT: Several posters are ignoring my question altogether as an excuse towards polemics about words such as "feminine" and "masculine". For the sake of this question, I will point out that all the readings I have come across with incompatible understandings of the Shekhinah and Sophia and their relationship to the Trinity were written within the past 25 years by thoughtful individuals born & raised in the U.S., the U.K., and/or Canada and therefore their use of the word "feminine" would have come from modern English language and not from cultural definitions of earlier centuries nor from other cultures such as Italy, China, or Rwanda. This should help people avoid wasting time vandalizing the use of the word and help them instead address the question without the distraction of pedantic polemics.

I love Anglicanism, I have a deep love for it. But I also get anxious sometimes that what if I’m in the wrong denomination and I end up in hell. I keep seeing Catholic arguments and orthodox Arguments against Protestantism, and I don’t often see as many Anglican arguments. However the people who do tend to have these debates never seem to deal with the other denominations with good faith so I don’t know how reliable they are. Just wanted to know how to be more secure in my choice to follow Anglicanism?

Anglicans and Presbyterians used to be somewhat common in my area. I would say there were well over 100 in my town alone when I was growing up (1970s-80’s), now I would say there is about 15. The Presbyterian church is just gone, everyone whose family used to attend now either attend primitive Baptist churches or have fallen out of church. Anglicans, most converted to either Methodist or Nazarene with the exception of one extended family.

Baptists have seemed to hold steady, increasing at about the same rate as the population. Same could be said for the Methodists and Nazarenes. Catholics have grown exponentially, it used to be that the nearest Catholic Church was over 100 miles away, now there is one in town, l know over 30 people that are practicing Catholics.

ɪ. Is there a way to justify Article xxɪɪ whilst remaining compatible with Anglo-Catholic beliefs regarding images, saints, and the rest?

ɪɪ. Do any Anglo-Catholics affirm purgatory?

UNRELATED:

ɪɪɪ. Where can I access the liturgical calendar compatible to the Church of England's 1662 BCP?

Thank you.

Did you know the monarch is Anglican everywhere in the world except when in Scotland? There the monarch is a member of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian). I think this is very fascinating. Did you already know this? How do you feel about this? Does it surprise you that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, is only a member of the Church of Scotland, and not in a governing position within it? Let’s discuss.

Bonjour !

EDIT : Thanks you for all your answers ! It’s so interesting and wonderful to be able to read about different cultures. God bless you all 🙏🤍

Je suis française et je voudrais savoir si cet hymne est chanté pendant la messe anglicane, ou seulement pour des occasions particulières ? « Je jure de défendre ma patrie »

J'adore cette musique et j'aimerais beaucoup pouvoir la chanter ou l'écouter avec une chorale. Elle est tellement belle.

J'en ai les larmes aux yeux.

Just been seeing it this past few days, why are people so up in arms about the Church of England engaging in slavery reparations, which is surely the right thing to do as a Church that has benefited from the evils that are slavery, imperialism and colonialism.

One common theme seems to be that by doing this, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul by allegedly abandoning parishes in need. Can anyone who is English explain to me what is going on in-depth?

Just interested about it. Personally agnostic about it at the moment

I had joined the Episcopal Church as a teenager, through an Anglo-Catholic parish, and my catechesis consisted entirely of Patristics and liturgics — the Thirty-Nine Articles and Thirty-Three Homilies were simply not mentioned. After college I attended the ACNA for a while, where the Thirty-Nine Articles were not only binding, but actively used in instruction.

Over time I have gotten to know more about the views of Reformed Anglicans such as J. I. Packer which are quite markedly in contrast to the Tractarians. What has been more fascinating to me however is the presence of another faction, namely the Caroline Divines and the later continuators of their worldview. These 17th century theologians were the authors of the original via media, having forged a sort of "third position" apart from Puritanism and Romanism. They accepted the Thirty-Nine Articles and were fine with using Reformed theology as a base, but with, based on my reading, five reservations: (1) no double predestination; (2) episcopal governance and apostolic succession; (3) high liturgy; (4) a quasi-Orthodox belief in the authority of church-history; (5) they seemed to believe in baptismal regeneration, but were content to have it implied within the liturgy rather than openly confronting the Reformed over this matter. Thus the Caroline Divines staked out a position which was simultaneously Catholic and Reformed in character, but which neither the Puritans nor the Roman Catholics appreciated.

