Purgatory 2024: Lutheran theology & practice. How does it differ from Geneva and Canterbury?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
I can remember threads in the past about the difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism. I can't say I followed them closely.
I confess to knowing very little about the Lutheran tradition. Lutherans are thin on the ground in the UK.
I know about Luther and the Reformation of course. I'm also aware that Anglicanism tried to establish a via media between the Lutheran and Calvinism view on various issues. Generally speaking, though, Geneva had more influence here.
I can, of course, see family resemblances between the Churches that emerged from the Magistrial Reformation. Lutheran worship I've seen online looks similar to 'liberal catholic' Anglican worship - although I'm sure there are plenty of variations.
Very simply then, what were / are the main differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists? How has that worked out in practice?
How does Lutheranism differ from Anglicanism, bearing in mind that the CofE regards some Lutheran churches as 'Sister Churches'.
Please understand that I am not out to take sides or make onerous comparisons but to understand where the differences lie - as well as the commonalities.
I confess to knowing very little about the Lutheran tradition. Lutherans are thin on the ground in the UK.
I know about Luther and the Reformation of course. I'm also aware that Anglicanism tried to establish a via media between the Lutheran and Calvinism view on various issues. Generally speaking, though, Geneva had more influence here.
I can, of course, see family resemblances between the Churches that emerged from the Magistrial Reformation. Lutheran worship I've seen online looks similar to 'liberal catholic' Anglican worship - although I'm sure there are plenty of variations.
Very simply then, what were / are the main differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists? How has that worked out in practice?
How does Lutheranism differ from Anglicanism, bearing in mind that the CofE regards some Lutheran churches as 'Sister Churches'.
Please understand that I am not out to take sides or make onerous comparisons but to understand where the differences lie - as well as the commonalities.
Tagged:
Comments
Lutheran practice in Germany which has often been linked with Prussian Calvinism has a 'protestant' feel about it with the pastor usually wearing a black gown. On the other hand the traditional names for Sundays and feast days are usually as they were before the Council of Trent. The most notable difference from standard 'Western' post Trent customs is to count the Sundays of the year as 'after Trinity' just as the Anglican prayer book used to do.
Lutheranism in Scandinavian countries does not have that admixture of Calvinism which the Prussians spread across Lutheran Germany In Scandinavia Lutheran churches are generally episcopally governed and often pre Reformation Mass vestments are worn.
Just for information, here are the various churches, including several Lutheran churches, which are in full communion with the Anglican Communion under the Porvoo agreement, to the extent that orders are recognised on both sides - a Swedish priest (for example) can obtain Permission To Officiate in England, and I guess the same works in the other direction:
https://porvoocommunion.org/porvoo_communion/members/
(BTW, the Lutheran Church of Latvia is an observer, rather than a full member, owing to disagreement over a Dead Horse issue...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RioT_Lk9Exg
You may need to fast forward to about 6 minutes to see the altar party arrive...
I'll check out those videos.
Perhaps it says more about me, but I can't help thinking of Gilbert & Sullivan's Pooh-Bah when I see the name Porvoo.
The first thing you should probably be aware of, as an underlying principle, is we adhere to Scripture over logic, human insight, etc. This comes out in topics like predestination. We believe in single predestination--that is, anyone who is saved is saved entirely by the work and choice of God. None of it is credited to the individual or his / her works. And yet, anyone who is lost is lost solely by his/her own choice and will. None of that lies to God's account.
You can see where this creates a logical problem! At which point, Lutherans shrug and say, "But that's what we find in Scripture!" and when people start getting heated about it (as they sometimes do), we stop right at that point and refuse to go a step further. Which is very annoying of us, I know. In some ways, this is rather like modern science--if the evidence seems self-contradictory, you don't get to pick and choose the bits you like and toss the rest out. You just have to struggle onward with the apparent self-contradiction until the day things finally become clear--if they ever do. Evidence is evidence.
As I understand Calvin from his Institutes, the man is a systematizer. He likes neat, tidy systems, and he truly believes he can construct (or discover, take your pick) a theological system that will account for everything. We don't think so, at least at this point in time when Christ has not yet returned and there are still huge amounts of data we don't have and understandings we may never have! Another case in point would be our view of the Lord's Supper and Jesus' bodily presence. I understand Calvin went through some shifts in his theory of how this all works, because just as we do, he saw that Jesus says, "This is my body" etc. and also says "I am with you always," while at the same time we are told that he sits at the right hand of the Father! Asked to explain how this can be, Lutherans have a thing called "communication of attributes" which is not a theory so much as a restatement of the problem, maybe? We say that because Christ is God, he can do anything he wants to do, and that includes with his human nature, including his body. And then we leave the problem right there unsolved. Calvin, as I recall, had a definition of what a "body" is that clashed with the ability to be in more than one place at the same time. I respect his ingenuity, but I think he'd have done better to leave the thing a mystery and not make assumptions we have no divine word on (how do we know that in fact all bodies are limited to one space? Answer, we don't. We know a lot less than we think we do, which is a fact that modern science is impressing on me more and more every day).
