Is the lack of "central leadership/authority" a weakness?

[Shane R]

Gavin Ashenden irritates me. The guy was a bishop on the down-low for a couple of years until someone outed him. All the time having some role within the Church of England while being a bishop of the Christian Episcopal Church. All together, he was a bishop for 3 1/2 or 4 years and never built so much as a parish to my knowledge, much less a legitimate missionary diocese. Then after Michael Nazir-Ali converted, Ashenden was going around talking about how he had assisted a couple dozen people into converting into the Roman Catholic Church. Where was all that energy when he was a missionary bishop?

 

[DeFyYing]

I consider the lack of a magisterium to be a strength of Anglicanism, rather than a weakness. Because we are united by common worship rather than by uniformity of belief, the Anglican tradition deliberately allows intellectual exploration and disagreement.

I have been in (Evangelical Protestant) religious communities that had lengthy, detailed statements of faith that were required of the members, and I constantly felt that if I studied too much or questioned too much, I would step over a line that would put me out of the community. The Anglican tolerance for diversity has allowed me to have more intellectual honesty and integrity, as I am permitted to explore ideas freely and to believe what I think is true without punishment from the church.

I can see that someone like Gavin Ashenden, who prefers that there be a magisterium, would be more at home in the Catholic Church.

This exact question is what I think about the most when deciding between Anglicanism and Lutheranism. I appreciate that the Lutherans have a clearly defined theology, something that they can stand on and teach. But I struggle with the biblical-yet-unreasonable soteriology system within Lutheranism. I think one of the strengths of Anglicanism is that you can take the best parts of various traditions and integrate them together. I still very much am in agreement with the Book of Concord so I will probably stay Lutheran, but I appreciate the Anglican tradition's flexibility

 

[Arcangl86]

This exact question is what I think about the most when deciding between Anglicanism and Lutheranism. I appreciate that the Lutherans have a clearly defined theology, something that they can stand on and teach. But I struggle with the biblical-yet-unreasonable soteriology system within Lutheranism. I think one of the strengths of Anglicanism is that you can take the best parts of various traditions and integrate them together. I still very much am in agreement with the Book of Concord so I will probably stay Lutheran, but I appreciate the Anglican tradition's flexibility

I opengly call myself an Lutherpalian or Evangelical AngloCatholic.