Why I Am Not Anglican
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 вер 2024
- 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.
That was my first thought too. They're our closest allies
I think we're laid back like that.
"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
Read the history and founding of ur church, nothing loving and kind about it
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.
Praying for safety for you both and that God would continue to grow His church in China!
Based ecumenism
W❤️✝️✝️✝️
Nobody knows for sure what is happening with Catholics in China
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.
Barely Protestant -I’m in a traditional ACNA parish as well
@@barelyprotestant5365 what do you think LCMS Lutherans treat as dogma that should adiaphora? Just out of curiosity.
@@halo0360 Article XVII condemns postmillennialism. That's just crazy.
@@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 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.
Can you tell me why you’re an Anglican and not a Lutheran?
@@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.
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!✝️❤️👑
This 100000%. Beautifully said
@ajcics Thank you and Peace Be With You!!! ✝️💜
I can give you 39 reasons why you should be. 😎😎😎
OOH! Shots fired! Well played, sir!
Good one... I must say, you have well articulated it...🤭
To be fair, I left the Episcopal church years ago because of all the splits back in the early 2000s and disagreement over the Real Presence.
I'll wait for your video, then
@@GermanFreakvb21 Just google the 39 articles.
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.
Yeah.
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.
@@ArsontAngelfire I see your point. The formal communion among folks with major doctrinal differences is the distinction.
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.
I am an Anglican but I appreciate your sensitive and informed approach to the matter.
Beth Moore being Anglican is now the least cringey thing about her.
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.
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
Just curious, which church do you attend in thr Philippines?
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”.
39 Articles have been optional for a really really long time (this is 2024!)
@@mafakefoot For some Anglicans that may be the case, but it rather begs the question , if not the Articles what do you believe ?
@@dutchmagpie170 The Creeds and the Scriptures.
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 hope one day anglicans and lutherans could be in communion as the Anglian churches in Europe are in communion with scandinavian lutherans
Same
ACNA and NALC do have agreements in fellowship and communion.
@@rogeronthesouthfork175 what's is NALC?
@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 North American Lutheran Church
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.
What report?
@@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.
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?
Lutherans tend to be far more religious than Anglicans.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/YK_xqBxXDBU/v-deo.html
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.
Do Lutherans have a version of the BCP and lectionary?
@@DrGero15 I believe there is a Lutheran Book of Worship and a lectionary.
@@stephenbailey9969 What is it called? How does it compare?
@@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.
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
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"
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.
You said baptism is saving. It is not . That is not scriptural. Saved by grace not by water. 3:13
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😀
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?
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.
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.
After several minutes he said nothing about the subject. I gave up!
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 went from Anglican to Lutheran. Around 15 years ago. You are spot on. They stand firm. Anglicans fail. Miss them but felt I couldn't stay. It was a good move
Big mistake, as an Anglican you can believe in transubstantiation which is clear as day in John 6 as Christ doubled down on the fact that the bread IS his flesh. Despite being so uncomfortable and running away he never said "Wait it's just symbolic". Christ looked at his apostles and asked if they were going to leave.
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.
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.
BTW I think most of us would agree that the Episcopal Church is a lost cause, which is why I didn't even bother to mention them in the first place.
Have you addressed why you’re AALC and not LCMS? Just curious.
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 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.
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!
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?
Sure. Some provinces require that, some don't.
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.
@@isacwaernkyrck That's what I'm talking about.
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.
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.
And that's the point I've been trying to make in my comments.
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.
Very interesting. I find it strange how Anglo Catholics can remain in the Episcopalian church that allows gay priests and Bishops and planned parenthood.
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.
Thank you, Rev.Cooper.
These sound like arguments against the ACNA, not so much against Anglicanism.
Agreed.
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.
@@doubtingthomas9117 I mean, if we're going by "mere Anglicanism", then "mere Lutheranism" is in the exact same situation: see the ELCA.