Okay, so you see the conflict between the way Luther uses logic and authority, and the way Calvin does. This shows itself all through our theology. Luther, confronted with a difficulty, will acknowledge the thing and in some cases actually fall into a doxology over it, a la Romans 11:
Okay, so this gives you a start on our theology. You will see that it is going to look a lot more incomplete and even illogical in places than Calvin's system, and now you know why. I'll try to do another post on other stuff.
This doubtless makes us look Jesus-obsessed. I'm good with that.
It also gives us a way of organizing our priorities, so we don't get too far off into the weeds on some topic. For example, the culture wars--to the extent that anybody leaves Jesus behind, so far they have lost themselves in a maze and need to get the hell back to the light. We can do nothing, not even understand ourselves or other people, without him. And this is a mistake that Lutherans, esp. conservative ones, make every day.
For myself, my real-life work involves communications that are Gospel-centered and intended for any and all readers, Christian and non-Christian alike. And so I have made it a rule for myself not to even go near certain topics on which there is a helluva lot more heat than light unless I am in a private pastoral situation where the need to go there is totally overwhelming and the person has asked me to. Which is why I stay out of Epiphanies etc. so much. It's really easy to put a foot wrong, and God forbid I should do or say anything that turns someone away from Jesus. When I have no or little wisdom, I try to shut up.
The emphasis on the Gospel (the free gift of salvation!) means that culturally Lutherans have a real allergy to words like "ordinances" and "you should" and "expectations" and the like. Seriously, we can't cope. My family has OCD running in it, and my own experience with OCD was religiously flavored, and it sucked in so many ways. The only way out of the incredible mental pressure to avoid sin and walk the right path and etc. (which is of course humanly speaking, impossible!) is the aforementioned concentration on Jesus. And we will take this so far that we freak out some other Christians--witness Luther's exasperated statement to Melanchthon, who was having yet ANOTHER crisis of conscience--"Sin boldly! But believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are in this world we have to sin." We do NOT believe that anybody gets "perfected" in this world before death; we think that chasing moral perfection is in fact a distraction from the Gospel, and likely to end very badly, in despair and even suicide for some of us. Luther is not advocating sin, but he is saying that, given the choice between a life obsessed with moral bookkeeping and a life centered on Jesus that contains more obvious visible moral blemishes, you should go for Jesus every time. This life is not about reaching or maintaining perfection. Jesus has taken care of that for us already. This life is about following him, thanking him, glorifying him, and telling others about him.
This leads to the subject of monergism vs. synergism. Just like the predestination thingy, we attribute all good outcomes to God, and all sin to ourselves (or the devil; we do believe in a devil). We do our darndest not to talk about "accepting" Jesus or "deciding for" Jesus, because what we see in Scripture is that this is the work of the Holy Spirit, not us, and we are wary about where misused language may land us. Similarly we focus on baptism and the Lord's Supper as free and wonderful gifts of God, not as "things we have to do"--and the whole concept of "baptism is my personal witness of faith in Jesus Christ" or what-have-you will get Lutherans shaking their heads and going, "Whaaaaaaa?" To us it seems like completely missing the point. I had a memorable discussion with Eutychus on this topic a few years ago, and we had the hardest time communicating. Because it's not that we think it's a bad thing to fly your colors for Christ, it's just that we think that is a million miles away from the purpose of Baptism, and when people start from that viewpoint, our eyes start crossing. Similarly, when people say things like "we are obliged to take the Lord's Supper x number of times yearly". It sounds to us like a newlywed saying "I am obliged to have sex with my spouse x number of times a year." Like WTF? As Luther puts it, if you understand what God is offering you, really understand it, why wouldn't you hunt down your pastor etc. and force them to give you these gifts? Why not mob them? The "have to" language betrays something wrong somewhere, which needs to be addressed pastorally with the person.
Enough from me for the moment.
I think I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from and, truth be told, much of it resonates with me as an Orthodox Christian - although there are obvious differences of course.
We've got all sorts of twiddly bits and canons but like Lutherans, if I understand you correctly, tend not to obsess about sin and guilt - even though we do emphasise human perfectability.
That's something I have to unlearn from my background in revivalist Protestantism which can do guilt as thoroughly as the RCs. 😉
You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks.
I've heard some Calvinists claim that Lutheranism can be even more deterministic than their tradition is often accused of being.
I can't speak to that.
