Lutherans and Anglicans: What are your differences?

[Roman_Army]

**What are the differences between the Lutheran Church and Anglican Church? Can ecumenism be possible between them and how? **

 

[Contarini]

**What are the differences between the Lutheran Church and Anglican Church? Can ecumenism be possible between them and how? **

Ecumenism between Lutherans and Anglicans is not only possible, it’s thriving. The Church of England and the [Anglican] Church of Ireland reached an agreement with the Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran churches recognizing one another as full members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and hence recognizing that the Word and Sacraments were duly present in one another’s churches. In other words, the relationship among these churches is now not unlike the relationship among Orthodox churches, or the relationship that would presumably obtain among Catholic churches if the Eastern churches were united to the West. (Currently the Eastern churches play a rather subordinate role, but recent popes have made it clear that this would not be the case if full union with the East was achieved. Of course Roman primacy would still make the picture rather different.)

The Episcopal Church in the United States (the American branch of the Anglican Communion, though our status has come under question since 2003) reached a very similar agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest Lutheran body in the United States). However, the American agreement was a bit rockier, because of the presence of a strong low-church evangelical wing in the ELCA (in particular an organization called Word Alone), which balked at the idea that episcopal succession was important.

This is by far the biggest doctrinal difference between Lutherans and Anglicans, although the picture is complicated. Anglicans historically have not agreed on just how important episcopal succession is, but it has helped to keep us together in spite of our disagreements. We are reluctant (and have been since the seventeenth century) to enter into a full communion agreement with any denomination that lacks the historic succession of bishops (of course the Roman Communion claims that we lack it, but naturally we disagree). The ECUSA/ELCA agreement (and I believe the Porvoo agreement as well, although some of the Scandinavian churches do have episcopal succession) allows for full communion with a non-episcopal church (or rather a church whose bishops, like Methodist bishops, lack a specifically episcopal succession but are simply presbyters chosen for a special office), but only temporarily–since bishops from both churches are to be involved in all future consecrations in either church, eventually their bishops will have the same succession that ours do.

Just like us, the Lutherans are divided–in their case, as to whether there is anything wrong with accepting episcopal succession. No Lutherans think that episcopacy is wrong per se, but the more staunchly Protestant ones think that making it a condition of full communion constitutes a denial that the Word of God is sufficient. The agreement had to be modified to accommodate their concerns.

Paradoxically, some Lutherans were also concerned that we did not believe in the Real Presence. This shows just how complicated our history has been. In the later 16th century, we were essentially “Reformed” in our theology, and our “Thirty-Nine Articles” reflect this. But in the course of the Puritan controversy (the Puritans being Anglicans who wanted to move closer to continental Reformed churches), we came to rediscover the more Catholic aspects of our heritage. So while in the late sixteenth century our criticisms of the Lutherans would have focused on the ways (such as the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the retention of auricular confession) in which they were closer to “Rome” than we were, by the late seventeenth century the position was reversed, and the then-dominant High Church wing of Anglicanism (having kicked out the Puritans in 1662) was able to look down on all continental Protestantism (Lutheran and Reformed alike) as having departed from the ancient Catholic Faith.

That means that suspicious confessional Lutherans can look at our insistence on episcopacy and reject us as too Catholic, and then look at our Articles of Religion and condemn us as too Reformed!

Historically, Lutherans have also insisted more strongly on the doctrine of justification by faith alone than we have, or rather have defined it more carefully.

On the whole, though, we’re very similar. We are, on the whole, the two Protestant traditions that are closest to Catholicism (although in soteriology Methodists are more Catholic than the Lutherans–actually I’m from a Wesleyan/Methodist background and currently attend a Methodist as well as an Episcopal church, but that’s neither here nor there).

I hope some of this is helpful.

Edwin

 

[Catholic29]

Thank you Contarini,

All of that is very fascinating to say the least. Though differing on one point or another, it appears to me that among the denomiations which stemmed from the Reformation, Lutherans and Anglicans are closest to Rome in doctrine and practice.

But of course that probably is still “too Catholic” for some other Protestants (Baptists, Non-denoms etc). So as an Anglican, what are your views on the reformed doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? Though they would probably be for another thread.

God Bless

Catholic29