There is a Twitter account I've followed for a while, called Young High Churchman (@yunghic1), who has been a strong advocate for a renewal of traditional Anglicanism... With his help, and many others, I have observed a new interest in traditionl Anglican views in the general social media, combined with a declining interest in 'progressive' perspectives Well, that twitter account has recently stated the state of the situation as follows (read this down until reaching the end of the image, then over to the next column on the right)
Since I did not grow up Episcopal what is the TEC or was the TEC of the 90's like? Also the Homilies do contain Godly and Wholesome doctrine but they are very. much the product of their time, do have error in them, and in case if I recall correctly even go agains the 39 Articles in calling the Deurtorocanon inspired, and they are also very much in the reformed camp. If the Dueterocanon is inspired then it should be scripture you can make doctrine on but it is not and Anglicans treat it correctly. So yes Read the Book of Homilies. They will give you some very good Godly and Wholesome doctrine. But read them like you do a sermon by a good priest but note they do get a little more authority than your priests sermon. You could do a lot worse than read them but they reflect the theology of their time before the Anglican tradition had matured and understood itself better but also know they come from a reformed view point.
The ACNA is indeed trying to "get back to basics" on a lot of stuff, and I couldn't be happier about it. Leadership is energized and focused. I'm cautiously optimistic! I'm with bwallac2335 regarding Biblical canon: the deuterocanon are not Scripture; the Homilies are not Scripture; the apocrypha are not Scripture. Nor are the writings of the Apostolic fathers, or the Nicene fathers, or the post-Nicene Fathers. This is not to say that all of those things may not be read profitably -- of course they can be. But one must not teach doctrine from them. The Reformers long ago agreed on a 66-book canon between the Old and New Testaments, and this consensus has held in the centuries since. I see no reason to overturn it -- in fact, the modern text-critical landscape and the weight of manuscript evidence should only strengthen this consensus. Speaking of books, I like the 2019 BCP a whole lot, and I'm glad that ACNA is making serious moves to integrate it into the services across the Province. Apart from all the other good stuff (love the Coverdale Psalter!) it has a great lectionary. As a piece of Anglican literary history, the 2019 BCP is a winner as far as I'm concerned. Whatever profit the Book of Homilies has, I think spending time with the BCP brings better value for time spent. That being said, I do wish more Christians would read more widely in the historical literature. So many of the tempests that boil up were argued (much more cogently, in my view) long ago. I would like to see all writing of commentaries, systematic theologies, and devotionals cease for at least a decade; instead, new editions of Augustine, Bede, Anselm of Canterbury, Aquinas, Cranmer, Calvin, Owen and others should be produced (with perhaps update language to make them comprehensible to modern readers). We are burying too much of the good stuff under mountains of mediocrity. Every Christian should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the church Fathers' writings, if only so they know their own history. It's not Scripture, and should not be treated as such, but it is vastly better than whatever Christian-themed self-help junk is currently being flogged to Christian readers*. I'm hoping that the ACNA publishing house will wake up to this and start offering reprints of some of this stuff. *There is good stuff from, e.g., Packer and Stott and (sometimes, occasionally) N. T. Wright. But it's been years since Tim Keller has written anything worth reading, and even the great R. C. Sproul was whiffing more often than he was hitting as his ministry drew to a close.