Another excellent article (are they called articles on Substack? I am quite behind this forum).
As someone who has ministered in Anglican churches in America, Middle East, and now in England (the Church of England) many of the things you mentioned in the article have been my first hand experience here.
I do not want to turn in this into a whole paper itself but I can say that difference between RC and CofE churches and their respective growth figures here have to do with which one of them want to stay true to their identity and resist the world around it re-defining its boundaries and freedoms.
I have worked in all shades of churches in the Church of England and my observation has been that I, as someone who has a vocation to the priesthood, have not progressed in my spirituality in churches that try to reach everyone at the same time. I applaud the motivation and missional sensitivity in this but at the end of the day, these type of churches, in order not to offend particular sensibilities, find themselves offering no more than a therapeutic deism, not catholic and apostolic Christianity as we sing in our Creed. This has to be so because once people open up their New Testament or any document from the early church, they see the stark contrast between this "beige" Christianity that smell and taste so much like the world, and the early church that turned the world upside down by being the most counter-cultural organisation imaginable.
An amazing book I discovered about this topic (why and how the early church grew so much in numbers despite doing everything opposite what we are doing today in the West) is Patient Ferment of the Early Church by Alan Kreider.
As an Anglican, I used to think that it was our strength not to be a confessional church, but I am not sure I agree with that sentiment anymore. Like you said, the world's confusion is pressing around you everyday and one desires a physician after a long day. And when the church, in the name of not looking too arrogant, offers "well it's up to you", then you look for other doctors. Currently, I see a lot of clergy being more interested in being revolutionist in the political sense of the word than being priests, which reminds me of this Chesterton quote:
"The modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
That is why Islam is offering a different alternative to people, whether true or not, one with strong convictions. In my own life time, and in different continents and countries, I have never witnessed a church growing in both numbers and discipleship who refused to proclaim with St. Peter that salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
There are growing and thriving Anglican parishes in England and there are shrinking Roman Catholic parishes, and vice versa. In my own experience, people are drawn to, as you said, churches that do know what they believe without believing that they know everything there is to know.
Thank you, Yuce. Your reflections carry the weight of lived experience—across cultures, continents, and expressions of Anglicanism—and I’m grateful for the clarity and conviction with which you’ve shared them.
You’ve beautifully articulated what I’ve observed from a distance and what many others have felt in silence: that churches which try to offend no one often end up offering little to anyone. Your phrase “therapeutic deism” sadly rings true in many places, and your contrast between “beige Christianity” and the bold, counter-cultural witness of the early Church is not only accurate—it’s haunting.
You’ve named the very tension so many faithful clergy and laypeople are feeling: the hunger for a church that sounds like the New Testament, not like the surrounding culture.
Your final words capture the balance so many of us long to find: churches that know what they believe, without pretending to know all there is to know. That is conviction tempered with humility—and that, I believe, is what the world is really searching for.
May God bless your ministry, your vocation, and your courageous witness wherever you are called to serve. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. You’ve enriched the conversation—and strengthened the call to clarity and faithfulness in our time.
As a Catholic convert---in numbers of Easter Vigils, 40 years exactly as of tonight; in terms of date, it was April 6, 1985, at age 23---it wasn't (then) the solidity of the Catholic Church that drew me. I was influenced by other observations and issues. However, in time, my Baptist and Evangelical 'self-popery' gave way to the *why* the Catholic Church was a unity the way She is. And eventually, how central it was that 'People respect the visible.' Visible unity became a passion.
That led to a whirlwind adventure of co-founding an Anglican Ordinariate (ie, Roman Catholic) community in Southern California. Helping to establish that Bridge not only to the Reformation(s) and my dyed-in-the-wool Anglican wife, but to 'my people' (Evangelical Protestant Christian brothers and sisters), was of the greatest joys of my life.
What I can say after four decades a Catholic is that it's still new every day...
What a fascinating journey. Thank you for sharing it. I have known several clergy who were part of the Ordinariate. Bless you for your journey. I am curious about what you think the main advantages are of the RC other than what I have mentioned in my post.
What strikes me reading this insightful diagnosis is that the deep Anglican tradition stretching back to the earliest centuries of the Faith holds the resources to correct and reform the various diversions that have crept into Anglican circles in the 20th century, and propel English speaking Christians into the second half of the 21st century.
Do some think that Anglicanism is a 'denomination'? They may wish to meditate upon John Jewel's "Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae" and Richard Hooker's "Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity".
Are certain Anglican hierarchs today re-thinking their theology in concert with revisionist Roman hierarchs like Cardinal Fernandez? Rather than pushing doctrinal revision, they might be better served immersing themselves in the great commentaries on the XXXIX Articles, which tradition to us the apostolic faith in all its clarity and nuance.