@@doubtingthomas9117 in other words: yes, I'm speaking of more Traditional, Confessional Anglicanism. :)
Barely Protestant that’s kinda what I figured 👍🏻
Funny. I became anglican for exactly the same reason you didn't
I was thinking the same thing
I'm actually really glad that I watched this because all of the reasons that you have not to be Anglican are what I like about it. I feel like so many of us spend our lives inside of echo chambers, but Anglicanism welcomes questions, disagreements, varying viewpoints, and criticisms that allow it to re-evaluate itself for an evolving society. I grew up in a conservative Lutheran church 😅
The main body of world Anglicanism such as the Church of England and the The Episcopal Church is the most cosmopolitan church and the most congenial to cultural traditionalists with good taste who don’t want to be bothered by people such as exhorters, ranters, interminable sermons delivered by raving fanatics, hysterical altar calls or deadly in earnest bores who are continually trying to introduce the topic of religion into every space and occasion. These then are the mainstay of the book Why I Am An Episcopalian from that series of denominational Why I Am books. On the downside Episcopalians like to turn everything into a joke, much like how everyone typically behaves at a bad cocktail party. In fact the coffee hour after services actually is a cocktail party in some parishes, especially down south I’ve been told where the term Whiskeypalian is in common currency. On the down side if you become interested in holy orders you will be patronized by narcissistic douchebags if you didn’t attend an Ivy League school as indeed, such a moribund denomination has little use for new clergy.
@@marcmeinzer8859 whiskeypalian?? We don't even have a coffee hour 👀
Fortunately I have no plans to be ordained, but I'm not sure I would call it moribund any more than other denominations in the states.
@@juniperrosee I was privy to incredible amounts of Episcopalian trivia while working as a landscaper at St. Gregory’s Abbey in Michigan which is Episcopalian Benedictine. The only parish I’ve been to which served cocktails was St. Jame’s Anglican Catholic in Cleveland. They had bloody Mary’s with shrimp cocktail. It is true that some mainline Protestants are worse off than the Episcopalians. It’s also true that most protestant churches have competition from schismatics for the simple reason that Protestants tend to be argumentative. None of this bothers me. It is fairly obvious that the Episcopalians and the Evangelical Lutherans will eventually merge. And then after that they’ll merge again with the Methodists. Who cares? It’s all pretty much the same. The belief that the gospels and Jesus are ahistorical is rapidly gaining ground. I became a Buddhist.
May God bless all confessional Lutheran and Anglican churches.
Amen!
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.
Me scrolling through the comments to see what Barely Protestant says about this.
Lmao same
Same
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’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.
Think in particular 1 Corinthians 1.
I was an Anglican for a long part of my life. I was raised in a family that historically was Lutheran, but which had drifted away into all-purpose Protestanism, although there ramained adherents of genuine Lutheran here and there. I remember the Lutheran church services of my very young years rather vaguely but with certainty about that. On the other hand, my step-father never had us chidren baptitsed. That meant that we came to baptism in various ways as the years passed by. The problem was the tension that the Lodge (Freemasonry, Scottish Rite at that) caused. Masonry reallly was the force that drove so many of us from the Lutheran Church. I don't know which Lutheran body we were "in", but I strongly suspect that it was the U.L.C. Many of our family friends were Lutheran, however strong or weak their practicce of Lutheranism was. Finally, I personally returned to Lutheranism in my 30s. The madness of Anglican doctrinal and liturgical variance just drove me out of Anglicanism. So, that is much the dynamic that kept you safe from Anglicanism.
That's a terrible and amazing story. (I read both of your comments.) I'm most amazed you somehow remained Christian at all. I'm tempted to doubt God's goodness and existence every time I stub my toe.
Anglicanism is most attractive to what I call phony Catholics. Try reading AN Wilson’s recently published autobiography CONFESSIONS. The chapter about his year at St. Stephen’s theological college at Oxford is hysterically funny.
What really made Anglicanism dead in the water for me, eventually, is its (at best) Receptionist concept of the Eucharistic Presence, which annuls any sacramental viability of the Anglican liturgy of the Sacrament of the Altar (as Lutherans term it). Our Lord's Gift of Himself is all or nothing full physical and spiritual, corporal presence in a believing liturgy. Anglicanism FAILS on this crucial score.
As a Lutheran Christian hoping that one day Anglicans and Lutherans will be in communion, I agree with basically everything said.
Good video.
Genus Maiestaticum is uncompromisable.
@@st.martinlutherofwittenber18 YOU'RE HERE TOO!!!!
@@nath5360 Yes.
I was ordained an Anglican priest I could not with a good conscience recommend that church over confessional Lutheranism in any shape or form.
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?
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.
Thanks for making these
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.
This was a good video to watch while I'm up with my newborn son at 4am!
As an Anglican I totally concede your point and it is something I am trying to remedy myself with my own channel. The fact is, the Anglican Formularies are crystal clear on the most important issues and yet many Anglicans teach and believe what is utterly contrary to it after years of no discipline.
One critique I would make is that you implied that the Anglican Formularies do not affirm the third use of the Law but this is not true as Article VII of the 39 Articles does uphold it. However, of course, many Anglicans do not care about the Articles.
