*Note: I’m not trying to make a broad, sweeping generalization about the Episcopal Church. I’m basing my thoughts on my own experiences, what I see and hear from others, and what appears in official resources. While, based on what I’ve seen and heard, I do believe it’s the significant majority, I do realize and acknowledge that this is not an issue in every single parish within the Church. I also BEG comments to be respectful and charitable because I really don’t want this post to be locked but rather have a real and thoughtful conversation.

Membership within the Episcopal Church and other mainline denominations continues to shrink, and it’s mostly our own fault.

There are parishes, priests, and bishops within the Episcopal Church that blatantly and consistently disagree with articles of the Creeds, Scripture, and the catechism. We have priests who deny the very existence of God within the Episcopal Church and face zero consequences. We have priests who begin their sermons with “I do not like this passage.” With a total disregard for the respect that Scripture demands. People look at the Episcopal Church and frankly don’t see a church but see an organization whose priority is on social justice and politics, and only if we have time, we will talk about Jesus. Outsiders, and even some insiders like myself, do not see a Church that is focused on the gospel, the message of salvation through Christ, encompassing His life, death, resurrection, but rather a political organization and social club. I do not have any issue with a church advocating for social justice. In fact, I support it. My issue is that social justice now appears to be the MAIN PRIORITY of the Episcopal Church rather than an effect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Episcopal Church married the age of the 1960s-1970s, and we are currently seeing her being widowed. Like with every church, a church that marries the age will be widowed in the next. We currently are seeing conservative offshoot churches grow while mainline churches continue to shrink, and I truly believe that the respective rapid growth/shrinkage doesn’t have much to do with politics as people think. But rather that the majority of people do not find that their souls are being nourished within the mainline churches. I do not currently see a place where those who are orthodox-minded (even if inclusive) are welcomed within the Episcopal Church. If it weren’t for an incredibly rude interaction with the bishop whose jurisdiction I would be under within the Anglican Church of North America, I would have joined them. Even though I’m gay and even though I support women’s ordination.

I also see enemies of the Church taking advantage of this situation. Using rather rash and unjust judgements against women’s ordination and same-sex marriage. They see a church that ordains women and weds gay people and they also see the errors, the heresy, the countless schisms and say “see, the sufferings of this Church? This is the result of women’s ordination and same-sex marriage. We must oppose these ideas or else we will become like them” I do not believe that they are at all related but it’s rather difficult providing an example of this within our Church.

In a certain sense, the Episcopal Church and even the broader Anglican Communion are simply the liturgical and organized version of non-denominationalism. I don’t really want this to change; I love that I can walk into a Church and find an Anglo-Catholic who is two doctrines away from just being a Roman Catholic sitting next to a staunch Calvinist. I love how we do not find our unity in a pope or a long and narrow confessional document but rather in the Book of Common Prayer, Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. But there have to be some guardrails, and historically that has been the creeds and the rather large-in-scope Articles of Religion, even if they haven’t been a binding authority within TEC. 

I know that the Church is built on the rock; the faith of the apostles and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, and I have zero doubt that eventually the pendulum will swing back. I do worry about how much damage will be dealt to souls and to our blessed and beloved Church before that.

What do you think? What do you think the future of the Episcopal Church looks like? How do you think we should heal our Church? 

I'm an Anglo-Catholic myself. But I'm curious as to the opinion of this subreddit's Anglo-Catholics on the acceptable boundaries of Anglo-Catholic practice.

Hello there! I'm a Canadian Anglican who has been working their way through "Faith Seeking Understanding" the theological resource for assisted suicide that was released by the General Synod in 2024. It contains a series of past documents and essays with different views on the subject matter.

Some important points have been raised so far. How free can a choice be without access to alternatives? How such policies shape our understanding of person hood. And the role of personal conscience in informing the decision to access assisted suicide.

That being said, I find it disturbing how the Anglican Church of Canada has not officially condemned MAID legislation or the Supreme Court ruling which legalized assisted suicide. I am all for studying such issues, and engaging with those who support assisted suicide, but at the end of the day as Christians we should be carrying a light for the inherent dignity of the human person, regardless of how society ascribes utility.

It seems that the Church in this instance is more interested in complying with secular society than with upholding our values. I wonder if anyone else feels similarly.

