Our website: www.justandsinn... Patreon: / justandsinner This is a response to a question I am often asked: Why are you not Anglican? I talk about the primary reason I am Lutheran rather than Anglican.
I was thinking, "Don't go there, Dr. Cooper. There's hardly any difference and you'll just make unnecessary enemies." But so far, responses from Anglicans have been positive, kind, and gracious. I'm thankful for the Anglican voice in Christianity.
"The reason I'm not Anglican is because they are not sufficiently fractious - they can get along with people who have wildly different opinions from them HOW DO YOU NOT BE AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER" @Mygoalwogel: Oh man I wonder how irritated Anglicans are gonna be Anglicans: We are grateful for you sharing your thoughts with us, since we enjoy discussing our differences, and you are Most Welcome to join us for our Mass at 10AM Tea and Refreshments after Eucharist in the community room
As a Catholic expat in Shanghai I’ve been rolling with the Anglican community…it just feels like home. One has to make sacrifices in China in worship…especially the Protestants. We have people from Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anglicism and Methodism in our church all worshipping together which is beautiful.
I had a very similar experience as a Lutheran in Shenzhen at a fake Catholic government church which was (Praise the Holy Trinity!) shephered by a validly (secretly) ordained Father. He was as saintly as anyone I've ever met. I was so impressed and thankful that he refused me communion! I'm NOT being sarcastic. There were American Catholics who never went to Church suddenly showing up every Sunday in China. There were European Lutherans singing in tune but very softly, Pentacostal Jamaicans running up and down the aisles, Baptists pointing at the icons and whispering to each other but still praying and listening. But, my oh my, was he devastated when Pope Francis gave in to Xi's demands and made every Communist-appointed priest valid. That decision sure backfired fast.
Thanks for this video! i’m a recent Anglican convert from a more “pop calvinism”, and I ironically became Anglican for pretty much the reason why you stated you would not join the Anglican Communion. I joined because, yes, I wanted to be a part of a more ancient faith that had liturgy and tradition behind it, but mainly that all Anglicans are united by their membership in the broader Anglican Church and the Book of Common Prayer. I believe paradoxically, that allowing different doctrines and different practices all under a big tent such as creedal, orthodox, (c)atholic christianity such as Anglicanism is key to practicing the unity that Jesus wants for his followers in John 17. i’m willing to lay down my differences such as my disagreement with women’s ordination or the more Anglo-Catholic-leaning traditions, or Arminianism, to be one with my fellow Anglican’s worshiping the Triune God, confessing the Creeds together. I felt like streams like Lutheranism and Presbyterianism were too narrowly defined doctrinally that they essentially had a “paper pope” and this would be a big hinderance for unity if every minister, local church, member had to adhere to those confessions. At the same time I have much respect for those other traditions and I mine their theological riches greatly!
This is what drew me to Anglicanism, as well. I think that there are two extremes to avoid: being so loose that one does not really have a core set of doctrine that can't be denied (The Episcopal Church), and being so tight and narrow that things that should be adiaphora are treated as dogma (WELS and, I humbly and with charity say, LCMS). I'm in the REC, which is a more Traditional form of Anglicanism but at the same time is still part of the ACNA.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Yeah. I always wondered about that. Certainly, they were attempting to score points with Rome or something but the Roman Church doesn't have an official stance as far as I can tell
I am an Anglican, and I feel that the King Of Kings should be worshipped in a manner worthy of a King. I love the tradition, the worldly cultural aspect (incorporating different cultures into our faith) the reverence, and....that we don't feel that we are the ones with sole exclusive truth. Unlike the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, we don't exclude baptized Christians from the eucharist. How can ANYONE deny a believer such a thing! Growing up Church Of Christ, this is a sticking point for me. So I say, as long as you are giving praise and glory to Lord Christ, then worship him in the manner you see fit, so long as you do it within scripture. Peace Of The Lord Be With You!✝️❤️👑
I always appreciate Dr. Coopers grace when talking about non-Lutherans. As an Anglican (ACNA), Jordan’s comments are fair and salient. I am thankful for the critique and it has given me things to ponder I wouldn’t typically consider rolling around in my own bubble.
@@aidanmcwhirter2612 As an ACNA Anglican who was born and raised an LCMS Lutheran, I ultimately left because I felt the truth claims of confessional Lutheranism exceed their biblical warrant. I have tremendous respect for my friends and family in the LCMS and I love Lutheran theology-I do want to be clear about that. I wouldn’t say there’s any point on which I believe the Lutheran confessions are clearly/obviously wrong, but I have drifted away from the Lutheran confessions on a couple topics like unconditional election (toward either conditional election a lá Johann Gerhard or corporate election a lá A.G. Voigt). But the truth claims of the Lutheran confessions are so extensive that I ultimately found myself reading scripture more to find confirmation of Lutheran doctrine than to listen to what the texts would have actually been intended to mean by its authors. Confessional Lutheranism seems to commit one to certain principles of biblical hermeneutics and epistemology which aren’t themselves in scripture but without which Lutheran doctrine doesn’t necessarily follow from the text. And non-confessional Lutheranism (after 1580, at least-I do like Melanchthon) always seems to end up in Pietism or Law-Gospel Existentialism, if not both. Though I believe piety to be exceedingly important (in the manner espoused by Johann Gerhard in his Schola Pietatis), Pietism and Existentialism just aren’t movements in which I see much of worth having been provided to the church other than to warp Lutheranism’s understanding of biblical perspicuity and the life of the mind. So basically, I didn’t agree with the guiding philosophy behind any of Lutheranism’s “three streams,” to put it in Anglican terms.
Look what just happened at Lambeth 2022. 70% are orthodox with conservative values. This fact, this “majority” was poo pooed by Archbishop Welby who is a liberal. It is so disturbing. The while shepherds are fighting the sheep 🐑 are being devoured by wolves 🐺 in sheep’s clothing. So, aside from the politics we are on our own to develop our relationship with God individually through prayer 🙏. A church ⛪️ is simply a door 🚪 to step into. The Holy Spirit takes it from there. That’s the path I’m on. Stay focused on Christ no matter what your worship style preferences. That’s my 2 cents.
Jordan Cooper is correct in saying there is no unity ofn dogma in Anglicanism. I was recently in London and a friend asked me to go along with him to All Saints Margaret Street which is a pinacle of High Church of England worship. This parish does not accept women priests yet it comes under the Diocese of London and the current Bishop of London is a woman. I have no idea how that works!