All that being said, I remain Anglican because I am more Reformed than Lutheran, because it's ecclesiology is more catholic, and because it has in my opinion a greater liturgical patrimony, with our 1662 prayer book being the crown jewel of Christian worship in my eyes.
Good video as always nonetheless!
Great comment, River. I subscribe to your excellent channel too🙂. It's been very helpful.
Good to hear from you. I still think the 39 Articles are a synthesis of Reformed and Lutheran (rather than simply Reformed) but other than that I agree.
@@vngelicath1580 It is totally within the bounds of the Formularies to have a Lutheran view of Baptism, and our Church calendar, liturgy, and ecclesiology are more in line with Lutheranism, but, when it comes to soteriology, images, and the Eucharist we are thoroughly Reformed.
Well said
@@newkingdommedia9434 Hi River, would you say that a Lutheran view is permissible for Article 17? Also for Article 28 it seems that many Anglicans hold to a corporeal Real Presence despite the article, how valid would this be?
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.
Anglican and The Episcopal church are confusing. I’m trying to find out who they are and I can’t really tell…
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.
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.
That's a strength of the Anglican Formularies, their brevity
Amazing video. I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree, and the reason I am Anglican is because we only require doctrinal unity on Protestant essentials. It allows me to feel the freedom to grow and learn without the fear that I'll have to uproot my family and go to a new church if I can no longer uphold a lengthy confession to the letter.
I started my search at an LCMS church and the first thing the pastor said to me as I walked in with my wife was "Good morning! Are you LCMS? No? Then you cannot partake in Eucharist today."
That was a dealbreaker for me. Open table was another reason that pushed me Anglican.
I think people leaving big eva/non denom are hungering for a confessional church but aren't able to be squeezed into a very specific box. Anglicanism is a great spot for that. Even so, I love my Lutheran and Prebyterian brothers.
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.
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.'
Using female priests as a point for lutheranism is extremely funny to me, since all the lutheran churches in scandinavia have women priests
Love your gracefulness! I agree with the top comment about my reasons for becoming Anglican being the reason you chose not to. Excited for more content from you Dr.!
Sincerely, a conservative Anglican
Yes. In the Bible liturgy comes first and doctrine flows from it. Founding your preference on doctrine comes from the Enlightenment, not a biblical vision of religious life.
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.
Agree. Having one church is scriptural and that’s why I’m Catholic 😊 I appreciate your videos though.
You have no idea how much I appreciate this commentary right now.
I have been prayerfully considering leaving not only the local congregation I belong to, but also the denomination. I have been investing Lutheranism and Anglicanism. I am perplexed by the ACNA, Continuing Anglican and GAFCON. As you said, they seem inconsistent with each other.
Still learning and exploring for now.
@Curtis MH Yes, I did look into the Catholic church as well and am very happy to report that I was confirmed a Lutheran this morning. 😁
Im very happy to hear that.
@Curtis MH why do you say they’re dying?
@Curtis MH you have stats for that?
@Curtis MH Google isn’t telling me what you are
yes, how can anyone function in a "church body" when there are so many fundamental differences?
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 visited an Anglican (Episcopalian) church and it was really nice. I found people really friendly. So welcoming. I’ve also been going to a Catholic mass every Sunday the last few weeks. I just disagree with the idea of transmutation. (Is that the right word?) Or transubstantiation? The thing where Jesus is actually the bread and wine. Yeah, I don’t believe that.
The Bible does not only say that the Lord's Supper is done in remembrance:
Matthew 26:28 Jesus calls it the blood of the covenant.
Hebrews 9:20 The author quotes Moses saying the exact same words about real blood. There is no precedent here for saying "is" means "represents."
1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor 11:20 There is an objectively true Lord's Supper. Unreconciled schism within the congregation make it objectively not the Lord's Supper.
1 Cor 10:21-22 The Lord, whose name is Jealous, is jealous of his cup and his table.
1 Cor 11:23 The Lord specifically and personally revealed the Supper to Paul.
1 Cor 11:27 Misuse of the Lord's Supper is not just a bad reenactment. It makes you guilty of sin against the very body and blood of the Lord.
1 Cor 11:28-30 Mere reenactments do not require earnest soul searching on pain of punishment and death.
Therefore true Christian faith in these words: "This is my body which is for you, … This is my blood of the new covenant," must take all into account.
You’re smart to not believe it. Christ is ALIVE. No one can tell me that rotting piece of wafer encased in glass (plastic?) is the living Lord.
