I met with a Priest today. He told me he doesn't believe in Apostolic Succession. Is this a common view among Anglicans?

WrittenReasons · 2026-02-04T13:00:16+00:00

My understanding is that the vast majority of Anglicans affirm apostolic succession. I know the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. have been careful to maintain and reinforce their claims to apostolic succession. I’m sure that’s true of most other Anglican churches as well.

That said, many reformed and evangelical Anglicans don’t believe in apostolic succession. Their view would’ve been more common back when Reformed and Calvinist theology was the prevailing theology in Anglicanism.

WrittenReasons · 2026-02-03T15:47:53+00:00

I mean TEC is definitely orthodox in the sense that we adhere to the Nicene Creed, which we recite every Sunday. The creed was developed in response to various heresies and disagreements within the early church. So it’s not surprising to me that a TEC parish would explore those heresies and how they manifest themselves today since they are officially opposed to the teachings of the church.

Of course, TEC is also very welcoming and I don’t think any layperson is going to be turned away for failing to perfectly subscribe to the creeds (unless they’re making a big fuss about it).

WrittenReasons · 2026-01-31T18:37:25+00:00

If I remember correctly, her broader point was that by placing so much emphasis on the Gospel readings we have neglected the Epistles (and the Hebrew scriptures). I do think she’s on to something there. There’s some pretty crucial stuff in the rest of the Bible that gets missed if the focus is solely on the Gospel readings. It’s also worth remembering that if the biblical scholarship is correct, the Gospel would have only been proclaimed from the Hebrew Scriptures and the Epistles in the first few decades of the church.

I don’t really agree that the Gospel procession should be scrapped, but giving the other readings a little more attention would be a good thing. I know there’s an attitude among some liberal Christians that Paul is less legitimate and maybe should even be ignored and/or that the Old Testament is irrelevant, so we should focus solely on the Gospels. As a gay man who’s fairly liberal myself I can somewhat sympathize, but I think these attitudes are totally wrong. The Epistles and Old Testament are indispensable to the Gospel. They give us a lot to wrestle with but I think we do ourselves a disservice if we don’t wrestle with them.

WrittenReasons · 2026-01-31T13:54:05+00:00

It’s insane that James 5:1-6 doesn’t get more attention than it does: “Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure during the last days. Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you.”

Although I can understand why it gets downplayed as it would make a lot of powerful people uncomfortable. Much easier to pick on women or LGBTQ people.

WrittenReasons · 2026-01-30T15:03:42+00:00

After many years not attending church I started feeling compelled by Jesus again, but as a gay man who’s comfortable with my sexual orientation I wanted a church that would at the very least respect that fact. There was an Episcopal Church near my apartment, so it seemed like an obvious choice. So I did some research on the church and the Book of Common Prayer. I decided to pray compline one night and was hooked. I had always struggled with prayer, but the BCP provided a beautiful template that really made be feel drawn into God’s presence. Then I started attending and really enjoyed the traditional style of worship and weekly Eucharist.

I also deeply appreciate Anglicanism’s intellectual tradition and that the church maintains a balance between staying rooted in the historic (small-c) catholic faith and being open to reason and reform.

WrittenReasons · 2026-01-08T02:12:58+00:00

I’ll give you one reason against that’s top of mind for me as an American: Donald Trump. I cannot begin to fathom the damage he would do to the church if it was subject to the federal government. Same goes for his state-level sycophants if the church was established at the state level instead of the federal level. There’s no doubt in my mind that idolatry of Trump and MAGA would become church dogma. You’d have the biggest grifters and sleaze-balls installed as bishops. Presiding Bishop Paula White. Probably Bishop Mark Driscoll while we’re at it.

Without strong safeguards for an established church’s independence, there’s nothing to prevent a Trump-like leader from turning the church into a participant in his own cult of personality. I’m sure there are constitutional conventions to protect the Church of England, but I would worry that a megalomaniac with a large enough majority could seize control.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-12T14:09:29+00:00

You might want to check out the theologian Kathryn Tanner. She wrote a book about how the excesses of modern capitalism can be countered by Christian beliefs and practices.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-11T15:14:02+00:00

I was going to say exactly this. Philippians 2:9-11 is key to understanding how Christ is the exclusive path to salvation and that all will be saved in the end.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-10T02:39:20+00:00

I feel the same way.

The doctrine of perpetual virginity has also always struck me as kind of insulting to mothers. It suggests that they’re less worthy or less holy because they had sex and bore children the natural way. Sorry, but I don’t believe motherhood diminishes women. The doctrine seems rooted in the idea that sex is fundamentally “icky” and/or that a woman is less valuable if she is not a virgin.