@@augustinian2018 I agree with your critiques of some forms of Lutheranism. I would note that the CALC or NALC Lutheran synods, only require subscription to the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism. This is like the church of Norway or the Church of Denmark which never subscribed to the German Book of Concord. We are confessional, but not the same level of confessionality as German Lutheranism. My church is more pietist leaning and I find has many similiarities with some streams of ACNA although we are small, rural, and older. This form of Lutheranism is less doctrinally precise than say the LCMS or WELS and allow a bit more theological mystery and diversity than some other Lutheran traditions.
Excellent explanation, but my only quibble (and something I’ve seen other Lutherans do) is ignoring the doctrinal differences within Lutheranism. You only have stronger “unity” because you’re drawing an invisible line between the ELCA (and many Continental Lutherans) and the others. If you were to allow Anglicans to draw a line excluding Anglo-Catholics & the super low-church charismatics, essentially those who don’t hold to the 39 Articles & the Formularies, than Anglicanism suddenly becomes a lot more unified in appearance. It’s essentially holding the two different traditions to different standards. If you were to include the other Lutheran bodies, then you would suddenly have to recognize a plethora of beliefs not in the Book of Concord.
I think this hits the nail on the head. (I’m Catholic FWIW.). His criticism of Anglican’s inability to maintain orthodoxy is accurate, but I don’t walk a way from this video understanding why among those called “Lutheran,” one does not see the same disunity.
I think the difference is that it's not an invisible line between the ELCA and the other confessional synods; The confessional synods have come out and said they're cutting fellowship with the ELCA. We'd be much happier they just dropped the Lutheran from their name.
All church bodies have within them people who believe different things. We are all sinful. The differences between different groups would be the amount and scope of that variety as well as the range of tolerance to those differing beliefs. Lutherans do pay attention to these things. That is why there are so many groups using the name "Lutheran". This is a shame, but at least the lines are drawn.
@@ArsontAngelfire Sure, and I sympathize with that. But you don’t get to define what’s a Lutheran arbitrarily like that. Personally, I have a real problem with “Anglicans” who go out of their way to minimize and/or reject the formularies. Yet, I’m not allowed to control what they call themselves or identify themselves. The same applies here. The ELCA are Lutherans whether or not you agree with them. By the same logic that Dr Cooper is applying here for his invisible line, the ACNA aren’t “Anglicans” because they’re not in communion with Canterbury (officially). There are plenty in TEC who desperately want the ACNA to drop “Anglican” from their name, but it’s not up to them.
Ironically, the lack of strict doctrinal unity is one of the reasons I left the PCA for a local Anglican Church. It’s freeing to be able to mine a huge swath of orthodox church history and tradition without a strict adherence to a set of beliefs I am obligated to believe.
That’s pretty much the reason I’m leaving the LCMS for the ACNA. Comprehensive confessional standards ultimately pose an epistemological problem-how do I know they are correct? This caused me to focus on defending Lutheran explanations of scripture more than listening to scripture itself. There’s a wealth of excellent Lutheran theology out there, but I see a great wealth in other traditions as well.
I still do think that at least between Wittenberg and Canterbury, they form nice foils for each other. I'm not of the opinion that any tradition/denomination is without its flaws/weaknesses (my own included) and at least with Anglicans and Lutherans there does seem to be a LOT that we can learn from each other as we each are strong where the other is weak (doctrine v practice -- both liturgically and ecclesiologically). That's why I go by "Lambeth Lutheran" -- two halves of one whole.
I always appreciate your comments as I feel we typically agree. I think there's a lot more in common between Anglicans and Lutherans than we like to admit.
I am from the Reformed tradition but am leaning towards Anglicanism. I do agree there are doctrinal inconsistencies, but in my study of church history, that's really been the norm for the church since very early on. I think there is definitely a hierarchy of which issues require more unity vs where it's acceptable to disagree, and women's ordination is the one that makes me the most nervous about Anglicanism. Especially since what is traditionally thought of as "Anglicanism" in the USA is the Episcopal Church, which can basically be written out of any sort of orthodoxy at this point. So evaluating Anglican denominations within the "Continuum" is really the only option. I think there are a lot of parallels between the denominational differences within Anglicanism and within Lutheranism though. So I think some of the same critiques apply to both sides. I thought Dr Cooper's assessment was fair though.
We have the Ecumenical councils. The jury is still out on many other issues outside of that. Why close the door? Or are we THAT sure of our detailed explanations of how exactly the Lords Supper works?
I'm from the Philippines, and I 'm PROUD to be ANGLICAN, and still be ANGLICAN no matter what 👍. because ANGLICAN here in the PHILIPPINES makes you feel like one FAMILY
A very thoughtful and interesting insight. As a low church Anglican, I think it would be a struggle to put the width of a cigarette paper between us, theologically. The Anglican Church's 39 Articles are a clear Statement of Faith and are required to be confirmed by each Anglican Minister when he takes up an appointment in a new Church. Article 11, Justification by Faith, Article 28, rejection of Transubstantiation, to give just 2 examples are clear statements of a Protestant Faith. How Anglo Catholics square that circle is something I have never understood, while loving them as Brothers and Sisters in Christ. The Anglican Church, probably for reasons of history has tolerated those who do not accept the 39 Articles. So, in summary, I would say there is a clear doctrinal statement of faith within the Anglican Church although adhering to it is almost optional.
Having been raised Episcopalian there is no doubt in my mind that Anglicanism is protestant. I worked for an Anglo-Catholic monastery one summer as a groundskeeper and had also attended Anglo-Catholic parishes in New England while a sailor. Anglo-Catholicism is extremely disingenuous and based upon sentimental nostalgia for a Catholic England which no longer exists. And ironically, it was the very church that Anglo-Catholics tolerate as members which destroyed the Catholic civilization of medieval England. But curiously, Anglo-Catholics have lots of quibbles with Catholic theology, don’t really believe in the real presence, don’t hold vigils or benediction, typically don’t actually fast preferring to consume beef nearly all of the time, and have a fondness for board games such as Catholic trivia in which they indulge their fetishistic preoccupation with bygone Latin rite Catholicism which today is more a curiosity of the SSPX than the reality in current Catholic parishes or schools. And perhaps most perversely, they are extremely suspicious of Anglican converts to Catholicism who choose to come back to Anglicanism. Which means they also don’t like Catholics who become Anglicans. And in the case of Anglican monks they tend to be extremely puritanical compared to Catholic monks in matters pertaining to alcohol, womanizing by errant celibates, and viewing of televised sporting events. In other words they are far more intolerant and ready to evict anyone who likes to drink to what they view as excess, or anyone who has a sexual affair, or anyone who even wishes to watch football on television. So it is that reliable observers have stated that they suffer from “preciousness”.
The rejection of the formularies led to this problem. Meaning the rejection of the 39 articles The classic book of common prayer 1662 The two books of Homiles.