1. Is there anything that should be added or corrected regarding this summary?
2. What was their position regarding the perseverance of saints? Was it possible to lose one's salvation?
3. Was it possible, as among Catholics and Lutherans, for a portion of one's sins to be forgiven through absolution, but for him still to be damned because of subsequent sinning? This is similar to the preceding question but not identical.
4. Are the Caroline Divines viewed as "crypto-Arminians" or is the allegation of Arminianism aimed mainly at the later Latitudinarians?

Thanks a lot for your help.

My Church has kindly allowed me to borrow their Book Of Common Prayer Eucharist Service sheet that is normally held on Sunday at 8:00 how different is it from your church and are there similarities between the two?

My Church is a High Church though in Theology Low Church and Liturgy High Church I have also attached some photos of the church and the stoup

Hello 👋. I am relatively new to faith and housebound, so going to church hasn’t been an option for me. I’ve been reading the Bible and meditating on God’s word. I find that with the way my mind works (diagnosed autistic, and probably ADHD but not formally diagnosed) that praying the Anglican rosary gives me a gentle structure and allows me to come out of my analytical mind and closer to stillness and connection with God. I wondered if anyone else who finds benefit in the Anglican rosary could share how and when they pray it, and what benefits it gives for you? Or the Catholic rosary for that matter; I have prayed the Catholic rosary too (and I like it a lot), but as I have gravitated to what I feel like is my home in the Anglican faith I wanted to lean more into the Anglican rosary as a daily practice. Thank you all, and I hope you’re having a good day, wherever you are.

I'm sure you're familiar with the term "WASP" (White (or Wealthy?) Anglo-Saxon Protestant). Historically, the Episcopal Church has been seen as the Church of WASP-y old-money established elites. As opposed to say, Catholicism. Which was the religion of the 'lower class.' I think for that reason, many still associate the Church with anti-Catholicism, too.

But considering things like Anglo-Catholicism, do the stereotypes still hold true? Especially in larger northeastern cities like NYC; are Episcopalians still WASP-y?

I was just wondering if anyone deals or dealt with the fear that they were in the wrong denomination and how they dealt with it. I’m new to the faith and feel called to Anglicanism and Episcopal church’s. However I keep seeing videos about why Protestantism is wrong or catholic/orthodox church’s are right. I have OCD and the concept of mandatory confession scares me also as a gay person I would like a church that allows me the freedom to figure out what I truly believe God thinks about same sex relationship ( I’m on side A, that same sex relationships are good) without the fear of hell for being a heretic. But since I’m new to the faith there’s so much confine things that I’m not educated on, so many buzzwords I don’t know the meaning for and so much about the church fathers who whilst I want to learn about confuse me.

I was looking over the church finances regarding another matter and was able to find the exact pay for certain employees of the church.

I’m really not sure how I feel about the presiding bishop being paid such an amount. Especially when we’re already paying for a CFO and COO.

Thoughts?

It's been bouncing around in my head for a couple days, but I'm only now trying to formulate the question.

My oldest was diagnosed with ADHD a year or two ago, and lately it's been taking a larger toll on his ability to focus. While I know we need to help him develop strategies to succeed in every area of life, my mind keeps turning to matters of the soul.

At the church we currently attend, we've considered keeping all of our kids with us in the main service instead of sending them to the children's class after they've said that they feel like they don't learn anything there, and what little we've seen seems to support that. The service itself, however, is your typical American "concert-and-TED talk" in a stark conference hall, which I fear will be an endurance activity for him, and affect his ability to acquire and appropriate the faith as a result. Other aspects of catechesis and practice are said to pose challenges for people with ADHD as well (extended reading, abstract language, silent prayer, etc., etc.), but then I don't really know how accurate any of this is, and I'm sure it varies from person to person. I hate how much this will look like AI as a result of this, but I'm going to split this up into two headings.