On the eucharistic aspect, I know about 'consubstantiation' but understand that many Lutherans would say that this doesn't represent their position.
It strikes me - and correct me if I'm wrong - that Lutherans are happy to assert some form of 'Real Presence' without overly defining or dogmatism how that works.
Back in the 1800s--not quite sure of the date--the Kaiser tried to force the Lutheran Church and the Calvinists together in one union, called the Prussian Union. This is how the Lutherans in Germany took on some of the Calvinist practices.
In reaction to this Prussian Union, a group of Saxons immigrated to Missouri, forming the Missouri Synod, of which Lamb Chopped is a member. Because of that experience, the LCMS has always insisted on full agreement on doctrinal matters as a condition of fellowship.
I have very limited experience with the German Evangelische Kirke, but I do think the Western Kirke might have more Roman characteristics.
As Lamb Chop has said, the ELCA is much different than the LCMS in several different points. One is fellowship. The earliest branches of the ELCA were very willing to work with other denominations because they could not reach all Lutherans scattered on the frontier. (Understand, this is a oversimplification of what was happening in ELCA founding bodies only because of the limitations of this thread). For these founding bodies as long as the Word was being preached and the Sacraments were properly administered, that was enough for fellowship.
If there is one thing Missouri Synod did it was to challenge the ELCA bodies to be clearer about their doctrine. However, the ELCA bodies did not get to the point where the LCMS felt comfortable to fellowship with them.
By the 1950s there were three major group in American Lutheranism.
A conservative group, led by the LCMS along with several smaller synods, forming the Synodical Conference.
A moderate group, led by the Norwegian Synod and an older German Synod called the Ohio Synod.
And a liberal group, led by several pre-revolutionary synods, called the Lutheran Church in America.
In the 1960s there was an attempt at more cooperation between the LCMS, the Norwegian and Ohio Synod, which had formed the American Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church in America. This did not mean they were all in fellowship, but they did work together to call ministers into the military chaplaincies, the development of a new hymnal, and coordination of mission starts.
For a brief period of time there was fellowship between the LCMS and the ALC, but that dissolved when the ALC decided to allow women ministers.
The ALC then joined the LCA to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
The LCMS has never had to merge with another Lutheran body. There were some smaller synods that it did absorb. The ELCA, though, is a product of several mergers; and, thereby several compromises to form itself.
I would, however, say Lamb Chopped, has pretty well given the basic principles of Lutheran Doctrine. We do disagree on some fine points and how to interpret Scripture. Those differences will come up in later conversations, no doubt.
One point about the word "Evangelical." At the time of the Reformation, Lutherans called themselves "The Evangelicals." They wanted only to reform the Roman Catholic Church. You might say we were "Good News" Catholics, Our Augsburg Confession was written to show just how catholic we really are.
Aside from theology, one place I think this shows up is in Reformed understandings of church order and polity. Lutherans seem much more willing to be flexible about church order and to see it as adiaphora, or something akin to adiaphora, than the Reformed are.
Yes, Calvin does expend a fair amount of ink on the problems you describe that he sees with Christ’s physical body being in two places at one time, but saying that it’s a mystery is where he ultimately ends up: Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 17, section 32. But yes, some of us think he might have done well to go straight to mystery and not tried to overanalyze it.
Similarly, those Calvinists in Prussia and elsewhere called (and call) themselves “Reformed,” not “Calvinist.” The only body I can think of that actually goes by a Calvin-derived name is the Presbyterian Church of Wales, aka the Calvinistic Methodist Church.
Which raises one point that I think might be worth looking at in comparing Luther to Geneva as per the thread title (or maybe Augsburg to Geneva?), and that is the place Luther occupies in Lutheranism vs. the place Calvin occupies in the Reformed tradition. Calvin is, of course, viewed as something like the “patriarch” of the Reformed tradition, but it has always seemed to me that Luther occupies a more central or authoritative place in the Lutheran tradition than Calvin does in the Reformed tradition. At least that’s my outsider perception of Lutheranism—if that outsider perception is wrong, I’ll be glad for @Lamb Chopped or @Gramps49 to correct me.
As an example of what I mean, Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms are, from what I’ve seen, still regularly used among Lutherans. Meanwhile, I don’t think anyone beyond the Reformed Church of Geneva ever used Calvin’s catechism, or that anyone beyond the French Reformed Church ever used the French Confession, which Calvin had a hand in. Reformed churches historically are much more likely to use the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster catechisms.
And while Reformed theologians will certainly look to and deal with what Calvin wrote, it has always seemed to me that Calvin doesn’t really have quite the degree of authority in the Reformed tradition that Luther does in the Lutheran tradition. Even in more superficial, for want of a better word, things, Lutheran churches the world over know and use Luther’s rose emblem, while Calvin’s emblem (a hand holding/offering a heart) isn’t nearly as well-known among the Reformed.
