|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Similarities and Differences? Anglicans & Lutherans, Lutherans & Anglicans
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Hosts may please do what ever will keep the Anglicans at the mizzen and the Lutherans at the foremast please and the topic in whatever ocean is appropriate. My thoughts were for an information thread, given my interest, though I expect there are worthy things to debate as well.
On this wintry afternoon, I decided to do a little looking internet-wise. I learned that in Europe there is the "Porvoo Communion", that in the USA there is "Called to Common Ministry", and that in Canada there is the "Waterloo Declaration".
Then I looked to see if I could find a summary of the differences and similarities of these two, and what I found was lots of nice descriptions of each's history, how they decided to enter into common communion and ministry and not to merge. But I see a bit at sea to really understand the differences about today's 2 churches. I get the historic Germanic-Luther and English-Henry-Cranmer bits, but not what divides them or makes them distinct enough today other than their histories.
[[edit: must check title spəlling as well as the topic's!]]
[ 18. January 2014, 20:58: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But I see a bit at sea to really understand the differences about today's 2 churches. I get the historic Germanic-Luther and English-Henry-Cranmer bits, but not what divides them or makes them distinct enough today other than their histories.
Lutherans have a very strong emphasis on salvation by faith alone (and then get angsty about what exactly counts as 'faith'). Anglicans are inclined to think that where faith is lacking coffee after the service might do instead.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
... I get the historic Germanic-Luther and English-Henry-Cranmer bits, but not what divides them or makes them distinct enough today other than their histories. ...
From where I'm sitting, that's fairly critical. I don't meet many Lutherans. I'm not familiar with their way of doing things. But Lutheranism is Christianity for Germans and Scandinavians. The CofE, CinW and CofI are Christianity for English, Welsh and some Irish people. In the same way, Orthodoxy is Christianity for Greeks, Russians etc, the RCC is Christianity for Italians, Spanish etc and Presbyterianism is Christianity for Scots. The Anglican Communion is mainly for people who either themselves came from the British Isles or received Christian faith from people who did.
I suspect that's largely it. It only becomes an issue in places like North America where people descended from both groups are living in the same place.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I had understood that Anglicanism is a church for Nigerians and Africans today given numbers.
You have highlighted Enoch what I want to know. I think the history is probably not important to the bulk of Anglicans currently, who have no such history. I am actually one of those, not Anglican by birth or nationality, but chose to be. Which is a non-European experience I suppose.
Maybe the future history for Anglicans and Lutherans is to become one denomination? Even though they say no just now? Being German/Scandinavian versus English isn't enough here in Canada. There are more Ukrainians than English/UK descended people who are Anglicans where I live.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
*coughcoughcough*
There are some Lutherans who don't exactly fit with the group you're thinking of. And for what it's worth, the center of world Lutheranism today is AFAIK AFrica. (Maybe Asia in half a century)
But whatever.
Speaking as an outsider, then, it appears to me that the major differences between the Lutherans you are speaking of and the Anglicans are a) ethnic and historical heritage, and b) emphasis (or not) on apostolic succession.
If you take into account the other Lutherans you'll get a heckuva lot more differences.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Lamb Chopped: And for what it's worth, the center of world Lutheranism today is AFAIK AFrica.
At least according to Wikipedia, there are still twice as many Lutherans in Europe than in Africa.
(I don't completely trust these numbers though. I find the number for the Netherlands ridiculously high, and the number for Brazil rather low.)
[ 19. January 2014, 01:12: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yes, but I meant counting by those who actually attend church. On a semi-irregular basis, at least.
[ 19. January 2014, 01:19: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
At the risk of being overly simplistic, I think one of the differences between Lutheran and Anglican traditions is emphasis on doctrine. Lutherans, generally speaking, tend to focus more on their historical faith statements, while most Anglicans seem to focus on a common form of worship, the BCP. (Although these days the borders get fuzzy on both counts.)
