Based on a tract from Peter Hammond (Frontline)

The Scriptures command general obedience to family, church, and civil governing authorities (see Romans 13:1–4; 1 Tim. 2:1–2; 1 Peter 2:13–15). In the event of conflict between the Law of God and the law of man, the believer must follow God.

“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge; for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

— Acts 4:19–20

Some Biblical Examples of Disobeying Civil Authorities

1. The Midwives disobeyed Pharaoh’s decree that Hebrew boys be killed at birth (Exodus 1:17).
2. Moses’ parents hid their child for three months against the law of Pharaoh (Hebrews 11:23).
3. Moses worked to free his people from Egyptian bondage against the will of Pharaoh (Exodus 5:1–9; 7-12).
4. Rahab protected the Hebrew spies against the orders of the Canaanite government (Joshua 2:1–6; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25).
5. David fled from King Saul and evaded capture on numerous occasions. He did not give himself up when he had opportunity, though he did not harm Saul (1 Samuel 16–24).
6. The army of Israel intervened to stop King Saul from executing his son Jonathan, rescuing him from the king’s rash command (1 Samuel 14:24–45).
7. Nathan the prophet confronted King David and rebuked him for adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12).
8. When Queen Jezebel began her purge of God’s prophets, Obadiah defied her edicts by hiding a hundred prophets (1 Kings 18:4).
9. Elijah pronounced judgment on King Ahab for his injustice (1 Kings 21:17–29).
10. Elijah refused to answer the summons of King Ahaziah (2 Kings 1).
11. Jehu mobilized the military to overthrow the wicked King Ahab and Queen Jezebel in obedience to the Word of God (2 Kings 9–10).
12. Jehosheba rescued the infant Joash from Athaliah’s agents who were sent to slaughter him (2 Kings 11:2–3).
13. Jeremiah was considered a traitor by his government when he proclaimed God’s Word of surrender during the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Jeremiah 38).
14. Daniel refused to defile himself with royal food offered to idols and successfully appealed to eat only vegetables and water (Daniel 1:8–16).
15. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey the king’s command to bow before his golden image (Daniel 3:12–18).
16. Daniel openly defied the decree forbidding prayer to anyone but the king (Daniel 6:6–13).
17. Esther violated the law of the Medes and Persians by approaching the king unbidden to rescue her people from a planned genocide (Esther 4–8).
18. The Magi (Three Kings) disobeyed King Herod by not returning to report the location of the Messiah (Matthew 2:7–12).
19. Joseph fled to Egypt to protect the infant Jesus from Herod’s murderous decree (Matthew 2:13–15).
20. Sts. Peter and John refused to stop preaching Christ despite official orders (Acts 4:18-20, 5:29).
21. St. Paul refused to leave prison quietly without an official apology after being unlawfully beaten (Acts 16:37–39).

“We ought to obey God rather than men.” — Acts 5:29

The post Obey God Rather Than Men: 21 Biblical Examples of Civil Disobedience first appeared on Steve Macias.

625 – Paulinus, Bishop of York

664 – Synod of Whitby; Theodore of Tarsus 690, Bede 735

800 – Charlemagne revives Roman Empire in the West; Muslims defeated at Tours 732

1054 – Final East-West split. Anselm 1109, Aquinas 1274

1384 – John Wyclif translates the Bible and advocates reforms; John Hus of Bohemia 1415

1517 – Martin Luther’s 95 Theses; Zwingli in Zurich 1519; Anabaptists 1524; Calvin in Geneva 1536

1534 – Act of Supremacy; English Church independent of Rome under Henry VIII, some reforms

1549 – First English Prayer Book and major reforms under Edward VI, Cranmer

1553 – Queen Mary returns Church to Rome; persecutions; Cranmer and others burned 1556

1558 – Elizabeth reinstates reforms; excommunicated by Pope 1570; Puritan controversies

1607 – American colonies: Jamestown (Church of England); 1620 Plymouth Pilgrims (Separatist); 1630 Puritans in Massachusetts Bay

1611 – Authorized (King James) version of Bible

1649 – England under the Commonwealth. Restoration 1660

1662 – Act of Uniformity, Book of Common Prayer

1699 – Founding of SPCK, Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge

1701 – Founding of SPG, first Anglican missionary society

1739 – Wesleyan Societies started in England. 1784 Methodist Church organized in America

1784 – Seabury consecrated in Scotland for American Episcopal Church; organized 1789

1867 – Founding of Church Missionary Society

1948 – First Lambeth Conference

The post Some Important Dates in Anglican History first appeared on Steve Macias.