But maybe that’s just my imagination or my outsider ignorance.
Divisions within and between the various Lutheran communities were exacerbated by the Group Areas Act under apartheid and the influence of what is now called Afrikaner Calvinism, with the largest and most powerful Protestant body, the Dutch Reformed Church, producing a biblical defence of apartheid. Progressive and anti-racist Lutherans established the Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Southern Africa ( ELCSA): much theological critique focused on missionary colonialism and the 'Two Kingdoms' doctrine that led white Lutherans to disengage from contextual politics and ignore human rights issues. A key change came with pressure from the World Council of Churches and Lutheran World Federation to give a voice to those opposing inhumane doctrines and policies of racial discrimination, so the Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Southern Africa (FELCSA) could ally with other ecumenical confessing church groups.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church remains the largest Lutheran body in southern Africa with seven dioceses. The umbrella organisation of the Lutheran Communion in Southern Africa has 16 member churches in 14 countries, with theological seminaries and various leadership programmes. Much of the focus now is on gender parity and resistance to gender-based violence.
The Moravians had a big influence on John Wesley of course. When I lived in Yorkshire I was always intrigued by the 'Moravian Settlement' at Fulneck near Pudsey. There were still a few Moravian churches around West Yorkshire when I lived there.
I think @Nick Tamen is right to say there should be a kind of Augsburg / Geneva axis and I've tended to think that Luther himself occupies a bigger place in the Lutheran psyche than Calvin does in some Reformed circles.
I'm wary of going down the predestination rabbit hole but have always thought this was the main difference between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.
I'm grateful to Lamb Chopped however, for explaining more about the Lutheran position on this one.
To pick up on what MaryLouise said. This is essentially what happened in America Lutheranism. Different mission societies introduced Lutheranism in the colonies.
Regarding the Moravians. Martin Luther once said if he had studied John Hus, he would have become one of the Brethren. Even now, the Moravian church holds a province in the Lutheran World Federation. The Moravians also use Luther's Catechism in their religious instruction.
Lutherans state they are a confessional church. They all claim adherence to the Confessions as presented in the Book of Concord. But there is a difference in the level of adherence. Conservative Synods claim they adhere to the Confessions because they accurately represent the Bible (qua). Liberal Synods claim they adhere to the Confessions in so far as they reflect the Bible (quia).
What is so powerful about the Lutheran missionary churches of southern Africa is that they all come from those shared credal and confessing traditions that go back to the Reformation. When Reformed theologians come to articulate the Belhar Confession of the 1980s, they reach back within their own tradition to the Barmen Declaration of the 1930s, the German church protesting under tyranny. From the alliances of African-American Lutherans (Rosa Young in Alabama as an early influence) and South African Black Lutheran theologians such as Manas Buthelezi and Simon Maimela, there is the brave and forthright Message From Harare by Black Theologians in 1986 in which they critique the dualistic and quietest misinterpretation by Western churches of Luther's Two Kingdoms doctrine as well as the cultural monolithic imposition of Western norms and the ways in which Lutheran missionaries have worked to uphold colonialism: "Lutheranism proclaims
the liberating message of the Gospel in a way that dichotomizes reality, proclaiming spiritual liberation while ignoring the implications of that liberating message for those suffering under sociopolitical structures of oppression". This text remains key for the future of global Lutheranism in terms not just of credal beliefs but context and practice.
However, I think this happened because of a misreading of the Two Kingdom theology. It is not about ignoring the civil problems because, "heaven is my home." In his explanation of the second petition of the Lord's prayer, "Thy Kingdom Come," God's kingdom comes when he gives us the Holy Spirit to live godly lives here as well as in eternity. To me, a godly life includes defending and supporting out neighbor in civil matters. We have a duty to stand for all human rights. If the right of someone is limited all the rights of everyone is impacted.
On the Welsh tangent I image that the calvinist methodist were known as such in order to distinguish themselves from the Armenian ones.
I wonder if this illustrates what I was getting at with my thoughts about the differences between Luther’s place in Lutheranism and Calvin’s place in the Reformed tradition. What this could be seen as theologians on the Lutheran side feeling the need to go back to what Luther wrote and interpret or otherwise deal with it, because those writings in many ways define the Lutheran position. On the Reformed side, it sometimes seen as necessary to go back to Calvin and deal with what he wrote, but it can be just as appropriate or maybe more necessary to examine how the tradition developed in the centuries since Calvin, or to build on how the tradition had developed.
