Nearest one I’m willing to attend. There’s an Episcopalian church literally right next to my apartment complex but it’s not really my speed theologically or culturally.
I asked simply because I thought any Anglican church would be better than a Lutheran one if Anglicanism is the path down which you choose to walk.
For some people that may be the case, but the Lutheran church I attend in my city is very conservative and liturgically high church and so it’s much closer to the Anglican Church I’ll be confirmed in than the Episcopalian church next door. I feel more comfortable with the Lutheran church for those reasons.
There are some LCMS churches that are more Anglican than some Anglican churches what it is to be an anglican is to have a high view of the gospel, a high view of scripture, a high view of liturgy, a high view of ceremony... anyone who fails in those falls short of being an anglican, and a ceremonious liturgy that isn't subservient to scripture or about preaching the gospel isn't anglican
I mentioned it because the Lutheran Church is not very common here. Indeed, I have absolutely no idea where the nearest Lutheran church is to me. I am also not very familiar with their theology and it was that which primarily drove my concern. Whilst their liturgy may be similar to the Anglican high church it is what they may teach that could be contrary to Anglican theology that I was thinking about.
indeed, I would not imagine that there are many lutheran churches in great britain, but from what I have seen the high church wing of lutheran tradition is incredibly close to the anglican tradition
While attending the Lutheran church for a little under a year now I've learned quite a lot, and picked up on some places where they differ from Anglicanism. One of the biggest ones is their view (or lack thereof) of Apostolic succession. They don't believe it's necessary to have an unbroken line of succession *through the bishops* that goes directly back to the apostles and Christ. Instead they believe priests can ordain and carry on that succession, without bishops. So, for that reason, I can't go Lutheran. I think the bishop line of apostolic succession is very important and necessary for a valid Eucharist. Of course, if one doesn't accept female ordination (I currently don't) then any Episcopalian church that has a female priest or a female bishop in their priest's line of succession doesn't have a valid Eucharist either. And the Episcopalian church next to my apartment complex has a female priest.
It is true that Lutherans in Germany didn't maintain apostolic succession (because they couldn't), but the Lutherans in Scandinavia did. Similarly to England, the established church in Sweden kept its episcopal hierarchy intact (after the latter had adopted the Augsburg Confession). The Church of England never declared the Continental Lutheran or Reformed ecclesiastical establishments to be invalid, nor did its most prominent defenders prior to the mid-19th century consider episcopal succession to be necessary for the being - as opposed to the well-being - of the Church as such (see, for example, Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity). When the Tractarians began to claim that the bishops were successors of the apostles, Anglican bishops around the world rushed into print to deny that very proposition. To this day, there is no uniformly accepted view of the subject within and across Anglicanism. Regarding the ordination of women, although many on this forum are vehemently opposed to it, the simple fact is that it is widely accepted and practiced across the Anglican Communion today, and there is no turning that clock back. I am, personally, quite unaware of any cogent, properly theological arguments against it. It would also seem prudent to reserve judgment rather than pronounce an entire national church's holy orders and sacraments "invalid" on the basis of one's own private opinion. Use of that kind of language (viz., "validity", "line of succession", etc.) may sound "catholic", but it is in fact quite radical, both in method and in effect. It would be a pity not to take advantage of such an opportunity as to have an Anglican church sitting literally next door, over such an issue. Most would consider that a great blessing, rather than a stumbling block. Whatever the original motivation may have been for these stances decades ago, they have since become a proxy for the ongoing "culture war" debates, and as such should be subordinated to the Gospel, not the Gospel to them. I wish you the very best in your search for the truth.
totally agree, it's one of the cornerstones of anglicanism... But to speak for my lutheran brothers yes many of them do maintain, and value, apostolic succession... Some of the unnecessary hangups from the Reformation are less a factor than they used to be preach sister (no pun intended) (for some reason I thought you were female, if not then forgive me, and the pun can be intended!)