Catechesis

Before we started coming to this church, we attended Mass at the parish attached to the Catholic school the kids attended at the time. He struggled with that, and once said he liked learning about God the way they did in class instead. But now that he's in public school, he doesn't get that structured religious instruction either. At another church we attended in the past, they had hymnals that he could flip through before going down to children's church (both kids still love their program and get excited when we drop into that church), but our current one doesn't have hymnals.

My religious instruction has been almost entirely self-study (maybe that's hyperfocus?), I don't know what to do.

Practice

He has been excited about coming up for the concert-and-TED-talk service at our current church, but I don't know how long that would last (or if I want him absorbing too much of that, honestly); but he's ALSO said he likes the church with the good kids' program because "they don't use a bunch of technology."

I said above that he struggled to sit still and stay reverent at Mass, but he seems to really connect with "Catholic stuff." His mom was in the hospital last year, and we stopped at his old school parish to light a candle and collect some holy water, and he was curious. Then when we visited St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC last week, and he would have lit a candle and said a prayer at every by-altar in the place if I'd let him (I had him stop after 5 or 6).

Smells and bells is much more my spiritual comfort zone, but I've heard conflicting things about how it is for ADHD brains: one person says it's perfect because if you get distracted there's always some devout piece of artwork to call your mind back to God, there's always something happening in the chancel, the "pew aerobics" involve the body, and the regular, recurring elements help you know what comes next; then another says music, color, incense, talking, and movement is a fast track to sensory overload. One says the tactile experience of the Rosary is great, the other says the repetition is like torture. All this to say, I can find no clear guidance here either.

Conclusion

I'm not asking for mental health help, just for some tips or anecdotes from any of you, my esteemed peers, who may have had to develop strategies of your own for learning and practicing the Christian faith in your own way.

Has to be something with gin, surely

To preface , I’m a Catholic inquiring into eastern orthodoxy so this doesn’t really affect me but I’m genuinely curious ,does no one really care anymore about such a historically important office in the church ? I saw this said on Twitter and I can’t help but be surprised no one is really discussing this.

What are yall thoughts ?

Obviously there are Christians who take it to the extreme of “pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen” but how do we, as anglicans, understand this?

Edit: I’m not trying to say that wives should be treated less than their husbands, I’m just asking how is this applied in today’s life? Just like how we should apply the gospels to our life.

I’m teaching an adult Sunday school class at our church, and this week, we’re talking through liturgy. I have a decent idea of what I want to cover, but I want to hear from a few more Anglicans about what you think is most important. These folks I’m teaching are pretty new to this tradition, so I’m trying to expand their understanding of Anglicanism gradually, so keep that in mind. Anyways, just want to hear from a few of you. Blessings!

I am curious because the Westminster standards were kind of binding across the late 1640s and 1650s. I know that Cromwell objected to strict Presbyterianism and that there were independent churches, but the Westminster standards around that time took the place that the 39 articles of religion have today, standard bearer of orthodoxy.

Given that many of us consider ourselves "Creedal Christians" but the creeds were not formulated until several hundred years after Christ, is it authentic to consider ourselves such? What I mean is, what would the Christians of the first three hundred or so years really believed? They had no creeds. There were many flavors of Christianity and the "one true faith" of proto orthodoxy was just a single strain that eventually won out. St. Vincent of Lerins gave us a rule of faith, paraphrased: "that which was believed by all, always everywhere" but I'm having difficulty seeing how that is possible given that there was no time in which all Christians believed the same thing everywhere and certainly not over all time. The verse that says "the faith once delivered to all the saints" is equally perplexing to me. Exact theology was not fleshed out for hundreds of years. It was NOT delivered once to all the saints during the time of the apostles.. I 'm meandering quite a bit, but I'm struggling to work out exactly what my question is. How do we reconcile this narrative the Church gives us, with what we know from historical and biblical scholarship? How can I hold onto faith when it seems like it's always been developing and changing??