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.
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).
I didn't know that anyone was joining the Anglican church.
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)
Echoing another commenter, I appreciate your grace in relating your position. I hope my comments are received with similar benevolence. This is what I come away with after viewing your remarks: It's preferable to have a broad Lutheran tent under which exists smaller synodal Lutheran tents rather than a broad Anglican tent under which exists smaller varient Anglican groups. In both cases everyone's under one tent, but...
Where in the bible does it infer that there is more going on in the Lord's supper than a mere remembrance and promise?
1 Corinthians 11 has people struck sick and dropping dead because of misuse of the Lord's Supper; if nothing else that suggests more than mere remembrance.
It's not like God is smiting people at the proclamation of the Gospel, remembering Christ's cross and the promise tied to it.
@@j.g.4942the devil TRICKED me back into WOrld and anger at God I had the holy Spirit and now feel STUPID and cut down and back in sins I would never do. I am angry and want back.
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.
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 wound up in the Emergent Church movement by way of a mentor back in its heyday. I was committed to scripture and when the pastor decided he was going to be teaching feminism, I disagreed with him. It led to a lot of tension and frustration all around. Unfortunately, that was the red flag that much more was to come as the church lost more and more historical orthodoxy and I wouldn’t budge (I was seen as a primary leader). Finally, the Holy Spirit called me on a lengthy mission to India to assist a healthy ministry there. While I was gone, the entire church imploded because of sin and rootlessness.
Generally speaking, if a body has disagreement on core teaching (aka women in ministry) it will be the orthodox folks serving as salt and light and, if they are removed, the others won’t have anyone to parasitically draw stability and spiritual power via faith from. Thus, the fate of all the liberal mainline denominations.
Not saying this to be uncharitable toward anyone, but it’s almost a recognized law from my experience.
Doctrinal unity was a very good point. I’m a layman, but couldn’t this be down to the very poor Anglican leadership?
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?
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.
I agree with Dr Cooper. This is the reason I left Anglicanism. I got tired of the infighting. It’s not that historic Anglicanism doesn’t have a coherent teaching as a daughter church if the reformation rather it’s a rejection of the same as a more modern development. The AC doesn’t have something like Concordia, but they do/had formularies that are the 39 articles, the BCP 1662 and the 2 books of homilies. But good luck finding such a church especially here in the states that still hold to the historic formularies. As a result I joined the LCMS. Yet I appreciate my time in the AC and especially the BCP and specifically the 1928 version even with some of its wonkyness at times.
Look into the APA (Anglican Province of America) they are consistent, have Apostolic succession and follow the 1928 BCP. Their liturgies are beautiful.
The reason you're not an Anglican is ironically the exact same reason that I remain an Anglican! The desire for doctrinal unity is something I see as a trap that encourages us to claim unfounded certainty in our own interpretations.
The lack of communion between christians is a tragedy, and we should never break off communion with each other unless there is no other choice. Sure, the example you give of women's ordination is one where we have a messy solution (speaking from the perspective of the scottish episcopal church rather than the ACNA, but from what you described it seems similar), but my perspective is that a messy solution is better than cutting ourselves off from one another.
I don't want either the roman catholic approach of a constantly evolving set of doctrines that are taught to be infallible with no way to revisit them to check if they were wrong, or the protestant approach of splitting into countless different shards every time there's a new disagreement.
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.
Question for Dr. Cooper: I agree with the Book of Concord on almost every major issue (predestination, sacraments, etc), with the exception of forensic justification. I've become persuaded by Augustine's view of justification (transformative rather than forensic, but purely by grace and not works; there is non-imputation of sin, but only original sin/concupiscence, actual sins require sacrifice/almsgiving, etc.). Can I attend a Lutheran church? I want to respect the doctrinal unity of Lutheranism, but I'm not aware of any modern church body that fully agrees with my views (I'm certainly no Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox).
Hey @kjhg, I think something could be cleared up. You don’t need to follow every single topic with no questions or issues to be part of a church body. It sounds like you agree with a majority of what Confessional Lutheranism teach. I would encourage you to attend a Lutheran Church for a few weeks, and see if it’s a place that the Gospel is consistently taught and received (do you hear God’s Word, Do you Confess and Receive Absolution, Does the pastor teach from scripture, Do you receive the gift of Holy Communion every week, etc). I am a confessional Lutheran, but I believe it’s normal to wrestle with the nuances of our doctrine. I don’t want potential differences in systematic theology to stop you from finding a healthy church to be in fellowship with. I hope this helps!