Also, worshipwise, I suspect one will find that the highest-up-the-candle High Church Lutherans are still a bit more relaxed than the highest-up-the-candle Anglicans, while the lowest Low Church Lutherans are still more formal than the Low end of the Anglican spectrum...although, again, times are changing. (DP and I found ourselves in one Lutheran church whose worship service was almost Baptist in form -- pastor in civvies and scarcely any liturgy left except for a brief, almost reluctant nod to the hymnal for the Eucharistic portion of the service.)
And, even though we say we're all about Word AND Sacrament, I suspect the average Lutheran in the pew tends to make the sermon the focal point of worship, rather than putting the Eucharist on equal footing.
Again, very simplistic and probably overgeneralized points.
PS In the US, I think there's also a strong element of congregationalism in the Lutheran church bodies, so that Anglican polity doesn't sit well with many Lutherans, no matter how similar our theology and praxis. After Called to Common Mission, I was rather shocked to discover my then-pastor's unhappiness with the compromise solution to the apostolic-succession issue (i.e., pre-agreement pastors being grandfathered into AS), and his general distaste for the ELCA and TEC adopting parallel forms of organization...I mean, he's as progressive and ecumenical as they come, but he still found the whole thing irksome.
[ 19. January 2014, 02:31: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
After some discussion behind the scenes, it's been dcided that this one should do well in Purgatory, so off you go.
Cheers
Ariel
Heaven Host
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
... I get the historic Germanic-Luther and English-Henry-Cranmer bits, but not what divides them or makes them distinct enough today other than their histories. ...
From where I'm sitting, that's fairly critical. I don't meet many Lutherans. I'm not familiar with their way of doing things. But Lutheranism is Christianity for Germans and Scandinavians. The CofE, CinW and CofI are Christianity for English, Welsh and some Irish people. In the same way, Orthodoxy is Christianity for Greeks, Russians etc, the RCC is Christianity for Italians, Spanish etc and Presbyterianism is Christianity for Scots. The Anglican Communion is mainly for people who either themselves came from the British Isles or received Christian faith from people who did.
I find it a little odd that you consider CofI to be Christianity for some Irish people when it is far more of a colonial plant than the Scottish Episcopal Church is, yet you say Presbyterianism is Christianity for Scots. The RCC is probably more strongly associated with Ireland than with any country outside of Italy.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
(Main difference between Lutherans and Anglicans: in a Lutheran church you sit and stand and sit and stand and sit and stand. A lot ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
There are more differences between individual Anglican Churches and individual Lutheran churches than there are differences between Anglicans and Lutherans.
So perhaps the main differences is:
There are more differences between individual Anglican churches than there are between individual Lutheran churches.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sherwood
Shipmate
# 15702
|
Posted
This is quite timely as I've been planning on starting a topic about this for a few days!
I'm feeling more and more of a need to be Baptised every day. Were I in Britain I would go to my local CoE church, but the place I live in Finland has no local CoE/Anglican representation at all. I'd have to make a 3 hour train ride to Tampere every Sunday to visit my closest Anglican church, and that's not possible.
A close friend of mine is an Anglican priest and vicar and has told me that the Anglican Communion and the Evangelical Lutheran Church are as close to being one church as possible without actually being one church, but I don't really understand what that means. I would ask him more, but I don't want to add to his work load since I'm not in his parish.
As far as I am aware, both churches recognise those Baptised in the other church, but is that all the almost-together-closeness practically entails?
FWIW, I was Christened as an infant, but there has been much water under the bridge since I was 6 months old, some Mormon, some pagan and some confused semi-Agnostic, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't count as I wasn't raised in the faith.
Sorry if this is a bit of a confused post!
[ 19. January 2014, 11:16: Message edited by: Sherwood ]
Posts: 62 | From: Finland | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sherwood:
This is quite timely as I've been planning on starting a topic about this for a few days!
I'm feeling more and more of a need to be Baptised every day. Were I in Britain I would go to my local CoE church, but the place I live in Finland has no local CoE/Anglican representation at all. I'd have to make a 3 hour train ride to Tampere every Sunday to visit my closest Anglican church, and that's not possible.
A close friend of mine is an Anglican priest and vicar and has told me that the Anglican Communion and the Evangelical Lutheran Church are as close to being one church as possible without actually being one church, but I don't really understand what that means. I would ask him more, but I don't want to add to his work load since I'm not in his parish.
