HillsboroMom
Active member
How do y'all feel about the communion / agreement between the Lutheran and Anglican churches?
Shared altar / pulpit
- Thread starter HillsboroMom
- Start date
BJ Bear
Well-known member
It is a terrible decision as there are reasons that they are Anglican and Lutheran and why no one gives in rural areas or elsewhere. If the claim is that there isn't enough people in a given area to support two congregtions and there is supposed agreement then one should let the field to the other.
So says a WELS guy.
What do you think of the agreement?
HillsboroMom
Active member
I like it. But then, I'm not WELS. I grew up LCMS, and have experienced ELCA, RCC, DOC, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian.
I was ELCA when the agreement happened, and at least where I lived, it wasn't about not being enough Lutherans or Episcopalians. It was about the two churches being similar enough to warrant it. I still agree. I have seen more differences in one Episcopal church to another, and one Lutheran church to another, than between a Lutheran church and an Episcopal church.
I was ELCA when the agreement happened, and at least where I lived, it wasn't about not being enough Lutherans or Episcopalians. It was about the two churches being similar enough to warrant it. I still agree. I have seen more differences in one Episcopal church to another, and one Lutheran church to another, than between a Lutheran church and an Episcopal church.
Bonnie
Super Member
I presume you mean between the ELCA and the American Anglican churches, the American Episcopal church? Both of which are ultra-liberal? I don't really think anything of it, other than I am glad my church, the LCMS didn't go that route, but has stuck to its conservative guns and still continues to teach and preach the truth and not water down the Biblical witness.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
I don't know the inside baseball of Anglican/Episcopalian denominations but from the comparison you made is it correct to understand you are writing of the form of the service? Otherwise, the comparison doesn't seem logical as two different sets with notably different memberswouldn't form a third set of a less notable difference.
At any rate, an Anglican priest once confirmed that The Two Natures In Christ by Chemnitz was a seminaary text so there is hope.
HillsboroMom
Active member
Until very recently (like, 10-15 years ago?), there was only one Anglican denomination in the US, and that was The Episcopal Church. In almost every other country in the world, there is only one Anglican Church. You don't see multiple denominations the way you do with Lutherans.
So the "shared altar / shared pulpit" agreement has less to do with forming a third church, and more to do with two existing but struggling churches sharing resources. Also, it means different things in different situations.
For example, when I lived in Southern California, the local Lutheran and Episcopal churches had separate congregations and separate ministers, but they had a joint youth group, and did many other activities together. We often had a joint Thanksgiving service. We would take turns hosting Easter Vigil. We did a few fund-raisers together. We did some adult education programs together.
Where I live now, the Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, UCC, and Baptist churches have a joint midweek Lenten program. Each year there's a theme, and each pastor or priest only has to prepare one sermon based on that theme. Then they do a "round robin," preaching at each church once. Ash Wednesday and then Holy Week are all done in their home congregation, but the Wednesdays in between, the congregation gets to worship in their home space but hear different messages. It's beautiful.
For another example, in many small towns, churches can only afford a half-time priest or pastor. This has always been a "thing," and many rural pastors are used to having to drive hundreds of miles because they are the part-time pastor of 2 different congregations. But if a town has two congregations, one Lutheran and one Episcopal, each of which can afford a half-time pastor / priest, now they can hire one person for the two half-time positions in the same city, saving wear-and-tear on the parson's car (not to mention his (or her) nerves). Maybe they can even share a building, and save on a lot of those expenses.
The written service is actually pretty much the same between any Anglican service and a Lutheran service, and the politics of the ELCA is pretty much the same as the Episcopal Church.
Like I said, I wouldn't imagine this would work for LCMS or WELS. Just ELCA.
So the "shared altar / shared pulpit" agreement has less to do with forming a third church, and more to do with two existing but struggling churches sharing resources. Also, it means different things in different situations.
For example, when I lived in Southern California, the local Lutheran and Episcopal churches had separate congregations and separate ministers, but they had a joint youth group, and did many other activities together. We often had a joint Thanksgiving service. We would take turns hosting Easter Vigil. We did a few fund-raisers together. We did some adult education programs together.
Where I live now, the Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, UCC, and Baptist churches have a joint midweek Lenten program. Each year there's a theme, and each pastor or priest only has to prepare one sermon based on that theme. Then they do a "round robin," preaching at each church once. Ash Wednesday and then Holy Week are all done in their home congregation, but the Wednesdays in between, the congregation gets to worship in their home space but hear different messages. It's beautiful.
