Anglicanism a Lutheran variant ?

In historical terms the Anglican church was centered in England and separated from Rome in 1534. The Lutheran church was centered in Germany and separated in 1517 - or, at least the process of separation began at that time. Those separations occurred for very different reasons and there has never really been any connection between the two in terms of church structure - though the leaders of the various Reformation era churches were well aware of each other.

In terms of theology, I'm probably not well-versed enough to answer. Like all church traditions, I believe the Anglicans have spread out into liberal and conservative versions. I would expect both to differ from my Confessional Lutheran views but in different ways. Liberal churches tend to ordain women, take the sacraments as symbolic, think of the Bible as a spiritual guide but not infallible, etc. I would expect a conservative Anglican church to be similar to the Catholic church.

I would describe the difference as the Anglican church is more 'swingy' than Lutheranism, that is, it's more likely to go to extremes. Rather than being united by a confession, they're united by the Book of Common Prayer. That being said, the ACNA has a friendly relationship with the LCMS and LCC. http://www.canadianlutheran.ca/angl...ld-summit-on-biblical-marriage-and-sexuality/

The Anglican confession has historically been influenced by Calvinism on the left and Roman Catholicism on the right. Lutheran theology had a brief period of acceptance within the Anglican world but this was superseded by Calvinism in the Protestant wing and rejected by the Anglo-Catholic wing. The Anglican communion is famously diverse when it comes to doctrine. Trying to state authoritatively what the Anglican church confesses about one specific point or another is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

I do remember reading once that in the 1800s one of the German speaking synods declared that the Episcopal Church was the English Lutheran Church. Then again, this synod was likely influenced by the Prussian Union, so the very reformed elements of the Episcopal Church were likely not that big a deal to them.

The German Lutherans drew heavily on the Anglican liturgical tradition when transitioning from German to English.

Anglicanism doesn't even have sound doctrine on the Eucharist. Anything from believing that Christ is spiritually present to literally present is permitted.

Glass houses?
Have you forgotten that our Lutheran doctrines has been labelled by "everyone else" as Consubstantiation, when as far as I know all Lutheran theologians rejects the term as improper--but without getting any agreement on what to call it instead.

Korah said:

Glass houses?
Have you forgotten that our Lutheran doctrines has been labelled by "everyone else" as Consubstantiation, when as far as I know all Lutheran theologians rejects the term as improper--but without getting any agreement on what to call it instead.

Click to expand...

It's called "sacramental union" BTW.

The separation of the Chruch of England from Rome happened for very different reasons that the Lutheran Reformation. Elizabeth I was exposed to Lutheranism and apparently stated that she was a Lutheran at one point. Elizabeth I, in the interest of unity within the Anglican Church invited Philipist rather than Geneso Lutheran theologians to assist in drafting what we now know as "The 39 Articles", in which one sees some very striking similarities to to the Augsburg Confession.

One of my former Pastors once said that if one looks at the 39 articles with "Lutheran" eyes, it is a "Lutheran" document; but viewed through reformed eyes, it's a reformed document. Somewhat ambiguous and more open to interpretation than the unaltered 1580 Book of Concord.

Today, the 39 articles are, for the most part, viewed about the same way in Anglicanism as the BoC is by the ELCA/ELCIC.

As a former Anglican (1992-2004) and current ELCA Lutheran, I agree that the 39 Articles of Religion and the Book of Concord are viewed about the same way respectively by Anglicans and the ELCA--except of course by the most conservative elements of each such as the Anglican Church in North America and the CORE within ELCA (or have they all broken away to a new denomination?) Most other Lutheran bodies in contrast (LCMS, WELS, and the numerous Bible-centered break-offs from ELCA for over 60 years) are very keen on the Book of Concord.

Taom Ben Robert said:

I keep hearing that Anglicanism is a subdivision of Lutheranism , I'm not familiar with episcopal beliefs sleep could someone clarify .

Click to expand...

I must reply that I'm surprised to have anyone say this--or that you heard it from anyone. I never have. There are similarities between these churches, of course, but this "subdivision" idea is without merit, I'd say.

Korah said:

As a former Anglican (1992-2004) and current ELCA Lutheran, I agree that the 39 Articles of Religion and the Book of Concord are viewed about the same way respectively by Anglicans and the ELCA--except of course by the most conservative elements of each such as the Anglican Church in North America and the CORE within ELCA (or have they all broken away to a new denomination?) Most other Lutheran bodies in contrast (LCMS, WELS, and the numerous Bible-centered break-offs from ELCA for over 60 years) are very keen on the Book of Concord.

Click to expand...

LCMS and WELS are not break-offs of the ELCA; all three Churches are autonomous; as has been the Anglican Church

MarkRohfrietsch said:

LCMS and WELS are not break-offs of the ELCA; all three Churches are autonomous; as has been the Anglican Church

Click to expand...

I think what she said is that LCMS, WELS, and the conservative split-offs from ELCA are all known for adherence to the Book of Concord. I'm not so sure who is referred to by the "for over 60 years" part of the statement, however.