As far as I am aware, both churches recognise those Baptised in the other church, but is that all the almost-together-closeness practically entails?
Virtually all churches recognize one another's baptism, because they have always held that baptism can be performed by any Christian lay person or cleric, as long as it is performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
What he means instead is that the two church's recognize the validity of one another's orders (i.e, that priests in one church are to be considered priests by the other; the Roman Catholic Church on the other hand, for example, does not recognize Anglican priests as priests, but as laypeople), that they accept that there are no major doctrinal differences between them, that they cooperate frequently, and that it's possible to move between one and the other with no additional sacramental acts.
Basically, that to the extent that we believe in an invisible Church behind the various visible church institutions, a Finnish Lutheran parish is the Church in that town and the Anglican parish over in England is the Church in that town. Here in America, we often have many congregations in a single city that recognize one another as part of the same invisible Church but worshipping and living in slightly different ways.
quote:
FWIW, I was Christened as an infant, but there has been much water under the bridge since I was 6 months old, some Mormon, some pagan and some confused semi-Agnostic, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't count as I wasn't raised in the faith.
Do not be baptized again. If you were baptized as an infant in a mainstream Christian church, you have been baptized forever, independently of whether you were raised in the faith. If you are uncertain whether you were baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it's often possible to have a "conditional baptism," along the lines "If you have not already been, I baptize you..."
An act that might fit your needs, after attending a church for a while, would be to be confirmed; this involves your reaffirmation of the baptismal vows and a laying on of hands by the bishop. If this confirmation were performed by a Finnish Lutheran bishop, by the way, it would be recognized by the Church of England, etc.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sherwood:
As far as I am aware, both churches recognise those Baptised in the other church, but is that all the almost-together-closeness practically entails?
As I understand it both churches allow each others members to receive holy communion.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Sherwood:
As far as I am aware, both churches recognise those Baptised in the other church, but is that all the almost-together-closeness practically entails?
As I understand it both churches allow each others members to receive holy communion.
This is true. They also treat their Priests as being entirely interchangeable. So a Swedish Lutheran Priest can come to Scotland and celebrate communion according to the SEC rite and vice versa.
To echo what other have said, Sherwood, do not seek to be baptised again. You may wish to consider being confirmed, however, which is the means by which, among other things, you would give adult assent to the promises made at your baptism.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
My motive for the thread is because the similarity in Canada and I think in America is much much closer. A priest in the Anglican Church of Canada is completely recognized in the Evangelical Churxh of Canada and vice versa. Bishops may appoint either to a parish of either. And because our Anglican church closed and the other Anglican options might suggest we go in the Lutheran direction.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
The Anglican Church of Canada is in full communuion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America . This past Christmas our recently retired bishop took the Christmas Day service at the localELCA parish.
But I wonder why aren't all Christians in felloowship . We can hope canm't we ?
Blessings
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The Waterloo declaration authorizes the mutual acceptability of clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Lutheran signatory churches (and, if memory serves me well, several European Lutheran churches). Accordingly, Lutheran and Anglican clerics can now fully function in each others' churches-- generally this is more frequent in the western provinces.
The Anglicans deal with the invalid orders issue by suspending their ordinal with respect to signatory churches (my comments on the intellectual and theological integrity of this approach are available to anyone who wishes to buy me a drink). However, if one is a Lutheran cleric from a non-signatory church, one must be ordained de novo before one can sacramentally function in an Anglican setting-- an example is the newish Dean of Québec, who came from a non-signatory church and was ordained as if he had been a layman while if he had come from a signatory church, he would have simply been licensed to that cure.
Generally speaking, Canadian Lutherans and Anglicans are ethnic churches, and have had a vague equal-but-separate relationship for some time. I think it is safe to say that the considerable theological differences are either entirely overlooked or misunderstood.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johannes
Apprentice
# 11002
|
Posted
Here in Denmark we had a long discussion about the Porvoo agrement.