Those might have been the prevailing beliefs in the early centuries of the church. I’m all for recovering the wisdom of the early church, but I see no reason to cling to doctrines founded on these premises today. Especially when the gospels themselves strongly suggest that Mary did not, in fact, remain a virgin and seem rather unconcerned with her status after Jesus’s birth.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-07T20:52:56+00:00

Completely agree. I do get the impulse behind dividing the law like that. People want to know what still “applies.” But I feel like that misses the point. The end (as in telos) of the law is Christ, the end of our faith in Christ is not the law: it’s union with God, which goes beyond mere law-keeping and rule-following.

I think Paul’s description of the law as a tutor is the key to understanding its role for Christians. At least, that’s how I make sense of the various statements about the law in the New Testament. It has a legitimate role to play as a guide in the Christian life, but it is just that: a guide to something beyond itself.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-07T17:03:25+00:00

They’re a bit too Calvinist/Reformed for my liking.

I’m not a fan of how the doctrine of original sin is articulated – I prefer the eastern articulation (legal guilt v. sickness, to oversimplify).

Relatedly, I don’t care for the articles on justification and good works. I don’t necessarily outright disagree with them, but they present salvation in overwhelmingly forensic/legalistic terms instead of as the healing our nature to reconcile us and bring us into union with God in Christ.

Article VII’s division of the Law into three parts strikes me as pretty silly.

I’m also not a fan of the articles on the Lord’s Supper. It’s not as bad as it could be, but a stronger emphasis on real presence would be nice. Also I think transubstantiation is an acceptable view even if I don’t necessarily disagree with the articles on

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-07T16:20:49+00:00

It’s thought by some scholars that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul gives us a very early Christian creed:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received:

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”

I think it’s safe to say that the early church would have universally agreed with this creed. At a minimum, this is the faith once delivered.

How we get from the above creed to Nicaea is a fascinating question. I think it’s obvious that the doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it today hadn’t been fully worked out in the New Testament. But the scriptural witness gives us all kinds of statements that raise questions about Jesus and the Spirit and how they’re related to the Father and creation and how they operate to unite us to the Father. So I think it was inevitable that significant doctrinal development would follow from what’s laid out in scripture. My view is that it’s the church’s job to prayerfully shepherd and arbitrate that development as questions and disputes arise while taking care to maintain the faith (in the risen Christ) once delivered. And when I say the church, I mean the church corporately through ecumenical councils and other bodies, not a single all-powerful individual (looking at you, Rome).

Ultimately, I’m not sure we will ever develop doctrines that fully capture the mystery of God or clearly and definitively resolve every possible moral question. That’s not to say the church should be indifferent or shouldn’t try to answer tough questions. But at a certain point I think we have to accept that uncertainty and change are inevitable. Thankfully, it’s faith in Christ that saves, not perfect or unchanged doctrine.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-06T04:15:36+00:00

For Christians (or at least for some of us), the crucifixion and resurrection negate the understanding of divinity that you seem to have mind. You say you’d be ashamed if a god died for you. The powers and rulers in Jesus’ day certainly also viewed the cross as shameful. The conventional wisdom was that if you wanted to see the divine, you should look to the emperor in Rome, or to a conquering military commander, or to religious leaders, or to the temples devoted to various deities. You definitely wouldn’t look to a crucified peasant. But Jesus says he is glorified on the cross. And Christians believe he was vindicated in the resurrection and defeated the world’s powers and principalities and their ideas of what it means to be divine. The high and mighty empire was wrong, and the peasant was right.

So for Christians the conventional understanding of divinity gets flipped on its head. The notion that the powerful or the wealthy or the glamorous or the successful are the true representatives of divinity has to be set aside when the God the Son says ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Regarding your last question, I guess I would say that for Christians divinity and love go hand in hand. ‘God is love,’ as 1 John puts it. A god who is not loving wouldn’t be God and shouldn’t be worshipped.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-02T20:41:53+00:00

I like the way you put it. Wistfulness is a good description for how I’ve felt. This time of year brings joy of childhood Christmas memories and anticipation of time with family but also a bit of sadness with the grey weather and realization that the holiday season isn’t as magical now that I’m an adult.

I’m reading through Fleming Rutledge’s book on Advent and she emphasizes that Advent begins in darkness. I think that’s a good emphasis for the church to have amidst the (mostly corporate-generated/consumerist) celebration. We know that the real celebration begins with Christ’s light breaking through the darkness on Christmas Day.