Are people waking up to the moral and spiritual corrosion of artificial contraception? We might be edified by revisiting the Homily against Adultery (and its insistence that certain body parts "be ordained for generation") and Resolution 68 of the Lambeth Conference 1920 regarding the utmost importance of openness to life in marital relations (rejecting the separation of unitive purpose from procreative purpose) alongside "the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control."
Is the so-called 'dissolubility' of marriage a disaster of the 20th century? Anglicans would be well advised to return and meditate upon the Canons of 1604 regarding the indissolubility of marriage during the life of the spouse, whether or not they be divorced in secular law.
The chickens have indeed been coming home to roost for a few decades now, but the fringe benefit of that is we Anglicans (along with all other orthodox Christians) can now see with greater clarity where the digressions occurred and what needs reforming.
I can't thank you enough for the list of resources you have provided. I want to disappear for a week and read through the works you cite! My seminary education did NOT include any of the 39 Articles or the Homilies--and I think that is not uncommon in the American church.
I find that with many of the Reformation Formularies hold to the traditional, biblical (and catholic) view on contemporary moral issues that were revised more or less unthinkingly in the 20th century, but (since those views were widely held at the time) the Formularies do not spend time articulating them slavishly. *But* you find significant and foundational references to them once you "have eyes to see", like in the example of the Homily against Adultery.
Any who might be interested, there are some access points here:
On the Anglican Church ("Anglicana Ecclesia", as it is called in the Magna Carta of 1215):
Richard Hooker's Laws: while I don't usually go for re-prints, this yellow (Vol. 1), green (Vol. 2), and purple (Vol. 3) set is actually pretty good (at least the copy that I received) and has John Keble's very helpful footnotes in reasonably modern typesetting:
Perhaps it is because I am French, or perhaps because I am a simple parishioner. But for me, Anglicanism is a branch that starts almost at the same time as Roman Christianity or Orthodox Christianity, with Celtic Christianity. And continues with Roman Christianity for 1000 years, where the name Church of England already existed. And regained its autonomy in 1534. So, for me, Anglicanism cannot be confused with the other Protestants.
You express a view of Anglicanism that is deeply rooted in the historic understanding of the Church. Anglicanism is not a Protestant invention of the 16th century, but the continuation of the ancient Christian faith as it was received and lived in the British Isles. When Augustine came to Britain in 597 AD, Patrick had already been there!
Thus, the Church of England — and by extension Anglicanism — is not a new church born in the 16th century, but a continuation of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
However, the Anglican Church is not governed in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church. It has added new theological perspectives and practices over the past 50 years, and, as I pointed out in the article, has made some serious changes regarding the moral issues of our day. If Anglicanism is, as Anglo-Catholics maintain, truly a branch of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church — it certainly acts at times more like a leaf!
Thank you again for raising this important and thoughtful perspective.
If it were not for the generally overbearing cultural and national identities of the Orthodox church in England, I would have joined them back in 1980 when I was at Durham University and tutored by Fr George Dragas. However, I was ordained priest in 1986 in Canterbury. I regret that the CofE is following the slippery slope of the Episcopal Church in the USA, where society's norms, ("And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12,) take precedence over Holy Scripture and Tradition. 'The young vicar with millions of views on TikTok' on BBC Sounds is well worth a look.
I hope you will be able to encourage him to persevere in the church of England in spite of all the setbacks he has suffered. It is very tempting to abandon the church of England but if all orthodox anglicans leave the church of England then we will have to found a new church or a new diocese or a new province. I regret that I think a more accurate label for these oppressive progressives is apostates. I do not use the term lightly but anglicanism’s traditional roots are in scripture reason and tradition, and these so called progressives have abandoned scripture and tradition and have gone down the road of secular wisdom which is incompatible with scripture and tradition.
Catholic convert here. I have to be honest. When I converted to catholism I didn’t care about “deep routed tradition” or “unchanging views”. I didn’t even know about the rules on contraception until later. To me , it was put in my head. Out of nowhere. It was a pull from the Devine. Until this day is hard for me to pin point at what happened. I was raised evangelical and didn’t even see any debates or anything. The apologetics world I found out when I was on RCIA.
I think there is some important truth to come to grips with in this piece. Without losing the important evangelical insight of Luther and the solas of Reformation we need to be more realistic about religion and not push too far the reductionistic “relationship” paradigm. I am an evangelical pastor of 30 years now and will serve my Lord upholding the gospel with my life to the end but we should not be afraid to ask the hard questions that come up from this reading. God definitely is no respecter of labels or denominations or even branches and yet he created humans with bodies in need of homes in many senses of the word. The Church is the home of His people and the varieties of historical and cultural trends don’t destroy it. With honesty we need to do our best to be good sons and daughters of the Church and seek His direction to serve well in the particular time and place of the Church we find ourselves now letting only the gospel cause revolutionary changes.
This is beautiful. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement. I hope you will take the time to write more of this line of thinking. It needs to be heard by many more.