The main argument against signing was the very different views on the role of bishops. We do have bishops in the Church of Denmark, but it´s important to us to stress that they are "only" priests with a supervisory funktion. In the episcopal churches (as the name says) bishops and the correct succession of bishops is regarded (in priciple) as the best way of being certain that it is a true christian church.
Of course most anglicans are quite pragmatic about it, but many lutherans are very uncomfortable signing a document that mentions the role of bishops, in a too laudatory way. Even when many felt it was only to be polite to anglican tradition, and would have no practical consequences in Denmark.
Posts: 2 | From: Denmark | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Greetings johannes. It appears you've been registered since 2006, so I guess this is very a belated welcome, but congratulations on stepping out and posting after all this time! Please do check the Ten Commandments and board posting guidelines as you do, and of course you can drop in to the Welcome Aboard thread in All Saints to say hello.
Eutychus
Purgatory host
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Augustine's comments are along the lines of what I would like to understand: theological differences, but in terms of practical significance for those from one considering the other. A virtual drink probably doesn't quick lubricate the exchange.
The forms of liturgy look about the same, but then so is Roman Catholic. About which the diffs are better understood.
[ 19. January 2014, 17:43: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johannes
Apprentice
# 11002
|
Posted
Thank you Euthychos
Well, I´ve often felt like chiming in, but since I don´t speak or write english very often (almost never), it takes a long time to write a proper post, so often the diskussion have moved on when I´m ready.
Returning to the topic: a large part of the danish church feels closer to the reformed churches, and thus felt that signing the Porvoo agrement would move us further away from the Lauenberg-community of Lutheran and Reformed churches.
Since the danish lutheran church has ca. 85% of the population as members ANY new position will of course alienate a large group of people.
Posts: 2 | From: Denmark | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
while most Anglicans seem to focus on a common form of worship, the BCP. (Although these days the borders get fuzzy on both counts.)
I think in part this was the result of the original Anglican church encompassing a variety of movements that were reforming along somewhat similar lines, but in different directions - and in doing so the use of the BCP itself was the only thing that they were likely to agree on. One of the perfect illustrations of this - for me - was meeting a theological student who was hoping to be ordained in one of the conservative separatist churches in America - at some point the 39 Articles was mentioned, to which he replied - somewhat sheepishly - "I've never read them .. I didn't .. you know .. want to become biased in my theology as a result of reading them"
quote:
Also, worshipwise, I suspect one will find that the highest-up-the-candle High Church Lutherans are still a bit more relaxed than the highest-up-the-candle Anglicans
I've generally found that there are plenty of Mid-Church Lutherans who would be happier with certain elements of worship that you wouldn't see in Anglican circles unless you went up to nosebleed levels on the candle. They also tend not to be so self-conscious about looking too much like the RCC.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
At the risk of being overly simplistic, I think one of the differences between Lutheran and Anglican traditions is emphasis on doctrine. Lutherans, generally speaking, tend to focus more on their historical faith statements, while most Anglicans seem to focus on a common form of worship, the BCP. (Although these days the borders get fuzzy on both counts.)
That's been my impression, too, as someone from the US Episcopalian tradition who spent a couple of years attending ELCA Lutheran services. The Lutheran pastor at the church I attended seemed much more interested in defining the manner in which the Real Presence is to be understood than I was. I'd think, "Well, why not just say it's really His Body and Blood after the consecration and leave it at that?"
I've also noted there's a much different understanding of hierarchy within the two churches.
I'm not sure either of these things really matters that much, but they are the kinds of things people notice; it's like moving to a different part of the country, where they and you speak different dialects of the same language.
I'd hope for a closer union between Anglicans and Lutherans in future years, particularly in the United States.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
I think it is not unusual for a TEC parish to be led by an ordained ELC pastor and vice versa. I know for certain of one such church in Detroit, and I have come across others in my wanderings.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johannes:
Thank you Euthychos
Well, I´ve often felt like chiming in, but since I don´t speak or write english very often (almost never), it takes a long time to write a proper post, so often the diskussion have moved on when I´m ready.
Returning to the topic: a large part of the danish church feels closer to the reformed churches, and thus felt that signing the Porvoo agrement would move us further away from the Lauenberg-community of Lutheran and Reformed churches.