For another example, in many small towns, churches can only afford a half-time priest or pastor. This has always been a "thing," and many rural pastors are used to having to drive hundreds of miles because they are the part-time pastor of 2 different congregations. But if a town has two congregations, one Lutheran and one Episcopal, each of which can afford a half-time pastor / priest, now they can hire one person for the two half-time positions in the same city, saving wear-and-tear on the parson's car (not to mention his (or her) nerves). Maybe they can even share a building, and save on a lot of those expenses.
The written service is actually pretty much the same between any Anglican service and a Lutheran service, and the politics of the ELCA is pretty much the same as the Episcopal Church.
Like I said, I wouldn't imagine this would work for LCMS or WELS. Just ELCA.
Sorry that this is so far off-topic, but as a matter of curiosity, how'd you transition from LCMS which I gather is rather conservative to ELCA which I gather is moderate to liberal with Episcopalian even more liberal?
Also, how'd you end up on CARM which seems to be quite conservative? Haven't been posting here all that long, but you stick out more than a bit.
Last edited:
HillsboroMom
Active member
My mom was "born" and raised LCMS. (I know, technically not born, obviously ... not until she was baptized, but it's a figure of speech.) She married my dad who was Jewish. My dad's family was not "practicing." His parents were kind of agnostic. When my parents married, before my brother and I came along, they decided that they would attend church and also recognize the Jewish celebrations (we learned the blessing of the lights, wine, and bread on Sabbath, Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Purim, and Hanukah). We attended the LCMS church for the first 10 years of my life or so.
At this point in history, there was a huge upheaval in the LCMS. I don't know if you're familiar with "Seminex," Seminary in Exile. It started with seminarians and professors, but spread to pastors and churches. Basically, a group split off from the LCMS and started their own church, the AELC. The LCMS at that time was against women taking any leadership role at all. They couldn't vote, they couldn't serve on council, they couldn't read lessons. I understand this has eased up in the last 50 years, but at the time, my family knew this wasn't Biblical. We left the LCMS and went to AELC. The AELC then put in a lot of effort to getting several other Lutheran churches to merge. The biggest at that time were ALC and LCA, and there were a few other small ones. Before the merger, the LCMS was by far the largest Lutheran body in the US, but after the merger the ELCA was much larger, and basically became the "standard" Lutheran church in the US. It was shrewd planning on the part of the AELC.
Yes, they are more liberal than the LCMS. They ordain women, while the LCMS and WELS do not. They are also more tolerant of homosexuality, though that varies from church to church. You could find any of the following views in the ELCA: "Homosexuality is not a sin; the bible verses that condemn it are mistranslated." or "Homosexuality is a sin, but so is gossiping, smoking, and gluttony, and the Lutheran Potluck is practically a sacrament and it's indulging of gluttony." or "Being gay isn't a sin, but acting on it is a sin, so gays are called to be celibate or try to change their orientation." or "Homosexuality is a sin, and an unrepentant sinner is not saved." And probably a million other shades and variations.
The Episcopal Church is not necessarily "more liberal" than the ELCA. In some ways it is more conservative. And it depends a lot more on the priest. In the Episcopal Church, the priest has a lot more power than pastors in the Lutheran traditions. Most priests avoid politics and stick to theology and spirituality, and in both of those they are at least as conservative as Lutherans.
To answer your other question, CARM is significantly more tolerant than other Christian chat groups I've tried. I'd like to find one that fits my interests better, but I'm still looking. So far CARM comes closest.
At this point in history, there was a huge upheaval in the LCMS. I don't know if you're familiar with "Seminex," Seminary in Exile. It started with seminarians and professors, but spread to pastors and churches. Basically, a group split off from the LCMS and started their own church, the AELC. The LCMS at that time was against women taking any leadership role at all. They couldn't vote, they couldn't serve on council, they couldn't read lessons. I understand this has eased up in the last 50 years, but at the time, my family knew this wasn't Biblical. We left the LCMS and went to AELC. The AELC then put in a lot of effort to getting several other Lutheran churches to merge. The biggest at that time were ALC and LCA, and there were a few other small ones. Before the merger, the LCMS was by far the largest Lutheran body in the US, but after the merger the ELCA was much larger, and basically became the "standard" Lutheran church in the US. It was shrewd planning on the part of the AELC.