I agree with much of what you say, especially the shifting sands of doctrine in the Church of England during my lifetime. However, I must take issue with your implicit belief that the catholic church can only be found in the doctrine of the Church of Rome. The Orthodox Church has much to say on the issues you hold up as 'catholic', such as contraception and remarriage of divorcees.
I VERY good point and strong correction. I appreciate your comment. I am more familiar with the RC than with O, so I am grateful for your perspective. And thanks for reading.
If it were not for the generally overbearing cultural and national identities of the Orthodox church in England, I would have joined them back in 1980 when I was at Durham University and tutored by Fr George Dragas. However, I was ordained priest in 1986 in Canterbury. I regret that the CofE is following the slippery slope of the Episcopal Church in the USA, where society's norms, ("And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12,) take precedence over Holy Scripture and Tradition. 'The young vicar with millions of views on TikTok' on BBC Sounds is well worth a look.
Every day of the week I drive past a neighborhood Roman Catholic church and during this Lenten season I’ve noticed that its parking lot has been full - twice a day - presumably for morning and afternoon Mass. It appears this Catholic church offers a visible, practiced and morally serious faith for the residents of this wild and sometimes crazy Southern California beach town.
I do think people are yearning for stability. Like I said, they’re looking to sit in the church where the pews are stiff backed and pointed in the same direction and then they can squirm a little bit. Everyone has to work out their understanding in their own heart.
David, this is a very good piece. I am now an LCMS pastor and one of the attractions for me was their, now mine, settled theology. One of the frustrations in Anglicanism, for me, are the varieties of interpretations, some tortured, of the 39 Articles. Tony Seel
Well, greetings from England itself. Due disclosure: I am a (Roman) Catholic priest. I love my Church and am deeply grateful for my ministry, an undeserved gift. But there is an irony in this article and similar articles I have read recently. Namely, that this revival comes at a time when we have a dire and growing shortage of vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Parishes are being yoked together under one priest. There is an element of reverse mission at work too, as we depend more and more on priests from Nigeria and India. And why not? This is mission territory now. Although it is true that in England there is a renewed yearning for a foundational faith, it is also, alas, true that there is growing hostility to Christianity in general, which seems to be lumped together with colonialism, slavery etc, all the original sins attributed to our Western culture.
Anglicans are Catholics, and Papists are a denomination, it just means named, that is, denominated. We are the third branch of the Christian Faith, and only we maintain Apostolic Succession (any without the errors or Rome or Constantinople); in fact, we developed Branch Theory itself while the Papists and Orthodox anathematize other historically. Most other Protestants (Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, &c) are in schism from us; like the Old Catholics and the Papists, or the Old Calendarists and the Orthodox.
I’ll start by apologizing for the length of this comment. And this is the abridged version! Your excellent article hit home for me in so many ways.
As you know, we lived in England 1996-2000. Even then, the Church of England was in dire straits. We visited so many C of E churches looking for a home, never finding one. Churches were either dying (10 octogenarians in the front pew at the one Sunday service), or off-the-charts charismatic. We settled on a charismatic church for lack of a better option, but the teaching was spotty at best. Every other Sunday the service was Morning Prayer with no Eucharist. Meanwhile, The Times had found 70 vicars in the Church of England who were avowed atheists. A YouGov poll found similar in 2014. (Typical explanation: "I gotta make a living somehow.")
I was raised Roman Catholic, 16 years attending Roman Catholic schools. For sure the RC church is steadfast in its beliefs. Those beliefs include Purgatory (where in essence one becomes one’s own savior) and that salvation doesn’t arrive upon acceptance of Christ Jesus as savior but is a lifelong process. The Catechism may have changed since I memorized it in the 1960s, but the nuns taught me that if you die with unconfessed mortal sins, you are condemned to hell, and if you die with unconfessed venal sins (and the line is fuzzy), you spend some amount of time in Purgatory before moving on to heaven. Confessed always meant, in the presence of a priest. Thus, you live in uncertainty almost until your last breath.
If that’s more attractive than, “If anyone is in Christ Jesus, he is a new creation – the old has gone, the new is come” – then it seems like we can't get out of our own way. Alpha seemed like a great approach, and it puzzles me that Alpha has had so little impact.
All that said, Roman Catholics do confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord, and do believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. So perhaps they are in for an almighty surprise?
Thank you for your candid and heartfelt comment—and no apology needed for its length! Your firsthand experience of church life in England during the late ’90s is a powerful reminder that many of the challenges we’re seeing today have deep and tangled roots. I could feel the discouragement you must have felt walking into those various churches—some fading, others fervent but theologically untethered—and trying to find a place to truly call home. That alone reflects what so many believers have quietly endured.