FWIW, the Belhar Confession that @MaryLouise mentioned now has confessional status in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and in the Reformed Church in America, and it has official-but-not-confessional status in the Christian Reformed Church in North America. The Barmen Declaration also had confessional status in the PC(USA). So maybe there’s another way the Lutheran–Reformed differences show up, in terms of documents with confessional status: Lutherans (so far as I know) stick with Book of Concord, though as Gramps49, levels of adherence may differ. Many Reformed churches, on the other hand, have more recent documents, particularly from the 20th and 21st Centuries, that have confessional status.
And @Twangist, I suspect you’re right.
Except you mean 'Arminian' not 'Armenian.'
Last time I looked, 'Arminia' wasn't a country over in the Caucasus.
But yes, the Wesleyan Methodists weren't the only kids on the block. There was Whitefield of course and The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion which was avowedly Calvinist. Wesley preached in Wales but didn't have as much influence there.
Interestingly if you read Brilioth 'Eucharistic Faith and practice, Evangelical and Catholic' he sites the Countess of Huntingdon Connexion as one at the time which had frequent communion - weekly I think
The author was a former Archbishop of Sweden so Lutheran and I found it very interesting and might even have influenced me. Oh,well I suppose within every Anglican there's a Lutheran waiting to get out!!
I'm puzzled further, though, by the suggestion that Moravians are a sort of Lutheran because as they are here, Moravians are not Lutherans. In some ways, they've more in common with the Lollards. Their most notable feature, though, is their tradition of living in settlements, as at Fulneck and Ockbrook.
FWIW, the Moravian Church in America is in full communion with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the United Methodist Church. Following on what @Gramps49 noted, I believe the Moravian Church in South Africa is a member of the Lutheran World Federation.
ETA: cross-posted with @Leaf.
I was under the impression that there was a big influence from Lutheran pietism on the Moravians.
Like @Enoch I'm quite surprised by @Stephen's comment that within every Anglican there's a Lutheran trying to get out. I can't say I've ever noticed that, certainly not here in the UK where Lutherans are as rare as hen's teeth.
The only Lutherans I've ever met here are German, Scandinavian or American visitors and tourists.
I do know a retired Anglican vicar with a Swedish wife who was ordained in Sweden, but beyond that, Lutherans may as well be on the dark side of the moon as far as most of us here are concerned in terms of our exposure to this tradition.
Hence the OP.
As for Lutheran influence on the CofE goes ... where is it? There may have been some initially but from the 1550s until the reign of Charles I the biggest influence by far came from Calvin.
There were probably more Calvinists than Arminians in the 18th century CofE even when Wesleyanism was at its height. 'Old Dissent' also tended to be Calvinist in tone.
Yes, 17th, 18th and 19th century Anglicans - and indeed on into the 20th and 21st - would have seen Luther as a catalyst in the Reformation but they wouldn't have been particularly influenced by his ideas or the churches that bear his name beyond that.
Of course they would have been aware of Lutherans in Germany Scandinavia, the US and elsewhere and been cordial towards them - but wanting to 'be' Lutheran?
Nah ... they wouldn't have seen it that way at all.
IME, in the broadest, most stereotypical (and therefore inaccurate) terms:
Anglicans really care about worship.
Lutherans really care about theology.
Reformed folks really care about polity.
It's not that the 'other two' don't matter within the other bodies. There seems to me to be less of a sense of priority, IYSWIM.
This can lead to felicitous relationships, such as that largely enjoyed by the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. It's the same dynamic as cutting a cake: if you like more cake and I like more frosting, we can both have what we prioritize without impinging on the other.
Blinking phone auto "correct"... auto corrupt more like.
This article might help.
I think it is a matter of both communions influencing each other. I know the Lutheran reformers made strong overtures to the Anglicans at the time of the Reformation. I think the break was the adherence of the Anglicans to their King. Lutherans had just thrown off their yoke to the Pope. Besides, can you think of a bunch of Germans aligning with the King of England? There may have been some family connections, but not enough to be under the English king.
Our theologies are, basically, the same.
For a long time there was the question of Apostolic Succession which the Anglicans affirmed. Lutherans, though, are more congregational in governance. The ELCA finally reached an agreement with the Episcopalians for Anglican Bishops being present at the installation of ELCA bishops. Lutherans do not ordain Bishops, they are installed. While an Episcopalian Bishop has a lot of power in his or her diocese, the ELCA bishop has more of an advisory role to pastors and congregations within their synods (the equivalent of a diocese).
LCMS still insists on agreement of all points of doctrine for fellowship. They see no need for Apostolic Succession. What is more important is Apostolic proclamation of the Word. Instead of a bishop, the LCMS elects presidents of local districts which again have only an advisory role to ministers and congregations in the district.