I’m a member of the Episcopal branch of the Anglican Church, I teach religion at a university, and I’m a trained theologian like you. The Table unites us across varieties of doctrines and beliefs. (And, yes, I understand that my affirmation of the Table is a doctrine.) Everyone is welcome at the Holy Eucharist, by which I mean that Jesus welcomes everyone. My point transcends the sacrament itself. You say we are not consistent. The Table IS our consistency. And I’m not referring to particular beliefs about the elements of the Table. I’m talking about the all-embracing welcome of God revealed in Jesus the Christ.
In September 2020 when I knew I had to move out of American Evangelical More-Conservative Presbyterian, I figured my choices were Lutheran or Anglican. Thank you for this video.
My big main reason I'm not longer Anglican and I'm now joining the Lutheran church- I cannot in my conscience attend Church of England or Scottish Episcopal Church due to their woke liberal views. I cannot and will not go to the woke church that pretends to believe in the bible when they really don't 😕 as a former Anglican I've been stuck in an Evangelical non denominational church since I left the Scottish Episcopal Church. After a long search, looking at other denominations, I recently happend upon the Lutheran church and looking to join and learn more😀
So in a word you aren't Anglican because you disagree with the "broard church" idea of Anglicanism. In contrast that's one attraction for many joining Anglican churches The present Rector at the last Anglican church I was involved in ministry wise, was trained as an Anglican but became a Lutheran Pastor in another country for several years but returned to our Anglican church because we scouted him out . My point there is a cross movement.
As an Anglican, I appreciate a lot that was said. With the sacraments, there objectivity is valid no matter what a Zwinglian might think, but the ACNA needs to admit what their report said, womens ordination is not supported by Scripture or tradition.
@@bmstellar In 2017, there was a report put out by acna in which they concluded that ordination of women does is not warranted by scripture. You can google it and view the report.
“We agree that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province. However, we continue to acknowledge that individual dioceses have constitutional authority to ordain women to the priesthood.” This is wholly different then saying womens ordination is unbiblical across the board. Understandable there is not enough biblical warrant to mandate across the province. That in no way concludes the case. Even proponents of womens ordination would say the Bible doesn’t have a lot pertaining to it.
@@bmstellar I would say there is an inconsistancy. Could I say that there is insufficient scriptual warrant to accept Article 1 but still say it should be accepted?
@@joshuatanis1169 I gotcha. Article 1 of the 39? I would say the trinity is a primary issue of orthodoxy and scripture fully supports it. Womens ordination is not a primary issue. I think both sides have little to work with scripturally but at the end of the day it isn’t a primary thing. However, priests such as Jonathon Warren and William Witt have done really good work showing biblical support. I also understand those who disagree with WO have valid concerns and are not without precedent. I personally think the ongoing conversation is vital and it is a ministry opportunity for both sides to show the world we can discuss things in charity etc.
It's interesting that you root unity in what you confess about sacraments rather than in the receiving of the sacraments. To my mind, that's partly why Reformed and Lutheran confessionalism can be needlessly sectarian. I totally get what you're saying about the diversity w/in the ACNA...but the sectarianism of Lutheran confessionalism is partly why my family went Anglican.
I am now in a parish that is ACNA . I was baptized and Confirmed in a parish that was LCMS, starting in the late 70's they went from separate org. to ELCA
I actually love that Anglicans don’t have consensus on doctrine. Reminds me of the church before the schism which allowed for multiple streams of soteriology.
I actually think the lack of a specific detailed doctrinal treatise you have to follow is a strength. We have the Nicene Creed as a sound doctrinal base and beyond that there's a lot of difference and room for development, hence the move towards female ordination. Actually I think the whole priest/laity distinction is far more unsound than most of the hot potato issues but I can live with mini-heresy if I am amongst good people.
As one who attends an Anglican church, I found as much doctrine in the weekly psalms, readings, and liturgy itself as in an hour-long sermon at the more overtly evangelical church that I occasionally attended. The Book of Common Prayer is simply scripture put to work. The weekly lectionary helps to keep one's head in scripture at the same time it keeps one's eyes on Christ. At the same time, as I'm sure in Lutheran churches, the centrality of the Eucharist brings the divine mystery of Christ closer to us in a way that direct teaching often doesn't. (Of course, if one is coming to this already with faith.) But as John Wesley, a life-long Anglican, stated, helping believers walk the Christian life in practical terms requires more direct involvement, more direct discipling. That is where the talent and commitment of the local clergy and laity makes a difference. I wouldn't doubt that is the case no matter what the sign is on the church house door.
@@DrGero15 Not familiar with it. It might also depend on the particular Lutheran group (Missouri Synod, etc.). Sorry I can't help you any further in that direction.
So many people are mislead by church Politics I go to church for JESUS SAVES YOUR SOUL NOT what you and many people allways have to say read about the gospel of JESUS Christ AMEN not church Democrations
Very interesting. I find it strange how Anglo Catholics can remain in the Episcopalian church that allows gay priests and Bishops and planned parenthood.
Thirty years ago I realized the Episopal Church was driving off a cliff. I wondered where I could take my then young children where they wouldn't be taught the heresies the Episcopal Church was promoting. There were no continuing Anglican churches in our area at that time. My wife and I made the difficult decision to be received into the Roman Catholic church. It was a good experience. I learned a lot but never felt comfortable culturally. Ten years later, however, there were Anglican alternatives. We joined the Anglican parish that we attend to this day. It is in the Diocese of Fort Worth which left the Episcopal Church and joined the ACNA in its entirety. Your criticism of the ACNA re its position on women's ordination is fair. The ACNA bishop's statement on women's ordination is self-contradictory, in my opinion - certainly internally inconsistent. It states "we agree that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women's ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province. However, we continue to acknowledge that individual dioceses have constitutional authority to ordain women to the priesthood." How can an individual diocese be allowed to go against scripture? OTOH, when I saw the 800 page Book of Concord and I immediately felt an emotional weight come over me. At its best I guess the Book of Concord can guide people to doctrinal unity but perhaps at the expense of becoming what one other commenter said: a paper pope. Realistically, although I don't keep track of what's going on in Lutheranism, I would expect there still to be differences among Lutherans in their understanding of doctrine. These large, detailed confessions always make me reflect on the fact that when God gave us scripture he did NOT give us a book of systematic theology. As a layman, my reasons for being an Anglican are pretty basic: - Apostolic succession - Buildings that are typically attractive and spiritually uplifting - Unity based on the Apostles' and Nicene creeds - High view of the sacraments - Congregations that "sing lustily"
What about when pastors hold to different interpretations of the Book of Concord and rival factions form (between two seminaries, perhaps)? The ideal is that a Confessional Lutheran Synod would be united and there would be continuity from pastor to pastor but we all know this isn't true (at least not in the LCMS -- church growth boomers, edgy radical lutherans, sectarian/genuinely misogynistic fundamentalists, and closet seminexers all sharing the same synod). WELS/ELS or ELDONA or CLC all hold to the same confessional standards as the LCMS/AALC but none of us are in fellowship..? I'm just not sure if there is a clear solution to this problem. This is one of the areas where I think the AALC's size is a strength over and against Missouri (not to mention the fact that it embraces the principle of "Open Questions in matters not addressed by the Confessions"; which Walther rejected).