Yes, they are more liberal than the LCMS. They ordain women, while the LCMS and WELS do not. They are also more tolerant of homosexuality, though that varies from church to church. You could find any of the following views in the ELCA: "Homosexuality is not a sin; the bible verses that condemn it are mistranslated." or "Homosexuality is a sin, but so is gossiping, smoking, and gluttony, and the Lutheran Potluck is practically a sacrament and it's indulging of gluttony." or "Being gay isn't a sin, but acting on it is a sin, so gays are called to be celibate or try to change their orientation." or "Homosexuality is a sin, and an unrepentant sinner is not saved." And probably a million other shades and variations.
The Episcopal Church is not necessarily "more liberal" than the ELCA. In some ways it is more conservative. And it depends a lot more on the priest. In the Episcopal Church, the priest has a lot more power than pastors in the Lutheran traditions. Most priests avoid politics and stick to theology and spirituality, and in both of those they are at least as conservative as Lutherans.
To answer your other question, CARM is significantly more tolerant than other Christian chat groups I've tried. I'd like to find one that fits my interests better, but I'm still looking. So far CARM comes closest.
Nic
Well-known member
When doctrine isn't important lots of folks get along. Atheists, agnostics, Mormons, JWs, etc...
HillsboroMom
Active member
Nic
Well-known member
Fine weather I'm sure. Can you show me where Anglicans have signed off on the Book of Concord or point me to Anglican confession of faith that Lutherans have signed off on?
Thanks. Take your time.
Nic
Well-known member
Might as well do the same with Roman Catholics, but there are reasons why we don't. For those who uphold the confession of faith we don't massage terms until all distinctiveness is lost just so we can agree.
HillsboroMom
Active member
HillsboroMom
Active member
Sure. Thanks for asking.
Here are a few places to start:
Anglican Communion: Lutheran
Lutheran – Anglican dialogue
Anglican-Lutheran dialogue began in 1970 and was one of the success stories of ecumenism over the following decades. There are areas of the world where Anglicans are in full communion with Lutherans, while in other regions full communion has not yet been achieved, mainly due to different...
EDITED--LINK VIOLATION--NO MORE THAN 2 LINKS PER POST
That should give you a good start. Let me know if you need more
Last edited by a moderator:
Nic
Well-known member
As I said before lots of folks agree when doctrine is no longer important. That holds true for everyone. You pretend or believe you have common doctrine on one hand and on the other you want to share resources like electric bill or sanctuary yet somehow you want to roll all those things together into a tidy little package. I know a Lutheran Church who sublets their grounds and buildings to Messianic group. The Messianic group even helps out with all the maintenance needs and beyond. Two groups sharing resources which you seem to advocate. A good thing even from my perspective. The difference is they do not share altar and pulpit fellowship as you also advocate as a resource sharing. Of course the relationship is amicable and both groups benefit. I'm a friends of former Roman Catholic seminarians and priests, friend of an Episcopal pastor who was raised Luther who in our early days who informed me he was fighting the battle of his liberal progressive denomination from within but held an esteemed view of Lutheranism because he was baptized Lutheran. A handful of years go by and I ask him again how the battle was going he said not so well. I attended a funeral service he performed that was very Lutheran, it turns out the senior Lutheran man that had passed and his family had laid out the entire service beforehand, so then that made sense. I have also been friends of many former semiyynarians from fundamentalist backgrounds most of which hail from Dallas Theological Seminary. We've had many a great visits and talks over breakfast over the years. To some I might seem quite ecumenucal and in one sense I might be, but I don't compromise doctrine for unity. Unity as in pulpit and alter fellowship. The Lutheran view is distinctively different and my nickle on the grass says that the Lutheran is swaying away from what he confesses in your suggested cases. Who knows maybe they both are.Sure. Thanks for asking.
Here are a few places to start:
Anglican Communion: Lutheran
www.anglicancommunion.org
Lutheran – Anglican dialogue
Anglican-Lutheran dialogue began in 1970 and was one of the success stories of ecumenism over the following decades. There are areas of the world where Anglicans are in full communion with Lutherans, while in other regions full communion has not yet been achieved, mainly due to different...www.lutheranworld.org
EDITED--LINK VIOLATION--NO MORE THAN 2 LINKS PER POST
That should give you a good start. Let me know if you need more
p.s.