Your reflections on Roman Catholic doctrine are thoughtful and personal. You’ve captured one of the perennial tensions between Catholic and Protestant theology: assurance vs. process, grace received vs. grace administered. The Catholic vision of salvation is indeed more gradual and sacramental, whereas the Protestant emphasis, especially in evangelical circles, celebrates the immediacy and finality of justification by faith. And yes—many who embrace that certainty can’t understand why anyone would prefer a system that seems to trade assurance for anxiety.
You’ve touched on something quite haunting: the notion of clergy without belief. It’s deeply troubling, and the very existence of that phenomenon undermines the Church’s credibility at a time when clarity is so desperately needed. That may explain, in part, why Alpha—brilliant though it is—has struggled to take root in some settings. Without leaders who believe, even the best evangelistic tools will falter.
Thank you again for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation. You’ve helped to deepen the reflection, and your story underscores the urgency of returning to churches where Christ is not just named—but known, trusted, and followed.
I am a cradle Catholic and a revert- left at 17 and came back at 31. I didn’t leave because of differences. I left because it (the Catholic Church)wasn’t really relevant and I think on my part, that was youthful ignorance.
I live in the Bible Belt now after moving from liberal Massachusetts 40 years ago. I truly believe this is what gave me the second chance to reconnect with my Catholic roots.
I have also had difficulty accepting the Protestant ethos of once saved, always saved. It just seemed too easy to do an altar call, accept Jesus as my personal savior and I’m good to go.
At any rate, as I am living in the third act now, I am profoundly grateful to be Catholic and one of the church militant.
Please pray for a good and holy man to become our next Pope.🙏
I was quite struck by this piece, David, especially what you had to say about settled and firm convictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury's struggle to act on and stand fast to his beliefs.
I am tempted that way. I spent nearly half of my life in a non-denominational church with strong Biblical beliefs that were presented unapologetically. This was invigorating.
But there came a time when the church became controlling and harsh. Hundreds were wounded. Some by me. I eventually left, and over a few years, I found my way to the Anglican church, where I've experienced a firm and clear articulation of Scriptural authority, kindness and love, awe in liturgy, and a real honoring of the Holy Spirit's work. Why does firmness of conviction sometimes lead to arrogance and controlling behaviors?
I think the thing the ACNA has in the states is an important buffer. We have the Jerusalem Declaration. That at least puts doctrine in a lockbox, so to speak.
Because Christians start to become opposition control. When your life becomes surround with “we need to bring down the libs” you can become angry and power struggle and not thinking critically. Yes. The progressives are wrong, but why become their evil twin?
The progressives also become angry because they are fighting the “conservatives “. To the point their brain melt and start saying doing unhinged stuff.
Another excellent article (are they called articles on Substack? I am quite behind this forum).
As someone who has ministered in Anglican churches in America, Middle East, and now in England (the Church of England) many of the things you mentioned in the article have been my first hand experience here.
I do not want to turn in this into a whole paper itself but I can say that difference between RC and CofE churches and their respective growth figures here have to do with which one of them want to stay true to their identity and resist the world around it re-defining its boundaries and freedoms.
I have worked in all shades of churches in the Church of England and my observation has been that I, as someone who has a vocation to the priesthood, have not progressed in my spirituality in churches that try to reach everyone at the same time. I applaud the motivation and missional sensitivity in this but at the end of the day, these type of churches, in order not to offend particular sensibilities, find themselves offering no more than a therapeutic deism, not catholic and apostolic Christianity as we sing in our Creed. This has to be so because once people open up their New Testament or any document from the early church, they see the stark contrast between this "beige" Christianity that smell and taste so much like the world, and the early church that turned the world upside down by being the most counter-cultural organisation imaginable.
An amazing book I discovered about this topic (why and how the early church grew so much in numbers despite doing everything opposite what we are doing today in the West) is Patient Ferment of the Early Church by Alan Kreider.
As an Anglican, I used to think that it was our strength not to be a confessional church, but I am not sure I agree with that sentiment anymore. Like you said, the world's confusion is pressing around you everyday and one desires a physician after a long day. And when the church, in the name of not looking too arrogant, offers "well it's up to you", then you look for other doctors. Currently, I see a lot of clergy being more interested in being revolutionist in the political sense of the word than being priests, which reminds me of this Chesterton quote:
"The modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
That is why Islam is offering a different alternative to people, whether true or not, one with strong convictions. In my own life time, and in different continents and countries, I have never witnessed a church growing in both numbers and discipleship who refused to proclaim with St. Peter that salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
There are growing and thriving Anglican parishes in England and there are shrinking Roman Catholic parishes, and vice versa. In my own experience, people are drawn to, as you said, churches that do know what they believe without believing that they know everything there is to know.
And I'll jus stop here :)
Thank you, Yuce. Your reflections carry the weight of lived experience—across cultures, continents, and expressions of Anglicanism—and I’m grateful for the clarity and conviction with which you’ve shared them.