Yes, I failed to mention the Scandinavian Lutheran church but you're right, I was simply referring to the Lutheran church in America that I'm familiar with. Honestly I would love to be wrong about the necessity of apostolic succession through the bishops and for all Lutherans to have valid sacraments. But as long as I'm not convinced that's true, I can't in good conscience receive the Eucharist from any Lutheran church that doesn't. It really is a matter of conscience for me, and this goes for female priests as well. Plenty people would I'm sure consider it a great blessing to have a church right next to their home, but as long as I remain convinced that ordination is for men only then it would be sinful for me to receive there, because whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Women's ordination is something that I'm open to having my mind changed on (I own a couple books on the subject), but until I am firmly convinced of its validity then I will continue to attend churches with male only priests. As a side note, I am very in favor of female deacons.
An Anglican writer whom I respect very much has recently published a new book on the subject that you may find worth reading: https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481316668/icons-of-christ/ He also has a response to a negative review of the book posted on his website: http://willgwitt.org/theology/a-review-of-a-book-i-did-not-write/ Simply put, my own view is that the arguments against WO all fail for one reason or another, therefore there is nothing preventing a diocese (or group of dioceses) from adopting it. On a more fundamental level, it seems clear from the Reformation-era confessions that the Church makes the Ministry, not the other way around. (Such a framework is also assumed by Arts. 19, 20, & 34.) There is no slam-dunk argument for or against it that can be drawn from the Scriptures, so the arguments have to be evaluated on their own merits, and it is the Church which ultimately has the authority to decide the matter for its members (and indeed already has so decided, making this exercise largely academic). That leaves us with arguments from Tradition and Reason, and their rebuttal: If episcopal succession doesn't make the Church, then the presence of female bishops cannot unmake it. Even if we assume the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view that Holy Orders is both a sacrament and that its invisible grace is to leave an 'indelible mark' on the soul, gender can have nothing to do with this, since souls are by definition without gender and cannot be distinguished by it (only bodies can be so distinguished). The fact that the OT priesthood was all-male is irrelevant: the Christian Ministry is in no sense a continuation of the OT priesthood. Arguments from tradition (e.g., "all the disciples were male!") don't get past the Is/Ought dichotomy, and are thus tantamount to arguments from silence. Arguments based on Reason, i.e., empirical evidence, favor equality of the genders and nondiscrimination. Anglicans of prior ages may have disagreed with this conclusion, but that doesn't mean that the principles they enunciated and defended cannot have results which they didn't anticipate. One can be an 'originalist' and a 'progressive' (of sorts) at the same time. In this day and age it strikes me as downright frivolous to continue opposing it, and a waste of time and effort to try in vain to turn back the clock. It is now settled practice, and no established doctrine is convincingly affected by it.
"Icons of Christ" has been on my to-buy list for a while now but the price has always stayed my hand from clicking "purchase". Maybe I can request it as a gift from family later this year though. I agree women's ordination has become settled practice in the Church of England, but the Church of England doesn't represent the entirety of the Church. It's still a minority position when you account for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and traditional Anglicans. Of course, consensus doesn't prove anything, so it really doesn't benefit either side to go counting how many votes we have. Again, I can't in good conscience attend or receive at a church with a female priest until I am personally convinced. And I'm not too anxious about forcing that to happen. I'm very happy to continue at my churches with male priests on until my death.
If Anglican history teaches us anything, it is that neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox practice is the yardstick by which we must be measured, and that 'Tradition' doesn't stand on its own but must be measured against Scripture and Reason. Most Anglican provinces allow ordination of women to the diaconate and the priesthood, and a growing number are electing female bishops. That means the "Tradition" now includes the ordination of women, and it is thus a bit of a misnomer to label the minority still opposed as "traditionalists". For those who have been willing to break communion over it, the correct term is "schismatic".
I going to continue to respectfully disagree, and calling me a schismatic for holding to the ancient Christian tradition of male only clergy is simply not going to be effective. Have a nice day.
Whatever. I never called you a schismatic. You said: I then presented a few sketches of arguments from the other side of the issue. The possibility of committing schism is one of them. I am accustomed to that statement falling on deaf ears (because "schism" to most Christians is apparently something only other churches do), but it remains a fair point that warrants thoughtful consideration, especially if one is truly concerned with upholding catholic tradition. After all, having rival bishops in the same See is about as un-catholic as it gets. The 'solution' in that case is worse than the original 'problem'. That's the point I was making. Bottom line, if you're not actually open to hearing opposing views, it might help not to claim the opposite. I had hoped for more thoughtful engagement than this. You have a nice day as well.