In this livestream, we explore one of the most fascinating traditions in English Christian history: Did Joseph of Arimathea bring the Gospel to Britain?

Long before Augustine arrived in 597, there were claims that Christianity had already taken root in the British Isles. Medieval sources connected Glastonbury to Joseph of Arimathea — the man who buried Christ — and even suggested an apostolic foundation for the English Church. But what is legend? What is history? And what can we say with confidence?

In this discussion, we examine:

• Early Church references to Christianity in Britain

• The Glastonbury tradition

• Medieval papal recognition of its antiquity

• What historians actually affirm

• How this shapes our understanding of the English Church before Rome.

But how early does it go?

Subscribe for more teaching on Anglican history, the first millennium, and the catholic roots of the English Church.

The post The English Church Before Rome: Joseph of Arimathea & Glastonbury first appeared on Steve Macias.

What did the Reformers actually reject? What did they retain? And where does Anglicanism truly stand between Rome and the East? Confession is not abolished in Anglicanism. But neither is it understood in a purely juridical framework. Let’s recover the pastoral, sacramental, and healing heart of absolution.

The post Confession: Courtroom or Hospital? Anglican, Orthodox & Catholic Compared first appeared on Steve Macias.

Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Holy Lent: forty days of repentance, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving as we prepare to celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord at Easter.

In Isaiah we read God’s expectations for a true and Holy fast:

 “Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?” (Isaiah 58:5-6) 

Historically, our English forefathers observed what was called the “Black Fast.” This was not a token abstinence, but a truly austere discipline: one simple meal taken late in the day (often after sunset), without meat, dairy, or other luxurious foods. It was a fast marked by a bodily participation in repentance and prayer.

The Book of Common Prayer appoints Ash Wednesday as a day of fasting and calls the faithful to “a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God’s holy Word.”

The Prayer Book retains the ancient expectation that Christians will fast.

Not giving up small comforts, but enter into a real bodily discipline and rule as an offering to God.

In our own age of constant consumption and comfort, Lent invites us to recover something of that older English and Apostolic seriousness. The Didache and the early Church testify that Christians fasted regularly and without complaint, especially in preparation for great feasts. Moderns have forgotten this. The modern church mocks real fasting.

Our Anglican tradition stands in continuity with that Apostolic pattern.

You may also consider:

• Fasting until evening on Wednesdays and Fridays
• Abstaining from meat/flesh during Lent
• Reducing meals to simplicity and necessity
• Making one’s confession with a priest
• Practicing intentional almsgiving (give special donations to the poor)

The goal is repentance. We fast that we may hunger for God.

Our Lord does not treat fasting as an exotic discipline for the especially devout. He assumes it as part of ordinary discipleship.

In Gospel of St. Matthew 6:16, Jesus says, “Moreover, when ye fast…” not if you fast. The grammar matters. In the same breath that He teaches us how to pray (“When ye pray…”) and how to give alms (“When thou doest alms…”), He teaches us how to fast. Prayer, almsgiving, and fasting belong together as the basic rhythm of covenant faithfulness.

His warnings are not against fasting itself. They are against counterfeit fasting.

He rebukes those who:

• Disfigure their faces
• Advertise their hunger
• Perform sorrow for reputation
• Use discipline as spiritual theater

The problem is not that they fast.
The problem is that they fast for the wrong audience.

“Thy Father which seeth in secret…” that is the audience that matters.

Tonight to begin this holy discipline together, marked with ashes—the sign that we are dust, and to dust we shall return—and yet dust redeemed by Christ.

“Turn thou us, O good Lord, and so shall we be turned.”

The post Holy Lent 2026 AD  first appeared on Steve Macias.

If Anglicanism retains:

• Valid episcopacy
• Catholic sacraments
• Apostolic faith

It is already catholic Christianity.

The post Livestream: Anglicanism as the One, True Church first appeared on Steve Macias.

Many assume that John Calvin definitively settled the matter against paedocommunion. Others within the Reformed heritage have revisited the question, arguing that Calvin’s case deserves re-examination.