You’ve beautifully articulated what I’ve observed from a distance and what many others have felt in silence: that churches which try to offend no one often end up offering little to anyone. Your phrase “therapeutic deism” sadly rings true in many places, and your contrast between “beige Christianity” and the bold, counter-cultural witness of the early Church is not only accurate—it’s haunting.
You’ve named the very tension so many faithful clergy and laypeople are feeling: the hunger for a church that sounds like the New Testament, not like the surrounding culture.
Your final words capture the balance so many of us long to find: churches that know what they believe, without pretending to know all there is to know. That is conviction tempered with humility—and that, I believe, is what the world is really searching for.
May God bless your ministry, your vocation, and your courageous witness wherever you are called to serve. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. You’ve enriched the conversation—and strengthened the call to clarity and faithfulness in our time.
—David ☩
I think we need to get used to seeing it. Whoever predicted the demise of the RC was thankfully, very wrong.
A fascinating read, thank you.
As a Catholic convert---in numbers of Easter Vigils, 40 years exactly as of tonight; in terms of date, it was April 6, 1985, at age 23---it wasn't (then) the solidity of the Catholic Church that drew me. I was influenced by other observations and issues. However, in time, my Baptist and Evangelical 'self-popery' gave way to the *why* the Catholic Church was a unity the way She is. And eventually, how central it was that 'People respect the visible.' Visible unity became a passion.
That led to a whirlwind adventure of co-founding an Anglican Ordinariate (ie, Roman Catholic) community in Southern California. Helping to establish that Bridge not only to the Reformation(s) and my dyed-in-the-wool Anglican wife, but to 'my people' (Evangelical Protestant Christian brothers and sisters), was of the greatest joys of my life.
What I can say after four decades a Catholic is that it's still new every day...
What a fascinating journey. Thank you for sharing it. I have known several clergy who were part of the Ordinariate. Bless you for your journey. I am curious about what you think the main advantages are of the RC other than what I have mentioned in my post.
What strikes me reading this insightful diagnosis is that the deep Anglican tradition stretching back to the earliest centuries of the Faith holds the resources to correct and reform the various diversions that have crept into Anglican circles in the 20th century, and propel English speaking Christians into the second half of the 21st century.
Do some think that Anglicanism is a 'denomination'? They may wish to meditate upon John Jewel's "Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae" and Richard Hooker's "Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity".
Are certain Anglican hierarchs today re-thinking their theology in concert with revisionist Roman hierarchs like Cardinal Fernandez? Rather than pushing doctrinal revision, they might be better served immersing themselves in the great commentaries on the XXXIX Articles, which tradition to us the apostolic faith in all its clarity and nuance.
Are people waking up to the moral and spiritual corrosion of artificial contraception? We might be edified by revisiting the Homily against Adultery (and its insistence that certain body parts "be ordained for generation") and Resolution 68 of the Lambeth Conference 1920 regarding the utmost importance of openness to life in marital relations (rejecting the separation of unitive purpose from procreative purpose) alongside "the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control."
Is the so-called 'dissolubility' of marriage a disaster of the 20th century? Anglicans would be well advised to return and meditate upon the Canons of 1604 regarding the indissolubility of marriage during the life of the spouse, whether or not they be divorced in secular law.
The chickens have indeed been coming home to roost for a few decades now, but the fringe benefit of that is we Anglicans (along with all other orthodox Christians) can now see with greater clarity where the digressions occurred and what needs reforming.
I can't thank you enough for the list of resources you have provided. I want to disappear for a week and read through the works you cite! My seminary education did NOT include any of the 39 Articles or the Homilies--and I think that is not uncommon in the American church.
I find that with many of the Reformation Formularies hold to the traditional, biblical (and catholic) view on contemporary moral issues that were revised more or less unthinkingly in the 20th century, but (since those views were widely held at the time) the Formularies do not spend time articulating them slavishly. *But* you find significant and foundational references to them once you "have eyes to see", like in the example of the Homily against Adultery.