Our views of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar are close. Lutherans will say the Body and Blood of the Lord are in, with and under the bread and the wine during the sacramental celebration, but there is no need to reserve the host after communion. Lutherans and Anglicans say Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction (anointing of the sick) are not considered sacraments. They are sacramental in nature, though, because they are means to impart grace to the believer. An Anglican bishop will oversee the rite of conformation. Lutheran congregations handle their own confirmation rites. I think both communions now say it is the rite of Reaffirmation of Baptism.
If my son were on this board, he and his wife could detail the similarities. and differences of Lutheranism and the Reformed since he is an ordained Lutheran minister and she is an ordained UCC minister. Someone else will have to take up that task.
Oh, and, when I was growing up, I was taught if I was in an area where there was no Lutheran church, I would be comfortable in an Episcopalian church.
To the point about some Episcopalian being more comfortable in a Lutheran church, I would think it has to do with the polity differences.
Ain't so no more, Gramps49. The ELCiC now ordains bishops. Link: https://elcic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/06-28-23-The-Ordination-of-a-Pastor-Deacon-or-Bishop-1.pdf which is a PDF of the rite of ordination for a pastor, deacon, or bishop.
It used to be true here that Lutheran bishops were installed and not ordained. IMO the election of the national bishop was so contentious (the usual culture wars and dead horse races) that when the rite was announced as ordination, not installation, the prevailing feeling was, "We what now? That is a fundamental change to our theology of vocation, and nobody's talking about that...? Ugh, fine, whatever." Nobody had the energy at that point to engage in theological dialogue about it.
The ongoing influence of the historical Moravian missionary church in South Africa aroused my interest in an often overlooked and misunderstood aspect of missionary influence, a radical and even mystical pietism.
As I understand it (posting tentatively because I don't want to overstate the importance of private devotional practices), pietistic Lutheranism as it is sometimes called, combines an emphasis on biblical doctrine with a focus on individual piety and living a holy Christian life. One starting point would be the Lutheran theologian Philipp Spener who in the 16th century looked back to the mystic Jakob Boehme and preached on spiritual transformation, rebirth and renewal through individual devotion and a conversion of the heart. This would in time contribute to the Moravian revival of 1727 and 18th-century evangelicalism, not just in Europe but among groups emigrating from Scandinavia and Germany to the United States, as well as the missionary enterprises in Africa and India.
One reason I've focused on these dates is that much of the pietistic fervour in Europe was countered by the rational and scientific approaches of the Enlightenment, a disregard for emotional enthusiasms as irrational. South Africa historically did not experience the Enlightenment as a society; that has religious and cultural implications we are all still figuring out. The Abolition of Slavery (1834) under the English came as a great shock to the Cape Colony and Dutch farmers moved up north, taking their slaves with them along with traditions of Dutch pietism; over time they were followed by various missionary groups.
The earlier Moravian model of mission stations as refuges for Khoi people, Indonesian slaves and runaway farm labourers had frightened and angered settler society in the Cape, not least because it was so successful -- the communities at Genadendal, Elim and Groenekloof were stable growing centres of Moravian pietism. When Moravian missionary Georg Schmidt was expelled from the Cape, his Khoi convert Lena or Magdalene (Vehettge Tikkuie ) kept the faith alive for more than 50 years (until 1792) and when the missionaries returned she still had her original worn copy of the New Testament. The Moravian mission stations and style of intense devotional piety gave leadership roles to women and the teaching was gendered: women taught women and children, men taught men. Old Moravian traditions and symbols lent themselves to a deeper and emotionally powerful faith experience for women. (When a Moravian bishop visited the Cape early in the 19th century, he was astonished to find the old beliefs of the Sifting Time, long put aside as heresy in Europe, still followed in the Cape.) Mary Moffat, the Kuruman missionary and wife of Robert Moffat, was raised by Moravians and she found the London Missionary Society evangelism very thin and unsatisfactory theology.
For lonely women (missionaries and converts) on isolated mission stations and farms, the piety of daily Bible reading, prayer, the singing of old hymns and reading of devotional books was a major source of consolation. Women began to express their religious experiences in letters and journals, passed around among congregants and family: the diaries of Christina Allegonda van Lier detailing her struggle with depression and the Devil's power as well as the sweetness of Christ's presence, were reprinted four times after her death. (I'm leaning here on the work of the historian Karel Schoeman and Christina Landsman trying to retrieve the muted voices of Afrikaner, Dutch or German wives or daughters who found in pietism a way to survive the harsh lonely life in the wilderness.) This radical pietism would emerge most strongly during the Anglo-Boer war of 1899-1902, when 27 000 Boer women and children (22 074 children under the age of sixteen) kept in appalling conditions in 49 English concentration camps died (as well as approximately 24 000 of the 140 000 Black women and children kept in racially segregated camps).