Mark Horne, points out that, John Calvin writes in the Institutes about the possibility of admitting children to the Lord’s Supper by virtue of their baptism once and only once:

At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord’s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church, indeed, the Lord’s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine, (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1;) but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food…

Calvin then continues by separating communion and baptism in an ahistorical way that doesn’t match Christian history (remember Calvin admits that young baptized children did commune) and reads his anti-child communion view into his interpretation of the Passover meal.

Mark points out:

“The first thing to note is that Calvin is not responding to a Reformed paedocommunionist. To claim that Calvin condemned paedocommunion is simply not the case. He condemned Anabaptists who postulated paedocommunion as a way of defeating arguments for paedobaptism.” 

What would Calvin had argued with the pro-paedobaptist orthodox Christians?

Mark continues by arguing that the view of the Reformers was the default position of the medieval Roman Catholic Church and not the ancient or patristic church:

“As it is, the fact remains that paedocommunion received no serious consideration at the time of the Reformation so that we heirs of the Reformation have any prima facie reason not to reconsider the tradition we inherited from the medieval Roman Catholic Church. John Calvin and Martin Luther and many others had grown up with a certain sort of practice as well as a rationalization for that practice that appealed to Scripture. They were not in the position of John Huss and his followers, over a century earlier and farther east, who still remembered that at one time children had been given access to the Communion Meal and then later barred.”

Is Calvin Right about the Passover?

Calvin argues infants should not be at the Lord’s Table because he pressumes that infants did not participate in the Passover meal. How does he know this? Calvin asks how would they (infants) answer questions about what the Passover is. Yet the opposite conclusion is true. The structure of children asking questions suggests participation precedes explanation. Old Covenant meals were covenant-status based, not age-based. The children must be present in order that any of them might ask questions.

Mark points out,

“[No] indication that this question is to be asked at the Passover meal. All it says is that when a child asks, the parents are supposed to give a certain answer. Nothing is said about the child reaching a certain level of understanding before being permitted to participate.”

The only people barred explicitly from the passover are the uncircumcised.

In the New Covenant, the covenantal equivalent is the unbaptized. Even in Calvin’s theology, Christian children are baptized in infancy.

Age is never mentioned as a barrier. If covenant status through circumcision was the requirement, then covenant sons would appear to be included unless otherwise specified.

Deuteronomy 16:11, 14

“Thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter…”

In the instructions for the pilgrimage feasts (including Passover), sons and daughters are explicitly named among those rejoicing before the Lord. The text does not distinguish between observers and participants.

Deuteronomy 12:6–7

“There ye shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice, ye and your households.”

The covenant meal language includes households, not merely heads of households.

The post Paedocommunion vs. John Calvin (and the Reformed Tradition) first appeared on Steve Macias.

From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the Lord shall be great among the nations.

Based on a sermon I preached on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul in January 2026.

It is not my desire to be political in the pulpit. I once worked in the California State Assembly, and I left for a reason. I did not believe the deepest problems of our civilization could be solved there. The church proclaims that Christ is King, but our solution is not statist. It is sacramental. It is ecclesial. It is civilizational.

Yet on the Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, politics inevitably presses in. Ideas about life, law, authority, and the state intersect whether we wish them to or not. So before we speak of culture, we must speak clearly about what it means to be “pro-life.”

To be pro life as a Christian is not a slogan. It is a comprehensive view of human life.

It means we reject the killing of innocent human life. We oppose abortion. We oppose euthanasia. We reject embryo destruction in IVF and research. We reject assisted suicide. We affirm care for mothers in crisis. We uphold the dignity of the disabled. We defend natural death without intentional killing through medical starvation.

It also means we uphold God’s order for marriage and family. The family is God’s ordained sanctuary for life. Being pro life includes honoring marriage between one man and one woman, open to children who are a blessing and not a burden. It includes adoption, fostering, and Christian charity.

That “pro-life” vision alone could consume the entire mission of the church.

But today we also lament millions of children killed since 1973, especially here in California, where convenience and personal autonomy have been elevated above the image of God.

Yet this day also commemorates the conversion of St. Paul. And that pairing matters.

St. Paul’s conversion was not a private religious experience. It was a civilizational turning point. The persecutor became the apostle. The ravager of the church became its shepherd. The man who breathed threats became a father to nations. The world is different because Paul was changed.