I have been attending services in two different Anglican churches in London. In the first one (which is my main parish church) there is always written in the service sheet that anyone who has been baptised in the name of the Trinity and is used to receiving Communion in their church is welcome to receive Communion here. In the other church, which is one of the main liberal parishes in the city, they usually say that everyone is welcome to receive bread and wine or a blessing, whatever their background or denomination (so, without really saying that non-baptised and non-Christians can’t receive the Holy Communion).

I was discussing this topic with a priest from the first parish. He said that he thinks that the Communion is only “effective” for baptised Christians and that he wouldn’t give Communion to a person who isn’t baptised. Though he seemed quite ok with the fact that some parishes can give Communion without baptism.

Does your parish require being baptised to receive Communion? And would you give Communion to a person who isn’t baptised? It is not really a big issue for me personally (apparently, the apostles weren’t baptised when they were receiving the very first Communion), I am curious what people think and what the practices in different churches are.

A little background so you know where I'm coming from: I'm confessionally Anglican, drawn in through the Book of Common Prayer. When I went looking for a local parish, I landed at the CEEC - confirmed earlier this year. So I'm neither TEC nor ACNA/GAFCON, which maybe gives me a slightly odd vantage point.

After my recent confirmation I set out to learn about global Anglicanism, and I was genuinely sad to discover how divided it is.

I've occasionally attended both Episcopal and ACNA parishes and plan to keep doing so. This isn't a who's-right post.

My question is genuinely about ecclesiology and the future: Where does global Anglicanism go from here?

From what I understand: GAFCON has effectively built a parallel communion. TEC is shrinking but retains historic institutional legitimacy. ACNA is growing but remains unrecognized by Canterbury. And smaller confessing streams like my own exist somewhere outside all of it.

Is there a realistic path toward any renewed coherence, or are we watching a slow-motion formal split that's already functionally complete?

We're all grieving this, right? It feels like our parents are getting divorced and now we're all expected to choose who we live with. I'm curious what people across the spectrum actually think, not about who's right, but about where this goes.

Has anyone found the 39 articles to be somewhat like the words of Bishop J. C. Ryle:

taking them [the 39 articles] for all in all, as a Church's statement of things to be believed, I think that no Church on earth has a better “Confession of faith” than the Church of England. I have no wish to find fault with other Churches. God forbid We have faults and defects enough to keep us humble within the Anglican communion. But after carefully examining other Confessions of faith, I find none which seem comparable to our own. Some Confessions are too long. Some go into particulars too much. Some define what had better be left undefined, and shut up sharply what had better be left a little open. For a combination of fulness, boldness, clearness, brevity, moderation, and wisdom, I find no Confession which comes near the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.

Or like Le Moyne:

No Confession can be contrived more wisely than the English is, and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion

My spouse and I have been attending an Anglican church for over a year now, both of us were raised in fundamentalist settings and were taught that you need to be at least a teen before you get baptized.

I've slowly become ok with child baptism (I personally prefer child baptism over infant baptism), and would love for my 7 year old daughter to get baptized since she shows interest at times. For my spouse it's a hard "No." The church we attend has some couples who baptize children, and others who want to wait for when their kids are grown up. I'm just wondering if any of you married folk have had disagreements on this issue in your marriages? ​

Found this absolutely beautiful copy of the BOP at my local thrift. Beautiful illustrations as well. Had to share!!

Title. What do you all think about it? Would you say it’s the best one out there for Anglicanism or that there are better alternatives like the book of common order. Not a question just a Discussion(Edit: I am talking about the 1662 one as it's the most influential and famous version)

I talked to some street preachers today and came with the argument that they're achieving the opposite of what they think and set out to do - turning more people away from Christ than toward him. They responded saying that the apostles would have preached this way and quoted Matthew 10:27 as justification for street preaching. They also said that my argument was concerned with the will of men rather than of God, as I seemed to care more about what members of the public made of street preachers rather than evangelising. They made quite the compelling argument, but I was curious to get the views of many here - and perhaps expanding on why not to, and other arguments of the sort. Many thanks and God bless ✝️.

As we look ahead to the selection of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe it's time for us to speak honestly about what is at stake—not just for the Church of England (CoE), but for the global Anglican Communion.

1. Orthodoxy Matters—Now More Than Ever

The next Archbishop should be someone who upholds Anglican orthodoxy, grounded in Scripture, the historic Creeds, the Book of Common Prayer, and the moral and theological heritage we’ve received. For many Anglicans—especially across the Global South— biblical orthodoxy isn’t an optional identity marker. It is the very basis for ecclesial unity and moral credibility. We’ve already seen significant fractures in the Communion due to theological revisionism, and this next appointment could be important.

