To the Glory of GOD

Proud Episcopalian/Anglican | 25 | he/him | See Intro Post for More

[justanotherepiscopalian]

INTRO POST

Greetings! This is my personal blog, to which all are welcome.

ABOUT ME

25, he/him, cis, American, white w/ 50% Mexican blood but 0% Hispanic ethnicity.

Christian, specifically Episcopalian. More on that below.

Member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr

Firm queer ally.

Autistic, specifically w/ Asperger's.

Degree in English Literature (a.k.a. poor).

Cannot live w/out forests and mountains.

I speak near-fluent Latin.

Also a fan of Anglish (linguistically).

Certified AI-hater.

Happily married :)

MY FAITH

I was born and raised Christian. Parents are vaguely mainline Protestant, childhood church was fairly contemporary and mildly evangelical. Found the Episcopal Church in 2021, now a staunch Episcopalian.

(For my fellow Anglicans, I identify as a Central-leaning Anglo-Catholic Broad churchman)

I have a deep love for liturgy and for the traditions of the Church, including those of Anglicanism and the Celtic Church (NOT in a white-supremacist way).

I am part of the inclusive orthodoxy movement, which entails unyielding support of the core tenets of Christianity as the truth while simultaneously understanding the full inclusion of queer folk in the sacramental life of the church to be God’s will.

I fully affirm the Nicene and Apostles Creeds as the complete expression of the essentials of the Christian faith, and I believe the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God.

I AM SIDE A, a.k.a. QUEER-AFFIRMING. By the grace of God, I have come to believe that there is nothing wrong with queerness and that the rites and sacraments of the Church must be made available to queer folk. I see no contradiction between such a view and the scriptures I revere or the God I follow.

I believe in evangelism, but I do not believe that Christians should try to coerce people into the faith or force their beliefs/practices onto others. Our mission isn't to rescue people from God's wrath, but to show the world God's love and welcome those who respond.

I hold to annihilationism, the belief that those not granted eternal life on the Last Day won't be sent to suffer for all eternity, but will simply cease to exist.

I'm not a universalist per se, but I do think there will be people in the next life whom the Christians will be surprised to see.

My Christian faith leads me to support progressive politics. That said, I have no allegiance to any particular party, and I vehemently oppose any blending of church and state.

No DNIs (at the moment). Feel free to message me if you want to chat or have a serious discussion.

[autisticandcatholic]

friendly reminder to mog satan today by prayer and gratefulness for the life God has granted

[magdaleneanthony]

[satyrradio-deactivated20250513]

Queer Christian Flag

Lesbian Christian Flag

Gay Man Christian Flag

[gayleviticus]

i was reading romans in the NRSV(UE) and noticed that a few of the instances of dikaosyne classically translated as 'righteousness' (and adikia translated as 'unrighteousness' or 'wickedness') are now translated as 'justice'/'injustice - they seem to have gone for a 'social relationships/big picture dikaiosyne is justice, and dikaiosyne as a personal quality is righteousness'.

and l feel like it has made the text more cohesive

Some examples:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice (NIV: wickedness) of those who by their injustice suppress the truth." Romans 1.18.

"They were filled with every kind of injustice (NIV: wickedness), evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." Romans 1.29.

"But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God (NIV: 'if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly'), what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?" - Romans 3:5-6 - the NRSV

The impression I get from the NIV, shaped by much evangelical teaching, is that 'righteousness' is an individual quality first and foremost - yes, it affects other people who become victims of it, but the picture painted feels like the problem is that every single individual is unrighteous and does things that are Bad.

Romans 3.5-6, then, seems to suggest that our unrighteousness only serves to highlight just how much more perfect and beautiful and morally spotless God is compared to us, and hence God is justified to inflict wrath because he is so much better than us.

On the other hand, the NRSVUE (and tbf the 3: 5-6 changes are also present in the NRSV) I think instead by using injustice suggests that we have a collective problem. God's wrath is a response to injustice which must be amended, and the vice list of Romans 1.29 is not just a pious killjoy collection of things to avoid but all sins that flow directly from injustice.

Romans 3.5-6 instead seems to be saying 'the fact that God is willing to deal with this injustice via wrath and restore right relationships demonstrates God's justice' - essentially, in the same way that Green Goblin's injustice 'confirms' Spiderman's justice by being his foil and adversary. So Paul seems to be saying 'We see God's justice demonstrated in his response to injustice - it would be stupid then to say God is unjust to judge us. How could he ever fix the world without some kind of judgment' Rather than suggesting that because God is perfectly morally good, he can freely destroy all who are morally impure at will.

i think this also foreshadows Romans 6.1, where Paul asks rhetorically 'shall we keep on sinning, so that grace may abound?' No, because in Romans sin is injustice. Injustice is a broken relationship, whether between individuals or on a societal level, and the effect of grace is to heal that relationship, not paper over it. Continuing to perpetuate injustice in order to make grace abound is like deliberately breaking your arm over and over again for more medicine.

I think this also makes clearer a closer link to the theology of the Old Testament Prophets, for whom social justice was of prime importance and first and foremost concerned with the community of Israel, not individual virtue in itself (although of course, by standing against Israel the Prophets also demonstrated the value of individual virtue).