Any who might be interested, there are some access points here:
On the Anglican Church ("Anglicana Ecclesia", as it is called in the Magna Carta of 1215):
Jewel's Apologia: https://davenantinstitute.org/jewel-apology
Latin Encyclical of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York regarding the validity of Anglican Orders, 1897 (translated): https://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf
Richard Hooker's Laws: while I don't usually go for re-prints, this yellow (Vol. 1), green (Vol. 2), and purple (Vol. 3) set is actually pretty good (at least the copy that I received) and has John Keble's very helpful footnotes in reasonably modern typesetting:
Vol 1: https://www.amazon.com/Works-Richard-Hooker-Ecclesiastical-Polity/dp/1452887713/ref=monarch_sidesheet_title
Vol 2: https://www.amazon.com/Works-Richard-Hooker-Ecclesiastical-Worship/dp/1453624732/ref=monarch_sidesheet_title
Vol 3: https://www.amazon.com/Works-Richard-Hooker-Ecclesiastical-Polity/dp/1453646353/ref=pd_bxgy_thbs_d_sccl_1/147-2541866-7918426?pd_rd_w=sk8Uj&content-id=amzn1.sym.dcf559c6-d374-405e-a13e-133e852d81e1&pf_rd_p=dcf559c6-d374-405e-a13e-133e852d81e1&pf_rd_r=X8V1291WRJW7DZHE4Q7Y&pd_rd_wg=ibzRK&pd_rd_r=df20e734-968b-441d-a8d3-7ea9227f502e&pd_rd_i=1453646353&psc=1
The Reformation position (and current position of any consciously traditional protestant, reflected in Lambeth 1920) on artificial contraception: "Children of the Reformation" by Allan C. Carlson (Touchstone Magazine) https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f&readcode=&readtherest=true
The Book of Homilies: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Homilies-Church-England/dp/1573833916
The Canons of 1604 (along with a host of other detailed sources): https://www.anglican.net/doctrines/1604-canon-law/
16th century commentary on the indissolubility of marriage (thus, why Henry VIII was granted an annulment by Convocation, *not* a divorce): https://www.anglican.net/works/edmund-bunnius-of-divorce-for-adultery-and-marrying-again-that-there-is-no-sufficient-warrant-so-to-do-1595/
Commentaries on the XXXIX Articles:
Traditional Evangelical: Griffith Thomas https://www.amazon.ca/Principles-Theology-Introduction-Thirty-Nine-Articles/dp/159752073X
https://newscriptorium.com/assets/books/anglican/39-articles/printheola01-3.htm
Traditional Moderate: Browne https://northamanglican.com/category/resources/brownes-exposition-of-the-39-articles/
https://newscriptorium.com/assets/books/anglican/39-articles/browne39-01-05.htm
Tractarian: https://www.amazon.ca/Theological-Introduction-Thirty-Nine-Articles-England/dp/155635682X
https://newscriptorium.com/assets/books/anglican/39-articles/bicknell1.htm
Systematic theology (in two vols.) often called the "Anglican Summa" in homage to Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Anglican-Dogmatics-Francis-Dogmatic-Theology/dp/B09L9TBZVD/ref=pd_sim_d_sccl_3_12/147-2541866-7918426?pd_rd_w=1Rcba&content-id=amzn1.sym.fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_p=fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_r=WY4G9QF5S8PWX8B1FX8T&pd_rd_wg=l3YnF&pd_rd_r=bfc40587-d2c1-47c6-85df-7de78730d49e&pd_rd_i=B09L9TBZVD&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Anglican-Dogmatics-Francis-Dogmatic-Theology/dp/B09LGW174F/ref=pd_sim_d_sccl_3_11/147-2541866-7918426?pd_rd_w=1Rcba&content-id=amzn1.sym.fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_p=fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_r=WY4G9QF5S8PWX8B1FX8T&pd_rd_wg=l3YnF&pd_rd_r=bfc40587-d2c1-47c6-85df-7de78730d49e&pd_rd_i=B09LGW174F&psc=1
Perhaps it is because I am French, or perhaps because I am a simple parishioner. But for me, Anglicanism is a branch that starts almost at the same time as Roman Christianity or Orthodox Christianity, with Celtic Christianity. And continues with Roman Christianity for 1000 years, where the name Church of England already existed. And regained its autonomy in 1534. So, for me, Anglicanism cannot be confused with the other Protestants.
You express a view of Anglicanism that is deeply rooted in the historic understanding of the Church. Anglicanism is not a Protestant invention of the 16th century, but the continuation of the ancient Christian faith as it was received and lived in the British Isles. When Augustine came to Britain in 597 AD, Patrick had already been there!
Thus, the Church of England — and by extension Anglicanism — is not a new church born in the 16th century, but a continuation of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
However, the Anglican Church is not governed in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church. It has added new theological perspectives and practices over the past 50 years, and, as I pointed out in the article, has made some serious changes regarding the moral issues of our day. If Anglicanism is, as Anglo-Catholics maintain, truly a branch of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church — it certainly acts at times more like a leaf!
Thank you again for raising this important and thoughtful perspective.
Btw, where is the Catholic Church of Montigny-lès-Metz?
Here, in the East of France, near Metz: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_Saint-Joseph_de_Montigny-l%C3%A8s-Metz#/maplink/0
If it were not for the generally overbearing cultural and national identities of the Orthodox church in England, I would have joined them back in 1980 when I was at Durham University and tutored by Fr George Dragas. However, I was ordained priest in 1986 in Canterbury. I regret that the CofE is following the slippery slope of the Episcopal Church in the USA, where society's norms, ("And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12,) take precedence over Holy Scripture and Tradition. 'The young vicar with millions of views on TikTok' on BBC Sounds is well worth a look.