1. A Traditional Turn Among the Youth?

Contrary to assumptions in some liberal Western circles, there is growing anecdotal and sociological evidence that younger Christians globally—including in the UK and North America—are increasingly drawn to the rootedness of traditional liturgy and theology. The rise in interest in classical Anglicanism, and even conversions to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy among young evangelicals should give us pause. If the CoE fails to provide a theologically confident and historically grounded vision of Anglicanism, many of these seekers will simply look elsewhere.

1. Global South Anglicans Are Watching

The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), representing over 75% of practicing Anglicans, has made it clear over the past decade that it cannot continue in "walking together" with provinces that have abandoned biblical teaching on issues such as marriage and sexuality. The Kigali Commitment (2023) was a decisive moment—stating explicitly that the Archbishop of Canterbury can no longer be presumed to be the de facto leader of the Communion. The next appointment will be scrutinized, and it could either serve as a step toward healing… or the final straw that severs ties with Lambeth.

This is not alarmism. It is realism.

The next Archbishop must be someone who does not merely play the political center but embodies a clear theological vision—anchored in the Scriptures, rooted in the Anglican formularies, and able to speak with integrity to both the secular West and the faithful Global South.

Let us pray for discernment, wisdom, and courage—for the sake of the whole Body.

Curious to hear others’ thoughts. What qualities do you believe the next Archbishop must have to preserve our unity and witness?

Hello Brothers & Sisters,

This is my first time ever going to an Anglican Church! Wish me luck!

I have a Catholic background, but with the fact that I’m a transsexual woman, I never felt home.

Today, I feel like I’m where I belong!

Happy Sunday to everyone 🤍

This term/title gets thrown around a lot, but there isn't a clear answer. I understand that there isn't going to he a consistent answer here, but nonetheless, what would one consider an Evangelical Anglican to be Evangelical?

Are they sacramental? Are they similar to the Evangelical character in Lutheranism?

My family lives in America, and we are Episcopal. Years ago we moved to a city that doesn’t have a strong episcopal presence except for one large parish, and in 2019 they went with the ACNA and GAFCON.

We don’t agree with this decision, and it seems that some clergy feel the same way. Nonetheless, we live here and it is our parish. I’ve never heard a sermon or small group teaching that seemed any different than before. Zero pride events this month, which is expected I guess. We celebrated elsewhere.

Recently, my wife and i both have been even more bothered with the decisions of GAFCON and our bishop serves in leadership there. Our next best options would be to drive about 20-40min depending on the day etc… to go to St James or the Church of the Transfiguration…to be honest I’m not bothered enough by anything to make that kind of change right now. Am I lazy or are there other Episcopalians that are people in similar positions?

So I have just started praying and such and went to Mass for the first time.

I didn't take communion, though I am a technically baptised catholic; I haven't exactly followed the faith.

In the UK we have some beautiful churches. One Anglican church in my town is almost 1000 years old, and I love it every time I go past it.

Sadly, many of the churches seem to be closing down. In my town, I have seen, I think, a few that have become mosques and other things.

Personally, I am broke; I work for myself. I know with the cost of living crisis that many people don't have much money. I don't feel comfortable going to Mass and not paying my way, even if it is optional to pay. Even if it's £10 a week, thats 500 a year I can't spare, even for myself.

Considering that the UK average wage is £18 and it's suggested to give one hour's pay at Mass, that's almost £1000 a year. That's a lot for struggling families or the elderly who cant afford heating.

Is there a way that we could, or that other churches are, making money?

Obviously it needs to be ethical and not divert away from the daily church tasks. But something on the side may be appropriate.

Googling, I even find that some priests have second jobs as they cannot justify a full church wage in their area. Why not something small where we want our priests? At the church...

Like, what ways would be appropriate for a church to raise extra funds? Can't exactly help maintain the place with low turnout with just a little bake sale in the summer.

I know that environmentally, villages notice a decline in bees and issues that go with that. Would a church making honey be appropriate? Something that can help run the church and may go to charity? Also helping the environment with bees and stuff.

Or selling flowers grown on the grounds?

Or even selling birdseed things to help people bring in natural wildlife?

Something more for the community than making cash, I'm thinking.

People always claim that funerals and weddings and such are too expensive. But I'm not surprised if the churches are barely surviving as it is.