And in the Gospel reading appointed for this feast, Christ promises something astonishing. When Peter asks, “What shall we have?” Jesus answers with language of thrones and judgment. In the regeneration, he says, you shall sit on twelve thrones.

Regeneration.

Not improvement. Not moral adjustment. New birth.

St.Paul did not become a slightly better man. He became a new man. His allegiance shifted from Adam to Christ. From the old world to the new.

St. Augustine reminds us that regeneration is not limited to individuals. The body will be renewed. The cosmos will be renewed. Christ does not abandon creation. He claims it. Every square inch belongs to him.

So when Christ speaks of thrones, he is not speaking in metaphor. After his resurrection he declares, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Not future authority. Not partial authority. All authority. The ascension was not Christ retreating from the world. It was his enthronement over it.

Modern Christianity often confines salvation to the private heart. But salvation in Scripture always has public consequence. Everywhere the apostles went, idols fell. Infanticide ended. Women were elevated. Slaves were dignified. Hospitals and schools were born. Culture was reshaped.

Christianity is embodied. It has sacraments, discipline, liturgy, hierarchy, catechesis, creeds, and apostolic succession because it governs something real. It forms a people who reign with Christ.

Paul later tells the Corinthians, “Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? Do you not know that we shall judge angels?”

The church is not a hobby. It is not a voluntary association for religious encouragement. It is the instrument through which Christ regenerates the world.

And that is why the sanctity of life cannot be separated from sacramental theology.

Every evil in our age functions as a counterfeit sacrament.

Where baptism gives identity in Christ, the world gives identity through race, sexuality, bureaucratic number, or political tribe. Where Eucharist feeds us with Christ, consumerism feeds us with endless consumption. Where confession cleanses the conscience, therapy and ideology attempt to redefine sin out of existence. Where marriage produces life, abortion destroys it.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once described abortion as the anti sacrament. He was right. It is the ritual rejection of a divine gift.

The strength of evil in any society is proportional to the weakness of the church and the family. When families weaken, the state expands. When fathers abdicate, bureaucracies replace them. When churches retreat, technocrats rule.

Culture is religion externalized. If you want to know what a society truly believes, examine its laws, its schools, its art, its architecture, its funerals, its celebrations. Look at what it honors and what it tolerates.

By that measure, America is not presently ordered by Christian culture.

And we must admit our own fault. We have confined our faith to sanctuaries and bedside devotions. We have internalized what was meant to be embodied. We ask when Washington will fix what only the church can rebuild.

The state cannot shrink unless the church and the family grow.

If the church does not form souls, the state will. If the family does not catechize children, the state will. If the pulpit does not teach virtue, legislatures will invent their own.

Statism fills vacuums.

So what must we do?

We return to the sacramental levers of regeneration.

We reclaim baptism as identity. We gather around the Eucharist as strength. We catechize our children in confirmation. We confess and receive absolution for our failures. We build marriages that form households. We raise sons and daughters who know they are royal heirs, not subjects of bureaucracies.

We pray for more priests. We plant more churches. We form Christian schools. We do not ask permission from the state to be the church.

This is not novelty. It is ancient.

The same Spirit who filled Paul fills the church today. The same sacraments that built Christendom remain. The same King reigns.

Christ who confronted Saul confronts us. Why do you hide me from your work, your family, your culture? Why do you confine me to Sunday?

He reigns now. The gates of hell will not prevail. Not in Rome. Not in Silicon Valley. Not in California.

The church will not merely survive. It will conquer. And in that conquest, human life will be honored because Christ himself entered a womb, assumed flesh, died bodily, rose bodily, and reigns bodily.

Sanctity of life begins in worship. Worship precedes transformation.

If Christ is enthroned in his church, his reign will extend into culture. And if his reign extends into culture, the anti sacraments will fall.

Not by politics first. By regeneration first.

Christ is King. He has all authority. And he shares his reign with his saints.

Let us build accordingly.

The post Christ and Culture: How the Church Builds in an Age of Statism first appeared on Steve Macias.

Anglican and Episcopal are often used interchangeably — but they are not the same. In this guide, I explain the historical roots, theological differences, and modern divisions between Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church from the perspective of a priest who has served in both traditions.