I'll be speaking to a fairly new priest in the C of E tomorrow who was really hammered by progressives. I'm eager to see what he has to say.
I hope you will be able to encourage him to persevere in the church of England in spite of all the setbacks he has suffered. It is very tempting to abandon the church of England but if all orthodox anglicans leave the church of England then we will have to found a new church or a new diocese or a new province. I regret that I think a more accurate label for these oppressive progressives is apostates. I do not use the term lightly but anglicanism’s traditional roots are in scripture reason and tradition, and these so called progressives have abandoned scripture and tradition and have gone down the road of secular wisdom which is incompatible with scripture and tradition.
Catholic convert here. I have to be honest. When I converted to catholism I didn’t care about “deep routed tradition” or “unchanging views”. I didn’t even know about the rules on contraception until later. To me , it was put in my head. Out of nowhere. It was a pull from the Devine. Until this day is hard for me to pin point at what happened. I was raised evangelical and didn’t even see any debates or anything. The apologetics world I found out when I was on RCIA.
That is an amazing story. God bless you!
I think there is some important truth to come to grips with in this piece. Without losing the important evangelical insight of Luther and the solas of Reformation we need to be more realistic about religion and not push too far the reductionistic “relationship” paradigm. I am an evangelical pastor of 30 years now and will serve my Lord upholding the gospel with my life to the end but we should not be afraid to ask the hard questions that come up from this reading. God definitely is no respecter of labels or denominations or even branches and yet he created humans with bodies in need of homes in many senses of the word. The Church is the home of His people and the varieties of historical and cultural trends don’t destroy it. With honesty we need to do our best to be good sons and daughters of the Church and seek His direction to serve well in the particular time and place of the Church we find ourselves now letting only the gospel cause revolutionary changes.
This is beautiful. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement. I hope you will take the time to write more of this line of thinking. It needs to be heard by many more.
I agree with much of what you say, especially the shifting sands of doctrine in the Church of England during my lifetime. However, I must take issue with your implicit belief that the catholic church can only be found in the doctrine of the Church of Rome. The Orthodox Church has much to say on the issues you hold up as 'catholic', such as contraception and remarriage of divorcees.
I VERY good point and strong correction. I appreciate your comment. I am more familiar with the RC than with O, so I am grateful for your perspective. And thanks for reading.
If it were not for the generally overbearing cultural and national identities of the Orthodox church in England, I would have joined them back in 1980 when I was at Durham University and tutored by Fr George Dragas. However, I was ordained priest in 1986 in Canterbury. I regret that the CofE is following the slippery slope of the Episcopal Church in the USA, where society's norms, ("And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12,) take precedence over Holy Scripture and Tradition. 'The young vicar with millions of views on TikTok' on BBC Sounds is well worth a look.
Every day of the week I drive past a neighborhood Roman Catholic church and during this Lenten season I’ve noticed that its parking lot has been full - twice a day - presumably for morning and afternoon Mass. It appears this Catholic church offers a visible, practiced and morally serious faith for the residents of this wild and sometimes crazy Southern California beach town.
I do think people are yearning for stability. Like I said, they’re looking to sit in the church where the pews are stiff backed and pointed in the same direction and then they can squirm a little bit. Everyone has to work out their understanding in their own heart.
David, this is a very good piece. I am now an LCMS pastor and one of the attractions for me was their, now mine, settled theology. One of the frustrations in Anglicanism, for me, are the varieties of interpretations, some tortured, of the 39 Articles. Tony Seel
Thanks Tony. Ahh. Settled theology…
Well, greetings from England itself. Due disclosure: I am a (Roman) Catholic priest. I love my Church and am deeply grateful for my ministry, an undeserved gift. But there is an irony in this article and similar articles I have read recently. Namely, that this revival comes at a time when we have a dire and growing shortage of vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Parishes are being yoked together under one priest. There is an element of reverse mission at work too, as we depend more and more on priests from Nigeria and India. And why not? This is mission territory now. Although it is true that in England there is a renewed yearning for a foundational faith, it is also, alas, true that there is growing hostility to Christianity in general, which seems to be lumped together with colonialism, slavery etc, all the original sins attributed to our Western culture.
Anglicans are Catholics, and Papists are a denomination, it just means named, that is, denominated. We are the third branch of the Christian Faith, and only we maintain Apostolic Succession (any without the errors or Rome or Constantinople); in fact, we developed Branch Theory itself while the Papists and Orthodox anathematize other historically. Most other Protestants (Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, &c) are in schism from us; like the Old Catholics and the Papists, or the Old Calendarists and the Orthodox.
I’ll start by apologizing for the length of this comment. And this is the abridged version! Your excellent article hit home for me in so many ways.
