Lutheran vs Anglican.

[RaylightI]

What are the main differences in general between Lutheranism and Anglicanism ?

In Anglicanism there is a policy of theological tolerance, where even Bishops can question and reject to believe in certain doctrines. Is it the same in Lutheranism ? Is there " Lutheran Spong" ?

 

[GracetotheHumble]

Lutherans follow the teachings of the reformer Martin Luther. Our beliefs are laid out somewhat in the Book of Concord.

LCMS Lutherans are very conservative and I believe Anglicans are somewhat liberal when it comes to matters such as homosexuality, abortion, and female clergy.

As Lutherans we also believe in the Solas. Scripture, Grace, and Faith alone.

 

[Tangible]

Churches of the Anglican communion are bound together primarily by shared history and uniformity of worship, that is, the use of the Book of Common Prayer. There is wide variation in the actual doctrines and confessions subscribed to by Anglican churches, with some churches being inches away from Roman Catholic in worship and doctrine, others firmly in the Calvinist camp, others resembling Evangelical churches, and still others being extremely liberal both in theology and social positions. Churches of the Anglican communion largely are in communion with one another and most practice open communion.

Lutheran churches also exhibit a very wide range of worship and doctrines, there being primarily a conservative wing and a liberal wing. The liberal wing - mainly comprised of the ELCA but other, small liberal synods or unaffiliated congregations exist - are heavily influenced by liberal theology, social gospel, liberation theology, etc. Much of the leadership has ceased to confess the absolute truth of core credal doctrines in favor of a liberal 'story' or 'narrative', symbolic and ahistorical view of scripture. Many of the laity still hold to more orthodox theology. Conservative (aka Confessional) Lutherans, of which the LCMS is the largest group followed by WELS and ELS and other, tiny, synods, maintain the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation and adhere very closely to the defining documents of Lutheranism found in the Book of Concord. Confessional Lutherans are more fractured due to the importance placed on the confession of doctrine, and so historically have found more reasons to split.

So basically speaking, Anglican churches are more about uniformity in worship and less about uniformity in doctrine. Lutheran churches are split between conservative Lutherans who define themselves as Lutherans by their doctrine, and liberal Lutherans who define themselves as Lutherans by their historical provenance.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, there are some liberal Lutherans like Spong, particularly in Europe, though the ELCA seems a little more conservative than TEC on the whole.

The ELCA seems to have a doctrinal center around the Book of Concord, particularly the Augsburg Confession. What "subscription" means is different from the LCMS, however. It's definitely more authoritative than the 39 Articles in the Episcopal Church. It seems that subscription is mostly "in so far as" the Confessions agree with the Church's interpretation of Scriptures.

Debates about the proper hermeneutic for Scriptures caused an exodus from the LCMS in the 70's, many of them came to the ELCA. If you want an ELCA perspective on the role of Scriptures, check out the book Reading the Bible with Martin Luther http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Bible-Martin-Luther-Introductory/dp/0801049172 The pastor I know at the local ELCA Lutheran church came out of the LCMS around that time period - he does not describe himself as a liberal but he does see the hermeneutic used by the modern LCMS as more akin to what you'ld find in a conservative Baptist church, whereas the ELCA tends to see Law and Gospel, and the principle of the bound conscience, applied much more rigorously to all matters of theology (some call this derisively "Law-Gospel reductionism"). LCMS see this as "antinomian".

There's also a lot of Scandinavian Lutherans in the ELCA influenced by pietism and weaker subscription in the state churches there, whereas the LCMS was formed as a reaction to unionism in the Prussian state church between Lutherans and the Reformed.

 

[Korah]

Right on, Fire Dragon!
I'm thinking our best tactics here with so many conservatives here in Theologia Crusis is to establish our position on the Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox traditions and force the usual players here into the uncomfortable position of defending themselves from the Right. "We're holier than thou!" we can say. Just like if I were to reintegrate into Roman Catholicism I would say, "Don't give me any of your new-fangled Chaplet of the Divine Mercy, First Friday mass, Novenas, or even the Rosary--it's all modern innovations! (Well the Rosary at least goes back earlier, into medieval times.) So yeah, we don't accept Johnny-come-lately Athanasian (falsely so-called) Creed, it's six centuries after Christ. It's the real deal Apostles Creed (though some parts are not early) and Nicene Creed for us!"
We can't accept papal infallibility with all its late accretions like Pope Eugene IV in the Fifteenth Century already in advance condemning all of us Lutherans to Hell. We'll stick with Martin Luther in maintaining the traditional "Mary Ever-Virgin" against the 1854 Immaculate Conception and 1950 Bodily Assumption. We'll stick with his Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and his two catechisms, not the innovations after his death that got added to the Book of Concord.
Maybe then they'll stop condemning us to Hell.
EDITED TO ADD:
To clarify, I wonder how I as a Roman Catholic accepted the 1950 Pius XII "infallible" definition of the Bodily Assumption. Did I really believe that Mary in her human body entered Heaven and "lives" there in full homo sapiens nature? Does anyone believe that? Sure I can believe it's possible that Heaven is like that, but I'm waiting for adequate instruction on what we should understand is the nature of Heaven--and now (at least for the last 2000 years anyway, to allow for Mary being there, and hopefully not alone), not what Heaven will be after the Second Coming. (Some believers teach it will be on our Earth, but is Mary dwelling now in some hidden niche here among us?)
What I meant to say us that I do believe in the Assumption of Mary (which in Eastern Orthodoxy is called the "Dormition of Mary", meaning sleep) just as the Church has always taught UNTIL 1950 when something new was promulgated. (I really don't understand all this stuff, perhaps someone more knowledgeable will step in.)