Incidentally, two confessional Lutheran church bodies here in Sweden are in an acrimonious schism over _one_ point of doctrine: when exactly during the Divine Service that the Real Presence (or whatever you want to call it, you know what I mean) happens. Church 1 refused to take a stance on the matter, which a couple of congregations found unbearably wishy-washy, so they split off and founded Church 2.
That's where I push back against Dr. Cooper. I agree Anglicanism is too big tent, but I see myriad confessional Lutheran bodies who all splintered from each other and hold differences in certain beliefs.
How are Lutherans better on unity? There are multiple Lutheran bodies. You can have a Lutheran church with a female pastor, and another Lutheran church down the street that adamantly denies it. You refer to the Lutheran Church, but is there one? Or are there several?
Thank you for the video! I agree Anglican bodies can be fuzzy or messy on many issues and doctrines. When I was migrating from a Charismatic non-denom background to something more ancient, I ended up in the Anglican Continuum (specifically the Anglican Catholic Church) rather than the ACNA because they're generally more agreed on issues like the permissibility of women's ordination, the nature, number, and efficacy of the Sacraments, et cetera.
I find this muddled. You kind of met yourself coming a few times. It has some wrong conclusions and is even a bit haughty. Much of Lutheranism is a hot mess. LOL. There are women ministers in Lutheran churches. I can worship just fine in a Lutheran church... but for depth and liturgy - I'll take Anglicanism any day of the week ( and my parents were Lutheran). Have you read the 39 articles and the writings of the Anglican " fathers"? If you think all Lutherans believe the same way - you are naive.
But he said “confessional Lutheran”. That’s a big difference from “Lutheran”. I don’t think you’lll find confessional Lutherans ordaining women (for example).
hi dr cooper. my issue with anglicanism - and I am one - is that many in the "reformed" camp of anglicanism insist that it is a truly reformed church capital R, with its own confession and bishops rather than just presbyters and deacons. but I ask myself how did this split between high church anglicans low church anglicans, liberal anglicans zwinglian anglicans calvinist anglicans and "lutheran" anglicans come about, and apart from the obvious historical/social developments the issue seems to be in the extreme brevity of the Anglican confession - 39 articles - which is somehow shorter than all other protestant confessions, and that these articles seem to allow a lot of leeway or they are somewhat ambiguous in as much as they leave certain questions open. the articles for instance affirm a spiritual presence of christ in the reception of the eucharist... but it does not have a denial of christ's bodily presence, I may be splitting hairs, but it is not apparent to me that the Anglican church is just episcopal Presbyterianism, and that even if that were initially so... does not mean it has to stay that way. i have great sympathy for anglocatholics and "lutheran"ish anglicans and other high church anglicans in general, because I do not presume that whatever continental reformed theology was to be forever binding on the English church. indeed I see a great deal of lutheran influence in the prayerbook, nor am I convinced that I must be R reformed to be a confessional Anglican, I see room or the potential for diverse opinions in the 39 articles... because they are so brief and there are only 39, I do not see why the traditional Anglican church must be beholden to the wisdom of the german dutch and swiss (french?) reformers, and not say other branches of protestantism and even other dare I say *catholic churches.
Hi, just wanted to say I sympathize with your thoughts. I’m currently attending a Lutheran churcj but I find myself wavering between “Evangelical Catholic” Lutheranism and “Prayer Book Catholic” Anglicanism
I live in the shadow (thorubly incensed aura?) of Nashotah House, an Anglo-Catholic seminary, so I don’t come across many capital R reformed types (I’m speaking as a Lutheranish Anglican).
The 39 articles point to other standards which are almost entirely forgotten. They affirm the Books of Homilies for example, which say a true Christian can fall from grace which Calvinists couldn't agree with. If you take the entire formularies of the KJV, 1662 BCP/Ordinal/Catechism, the 39 Articles, and the two Books of Homilies, you entirely rule out Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Charismatics, and Anglo-Calvinists. The problem is that everyone focuses on the 39 articles without reading them. If you read them, even ignoring the ones that point out to other documents you still rule out the same example groups I mentioned. Article 16 rules out Calvinists, Article 22 rules out Catholics, Article 24 rules out tongue speaking Charismatics.
i do not understand obsession with systematic theology. it is not biblical! the bible is not a story of one theology, it is not internally consistent. Jesus was too busy living a joyful life serving and loving the poor the outcast and the unacceptable to preach theology.
no congregation is a doctrinal monolith. The individuals in the pews each have their own opinions Each denomination has its doctrine clearly enumerated & that should be how a person chooses a denomination.
The funny thing is, this is also true between German and Anglo culture. Germans are known for their strict following of the rules and laws, whereas Anglos tend to be more lenient so long as it sows unity among people.
You are making the claim that all Lutherans teach the same. They simply split into different church synods. And none agree with one another. As laymen, we are often forced to choose what church is available in our area. ELCA was not and option. Was not comfortable in the LCMS congregation. ACNA just planted a church in our area. We found a home that was consistent in our faith and solid teachings and strong fellowship.
I don’t know, but as a member of ACNA myself it seems that wider official Anglican-dom (to make up a word) is an even bigger doctrinal mess. However if by ‘Anglicanism’ you meant more the traditional beliefs expressed in the classical formularies, then I agree with your assessment of Dr Cooper’s arguments.
The Episcopal Church USA is the one of the oldest branches of the Church of England, and represented the English crown in the original American Colonies. The name was changed to the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) during the Revolutionary War, as the American colonists were at war with England, and wanted to separate themselves from their English roots. Most recently, due to two major societal changes, the Anglican Church North Amerrica (ACNA) split with the ECUSA (Episcopal Church) primarily over the role of gay people , but secondarily over the role of women in the church (there was a significant faction in the ACNA movement who did not believe in the ordination of women.) The ECUSA is still in relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the titular head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and hence are deemed the representatives of Anglicanism in the USA. The schismatic ACNA is not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, though they have the same liturgical practices.