As you know, we lived in England 1996-2000. Even then, the Church of England was in dire straits. We visited so many C of E churches looking for a home, never finding one. Churches were either dying (10 octogenarians in the front pew at the one Sunday service), or off-the-charts charismatic. We settled on a charismatic church for lack of a better option, but the teaching was spotty at best. Every other Sunday the service was Morning Prayer with no Eucharist. Meanwhile, The Times had found 70 vicars in the Church of England who were avowed atheists. A YouGov poll found similar in 2014. (Typical explanation: "I gotta make a living somehow.")
I was raised Roman Catholic, 16 years attending Roman Catholic schools. For sure the RC church is steadfast in its beliefs. Those beliefs include Purgatory (where in essence one becomes one’s own savior) and that salvation doesn’t arrive upon acceptance of Christ Jesus as savior but is a lifelong process. The Catechism may have changed since I memorized it in the 1960s, but the nuns taught me that if you die with unconfessed mortal sins, you are condemned to hell, and if you die with unconfessed venal sins (and the line is fuzzy), you spend some amount of time in Purgatory before moving on to heaven. Confessed always meant, in the presence of a priest. Thus, you live in uncertainty almost until your last breath.
If that’s more attractive than, “If anyone is in Christ Jesus, he is a new creation – the old has gone, the new is come” – then it seems like we can't get out of our own way. Alpha seemed like a great approach, and it puzzles me that Alpha has had so little impact.
All that said, Roman Catholics do confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord, and do believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. So perhaps they are in for an almighty surprise?
Thank you for your candid and heartfelt comment—and no apology needed for its length! Your firsthand experience of church life in England during the late ’90s is a powerful reminder that many of the challenges we’re seeing today have deep and tangled roots. I could feel the discouragement you must have felt walking into those various churches—some fading, others fervent but theologically untethered—and trying to find a place to truly call home. That alone reflects what so many believers have quietly endured.
Your reflections on Roman Catholic doctrine are thoughtful and personal. You’ve captured one of the perennial tensions between Catholic and Protestant theology: assurance vs. process, grace received vs. grace administered. The Catholic vision of salvation is indeed more gradual and sacramental, whereas the Protestant emphasis, especially in evangelical circles, celebrates the immediacy and finality of justification by faith. And yes—many who embrace that certainty can’t understand why anyone would prefer a system that seems to trade assurance for anxiety.
You’ve touched on something quite haunting: the notion of clergy without belief. It’s deeply troubling, and the very existence of that phenomenon undermines the Church’s credibility at a time when clarity is so desperately needed. That may explain, in part, why Alpha—brilliant though it is—has struggled to take root in some settings. Without leaders who believe, even the best evangelistic tools will falter.
Thank you again for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation. You’ve helped to deepen the reflection, and your story underscores the urgency of returning to churches where Christ is not just named—but known, trusted, and followed.
Grace and peace to you always,
—David ☩
Thank you for your deeply thoughtful essay.
I am a cradle Catholic and a revert- left at 17 and came back at 31. I didn’t leave because of differences. I left because it (the Catholic Church)wasn’t really relevant and I think on my part, that was youthful ignorance.
I live in the Bible Belt now after moving from liberal Massachusetts 40 years ago. I truly believe this is what gave me the second chance to reconnect with my Catholic roots.
I have also had difficulty accepting the Protestant ethos of once saved, always saved. It just seemed too easy to do an altar call, accept Jesus as my personal savior and I’m good to go.
At any rate, as I am living in the third act now, I am profoundly grateful to be Catholic and one of the church militant.
Please pray for a good and holy man to become our next Pope.🙏
I was quite struck by this piece, David, especially what you had to say about settled and firm convictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury's struggle to act on and stand fast to his beliefs.
I am tempted that way. I spent nearly half of my life in a non-denominational church with strong Biblical beliefs that were presented unapologetically. This was invigorating.
But there came a time when the church became controlling and harsh. Hundreds were wounded. Some by me. I eventually left, and over a few years, I found my way to the Anglican church, where I've experienced a firm and clear articulation of Scriptural authority, kindness and love, awe in liturgy, and a real honoring of the Holy Spirit's work. Why does firmness of conviction sometimes lead to arrogance and controlling behaviors?
I think the thing the ACNA has in the states is an important buffer. We have the Jerusalem Declaration. That at least puts doctrine in a lockbox, so to speak.
Because Christians start to become opposition control. When your life becomes surround with “we need to bring down the libs” you can become angry and power struggle and not thinking critically. Yes. The progressives are wrong, but why become their evil twin?
The progressives also become angry because they are fighting the “conservatives “. To the point their brain melt and start saying doing unhinged stuff.
Agreed. I was not so much thinking of the political battles as the control and arrogance some pastors exert against their own flock.
Yeah I have seen it. But they become that way because they are consuming excessive news. They failed at looking at their own reality.