Whether you’re searching for “Anglican vs. Episcopal,” “Episcopal vs. Anglican,” or “What’s the difference between Anglicanism and Episcopalianism?”—you’re not alone. This guide will help you understand the key distinctions in history, theology, and church identity.

Anglican vs Episcopal — Quick Summary

• Anglican = global communion rooted in the English Reformation
• Episcopal = American denomination formed after the Revolution
• The Episcopal Church (TEC) is progressive in theology and social ethics
• Other Anglican bodies (e.g., ACNA, REC) maintain traditional doctrine

Are You Anglican or Episcopalian?

That’s a question I’ve had to answer myself. As a priest who transferred from a Continuing Anglican jurisdiction into the Reformed Episcopal Church, I’ve lived on both sides of this conversation.

So what’s the difference between Anglicans and Episcopalians?

In short: not much, and yet, quite a bit.

Like the terms Presbyterian and Reformed, Anglican and Episcopalian often overlap in meaning. One refers to a global tradition; the other to a particular ecclesiastical identity, especially within the American context. Let’s take a closer look.

Historical Origins: Anglicanism and Episcopalianism

The Church of England (aka the Anglican Church) traces its spiritual lineage to the early bishops of the British Isles and their Celtic Christian tradition and maintains continuity through the Reformation and into the Anglican presence in the American colonies.

The word “Anglican” comes from the Latin phrase Anglicana ecclesia libera sit (“the Anglican Church shall be free”) found in the Magna Carta of 1215. “Anglican” simply means “of the English,” and describes members of the Church of England and those in churches historically connected to it.

The term “Episcopal” comes from the Greek word episkopos—bishop or overseer. A church governed by bishops is said to have an episcopal polity. So, “Episcopal” refers to both a church structure and, in the American context, the name of a denomination.

How the Episcopal Church in America Was Born

Before the American Revolution, the Church of England was the established church in many colonies. However, after independence, Americans needed bishops of their own. In 1783, clergy sent Rev. Samuel Seabury to England for consecration—but English bishops required an oath of loyalty to the crown.

Unable to swear allegiance to King George III, Seabury turned instead to the Scottish Episcopal Church, which was part of the Anglican tradition and consecrated him bishop in 1784. This act established the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States (commonly known as simply ‘the Episcopal Church’), which would become the spiritual heir of Anglicanism in America—yet a distinct Anglican jurisdiction apart from the established Church of England.

The term “Episcopal” thus became synonymous with American Anglicanism, honoring Seabury’s lineage through the Scottish “Episcopal” non-jurors—bishops who refused to swear loyalty to the post-Reformation Scottish crown.

What Is the Reformed Episcopal Church?

Fast forward to the 19th century. The First Vatican Council fractures the Roman Communion and dissenting “Old Catholic” churches emerge independent from the Pope. This challenged this generation’s assumptions about the direction of the Reformation.

In 1856, William Augustus Muhlenberg (1797-1877) presented a Memorial (a formal petition) to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. In it, he called for a loosening of what he saw as the Episcopal Church’s exclusiveness regarding denominational authority. Essentially, he suggested that the Episcopal Church should adopt a more apostolic approach to episcopacy, where the bishop could serve as a unifying figure for all evangelical Christians, not just those in the Episcopal or Anglican tradition. By doing so, the episcopacy could become a source of unity among different Protestant groups, promoting greater cooperation and fellowship.

It was in this cultural moment of crisis and change in the Roman Church that the Protestant vision for a unified Christendom was imagined in the hearts of men like Muhlenberg and George David Cummings (a retired Bishop of the Episcopal Church).

In 1873, Cummings helped found the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC)—a body committed to the historic Anglican formularies, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the supremacy of Scripture. Since then, the REC has grown into a global Anglican jurisdiction with churches in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and across several continents.

Anglican Realignment and Continuing Churches

The Episcopal Church (TEC) continued to shift theologically in the 20th century, adopting liberal stances on issues such as women’s ordination, same-sex marriage, and revisions to the Book of Common Prayer. In response, many traditional Anglicans left TEC to form what are now called Continuing Anglican churches.

Some of these new bodies rejected the global Anglican Communion altogether. Others, like the REC, sought to preserve orthodoxy within the larger Anglican family. The REC entered into intercommunion with like-minded groups, including the Anglican Province of America, and later helped form broader alliances such as the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas.