For incarcerated Boer women and their husbands fighting a guerilla war out in the veld, this was the moment when Afrikaner Calvinism and nationalist desires to get rid of the English soldiers seemed to be inspired by a personal God who was with them in their suffering and who held out to them a destiny as a Christian nation in Africa. The tragedies to come under apartheid were perhaps predictable enough, but the rise of a Calvinist God-fearing culture can be traced back through the fierce 19th-century revivalist pietism of Andrew Murray to earlier pietist traditions with an the inward focus on personal salvation and not political solutions.
Sorry, I keep reminding some American and other posters that 'England' is part of the island of Great Britain and not the name for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or Ireland as a whole as it would have been at the time of the Boer War).
Pedantry aside, I find your posts on this topic fascinating @Mary Louise.
On a more pertinent point, a Lutheran friend in the US says it's the mystical end of all Christian traditions where the confluences occur.
I think there's something in that.
Meanwhile, @Gramps49, I've not read the article yet but is it saying that 16th century Anglicans would have expected German Lutherans to give fealty to an English King?
And yes, we can use the term 'English King' then as the crowns of England and Scotland hadn't been amalgamated at that point.
Yes, Henry VIII and other monarchs of that time claimed to be monarchs of Ireland and France as well, of course.
But 'English' will do fine in this context.
I think you might be projecting contemporary notions of the separation of church and state back into the 16th century. The German Lutherans may have put two fingers up to the Pope but they were just as 'caesaro-papist' in their allegiance to the German Princes as the Anglicans were to the English/later British Monarchy or the Russian Orthodox were to the Tsars.
@Gamma Gamaliel, no, I used the term 'English' because there was considerable support for the Boers among the Irish, Scottish and Welsh. The British Empire or so-called United Kingdom had its opponents within Britain. We don't invisibilise the role played by England.
/tangent over/
It's a good article and explains why Lutheran influence waned after its initial impact on the English Reformation. It's largely because some Anglicans took refuge in parts of Europe influenced by Calvin and Zwingli during the reign of Mary Tudor.
It's got zilch to do with German Lutheran qualms about the Anglicans having the King as 'supreme governor' of the Church of England.
If they did entertain such qualms it would have been purely academic as it's not as if any English monarch at that time held any territorial ambitions towards German princedoms.
My question was about Lutheran influence on the Church of England not whether there was ever envisaged any merger or union between the Anglicans and Lutherans at that time. There clearly wasn't.
Anyhow - I was interested in the point the article made about closer links emerging once again after the Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I found that a very helpful observation.
Sure, but it's easy to over emphasise that. There were plenty of English liberals opposed to the Boer War as well as Irish, Scottish and Welsh objectors. Just as there were plenty of people in all the 'home nations' who were quite happy for the Empire to sock it to the Boers.
As for the verb 'invisibilise', it's the first time I've come across that. Is it even a proper word?
Whatever the case, I'd be rather wary of over-emphasising the ethnic elements within British politics. Things don't break down neatly along regional or ethnic lines, although we shouldn't elide those aspects either.
There were Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English, Indian, Australian, New Zealander and other Imperial troops fighting in the Boer War. You can't 'invisibilise' them to fit some kind of reductionist anti-English agenda.
It's way more complicated than that.
Many Scots were in favour of Union, many English people opposed it. Some Welsh MPs were very much in favour.
And so it goes on ...
But this is a tangent.
Let's get back to the point.
any further discussion of the Boer Wars or of attitudes to them of the various British ‘home nations’, unless clearly related to Lutheran Theology and practice as compared with Geneva or Canterbury does not belong on this thread.
Further, quibbling about English usage which might be considered by some to be unfamiliar or non-standard but which is perfectly clear in meaning does not contribute to good debate, and does not belong on this thread.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
but as well as Unitas Fratrum,they are known as 'Herrnhuter Bruedergemeine from the town of Herrnhut near Goerlitz. Count Zinzendorf invited these refugees from Habsburg territories in Bohemia and Moravia to settle on his estates in Saxony,a land which played a major part in Lutheranism.
It is said that the first Protestant missionary work began from Herrnhut in 1732 including Genadendal in South Africa in 1738.
The church of the Brotherhood is in the centre of the town of Herrnhut,a large square edifice with wooden benches on all four sides. The Easter ceremonies which take place there are said to be particularly impressive
Zinzendorf is said to have influenced John Wesley.