Since the danish lutheran church has ca. 85% of the population as members ANY new position will of course alienate a large group of people.
Interesting; I've worshipped in Finnish Lutheran churches (I'm ELCA in the US), and found their "high" liturgies very similar to what I am used to. I gather that the Church of Finland has not signed on to any of the agreements with continental Reformed churches (Leuenberg, for example); it seems to me that not all of the Nordic/Baltic Lutheran churches are in agreement as to what their relationships should be with the Reformed tradition, even if all are in LWF.
It should be noted that there are three international Lutheran groups: the LWF, of which the ELCA is a part, and the international organizations of which the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Wisconsin Synod are a part; the latter are quite a bit more conservative than LWF.
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I think it is not unusual for a TEC parish to be led by an ordained ELC pastor and vice versa. I know for certain of one such church in Detroit, and I have come across others in my wanderings.
Indeed, this was the case--Episcopal parish led by Lutheran pastor--in the parish where I worshipped in the US for years. However, the Lutheran pastor came on board after I'd left so I can't comment on any differences in style etc he might have with his Episcopalian predecessors....the parishioners seem very happy though.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
At the risk of being overly simplistic, I think one of the differences between Lutheran and Anglican traditions is emphasis on doctrine. Lutherans, generally speaking, tend to focus more on their historical faith statements, while most Anglicans seem to focus on a common form of worship, the BCP. (Although these days the borders get fuzzy on both counts.)
to the hymnal for the Eucharistic portion of the service.)
Eucharist on equal footing.
I don't think that's over simplistic at all, but a clear statement of the different traditions. The reason's not hard to find either. There is no Anglican equivalent to the faith statements to which you refer. The most recent attempt to introduce one was decried by virtually all save the original proponents and (from memory) the West Indians. The 39 Articles are not comparable at all.
Sadly, the local Lutherans are very closed (the position in Sth Aust, where the percentage of Lutherans is much higher may be different). They do belong to the Council of Churches, but don't play much part in that. While there is a local covenant in our parish of the Catholic, Anglican, Uniting and Baptist churches, the Lutherans have shown no sign of wanting to join.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I would agree with the poster above who said that the practical difference between Anglicanism and Lutheranism, at least in Europe, is that Anglicanism is British Protestantism and Lutheranism is German/Scandi Protestantism. I attended a Lutheran service in Germany and the name of the church was St John's (Evangelical) - to differentiate from the St John's (Catholic) on the other side of town. The word "Lutheran" did not appear anywhere.
We had a seminary student from the Church of Denmark spend 6 months work experience in our CofE parish, and there are several Scandinavian families who worshipped at their own national Lutheran churches back home but have seamlessly switched to CofE.
Back home in the US, my area is still pretty much denominational by ethnicity - so Presbyterians are Scottish descended, Lutherans are German/Scandi, Episcopalians are British, etc. I think with the erosion of European ethnic enclaves and younger generations less concerned about denomination and more concerned with the qualities of an individual church, you will see people joining local churches that have nothing to do with their ethnicities. For example there are now many disenchanted Latino Catholics who are attending Episcopal churches in my area; some now have added a Spanish language service.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Gee D: Sounds like the Lutheran churches in your area belong to church bodies that forbid "unionism," i.e., getting overly friendly with churches that don't share their theological understanding according to the historical confessional statements of Lutheranism. The concern is confusing the laypeople with ideas deemed at odds with those confessions, and goes back to the religious Sturm und Drang in 19th century European Lutheran circles over issues like biblical interpretation, mergers of Lutheran and Reformed churches, etc. A large chunk of Lutheran immigrants in North America came from the conservative side of this discussion.
