Jordan Cooper and the ACNA

I found this short video rather interesting. I have read some of Cooper's work and find him to be a compelling voice from a confessional Lutheran perspective. Were I not Episcopalian, an NALC congregation would be a viable alternative I would consider. Given his own commitment to orthodoxy, it's interesting to hear his take on the ACNA.

 

His whole problem with Anglicanism revolves around the disagreement over female priests, but he mislabels it as a doctrinal issue when really it's a church practice/procedure issue. Meanwhile there are plenty of disagreements between the various Lutheran synods, yet he's willing to overlook them.

Meh. Whatever.

 

He spent more time talking about things like the real presence in the eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and justification by faith. Surely those things should have rung a bell in light of recent discussions on this very Forum.

Imagine you have someone looking for something deeper than what the evangelical/charismatic churches offer, and this person narrows the options down to either Lutheran or Anglican, and is concerned about doctrinal clarity (after having escaped evangelicalism). The Lutheran says, “Don’t worry: we have defined Confessions that have stood the test of time for centuries, and have formed the basis of our theology and devotion throughout our history. It’s something you can trust.” When confronted with the same question, the Anglican says “Meh. Whatever.” To which church do you think such an inquirer will then go, and who could blame him?

Whatever our answer turns out to be, it cannot begin with the assumption that the lack of doctrinal unity in Anglicanism is a figment of Dr. Cooper’s imagination. It’s very real and is as much an impediment to growth as the schismatic mentality.

 

"Meh. Whatever" is my response to the video, not to Lutheranism. I have no problem with Lutherans and I have worshiped in a Lutheran church on occasion. But I'm not the least bit surprised to have my posts misinterpreted and distorted by the party at hand.

 

I never accused you of having a problem with Lutherans. I refuted your statement that:

I then followed up with the statement that a proper response to his video “cannot begin with the assumption that the lack of doctrinal unity in Anglicanism is a figment of Dr. Cooper’s imagination. It’s very real and is as much an impediment to growth as the schismatic mentality.”

 

Anglicanism does have defined doctrines which have stood the test of time: the 39 Articles, the Book of Homilies, the Book of Common Prayer, et cetera.

Where Anglicanism lacks unity in doctrine (i.e. ordination of women, same-sex marriages, et cetera) Lutheranism also lacks unity in doctrine - which is why there is a schism in American Lutheranism between the ELCA and the LCMS and so forth. The Lutheran churches in Europe are even worse, since they are established churches in the Scandinavian countries and they have gone down the same path as the ELCA in the above issues (ordination of women, same-sex marriages, et cetera) in order to preserve institutional unity - similarly to the Church of England.

Edit: I suppose there is one issue where Anglicanism lacks unity in doctrine that Lutheranism does not: the filioque clause in the Nicene creed. Lutheranism requires the filioque in the Nicene creed, while Anglicanism is agnostic about it. It's amazing that an issue which caused the East-West schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is considered to be extremely minor, if at all an issue, in Anglicanism.

 

I don't think it was the filioque which caused the schism. Rather, it was the fact that the Roman church adopted the filioque without consulting their (then) eastern brethren, and the latter took offense over the manner in which it was adopted.

That said, the inflexible and prideful "my way or the highway" attitude of both groups has kept the issue magnified; instead of a shallow ditch that could be worked over with a few shovels, they turned the filioque itself into a doctrinal Grand Canyon.

The Anglicans see the filioque for what it is: a shallow ditch, small enough to straddle with a leg on each side. Say the filioque or not, it makes no appreciable difference to us. God is God, and we puny mortals cannot ever know with perfect precision every single thing about Him. Whether or not the Spirit proceeds from the Son is a matter worthy of argument only among the doctors of theology who enjoy making mountains out of molehills and setting ivory towers upon their mountains.