(Part 2) Top products from r/Anglicanism

Ace,
I’m sorry for the delay. Here I go.

A tiny bit about my religious history – raised Catholic, sort of against my will, got confirmed, stopped going to church for 8 years, found God/became a Christian, attended Baptist and Pentecostal churches for a while, and eventually settled on Episcopalian. And love it – if for no other reason than as an Episcopalian, I feel like I can be myself.

Worship – very similar to the Catholic Church. I believe it could be very easy for a person with Catholic background to feel comfortable in an Episcopalian church; after I had been there for a little while, I had to ask a friend what made the Episcopal Church any different than the Catholic, because they seemed almost the same! We rely a lot on the Book of Common Prayer, as was previously mentioned, which is fine and at least helps to standardize things. Personally, I believe Scripture to be a more authoritative source, but there isn’t anything controversial I’ve found about the BCP. Incidentally, on the online version (http://www.bcponline.org/) you can click on “The Catechism” (about ¾ of the way down), which is also entitled “An Outline of the Faith”. But overall, the belief system will probably look pretty familiar to you.

There are a couple points, I think, where the faiths diverge with some significance. One is in the level of tolerance and inclusion in the Episcopal Church – where I believe they are largely leading the charge among all denominations. In the Episcopal Church, there can be (and have been) gay and women priests and bishops, and in fact our former Presiding Bishop, who presided over the entire Episcopal Church in the U.S., was a woman (Katharine Schori). Our new Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry, is African-American – and for some inspiring words, I encourage you to look up some of his soundbites (here is my favorite): http://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/video/jesus-movement. TEC USA is actually so inclusive that they were “sanctioned” by the Anglican primates - link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/world/europe/anglican-archbishops-sanction-us-episcopal-church-over-gay-marriages.html?_r=0
Of course, some individual parishes are different than others – varying degrees of inclusion to be sure – but the odds are pretty good that you can find an Episcopal church where people can just be people. Which, to me, is kinda the idea.

The second difference, of course, is that there’s no Pope. I won't get into THAT debate, but since Christ preached that we could come to Him directly as our intercessor (Romans 8:34), perhaps it would be euphemistic to say there’s a little less bureaucracy necessary in the Episcopal Church. :)

Your point about TEC “dying”, statistically, is probably true, though I’d say it’s being pruned. I’d submit that it’s probably also true that typical church attendance nation-wide is suffering the same fate. Businesses talk about competitive advantage, though, and it is probably fair to say that TEC’s advantage is indeed its genuine confession that all are welcome.

For now, I’ll table the discussion about the scriptural arguments for/against homosexuality, and/or women as priests. I’d rather sum it all up – for now – with Romans 14:4: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.” As someone who’s pretty interested in theological debate, though, and who's (I think) pretty open-minded to new viewpoints, I came across this link which you might find informative: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

At the risk of this post becoming TL;DR (thanks, by the way), there are a couple other points I’d like to make. First, as you search for the answers you seem to be seeking so earnestly, I submit that the only true answer is Jesus. This sounds hokey, Bible-thumpy, and trite, but I also believe it’s completely true. (I refer again to the title of Bishop Curry’s NYC sidewalk sermon.) A book that sounds totally cool, but which I haven’t read, is called The Case for Christ. (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308) I’ll let you do some research, but I think my version of Christianity can be summed up thusly: Christianity is simply about Christ. The rest are just details. Denominations, I think, are generally worship styles, and each individual church is its own unique organism, many of which you’d probably enjoy equally well. There’s no perfect denomination, and no perfect church…but there has been one perfect Man, who also happened – and happens – to be a perfect God.

Finally, with regards to your family dilemma, I’d have to just be up front and say that Christianity does come with a cost. Matthew 10:37 says, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Disciples and followers of Jesus through the years have been tortured, executed, cast out, etc. Discipleship isn’t always easy. My own story isn’t particularly exciting or theatrical, but I can say that I’ve experienced some of the cost. I can also say that it’s so, so worth it.

OK, friend, I think I outdid your post length - but only because this was what I needed to say. I’ll look periodically to see if you have any other thoughts, but wanted to get this over to you because it was important. I appreciate your desire for answers, and pray you find everything you’re looking for. Peace!

Drew

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.

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.

Came here to recommend the RSV with the others. It's my primary Bible. Oxford still sells the 1977 RSV edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. The notes are solid, though not as contemporary as the latest scholarship, they'll do fine. For a study Bible it's also a surprisingly handy size (not compact, but not a cinderblock like other study bibles). This is the most common edition of the RSV available.