Hi kjhg. I'd encourage you to read through Luther's Small and Large Catechisms to see if you have any objections. If not, you'd be perfectly fine getting confirmed as an adult Lutheran.
As someone who’s wrestled with similar issues from within the LCMS, firmly disagreeing with Lutheranism on several issues and finding the strength of Lutheranism’s positions to be about equally as strong as other traditions’ in other places, my thoughts have ultimately come down to how it impacts my children. I have ask myself the question: Where would I be able most able to let the clergy teach what they believe they need to teach without correcting them-where will I be most able to thus respect the clergy? Will my sons, if they come to believe what I believe, be able to join the clergy? That’s the heart of the matter for me.
Forensic justification is In the Bible
@Horny Moses forensic justification primarily comes from romans 4:1-3 whre Paul says Abraham was Declared righteous which happened in Genesis 15:6 where Abraham believed and God credited to him as righteousness. So I'm not presupposing anything.
Luther didn't invent Forensic Justification. It can even be found within writings of Church Fathers.
Its really in the Bible Paul talks about this abundantly.
Also Sola Scriptura was beloved before The Reformation. The Idea that we should primarily resort to the Scriptures for infallible doctrine and standard of faith is found in the early church Fathers.
Consider the following Quotes.
Gregory of Nyssa - Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius. (idk what year)
”Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
Ambrose - Duties of the Clergy (330-397)
”For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”
So ur premise that the notion of Sola Scriptura isn't found in History before Luther os certainly wrong
I grew up in a very nominal family. Mom was for a while Rom Cath. Dad was from a German Lutheran background but basically atheist. The Episcopal Church was chosen as in between Cath. and Prot. My brother became loyal to the Episcopal Church. I after some attendance as a child dropped out became agnostic. Much like C S Lewis I became a Christian because it is TRUE. When I went back to the Episcopal Church I discovered that the Schleiermacher/Bultmann apostasy allows the Episcopal Church to recite the Creeds while the Bishop of New Jersey denies it all so I went over to the Evangelical/"Born Again" crowd because they REALLY believe the stuff. I moved from So. Calif. to the Philippines. No Lutheran Churches visible here. I see that we on the 'Born Again' side need more grounding in classic Reformation study. Some of my favorite authors- C S Lewis, Irenaeus of Lyons, Anselm of Canterbury, Martin Luther. Recently finished reading Augsburg Confession and the Epitome of Bk. O. Concord found in Schaff's 3 Vol. The Creeds of Christendom. I've got Timothy Lulls selections "Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings" read some, going to make it a project to go through it in chronological order along with "A Reformation Reader" ed. Denis R Janz. So far up to the year 1344. Also working on Baird and Kaufmann "Medieval Philosophy" got up to John Duns Scotus. Bottom line, Lutheran Church looks better to me but I don't see any here in the Philippines
" but one thing is necessary, only one; for Mary has chosen the good portion"
How are people going from the SBC to the ACNA because they don't like how political the SBC is? The ACNA only exists for political reasons.
You know the joke" Can one be saved outside the Anglican Communion? Of course, but no gentleman would do it.
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.
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.
Book of concord isn't infallible? How often is it changed?
You put your finger on why I am Anglican Catholic and not ACNA.
Ok, but also a very important question:
What watch are you wearing?
Disappointed somewhat. The ANCA is NOT the only Anglican body in the US. What about the APA, the ACA, the ACC (I could go on)? None of the ones I listed allow for females in the pulpit. However, you are right on target about Anglicans' "big tent ideology." Having refused to make the 39 Articles confessional, many Anglicans ARE adrift, theologically speaking.
@Pax Domini "Ironically, most Anglicans are at variance with their own confessional heritage." Very true. I read recently a book by Carl Trueman on confessionalism (I' can't put my hands on it right now). He faulted Anglicanism for NOT having used the 39 Articles confessionally. He was right on the money.
This is true, and I fault my Anglian brethren for this. Trueman's book was 'The Creedal Imperative".
I was Church of England for a good while, but left for various reasons. I've since come to realise that I'm more comfortable in a congregational or presbyterian (even though I'm not Reformed) polity, rather than episcopal.
That is pretty much how Lutherans read history as well.
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
ua-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/v-deo.html
@@Mygoalwogel ta for all of that, as most of them are not names I've hard of before.
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.
They aren't meant to bash other traditions or anything. These are just the personal reasons I ended up where I did.
@@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.
@@DrJordanBCooper edited my comment.
@@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.