I had already read some similar links, but thank you. I see if I can go back to one and point out what jumped out at me right away. If the edit time doesn't expire look for it here. If it does it will be in a subsequent post.
From Anglican Communion <dot> org
What's particularly distinctive about Anglicanism?
An important caveat is about this question is that if you ask three Anglicans about doctrine you’ll get five different answers! Anglicanism’s greatest strength - its willingness to tolerate a wide variety in Anglican faith and lifestyle - is also the thing that provokes the most debate among its practitioners.
Anglicans, however, do agree that their beliefs and practices, their authority, derive from an integration of Scripture (the Holy Bible), Reason (the intellect and the experience of God) and Tradition (the practices and beliefs of the historical church). This ‘three-legged stool’ is said to demonstrate a ‘balance’ in the Anglican approach to faith contrasting it with Roman Catholic and the Protestant doctrines. The term via media when used in reference to the Anglican tradition generally refers to the idea that Anglicanism represents a middle way between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
Rather than saying Anglicanism is Protestant – like Lutheranism or Calvinism – rather it would be more accurate to say it is catholic (believing it is still part of God’s one Church and having bishops as Church leaders) but reformed (in that it shares the principles of other Christian Churches that broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 16th Century) in what has become known as the Protestant Reformation.
Lutherans [truly Confessional] don't believe any of this!
Last edited:
HillsboroMom
Active member
First of all, I want to say I respect and understand your view. The following is not meant to say "you're wrong and I'm right," but simply to tell you how I integrate the seeming contradictions, and why I don't feel it's discordant.
(1) I don't think Lutherans reject "a willingness to tolerate a wide variety" with regard to style. They're talking about tastes in worship style, like music choices. For example, I'm not as familiar with the LCMS worship options in their hymnal, but if I remember correctly, there are 3 different services, with a few options in each. The BCP (Episcopal worship) has only 2 (Rite I and Rite II), with options within each, with a wider variety of styles of music, options for non-musical forms, etc. I don't see how this goes against confessional Lutheranism.
(2) The 3-legged stool of "Scripture," "Reason," and "Tradition" does indeed seem to contradict Luther's insistence of Sola Scriptura. However, I think Luther also insisted on the importance of both tradition and reason. Many American churches today are "Sola Scriptura," claiming that they derive their authority from Scripture alone, but if Luther saw what some of them are doing, he'd flip out. He would reject them, even though they're "Sola Scriptura," so clearly there's more to it than that.
(a) They reject the liturgy. They reject the saints. They reject Apostolic Succession. They reject the sanctity of the Sacraments. Luther would adamantly cling to these things. Lutherans are strongly connected to tradition. Our history matters. Our membership in the catholic (small c) Church matters. This is what Anglicans mean by "tradition." It is important that we worship the same way that many (not all, but many) Christians worship around the world, and throughout time. The liturgy matters. We can dress it up differently (see point 1) but the structure is the same, and that matters.
(b) Luther's entire theology is based on reason. He looked at the Church, saw that they had strayed from Truth, and said, "this is not right." He engaged his brain, he didn't just accept what the church said and blindly follow the Pope. He said, "That's not reasonable." Is there any Lutheran who would claim any Lutheran doctrine was unreasonable? If not, how can you say that "reason" isn't important? He would agree that God gave us reason, and that God expects us to use it.
(3) Luther did not like the term "Lutheran." He did not initially set out to start a new church. He set out to REFORM the Catholic Church. As such, I think it's fair to say that Lutherans are part of a reformed catholic church.
To me, the Anglican understanding does not contradict the Lutheran (nor vice-versa), but presents the same ideas in a different package. I would be lying if I said I agree with everything the Anglican Church says and does 100%. But then, I don't agree 100% with Lutheran doctrine, either, and honestly I don't think there's any church that I think is 100% in line with how I understand God. I'm not going to start my own religion, so I find a church that comes closest, and worship in spirit and truth.
Here I stand. I can do no other.
Appreciate the detailed response. Had no idea that so much of the history of the Lutheran church bodies was so recent.
Good luck with your search. In the meantime it's good to have your voice here.
HillsboroMom
Active member
Thank you. I feel your opinion is a minority
If you're willing to share anything about your own faith journey, I'd love to hear it.