[ymutate]

The Borgund Stave Church in Norway. Constructed between 1180 and 1250 AD, it is a remarkable relic of medieval craftsmanship, uniquely built entirely of wood and assembled without any nails through a method known as timber framing. This method of construction is characteristic of a rare group of medieval churches found predominantly in Scandinavia.

Now preserved as a museum, the church has been carefully restored and is managed by the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Norwegian Monuments. It features a distinctive triple nave layout and is recognized as a Sogn-type stave church.

Credit: Ancient Marvels/Jesslyn Ev

[mysticismmess]

Bretagne

[waferwolf]

it makes no sense for any Christian, let alone those who venerate the theotokos, to be misogynistic

[mechthildofmagdeburg]

HAPPY FEAST DAY BESTIE everyone read her wiki article

[orthodoxadventure]

Xkton

[demigirl-in-christ]

[gayleviticus]

evangelism/outreach/whatever you want to call it etc is obviously a v hot topic issue w progressive christians not only bc of colonialism but also bc of personal religious trauma from (often) being exvangelical, and i get that and think it's an area to be seriously re-evaluated (and i do think its important to deconstruct the heavy emphasis on evangelism from evangelical spaces, especially the idea that it is every christian's #1 priority)

with that said, i think the kneejerk reaction against outreach in any form that i sometimes see can seem extremely naive and impractical. like. every organisation does some kind of outreach. even within judaism, a famously non-proselytising religion, there are still groups that try to reach out to non-practising Jews and reconnect them with their faith. the local board games club advertises itself. sports teams need members to thrive.

that does not need to be some sinister ulterior motive. yes, religion does carry more weight than just sports teams and is intwined with culture, issues of autonomy etc - your church doing outreach is not just the same as trying to get people to join your sewing club. but i think sometimes people overreact against evangelicalism and promote a 'let them just find us' approach that i think is just frankly unrealistic for any organisation.

of course, i dont then mean churches (or other religions for that matter) should be out street preaching and doorknocking. but i think finding ways to invite in is important and worthwhile - rather than either 'let's sit here and people will come to us because we're so cool and epic' or trying to seduce/coerce/lure people in.

even with just normal social events, i find it often feels more welcoming and enticing to be explicitly invited than just invited to a nebulous FB event or get @ ed in a group chat. that's not true for everyone, nor is it true in every circumstance, and it is definitely not without its baggage in religious circles. it is something to think carefully about.

i just think when people propose that places of worship just sit around and decline because if theyre truly worthy people will just show up - which is not true of any initiative of any kind - it seems very naive. it would be more honest to say 'i think outreach is too fraught and too morally risky to even try' than to suggest that actually, it's being pragmatic to do nothing.

also, it essentially cedes the ground to the religious organisations that ARE out there outreaching with zero qualms. and of course if they are willing to use unethical tactics that disrespect people's autonomy and invoke fear of hellfire then in some regards they will see success that people with principles don't -but ceding the entire field to them is i think also not helpful. anyway, just some musings. feel free to disagree but please be nice

[justanotherepiscopalian]

Pope's new encyclical is ballin

[wandering-jana]

Catedral de León, Spain

Jan. 14, 2026

[orthodoxadventure]

[aevum-meditations]

What is commonly referred to by the world as "conservative Christianity" is a misnomer. What is often called "conservative" in a Christian context turns out to be novelty, often accompanied by the erosion (if not total total loss) of the liturgical, sacramental, incarnational, christological, and trinitarian dimensions of the church which is the context of a life of Christian faith. What is more, what is truly conservative theologically in those dimensions will inevitably leads to social concerns which will appear to the world to be what is usually referred to as "progressive." "Conservative Christianity" (as commonly understood) is self-contradictory, while "progressive Christianity" (as commonly understood) is redundant.

Is, then, Christianity "political"? It turns out that the question isn't a straightforward one, and we should be wary of any temptation to conflate the Christian faith with politics. The basis for the Christian faith isn't political as such, but rather a spiritual one, of the Kingdom of God which is "not of this world": not an otherworldly passivity but a deep recognition of the image of God universally found in all without exception.

This does not mean that there may be some provisional use in a Christian's involvement with politics, but politics alone can never serve as a substitute for the Kingdom of God. There is a clear distinction between the two. The Christian faith may provide the impetus for active political involvement, but the faith and politics should not be confused either. And, of course, a politics of resentment of any kind is antithetical to the Christian faith.

The way we erroneously foist worldly political categories onto the faith of the Church and onto the morals of the Church reveals a profound disalignment between faith (when reduced to mere ideology) and the kenotic love of Christ — it is the fault line which made the rise of US Christian nationalism possible.

[iustuspeccator]

Where Does Your Taste Live? | American Christianity Quiz — theodramatist

What you watch, read, eat, and listen to—mapped to your nearest neighborhood on the map of American Christian traditions. Thirty‑four questi

okay okay one more quiz, this is your American Christian denomination based on your taste in secular things and get ready because I got dead on bullseye Episcopalian LMAO

[justanotherepiscopalian]

Well at least TEC is in there somewhere.