Remember that Crammer and Knox were very good friends. And Knox helped Archbishop Crammer in his putting together of the Book of Common Prayer and also the Articles of Religion. Just saying, Luther is the firestarter and father of the Great Reformation, but I see using both Luther and Calvin together gives a better Biblical fundamentals into growing faith. But as a rule, prayer for guidance of the Holy Spirit is best, so that we can unravel the Scriptures and grow in our Faith in Christ.
ordained by who ? priest what ! like a Levite ? what is an Anglican country ? Lutheranism what ? is that a sports club? Do you serve G-d ? in any shape or form?
As a GAFCON Anglican, I think this is a very fair and well articulated critique. For me there's some additional sources of unity that were glossed over. An important one is unity in the Gospel. Now this isn't distincive of Anglicans per se, but the notion that there is very little we have to agree on before we can participate in the body of Christ together is a beautiful one thay allows people from many different backgrounds and with different personalities to exist in the church and have fruitful, life giving discussion over the meaning of Scripture.
Something else that needs to be mentioned about Anglicanism is the role of the 39 Articles. Some Anglicans view them as binding and authoritative, much like we Lutherans view the Augsburg Confession, while other Anglicans view them as simply an "historical document". Even among moderate Lutherans such as the NALC or LCMC, there is a nominal adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, even if it is a quatenus adherence. Another thing that I think needs to be mentioned about Anglicanism is that there are quite a few more Anglican bodies than just the ACNA here in America. (And are much more conservative than the ACNA.) For example, there's the APA, the ACC, the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite, the OAC, the ACA etc... All have varying amounts of agreement, with some in full communion and others not so.
I’m probably opening a can of worms here, but lovingly and truthfully as an ex-catholic that became a born again believer, do you think that this type of Christianity is a reflection of what we see in the Bible? Doesn’t Paul advise Christians against this very type of sectarianism in the Scriptures? Could people be worshipping the reformers and early church fathers too much? What if we were to put down our confessions and discuss these issues from the scriptures? I think there would be more unity then.
There are so many “brands of Lutheranism”, from ELCA to WELS and points between. Lamentably, there are many “brands of Anglicanism” from TEC to the ACC and many more points between.) This video compares two traditions in a way that seems unhelpful. It compares the “best brand of Lutheranism” to a confused, muddled brand of Anglicanism. So, perhaps a more useful approach would be a comparison between the “best brand of Lutheranism” and the “best brand of Anglicanism?” Thanks.
Even though I support women's ordination, you are 100% correct about the incoherence of the ACNA position. I belong to an evangelical Presbyterian denomination (ECO) that fully supports WO and requires WO support from every presbytery and every ordained minister. You simply cannot have a church body that can't even agree on who is validly ordained or not. We also require that every presbytery and ordained minister agree that marriage is between a man and a woman because, likewise, you cannot have a church body that can't even agree on the definition of marriage.
I have a hard time believing that Jesus died on a cross so that we'd all think doctrinally alike. No. I think love is the Trinity's highest dogma. I could be wrong.
As a non-Anglican I was under the impression that The 39 Articles acted as a unifying source of doctrine. Can an Anglican explain what's its use in the church actually is and how it's actually related to?
Women being allowed in ministry is why I wouldn't want to be an Anglican. I don't understand how a denomination that is rooted in scriptures and tradition would allow that. I'm a woman and it tooks some studying and prayer for me to understand women's role in the church and when I understood and submitted to it, it gave me so much peace.
Anglican Catholic convert from non denom/baptisty/dispensational style church. I fully agree with a lot of your points on the inconsistency of those who classify as Anglican. BUT the high Anglican Church in America is for the most part very consistent in doctrine as we separated from the Episcopal church in the 70’s due to “ordination” of women.
Although this might sound surprising, coming from a conservative, Reformed background, it wasn't the high liturgy that attracted me to Anglicanism, but the very irenicism that's also, as Dr. Cooper demonstrates, a potential weakness. It was refreshing to consider that you don't have to immediately disfellowship and constantly gatekeep people with whom you have strong disagreements.
I've been transformed by exploring the early church councils, confessions, and creeds. Although I come from and married into a non-denominational Pentecostal background, I now resonate with classical Protestantism. However, joining the Lutheran Church, which aligns with my new convictions, feels impossible due to family dynamics. My wife and her parents would sever ties and potentially end our marriage if I were to convert due to their non denom pentecostal background. Im not sure what to do.
I think people are searching so much for human tradition and not just going to scripture. No where in SCRIPTURE do we have a picture of any sort of the catholic , Anglican, orthodox, church… we have nothing that talks about New Testament apostolic succession … we need to stop searching for man made denominations and get back to SCRIPTURE, and this goes for the denominations like Baptist, Pentecostals etc… just follow the Bible. It’s simple
Any thoughts on the CREC? Know it's a newer denomination, but it seems that's also an option that's gaining traction for someone who's coming from the Reformed family tree looking for a higher liturgy (at least, among some of the congregations- Theopolis Institute, and Jeff Meyer's Lord's Service book, influence a lot of the denomination)
I think that almost every criticism you made, and I might add fairly, can be levied against Lutherans as well. A confessional Anglican can go to the prayer book and the 39 Articles and feel just as confident about what they believe. People tend to forget that Anglicans are a via media between Wittenberg and Geneva, with an adherence to Catholic Ecclesiology. As far as the problems, I would say that that has far more to do with not taking the BoCP or the 39 Articles seriously, as well as this zeitgeist spirit about women's ordination. The ACNA is certainly the big hitter in the USA, but they have defined themselves against TEC, which is very problematic in my opinion. There are smaller confessional Anglican bodies in the USA that haven't compromised like TEC or the ACNA. I also know that from my personal engagements witb confessional Lutherans (lay and ministers alike) that by the end of the discussion we agree far more than we disagree (on the fundamentas), but that, as far as I can tell, was by design. Cranmer was heavily influenced by the Lutherans as well as the Reformed. Orthodox Anglicans are the olive branch for both sides.
I agree with that. Also don't let us fool you, there's just as much doctrinal division on the practical level even within so-called "confessional Lutheran" bodies. The LCMS has been undergoing a long-term civil war between its own Liberals/Evangelicals and Fundamentalists/High Church (neither of which I totally align with) and BOTH sides quotemine the same Book of Concord to try to settle the various debates. A massive tome of confessional documents _sounds_ like a solution to doctrinal division in Biblical interpretation UNTIL one realizes that the same differences of interpretation can be applied to said Confessional standard. The unity is often illusionary. The difference between Lutherans and Anglicans isn't confessional adherence but simply how lengthy the confessions are.
@@vngelicath1580 I wholeheartedly agree. I mean no disrespect to Dr. Cooper, but I think his reasoning is at best misguided and at worst superficial on this topic of not being Anglican.