I grew up in one of those church bodies. Children were forbidden to, say, join Girl or Boy Scouts unless our church sponsored a troop; we couldn't participate in the local CROP Walk For Hunger because it was an ecumenical event and we might be exposed to "false doctrine" during the pre-walk devotional service. Our church wasn't part of the local ministerial association. Things like that. Although in the case of my ex-denomination the level of engagement with other Christians depends on individual congregations and districts within the church body; when I went away to school the campus chapel belonged to a non-geographical district that was much more liberal than my home district -- we had pulpit exchange with the (gasp) OTHER Lutherans across town, even the (double gasp) female pastoral intern there,the local Episocpal priests and even (triple gasp) the RCC campus chaplain down the street. We had a contemporary-service musical group that encompassed musicians from our church and The Other Lutheran church, and freely moved from one congregation to the other without controversy. We also had a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding not-that-denomination visitors participating in the Eucharist, and allowed women to be much more active in the leadership of the congregation than most churches in that iteration of Lutheranism. (Of course, this all happened many years ago; I think the whole church body took a hard right turn shortly after I matriculated, so I suspect the Home Office clamped down on its campus ministries.)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
From my perspective it one of the main differences between the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church has more to do with polity. The Anglican Church is top down with its emphasis on the historical episcopate. For them apostolic succession is the literal laying on hands from Peter and the other apostles through history. The priests of a particular diocese will generally be in agreement with the position of the Bishop. The bishop determines where the priest will be assigned.
On the other hand, the polity of the Lutheran church is built from the bottom up. The local congregation has the power to call its own pastor. In spite of the stated position of the national or regional church body, the congregation still has the power to take a different approach to an issue (see how the ELCA congregations approach human sexuality). While Anglican priests have to ultimately answer to the bishop, Lutheran pastors have to answer to the congregation. Apostolic Succession for Lutherans does not depend on the literal lying on hands from apostle to bishop, but is on the historical nature of the message. We try to keep the message the same as the apostles (with some variation due to the changing times.
A Lutheran bishop is mostly administrative in nature. When a Lutheran congregation becomes vacant, it petitions the Lutheran bishop for a list of pastoral candidates, though members of the congregation can nominate candidates themselves. After the list is presented, the congregation decides votes who will become pastor. The elected pastor also has the option to decline the call.
Lutheran bishops are also term limited. Every four years they have to stand for re election. They can be voted out of office. This happened with Bishop Hanson. He was voted out because the national church body felt we needed a more evangelical leader at this stage. While he is still referred to as Bishop, he has no authority over the churchwide body--in this case, we are close to Roman Catholics, where they now have a pope emeritus.
The other big difference has to do with our different approach to worship. Lutherans have a very wide approach, arguing that form is adiophra, neither commanded nor forbidden as long as it does not contradict the Bible. Anglicans see the form of worship as part of canon law. While Lutheran worship generally follows the common Mass, the pastor of a congregation has wide latitude in revising the service. I don't think Anglican priests would be comfortable doing that without the approval of the bishop.
Confirmation is the last big area. Anglican confirmands are affirmed by the local bishop. Lutheran confirmands are affirmed by the local pastor.
While there are these differences, I would rather affirm our commonality. We are part of the Western catholic church. We preach the same gospel. We have similar approaches to justice and mission. We recognize the validity of each others orders. We affirm out common fellowship.
This is the Week of Christian Unity. Called to Common Ministry gives us a structure to affirm that unity.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The Lutheran church barely exists in England (no idea about the other countries of the UK), but the churches that do exist seem to be more strictly Protestant than what I've seen of US Lutheranism. Is this to distinguish itself from Anglicanism? Is European Lutheranism 'lower' than US Lutheranism? Has US Lutheranism been influenced by TEC?
The Lutheran church is so small in England that I am very unfamiliar with it, sorry if these are silly questions. I think I would feel more at home in ELCA than TEC were I in the US - I suspect that many CoE Anglicans would be.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
JC, there has historically been a strong Pietistic element in some corners of Lutheranism that brings with it a kind of inherent fear of/distaste for clericalism, liturgical pomp and circumstance and anything that might be construed as "Popery." Many of those folks wound up coming to the US.
At the same time, since the middle of the last century there's been a liturgical renewal movement within Lutheranism, one that I think gained traction with Vatican II and more congenial relationships with our RC neighbors on both broad and congregational levels, that moved Lutheran liturgies higher up the candle. (A process that in some parts is now getting derailed by the megachurch/"praise" phenomenon.)