My favorite edition of the RSV is a compact version of the RSV-Catholic Edition published by Oxford. It looks like this. Don't know whether the smaller print will bother you but I enjoy it.

You said in this thread you like pew hardback Bibles - the American Bible Society published one of the RSV. Out of print unfortunately, but they look like this - a plain black or maroon book with "The Bible" on the cover. Sometimes you can find cheap ones on EBay.

Other new editions of the RSV are harder to find. Catholic publishers like Ignatius Press and Saint Benedict Press continue to publish new editions of the RSV Catholic Edition, which is virtually identical to the RSV and includes a chart of the differences in an appendix. Ignatius also has an "RSV 2nd Catholic Edition" which modernizes thees/thous and is designed to reflect more Catholicism.

Oxford published a 50th Anniversary edition of the RSV, in both hardcover and leather, but it's rare and thus expensive unfortunately.

I agree with many commenters that some of your guilt likely comes from your background. I grew up in a Pentecostal context, too, and many evangelical churches are fairly uncritical of their ideas on sexuality. That includes an overbearing and outsized condemnation of certain sexual sins over others.

However, the rule of maintaining abstinence outside of marriage is biblically grounded. Multiple places in the Old and New Testaments, fornication is warned against in addition to adultery. (I Corinthians 6:18 and Hebrews 13:4 come to mind. I don’t know the Old Testament as well.) That the Church has affirmed it as a rule for life well-lived is also important.

That does not mean that marriage is the single criterion for sexual holiness, as commentors have noted. Sex is an image of the self-giving love of God, so it should likewise be a self-giving act. I try to make the phrase “prefer one another in love” from Romans 12 the mantra of my marriage (doesn’t make me great at it).

Lastly, my wife and I have found theologian Beth Felker-Jones’s “Faithful: A Theology of Sex” very helpful. It both challenges us to be holy and provides a more gracious perspective on sexual sin.

I've heard good things about this one. Oxford also did a history of Christian worship (focusing on music, liturgy etc) that you might find interesting.

It's hard to debate with someone who seems to auto-set themself to "Christ Against Culture" and then sets about condemning everyone else.

Like somehow, the character of Christ can be divined by grabbing a random slice of local pop culture, doing the opposite of that, and BAM! Instant Presence of Jesus!

Have you read Christ and Culture by, Niebuhr? It's this...

Christ and Culture (Torchbooks) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061300039/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_d-p.zbPKG5310

For the record, I'm Christ and Culture in Paradox. If you want understand that, I guess buy the book?

Christ Against Culture is hopeless... Simplistic, incomplete, and human-centered. I can't reasonably debate it, because it is inherently unreasonable.

Christ in Culture, I can kind of do...

Christ Transforming Culture, that's certainly part of it.

But you seem to be looking for which human culture is RIGHT. And the Paradox says NONE and never will be... Further, you cannot comprehend a Christ Centered Culture, and neither can I.

So knock off the competition between your church and mine... It's a fight between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. You're one, I'm the other.

Pick one.

Congratulations. You're wrong.

And so am I.

What do you have issue with in Episcopalianism anyway? The gays?

Jesus didn't talk about that and you know it.

I always loved Sr Benedicta Ward's "Sayings of the Desert Fathers" https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0140447318?tag=amz-mkt-fox-uk-21&ascsubtag=1ba00-01000-org00-mac00-dsk00-nomod-uk000-pcomp-feature-scomp-wm-5&ref=aa_scomp

Unfortunately a modern translation of Hooker's Laws goes for like $400 but his book can be found online in the original. It's a notoriously challenging read though.

I pulled the quote from this blog post though.

There is another guy who has a project in which he is trying to modernize Hooker that can be found here. He isn't working very quickly on it though...

Nice! I'm going to be reading Lent with the Desert Fathers this year. I'm really looking forward to it.

I have an interesting book that you may want to read written by an Episcopal priest. http://www.amazon.com/Revealing-Heaven-Christian-Near-Death-Experiences/dp/0062197711

I don't know anything about ACNA and what they use, but you could always go with the classic 1662 BCP: here or here, or together with the 1549 and 1552 here (maybe only if you're a real liturgy nerd).

There's "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch.

https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-Years/dp/0143118692

Here’s the relevant Enns book.

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272039

If you can, find someone else's copy of this to borrow, and see how you feel about it.

https://www.amazon.com/HarperCollins-Study-Bible-Student-Revised/dp/0060786841

I am partial to Alastair McGrath's Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution: A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First

Rev. McGrath, as an Anglican theologian of a more reformed persuasion, capably discusses Anglicanism and the broader protestant movement.