As a traditional Anglican in a small traditional parish in a non-WO diocese within ACNA, I can concur with much of what you posted here, particularly regarding the point that certain parties and so many people within Anglicanism don’t take the formularies seriously.
Late to this, but I went to Anglicanism from a conservative Presbyterian background because I believed in stronger sacramental efficacy. Been having some difficulty with it lately because of this issue. I really don't like how specific some of the Protestant confessions are: Full subscription is rare in my personal experience. However, I think Anglicanism has clearly gone off the other end of the rail and this is really seen in hardcore Anglo-Catholicism and their, quite frankly, rank revisionism about the English Reformation. In the end Anglicanism, especially American Anglicanism, is becoming a dumping ground of theological misfits (and I'd include myself in this). In England, this kind of worked pre-19th Century because it basically was comprehending everyone who wasn't a theological misfit, but in America it is becoming the almost polar opposite of this. I actually think the Free Churches (i.e., broad Evangelical Protestantism) have a stronger answer to the practical problem here in America, but at the same time I'm strongly opposed to Free Church theology.
The real answer is Eastern Orthodoxy, that is if you can believe the historicity of the New Testament, which I ultimately rejected to become a Buddhist of the do-it-yourself variety after trying a Chinese lineage Pure Land/Chan temple initially. At any rate there are very few Buddhist temples where I live. Western Christianity is a total mess owing to the protestant reformation which of course came in the wake of the reformation and the enlightenment. But the enlightenment really promotes Deism. To me most Anglicans are really Deists considering what modernist heretics they typically are. At least in Orthodoxy they didn’t have the massive cataclysm of the renaissance/reformation as in the west as their big crisis occurred centuries earlier in the disputes stemming from the Council of Chalcedon dealing as it did with the Christological disputes between the Orthodox and the Monophysites which separated the Armenians and the Coptics from the other churches which hewed to the two natures in one Christology which defined Jesus as wholly human and wholly divine as opposed to having only one nature. But then these disputes paved the way for the Islamic destruction of most of the originally middle eastern Christian communities as described in THE JESUS WARS by Jenkins.
There is no “Anglican Church”. There is a world-wide communion of Anglicans/Episcopalians, the more liberal of which allow the things you say. Some ACNA dioceses allow for women priests, as he said. None allow for women bishops, and none allow same-sex marriages. None of the other (smaller) confessing Anglican or continuing Anglican bodies allow women’s ordination at all, or same-sex marriage at all.
As someone who came out of Presbyterianism (PCA) and into Anglicanism (TEC), Anglicanism is just more honest about theological diversity. The confessional branches of the reformation claim doctrinal coherence but, in reality, there is very little. There are probably three people on the planet who could actually affirm the Westminster Confession or the Book of Concord whole and entire without some qualms. Humans are simply not able to subscribe to such doctrinal granularity.
You're spot on, Dr. Cooper, regarding the lack of doctrinal unity among even "conservative" Anglicans, but the differences in doctrine and practice among even "conservative" Lutherans beg the question of the proper application of Rom. 16:17 to the subject of Lutheran Church fellowship. After being raised in Reformed Churches and spending some time with Anglo-Catholics while in college, I myself was a member of the American Lutheran Church (now the ELCA,) then a pastor in the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, then a member of the Concordia Lutheran Conference, later a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and now I am a member of the Church of the Lutheran Confession. The differences in doctrine and practice between these different (except for the ALC) "conservative" Lutheran synods prevent them from practicing fellowship (I know that your AALC is in fellowship with the LCMS,) a situation which would not arise among "conservative" Anglicans. I understand Amos 3:3, Rom.16:17, and 1 Cor. 1:10 to teach that there should be complete agreement in doctrine and practice for church fellowship, and that no Christian has the authority to limit such agreement for the sake of pragmatism or expediancy in church fellowship, as in the notions "we agree on ENOUGH for fellowship" and "we agree on ALMOST everything." It would be wonderful if Lutherans could give Anglicans and other Christians a faithful Scriptural example of complete agreement in doctrine and practice for church fellowship, but unfortunately they really don't!
Yes, please. Do tell. I have been asking this myself. Why are people not Protestant Anglicans, as I almost was but to the old form of the Anglican Church? (Not the new women into leadership and some pro-LGBT) 1) I felt odd about their new women leadership mandate to which some older male Anglican Ministers that I know personally do not fully agree with. So, I would like to understand the positive about it, if there is even such a positive about it. 2) I am surprised about Anglicans that are pro-LGBT. They even have male and female Ministers who are LGBT. So, I would like to know their Biblical defense about that too. I just think it will be some sick excuse of a doctrine. 3) Just like Dr. Jordan Cooper, we can obviously observe the dysfunctional non-unity of the Anglican Church, maybe someone can explain why that is happening and how this church as a whole function this way.
These why i am not x group member videos are starting to feel deeply sad. I understand they’re helpful; I’m just increasingly worn down by the Great Church Hunt that I and many others have been on.
@@DrJordanBCooper oh yeah, I get that. It wasn’t a commentary on the job you do. It’s just sad to see so much division. I’m joining a Lutheran church soon, fwiw.
@@dylan3456 I agree, it's truly sad for all the division, which Christ said should not happen. I think I need about 5 or 6 different denominations to cover every topic such as Justification, Sanctification, Purification, Christification, Holy Spirit Baptism, Healing, etc., and feel they should all be under one roof (umbrella so to speak), with no need for labels. I'm not sure I can even go to a church to attend services, I'm mostly housebound. Having no fellowship is rough, and not knowing who to reach out to is even tougher.
Anglicanism was my first experience with liturgical worship and it was beautiful. But now I see how there is room for many different beliefs and why that is a problem. My former pastor even told me that is why he liked being Anglican… so he could “agree to disagree” with some of the distinctives and still be in good standing.
As an Anglican raised Lutheran reading through the comments on this page, I find it fascinating as those of us with experience with both Lutheranism and Anglicanism either see that allowance for doctrinal diversity either as Anglicanism’s greatest strength or its greatest weakness. For me it’s an epistemological issue-confessional Lutheranism seems to rest on Lutheran doctrine being clearly/obviously correct and opposing positions to be clearly/obviously incorrect, thus that Lutheran doctrine is made confessionally binding on the clergy. For those of us who see the arguments for Lutheran doctrine and see them as strong but not fully persuasive, that leaves us making a leap of faith toward something we just don’t quite see the biblical warrant in favor of. The narrower set of confessional truth claims in the Anglican confessional standards seems to ensure that the biblical warrant for their doctrine isn’t exceeded-one can have greater epistemic confidence that the binding doctrine is indeed correct. That said, if there were no Anglican parish near me, I’d go back to a biblically grounded Lutheran church body.