To be sure.
I can't verify from my own life experience, but both LCMS and WELS are well known as separate from other major Lutheran bodies going back "over 60 years", autonomous for centuries, and I apologize for any confusion arising from my inadvertent lumping of them within the same parenthesis as "the numerous Bible-centered break-offs from ELCA for over 60 years". I can see how I could be thus misinterpreted--the problem stems from the "invisibility" of all the break-offs in the last 60 years. None have a parish within 70 miles of me, the SF-Sacramento metropolitan area of say five million people. The subject of the CORE Convocation in 2010 splitting off the Lutheran Church of North America another 140,000 at that time never came up in my Vacaville parish. The CORE objection was to gay "marriage" and to allowing ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. The earlier split-offs were not as conclusively against anti-Biblical resolutions, as women's ordination is not forbidden by the Bible, just not present nor ever practiced during Church history until the 20th Century, far as I know.
(I confess to having avoided getting nominated to the Steering Committee lest I become embroiled in a fruitless debate--as far as I can tell, everyone is "Biblical" here, but quite unaware that their denomination no longer is.)
(Now that Albion happens to have posted before I finished, I'll take this opportunity to state that my sex is no longer ambiguous--whereas I am "Adam" on several other forums, only yesterday did I access my profile and make such specifications here that I am male.)

Korah said:

<snip> The earlier split-offs were not as conclusively against anti-Biblical resolutions, as women's ordination is not forbidden by the Bible, just not present nor ever practiced during Church history until the 20th Century, far as I know.
<snip>

Click to expand...

Actually, the LCMS/LCC Church's position regarding women's ordination IS considered Biblical; as the admonitions regarding the usurping of authority over men (pastoral and otherwise for that matter) and the admonition for women to be silent in Chruch make an efficacious pastorate by a female unworkable; therefore, in the spirit of Sola Scriptura and the rejection of historical criticism in Scriptural interpretation (oh, wait, there is another profound difference between the Churches).

I keep hearing that Anglicanism is a subdivision of Lutheranism .

Click to expand...

...

I must reply that I'm surprised to have anyone say this--or that you heard it from anyone. I never have. There are similarities between these churches, of course, but this "subdivision" idea is without merit, I'd say.

Click to expand...

I must apologise as I may myself have once descibed it so, not knowing what I was talking about. Its really what one comes down to having tried very hard to understand and failed. So i'd agree the idea is without merit. And the other answers here explain it better.

I had mostly heard that Anglican was a via media (the middle road) but this has been recast at times to mean different things. So I never quite understood it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_media

Albion said:

I think what she said is that LCMS, WELS, and the conservative split-offs from ELCA are all known for adherence to the Book of Concord. I'm not so sure who is referred to by the "for over 60 years" part of the statement, however.

Click to expand...

So, were you smiling because you called me female?
I'm still trying to find the "via media" in Lutheranism, but it's not in ELCA nor its conservative competitors LCMS and WELS--I tried both in Vacaville. Coming in as a Charismatic, LCMS here is quite dour, and WELS leaves no option to believe the world is older than 6000 years. However, I recently ran into an Association of Free Lutheran Congregations mission right in my home town of Dixon. I attended several months, even the weekly Bible studies, but I could see no future in lay leadership by an 86-year-old and no priest within 80 miles. I never quite got why he left WELS, just why he left ELCA before he went there, other than that he is a real stickler for lay independence over clericalism. He formed his group here in association with numerous others, none of whom was satisfied with their constitution but him. They're less than a dozen, he pays the rent on ads and on the Vet's Hall out of his own pocket.
There's the Independent Lutheran Diocese, just north of the border with Oregon. It's mainly a means for "called" Lutherans to get some seminary training and ordination without paying much--and thereafter apparently functioning on a volunteer basis. There's a meeting nearer me in Corning, two hours drive away, apparently the only one west of Texas except for Bishop Robbie Osmundson in Klamath Falls.
There are also other splinter groups, but what's the point if they're the same as LCMS anyway--except of course for North American Lutheran Church, the "baby" of CORE in 2010. I just talked to a lay leader of Our Savior church in Auburn. It's over an hour away, but worth finding out about. They feature on tape the Braaten-Benne Lecture series. A Martin Braaten heads the North Texas Mission. Apparently they have the Carl Braaten theology as their basis. Carl Braaten was the theologian I agreed with during the 2009 Convocation that caused the split. I think the problem in my area is that though lay people are Biblical (or think they are) the liberals control the ELCA Synod, and no parishes are inclined to or dare to break off. If parishes here ever discussed the issues, I would think many would switch to NALC. But clergy have kept a lid on it, and I never saw it discussed here in Christian Forums (that's one thing I did during my dormancy here, where are any ELCA people who care about the Bible?). (Is CF in on the Conspiracy?) So how could I in good conscience stay ELCA? Well, I sort of belong there, I'm a Higher Critic and Catholic who can accept the Augsburg Confession and Apology but no more "Reformed" theology than that. They allow women to be ordained, but not practicing homosexuals. No gay "marriage".

I care plenty about the bible. I just don't agree with your interpretation of it.

Korah said:

(Now that Albion happens to have posted before I finished, I'll take this opportunity to state that my sex is no longer ambiguous--whereas I am "Adam" on several other forums, only yesterday did I access my profile and make such specifications here that I am male.)

Click to expand...

My apologies. Sometimes, I subconsciously think that the "screen name" sounds either male or female, and that sticks in my mind, even though there's usually no particular reason to think so. It's happened before and I'm sorry for doing that.