A Strategic Partnership: Nigeria and the REC

In 2005, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the largest Anglican province with over 17 million members, entered into formal communion with the Reformed Episcopal Church. This move reflected shared theological convictions—especially in response to the Episcopal Church’s consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

The Nigerian church traces its Anglican roots to Samuel Ajayi Crowther, the first African Anglican bishop, whose 19th-century missionary work laid the foundations for Nigeria’s vibrant Christian witness.

Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)

In 2009, the REC became a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)—a province uniting traditional Anglicans across the U.S., Canada, and beyond. ACNA includes over 1,000 congregations and represents a renewed effort to restore biblical faith, Anglican heritage, and missionary zeal.

Today, the ACNA is in full communion with several Global South Anglican provinces, including those in Uganda, Nigeria, South America, Southeast Asia, and Sudan. Its clergy orders have been recognized by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, affirming its continuity with historic Anglicanism.

Anglican vs. Episcopal Today

So, what’s the difference between Anglican and Episcopal?

• Episcopal refers specifically to the American denomination that developed after the Revolution.
• Anglican is a broader term describing the global communion of churches rooted in the English Reformation.
• Theological and cultural differences now divide some Anglican bodies from the modern Episcopal Church, especially around Scripture, sacraments, and moral teaching.

Political Differences in Anglican Denominations?

The Episcopal Church is a progressive mainline denomination:

• ordaining women and LGBTQ+ clergy
• supporting same-sex marriage rites
• supports access to abortion

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has also passed various resolution supporting government action on gun control, climate change, and immigration reform.

The Anglican churches in the USA tend to be more theologically conservative, upholding traditional views on marriage, gender, and biblical authority. Although some diocese in the Anglican Church in North America have ordained female priests and deacons.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Episcopal Church Anglican?

Yes, historically. However, today not all Anglicans are part of the Episcopal Church.

Why did Anglicans leave the Episcopal Church?

Theological disagreements over biblical authority, marriage, and ordination.

Is ACNA Anglican?

Yes. The Anglican Church in North America identifies as Anglican and is in communion with several Global South provinces.

Are Anglican churches conservative?

Many Anglican bodies today hold traditional views on Scripture and marriage, though theological positions vary by jurisdiction.

The post Clear Differences Between Anglican vs. Episcopal (2026 Guide) first appeared on Steve Macias.

The conversation was warm, thoughtful, and marked by a shared reverence for the historic faith once delivered to the saints. Moments like this remind us of the deep roots we share in the early Church and in the apostolic ministry.

Fr. Samer was joined by his wife, Khourieh Julianna, and two of their sons, Dimitri and Dominic. It was a joy to see families present in what is ultimately not merely institutional dialogue, but fellowship in Christ.

Delighted to have the Very Rev. Fr. Samer Youssef from the Antiochian Orthodox Church of the Redeemer visit St. Paul’s and Canterbury School. I gave him a tour of our chapel and school as we discussed Anglo-Orthodox history and the legacy of St. Raphael of Brooklyn. Pictured here with Mr. Michael and Patrick Milbank, sons of our founder Rev. Norman Milbank and Vestry Members.

But this meeting carried more weight than a simple introduction.

Fr. Samer’s parish was originally the first Antiochian Western Rite community in California. Over time, the parish embraced the Byzantine rite, but its origins were deeply tied to the Anglican crisis of the 1960s.

Both his parish and ours trace their beginnings to the same moment of rupture surrounding Bishop James Pike in the Diocese of California.

James Pike publicly questioned core Christian doctrines—including the Trinity and the divinity of Christ—and embraced theological positions that many believed departed from historic orthodoxy, prompting significant unrest within the Diocese of California in the 1960s.

During that period, part of the congregation of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Los Altos departed to follow Canon Edwin West and eventually formed a Western Rite parish under Antioch. Father West was received into the Orthodox Church when he was ordained by Metropolitan ANTHONY in January 1963, and his parishioners made a profession of faith in the Syrian (Antioch) Orthodox Church.

Another portion of that same St. Mark’s congregation formed St. Paul’s Anglican Orthodox Church in Los Altos under Rev. Milbank. 50 years later, St. Paul’s is a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the Anglican Church in North America.

Some families were literally divided between the two parishes. So it special to have these two families stand together today.

The post Anglican Orthodox Relationships in Los Altos first appeared on Steve Macias.