Funny because I would say many of the same things regarding why I'm not a Lutheran. Doctrinal unity is just as loose among the metacategory of "Lutherans" as evidenced by the numerous subdenominations all broken away from each other over doctrinal differences (are you a Lutheran, or are you an LCMS/ELCA/WELS/ELS/AALC/... Lutheran?). If I joined the LCMS, I still wouldn't be able to take communion at the WELS church I currently attend. Why? Doctrinal disunity. The Anglican Communion tried to keep it all together rather than split, so it's a mess. Constantly divide, or keep the body together, cancer and all -- which is least worse? I don't know. At this point, I don't care. Not even the church will be perfect on earth. It's enough to me to find even a faithful church these days.
@Steve Jail To be fair, the Book of Concord does not try to boil an entire tradition down to a book. It's a collection of confessions and creeds that define the beliefs of Lutheranism. It's no different than the outputs of councils. There have been similar efforts in the Eastern Orthodox churches at various points. I don't think having written expository and systematic documents is a problem at all. Do remember that the Western Church was "Orthodox" for a thousand years. The lack of any dogmatic formulations leaves Eastern Orthodoxy open to all sorts of abandoning of tradition, yet it's all so loose and without central authority (namely Scripture) that one can justify almost anything by picking from the nebulous tree of "the consensus of the Fathers" -- something so vague and undefined that it says everything you want it to say and nothing you don't. I really wouldn't take Eastern Orthodoxy as above Anglicanism, since it's just as loose, and there are plenty of subversive priests inside of it too. Kallistos Ware has questioned the ban on female ordination and has caused a stir a few years back by going soft on homosexuality, and you have others like John Behr that are universalists. So much for consensus and tradition. For all the chest puffing on the EO side, they're no different than the rest. Protestant, EO, or RC, we're all fallible people and no church is perfect. I just find the EO churches generally either more hypocritical or lacking in self awareness. And I don't think you know the extent of problems within the EO churches if you think unity is generally good. The various churches go in and out of communion with each other constantly over the pettiest things. The reason why there's no American Orthodox Church is that each EO mother church overseas takes a portion of the tithes here. So they vie for territory here and nobody's willing to give up their allotment so that something like the OCA can truly be the American Church. I'm not too sure about what you mean by the Russian situation causing a couple churches to go Catholic. There's an ongoing schism between Russia and the Greek churches, and other churches have sided with Russia (I believe at least Romania, Serbia, Antioch, and maybe Jerusalem), others with the Ecumenical Patriarch (whose office alone has been long a source of division and resentment). This could result in another great schism in the east if it continues to escalate, not just a couple areas going RC. All the talk of "the unity of the church" by EO apologists is a complete farce. They're just as bad as the rest of us. Theologically, perhaps they are more unified, but I think that's more a product of the looseness, like Anglicanism. Russian spirituality is quite different from the Arabs, for instance.
@Steve Jail yes, true. That's another question, whether a state church is good or not. It is what it is in the East. Some think the concept itself is a problem. Pros and cons, like anything. One of them to me, you might have picked up on, is I don't think a Greek, or Russian, or Arab, or any other national church should be in America. Nationalism does unfortunately carry over into the church plants in the EO world, and it's ingrained in Eastern lands too. It's a big impediment to converts, and many EO recognize that. As a nationalist myself, I at once support the sentiment and mentality while also applying the nationalistic impulse in my own home. Say what you will about the West, but global evangelism was successful with us because we didn't mix Western culture with Christ in, for instance, Japan and Korea (compare some RC churches in Japan with Japanese aesthetics to the unwavering Byzantineness of EO Japanese churches). But, the church is a stronger cultural force in the EO countries too these days. It's not the bulwark some make it out to be since homosexuality is widely legally accepted even in those countries and the atheism of communism still lingers, but there's something important in having the institution of faith as a strong part of national identity. Anyway, I appreciate your honesty regarding EO fracturing. Many aren't and live in a myth. We disagree as to the nature of the BoC. I've read most of it, some documents fully, some partially. But, I was never a Lutheran, so my eyes did not read it as a distillation of the entire Western tradition. It was never the end all, be all to me. So we differ, and if we were both Lutherans, we'd probably still differ, which is why we agree now as to the claim Cooper makes on how strong it is as a unifying force. Take any such formula or confession and people will always have different interpretations. Even Scripture itself, which is why sola scriptura wasn't enough to stop modern abominations either.
@Steve Jail Yeah, depends on the church. I visited a really hostile Romanian Orthodox church a few years ago. The priest was the nicest man, but the congregation didn't want anything to do with me. A foreigner in my own country. I've known others -- members of the EOC -- who were turned away from a Greek church because the priest said it wasn't for non-Greeks. You're right, not everybody is touched by it, but it's there and the mother churches overseas do have interests in their churches here. I don't agree that everyone wants an American church, otherwise they would have gotten behind the OCA. There's a lot of petty, ugly, human politics and money behind much of it. I regularly attended a Western Rite church until a couple years ago. Antiochian, using the Liturgy of St Tikhon (essentially 1928 Anglican with adjustments). Our bishop supported it but was wary at first, and the bishop above him was very encouraging. But it's as you say: there are many who don't accept it, think it's an aberration, Westernization, even heretical. There are plenty of blog posts on Ancient Faith against it. I can both see it and not. No, they aren't just Catholics without a Pope, but yes, there was a tendency sometimes to bring in post-schism practices like the rosary and hand-wave when questioned. Goes back to what I said about the looseness of Eastern Orthodoxy being like Anglicanism -- where do you draw the line, how different before it has to be cut off, etc. I'm glad to hear your thoughts. You seem to have a realistic view of the EOC. There are many people, either piously naive or buffoons, who either believe or gloat that no corruption will ever touch the one, true, holy, apostolic church! But all heresies started within the church, and the rot is already inside the EOC today. Be watchful, not pious and led by myth. Have eyes to see it and stop it quickly. You don't want to turn into the RCC or Liberal Christianity.
I find it interesting that you use ACNA as the standard for Anglicanism. ACNA practices in the Anglican tradition but is not part of the Anglican Communion. Anglican means England as in the Chruch of Englind. The only "official" Anglican church in the United States is the Episcopal Chruch. While the Episcopal church contains people with a wide variety of believes as do many Lutherins that I know, the official statements are clear as to how we view the sacriments and that women and men's ordinations are equally valid.
I would like to know more about Lutheran justification by faith belief... As far as I'm concerned..catholics and Orthodox also believe that salvation is thru faith I mean works alone won't save you but faith is not just an action of decoration (like Baptist believe) but rather faith must be validated with works and obedience otherwise it's dead meaning not s valid faith.. this is what Catholics mean with faith and works not that WORKS themselves face you I think this is a strawman from Lutheran's but I also don't want to make any assumptions and I sincerely want to understand Lutheran's view here..