I can't speak to the "Protestant-ness" of European Lutherans vis-a-vis Anglicans, other than the fact that I think German Lutherans especially, because of the EKD's Lutheran/Reformed merger, have perhaps taken on a more Reformed flavor, at least in some places; and, again, that residual 19th century Pietist influence. I know from what my more well-traveled friends have told me that the Church of Sweden is much more High Church than many German Lutherans would be comfortable with.
Just a note: When I was in high school I remember our church -- a more conservative iteration of Lutheranism than the one I'm in now -- hosting missionaries from the UK. At the time I found the idea very strange and presumptuous -- sectarian chest-thumping combined with American imperialism. ("Never fear! The Yanks are coming to save your broken Church!") Apparently the objects of their concern were about as impressed as I was, considering the number of Lutherans now in the UK.;-)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
LutheranChik, It's not a question of "Lutheran churches in your area" as if there are rather a lot of them There are well under 50 churches in the whole State and the ACT together (pop. a bit over 7.5 million, area 850,000 sq km.). The proportion of Lutherans in Sth Aust, and perhaps Queensland, would be higher, but the absolute numbers still low.
Given the close relationship in the US and Canada, and the Porvoo Agreement in Europe, it's rather sad that the community here is as closed as it is. Our rector said once that he was unable to even arrange lunch or coffee with the local pastor - always an "I'll get back to you" response, and then silence.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I have (cough) blogged about some of these issues in another context. I would share in a number of the observations that have been made above. Lutherans and Anglicans each have their own way of being reforming-catholic churches. They're both to an extent traditional about forms, yet evangelical. There is (in theory, at least) a confessional element of common doctrine among Lutherans, while Anglicans tend to pride ourselves on being bound by common prayer rather than confessional subscription, and the 39 Articles don't enjoy the same "ecumenical" (in the sense of international) authority.
Meanwhile, Lutherans are relatively flexible about polity and may regard episcopacy as an Anglican bugaboo to be more or less indulgently humoured, but can be alarmed about what they see as Anglican vagueness on the Eucharistic doctrine of real presence.
I wouldn't go so far as my pastor who compared the two to the difference between "Time" and "Newsweek," but I do think there's an understandable affinity and the relationship is a natural application of the Lambeth Quad.
quote:
Originally posted by Johannes:
Returning to the topic: a large part of the danish church feels closer to the reformed churches, and thus felt that signing the Porvoo agrement would move us further away from the Lauenberg-community of Lutheran and Reformed churches.
That's depressing, but not alarming. The disappearance of distinctive but "mainline" Lutheran presences in the Netherlands and France seems to have vindicated Bismarck. On the other hand, Anglicans are certainly a rag-tag enough bunch, plenty of whom would have similar Reformed misgivings about monarchical episcopacy as the Danes, so they might not find the arrangement as unfelicitous as they may have feared. (How these folks will feel about it is hard to say). And after all, even the Huguenots of New Amsterdam wound up in the Episcopal Diocese of New York!
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Gee D: Again, issues of personality aside -- some people just aren't friendly -- it may also depend on what iteration of Lutheran you're talking about, the "anti-union" church bodies or the ecumenically minded ones. I'm not that familiar with Australian Lutheranism.
I know an instance where a local pastor in a more conservative Lutheran church body reached out to our then-pastor on a pastoral-care matter, and he practically had to engineer a Nicodemus-by-moonlight meeting with him, presumably because his elders and other congregants would have had a fit if they'd seen the two of them together around town. Yes, it's sad, but having grown up in that milieu I understand the mindset. And it's certainly not exclusive to conservative Lutherans.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
IIRC the Australian Lutherans hedge their bets, as "associate members" of both LWF and ILC. I'm not sure how that plays out in practical terms as far as their attitude to relations with other church bodies goes.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Gramps is correct regarding the prevailing attitude in North American Lutheranism regarding apostolic succession. This is because German Lutheranism became the dominant form in the US and Canada, and the Germans consciously abolished the historic episcopate (the Prussian Union also helped make German Lutheranism more aligned to the Protestant mainstream on this issue).