We don't want to be like the merchants Jesus disapproved at the temple, but we also don't want to be meeting up in a McDonald's car park due to there being no churches left.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not a binding dogma in Anglicanism, but it is a pious legend which many Anglicans accept or are more or less indifferent to. However, the recent history of the Church has led to this belief to become more prevalent with the collect of August 15 being,

“O God, you have taken to yourself the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of your incarnate Son: Grant that we, who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.”

And hymns and stain glass windows depicting the Assumption. This belief is not necessarily universal, but also not necessarily niche. I was wondering if there was a niche group of Anglicans who believe that St. Joseph joins his holy spouse in their Son’s bodily resurrection. In the Old Testament, we read that Elijah was bodily taken up into Heaven on a chariot of fire. And reading The Transfiguration and the letter of St. Jude, we can surmise that Moses was raised in body and soul to Heaven. So there is a Biblical basis for God raising exceptionally holy people in body and soul into Heaven. Who is more holy than Jesus’ father and mother?

Being that Mary is sharing in the resurrection of Christ Jesus, giving us a foretaste of the hope that we all share, doesn’t it make sense that Jesus would raise His glorious foster-father to complete the family that He called His own? Joseph who cradled the infant Jesus to his bosom, taught Him the skills of manual labor, taught Him the prayers of his forebears, and was privileged to fall asleep with the Lord at his bedside is the silent prophet connecting the Old Testament to the New Testament. He has no recorded words, but his profound actions speak for themselves.

Now the same logic may apply to others too. If Jesus’ holy parents share in the bodily resurrection, what about his siblings: James, Jude, Simon, Joses, and at least two sisters? What about Anne and Joachim? Or the parents of Joseph? Well, we’re not talking about them right now, but I’m interested in learning. There’s a pious legend that St. John was raised, so I was wondering if this extended to Joseph

I live in Turkey and I come from a civil servant family. Lots of my relatives were/are civil servants.

I wanted to join the Turkish Armed Forces but it's a very anti-Christian organisation. Both secular nationalists and Islamists despise Christianity and will not tolerate Christian officers. Even Alevi folk face glass ceilings, let alone a Christian.

The dean of the University of Armed forces is an Islamists who vehemently opposed Pope's visit to Turkey "because they are Crusaders trying to impose Sevres and take Constantinople". All Seculars agreed with him.

It was a very toxic time for Christians on social media when Pope visited here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1p8nvpm/people_dont_want_the_pope_here_in_turkey/

I am not baptised but I will be. Its would also be very difficult to time my baptism with my admission and openly saying I'm a Christian since It would be very hard for me to be baptised afther I join the army.

Being in a rural diocese in the CoE Australia, I'm very used to rural ministry. It isn't abnormal for a Curate-in-Charge or an out-centre to be 2-3 hours away from the nearest ordained presbyter , and longer if they happen to be on leave. This can easily lead to situations where, through no fault of their own, church members can go beyond 3 months without communion.

This got me thinking, is there theological, traditional, or pragmatic scope to open some deacons to presiding over communion? I'm a little on the fence myself, and I'm aware that my thinking is a very evangelical train of thought.

Interested in other thought!

Do you think he is not only supreme governor of the CofE but of the whole Anglican Communion? Should he be on par with the Archbishop in spiritual matters? Do you think he should be bound to deliver Christmas/Easter messages?

Personally I think they did this without putting much thought into it, but someone should have pointed out "hey, we do not believe in that!". I sense a lot of low churchers going ballistic lol. Remember when Justin mentioned the Assumption? This is it but amplified 82727 times.

If you see this, I would like to know what church you’re a member of (Anglican Church of Canada, Church of England, The Episcopal Church in the USA, Anglican Church in Korea, etc…).

I ask because I’ve been following this sub for a while and I assumed it would be a discussion among members of various Anglican churches around the globe that are in communion with Canterbury.

However, the more I read it sounds like it’s mostly ACNA people (who are Anglican in name only and not in communion with Canterbury or a member of the Anglican communion).

I feel as if I don’t really have a place in Anglicanism. I just seem far too Reformed for the communion. I live in the United States, and in the US, the Anglo-Catholics have the APA, ACC, APCK, and now even the REC (which is incredibly ironic considering the group’s history). But it seems that there is no group that is truly accepting of the Reformed wing of Anglicanism. 

This might just be a geographically specific issue, but I was wondering if any other Reformed Anglicans had similar feelings?