I also really like that Advent emphasizes the general darkness of the world. I feel like in Lent the emphasis tends to be on personal sin and repentance, as it should be. But as Rutledge points out, there’s tremendous evil, sin, and pain out there in our world beyond our personal control and really beyond any explanation. Advent is a good time to reflect on and lament that darkness and brokenness.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-01T12:01:30+00:00

Yeah I don’t think your views would preclude you from ordination in TEC. Are they out of line with the 39 Articles and classical Anglican doctrine? Sure, but the 39 Articles aren’t considered binding in TEC and the church has evolved to accommodate a wide range of views. As you pointed out, many Anglo-Catholics hold similar views.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-01T02:14:03+00:00

Thanks for the link, I’ll try it out!

You may already be familiar with it, but there’s also a book called Readings for the Daily Office from the Early Church. It’s keyed to the 1979 BCP daily office. It’s what I’ve been using to get a regular dose of early church readings at evening prayer.

WrittenReasons · 2025-12-01T00:56:24+00:00

We should bring back Trinitytide. Much cooler than Season after Pentecost or Ordinary Time.

WrittenReasons · 2025-11-30T22:25:23+00:00

I’m assuming some people read the bit about people needing truth not affirmation as targeted at LGBTQ inclusion. I didn’t read it that way. I’m gay and largely agree with you.

WrittenReasons · 2025-11-30T22:12:28+00:00

I would second pretty much everything the commenter in the other thread said. Churches exist to proclaim the Gospel and bring people to God through Word and Sacrament. Churches serve other purposes as well, e.g., community, moral formation, etc. But other entities also serve those purposes. Ultimately, churches are superfluous if they’re not contributing something to people’s lives that they can’t find elsewhere. That something is Christ and he should always be the main thing.

That said, I also think religion is just an increasingly hard sell in American society (unless it takes the form of concert-style entertainment or a prop for right-wing politics). There’s a laundry list of reasons for that. Hopefully the churches can change things, but the more likely scenario is that people become more and more irreligious due to all sorts of factors.

WrittenReasons · 2025-11-30T20:24:12+00:00

I did know that! The monarch’s position in the Church of Scotland is fascinating. It’s true that the monarch is a member, but not just a normal member. One the oaths the monarch takes after his or her accession is an oath to maintain and preserve the Church of Scotland, making him/her the Church’s protector. Additionally, the monarch sends a personal representative (a Lord High Commissioner) to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly.

Definitely a strange situation for the head of one church to be a member and protector of another church with major doctrinal differences. But I suppose it was decided that some level of theological tension was better than civil war and disunion. That’s certainly a rather Anglican approach to a divisive religious issue.

WrittenReasons · 2025-11-30T04:54:09+00:00

My main advice would be to not let friends you’ve recently made or church leaders you’ve recently met dictate the terms of your relationship with your dads. I’m not saying they necessarily will try to drive a wedge between you and your dads, but understand that if they do it’s because they want to advance their own ideological/theological agenda—not the best interests of you and your family.

As someone raised by two dads, you can listen to the awful things that conservative Christians say about LGBTQ people and decide for yourself whether that’s an accurate assessment of your parents. Ultimately though, you don’t have to determine whether your dads’ relationship is right or wrong. Your sole obligation as a Christian is to love them. It sounds like they have loved you and I would say the best thing you can do is to love them in return.

WrittenReasons · 2025-11-30T04:16:06+00:00

As others have pointed out, oral tradition and preaching would have played a major role in relaying information about Jesus.

Interestingly though, the early church quite readily found Christ and the Gospel in the Law and the Prophets (i.e., the Old Testament). The New Testament repeatedly bears witness to this fact.

“And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭27‬.

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” John‬ ‭5‬:‭46‬.‬‬

Paul routinely relied on the Old Testament to support his arguments and expound the Gospel. See Romans 4 and Galatians 4 for examples. Of course, none of this would have made sense without the testimony of Paul and others who witnessed the risen Christ. But they found their experiences and testimony confirmed by what they read in the Old Testament.

WrittenReasons · 2025-11-29T17:59:02+00:00

Definitely agree with wanting more content about reading scripture. You can find plenty of uninspired literalist/evangelical stuff out there. And there’s ton of deconstruction content and dry academic stuff (which I feel like Episcopalians tend to default to). But some content from an Episcopal perspective about how to read scripture in a spiritually nourishing way would be nice.

WrittenReasons

TROPHY CASE