In the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, however, apostolic succession seems to be more highly valued, although this is not absolute or universal. The Churches of Sweden and Finland certainly see the episcopate as more than an administrative office, and I believe in both those churches the office is held for life, even when the duties of administration and governance are relinquished.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I've just looked at Wiki (about the only quick access I have at the moment) and see that there are just over 70,000 Lutherans in Oz and NZ*. It may well be that this small number has led to a laager mentality of looking inwards to preserve doctrinal identity and purity. The same article has the church as being an associate member of both the LWF and ILC.
* This compares to around 50,000 to 55,000 SDAs, of whom two thirds are in church every Saturday, to pick up a discussion in another thread.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
From my perspective it one of the main differences between the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church has more to do with polity. The Anglican Church is top down with its emphasis on the historical episcopate. For them apostolic succession is the literal laying on hands from Peter and the other apostles through history. The priests of a particular diocese will generally be in agreement with the position of the Bishop. The bishop determines where the priest will be assigned.
I'd quibble about this a bit, at least from a U.S. perspective.
In the (TEC) dioceses I have been active in, I would agree that a Bishop can assign a priest, but that applies to churches that are designated "missions" (that is to say, reliant on diocesan financial support) or in a more temporary arrangement as a Priest-in-Charge (usually until the Parish can call a Rector). Otherwise, if the church is a parish (self supporting) the congregation (through the Vestry) calls a priest. The Vestry are also the entity that can fire a priest.
In most cases, the Bishop and Vestry work together to hire and fire priests - since the priest also ultimately has submit to the Bishop's authority and they have to work together. But there are certainly cases I know of where the Bishop would like to remove a priest but the Vestry has blocked it (esp. during the "troubles" following +V. Gene Robinson's consecration) and cases where there has been a breakdown in the relationship between the priest and Vestry or congregation where the Vestry has tried to dismiss a priest but the Bishop has put it on hold to see if they can work it out.
In every diocese I've been active in I know of priests who disagree with their bishops on everything from sexuality, to sacramental theology and worship.
Granted, there are differences in the way TEC Dioceses are run so perhaps there are some where the Bishop has ultimate control where clergy are assigned; I am not familiar with them.
Secondly, in the U.S., Bishops are elected in a bottom-up process whereby the laity and clergy evaluate candidates and then vote on them.
Most TECers would also claim that we have a bottom up approach since the laity ultimately have say over who can become bishop and have equal say in what is passed during General Convention.
Again, YMMV since things seem to work very differently by Anglican province.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Exactly, in TEC a parish church calls a rector, but the diocesan bishop has to be willing to receive that priest into the diocese, so as a practical matter you can't have a successful call to the cure of a parish church unless the bishop acquiesces to the parish's choice. Normally, the bishop would acquiesce unless there is something discovered about the candidate that would arguably make him/her unsuitable. Actually, there should have been enough coordination between the bishop and the vestry/search commitee that the bishop would be able to affirm the candidate's suitability before an invitation of appointment to a rectorship is ever extended to a candidate.
TEC bishops are, in fact, much less monarchial despots than, say, UMC bishops. TEC, for all practical purposes, is episcopally led but synodically governed at all levels.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
A Danish Lutheran lady living in the parish regularly attends services and receives communion at our Anglodist/Methlican Ecumenical Parish Church. She seems quite happy about it.
IIRC, the Anglican presence in Jerusalem started as a joint CofE and (Prussian)Lutheran enterprise.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
I thought the difference, as classically defined, was that Lutherans are willing to undergo any amount of schism to avoid the taint of heresy, whereas Anglicans are willing to allow any amount of heresy to avoid the taint of schism.
Many a true word was spoken in jest, if one looks at the history of each movement.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like there is (still, barely) a single visible Anglican church with something like a worldwide structure, albeit a very lose one that doesn't usually work even according to its own very limited goals. In contrast, there are no fewer than three international bodies claiming to represent global Lutheranism. Even the largest one of these is far less centrally-organized than the Anglican Communion.
If there is a line between Roman Ultramontism and total congregational polity, then the mainstream Lutheran churches all seem slightly closer to the congregational end of the spectrum than any of the members of the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