I am a Southern Baptist who is looking into joining a high church denomination, the ACNA. My requirement is that it be conservative on social and political issues and soft complimentarian (women, predominantly should not be ordained unless in very specific biblically justifiable scenarios). It is interesting that you mentioned that most former SBC members of ACNA turn out to be looking to escape conservatism. Needless to say, it is also fairly easy to join the ACNA and pursue ordination :) At any rate, I'm doing some digging to see which denomination I want to be a part of and am a graduate of Liberty's divinity school. Decisions, decisions.
We have the Book of Common Prayer? I know when we first started ordaining women, some churches (in Canada) broke away from the communion. Yes we have High and low church Anglicans. Most churches fall in the middle. I love being a part of the Anglican communion.
I personally enjoy having the fluidity in doctrinal assent in the Anglican/Episcopal church. Being here, I do not have to worry about whether or not I adhere to particular doctrines (aside from the central ones that unite all Christendom...in which Anglicans DO have doctrinal unity--please show me an Anglican that doesnt believe in the Trinity, for example) And in my opinion, the central teachings that unite all Christians are the ones that Anglicans need unity on. If you do not believe women are validly ordained, you are free to hold that belief. But if, one day, you change your mind...you can do so WITHOUT CHANGING CHURCHES. For me, that's a strong positive, not a negative. The Anglican church is, in this way, a church for ALL--all the downtrodden and people who cant find those who precisely agree with them on all issues...we can be unite despite our differences. And I think that's a good thing. Edit: I heard it said that Anglicans are united in PRACTICE rather than doctrine. Our faith is more about how its lived out than it is what you believe specifically. I know the merits to that mindset are debatable, but I like it
Respectfully Brother… Looking for Apostolic Succession? Looking for historicap continuity? Looking for doctrinal agreement and continuity? Come to Holy Orthodoxy. The One and Only True Church founded by Christ. God love you.
Are you suggesting that women's ordination is a salvific issue? The church is broad. I see my brother in law in a Calvinist church. There is no dissent. There is a control aspect to all they do from my perspective. Only a narrow eisegesis is acceptable, from the general to the specific, whilst actively ignoring specific texts that appear to differ. Are they right because their view is uniform? It is Christ's Church, better to be guided by him.
If one holds to a view that the sacraments are salvific, and ALSO believes that women cannot be validly ordained, then, yes, it would be a salvific issue. A women priest cannot offer a valid Eucharist.
While reading Rock and Sand by Josiah Trenham, where he critiques all Protestants from an Orthodox perspective. He was the most ruthless imo to Anglicanism. Which to him was more or less forced into pleasing two masters of Catholicism and Protestantism. This was exacerbated since King Henry the 8th wasn't a theologian, just a king that needed a new wife so he delegated everything to a lot of clergymen. Cramer was just the most relevant. Not Orthodox but I think Trenham brought up multiple points why I'm not Anglican which is probably why there is no solid doctrine, it is unironically their tradition in a way.
I came from one of the 4 dozen Baptist denominations to the Protestant Episcopal Church before there was an ACNA. As the Episcopalians begin to come apart. I went to a Reformed Episcopal Church. Now l find there is often not a REC or ACNA Church where l live. So it is still difficult to go to a church where l fit.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Apostle Paul says we should not have different denominations, no divisions among us, as we should all be of the same mind and judgement. Catholicism and Anglican church have views that oppose scripture...
Acts 10 proves without any dispute that baptism is not regenerational. 'Shall we prevent these from being baptised since they have received the Spirit JUST as we have.'
I understand you belong to a small branch of Lutheranism, but very similar with the Missouri Synod. So can you expect to have big differences within your church? But if we take into account the whole Lutheran denomination there are great differences among the different churches like ELCA and the Wisconsin Synod? Why is it not the case in your Church?
Another comment....Australia where I live is very divided among the Anglican Dioceses...some are middle of the road, some are more Anglo-Catholic and the Diocese of Sydney is staunchly protestant.....I would almost say puritan, they do not ordain women past deacon.
I find this video to be similar to a survivor of the Titanic talking about his last meal before the ship sank. The world of Luther and Calvin has past. Live like a Christian today in the spirit of Jesus and get beyond all the doctrine. Second Corinthians 3:6.
I was in a Southern Baptist church for over a decade and left because contemporary worship services are unbearable for me. I now go to a REC parish which I enjoy a lot. I am not fond of the ACNA for the same reasons as you and really would prefer that the REC separate itself from them. I suspect it is nothing more than a pragmatic and financial partnership since the REC is small and has little money. Good commentary, thank you Dr. Cooper.
I've been considering seeking membership and ordination in the Anglican church mainly for the reason which Cooper uses as why he doesn't like Anglicanism. I'm really sick of the church not allowing for variance in belief; I don't think we should split at hairs and I think pastors should be free to grow and admit that they may have been wrong on some subjects, rather than having to conform consistently to their denomination. HOWEVER. The issue of the ordination of women, and the fact that any rector which could have any number of beliefs could be appointed to your congregation is just way too far across the line of disagreement. Like he said, that's no minor issue, that is major.
Sounds like it's the old Anglo-Saxon spirit of empiricism and pragmatism that's offending your more continental approach (rationalism, intellectualism). With regards to women in priesthood. I suppose the logic here is that every Bishop with their diocese, and to a certain extent every pastor and their parish/community, is responsible for their own teaching and liturgical office. So if one Bishop wants to ordain women members of their congregation, they are entitled to; and likewise for the Bishops who would exclude them. This is a more bottom-up empirical approach than a top-down rational approach; it's resting more on the pragmatics of church government/life/worship than on incarnating theological standards. I think there are relative strengths and weaknesses involved here.
Dear brother, I write from Brazil with the help of Google Translate. I am Catholic. In my country, Anglicanism is very small, numerically insignificant. Despite this, it is divided into independent and doctrinally divergent Churches. However, Lutheranism has no advantage on this point. Here there are two Churches of Lutheran tradition that are very different from each other and that do not have any bond of communion. There is no doctrinal unity among Brazilian Lutherans.
It's rather simple for me: I'm an evangelical catholic (confessional Lutheran) and no longer in the Episcopal church because if it wasn't for the Lutheran reformation, the Anglican church would be mostly a Roman Catholic splinter. The Bible says what it says, and to have a church "minoring" in what is clearly prohibited, like allowing priestesses, seems to confirm Jordan's conclusion. I love the fact that there is now conservative Anglican communion, that eschews female priests, however. If I couldn't worship with confessional Lutherans, I'd worship with these folks.