The numbers of inhabitants of Herrnhut has gone up and down over the decades and centuries with a good number of refugees coming there after WW2 and expulsions of Germans from Bohemia and Moravia. This led in 1956 to the founding of a Roman Catholic church, St Bonifatius, in Herrnhut and this during the period of the German Democratic Republic. After what is called in German 'die Wende' (the turning point i.e. the change from Socialist Unity to German democracy and the unification of Germany celebrated today,3rd Oct) another 'charismatic' Christian centre was opened in the town in 1999
But Herrnhut is known by Evangelische Kirchen (Lutheran or Protestant churches ) as THE Reformation town.
https://lutheranchurch.co.uk/
I used to attend, from time to time, the English-speaking Lutheran congregation which in days gone by met at the former C of E church of St Anne & St Agnes, not far from St Paul's Cathedral in London (the congregation now meets at St Mary-at-Hill, another City church).
The sung Eucharistic liturgy (MOTR - pastors vested in alb and stole) was similar enough to that of the C of E to be easy to follow, but the monthly Sunday evening Bach Vespers had a very different flavour.
The service itself - shorter than the tedious (IMHO) Anglican Evensong - included congregational hymns and other music, but the highlight was the Bach Cantata for that particular Sunday. A small vocal ensemble, accompanied by what I think must have been a chamber organ, provided an excellent musical offering. Given the importance of the Word in Lutheran churches, the service also included a (spoken) sermon!
This was (and I daresay still is) a very eclectic and diverse congregation. At the time I was attending, the two pastors were (1) a Swedish-American, and (2) a Hungarian, but later these two were replaced by a lady who eventually became the first female Bishop to officiate in England (that is, before Anglican women were allowed to be Bishops).
Your link is not working @Leaf
More broadly European Lutherans in my experience are big on sole fide (faith alone): the Lutherans of my acquaintance, when they weren't talking about social justice, brought everything back to faith alone in a way I found odd.
I currently am working with a student from Tanzania who is Lutheran. Lutheranism is the fastest growing Christian community in Tanzania. Is it also expanding in other parts of Africa?
@Dafyd We Lutherans are odd ducks.
I think in the United States, most Lutheran bodies stayed away from social involvement until very recently. The Swedish Synod was the exception. It was called the Augustana Synod. It was instrumental in placing hospitals and nursing homes throughout the country. That Synod eventually joined the ELCA.
The Missouri Synod set up their own parochial education system as a way of preserving their own doctrinal teachings and the German language. The emphasis on the German language dropped during WWI, though.
My own daughter started Kindergarten in a Missouri Synod school. It happened to be considered the best school in the community where we were living at the time.
Yes, your observation from a contemporary Lutheran angle in the USA, not a 16th century European one.
As Dafyd observes, the 16th century German Lutherans had no qualms about appealing to German Princes against the Pope.
The issue of German Lutherans affirming allegiance to the English monarch wouldn't have arisen as they weren't English subjects in the first place. As members of 'state churches' themselves they were hardly likely to object to the Church of England being one.
I bet you a pound to a penny Swedish or Danish Lutherans affirmed allegiance to their monarchs and in a united Germany, Lutherans were expected to affirm allegiance to the Kaiser.
Your observation was fundamentally flawed.
Anyhow - @Bishops Finger those Lutheran services with a Bach cantata sound delightful.
FWIW I'm a big fan of Anglican Evensong and believe you me, it's a lot more concise than the Orthodox Vespers.
In a similar way I've come across Pentecostals who seem able to bring anything and everything back to the 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' and 'speaking in tongues.'
I daresay there are Orthodox who bring everything back to iconography or the 'filioque' being the worst thing to happen in the history of humanity.
Luther wrote the Letter to the Christian Nobility in reaction to a peasant revolt which was developing into a civil war between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. His solution was to have the local churches adhere to the faith of the local prince. Thus, you had Roman Catholic churches under a Roman Catholic Prince. Lutheran churches under Lutheran princes, and Reformed churches under Reformed princes. So, yes, Danish Lutherans adhered to their Danish Lutheran Monarch, as did the Swedes and the Norwegians..
Huh. I'll try this: https://elcic.ca/2007/10/02/ordination-consecration-and-installation-of-new-elcic-national-bishop-a-joyous-celebration/ Anyhoo, if that fails too, Google "elcic ordination bishop" and you will see that yes, we now apparently ordain bishops.
This reflects my experience too. ISTM Lutherans are more likely to refer to or quote Luther than Reformed people are to refer/quote Calvin.
I wonder if this is because they had slightly differing priorities in writing. Luther was very concerned with the broad appeal and understanding of his theological viewpoints. Calvin seems to me to be more concerned with precision, and the logic of "how it all hangs together." (No judgment there, in fact admiration.) Again, it's not that either was unconcerned with precision or accessibility - just differing priorities.
The Lutheran church I attended in London was (and perhaps still is) a lovely little gem, by Wren, with comfy dark wooden pews, and an altar at which the Eucharist was celebrated eastward-facing. The church currently in use is not IMHO quite so appealing aesthetically, having been partially restored after a very destructive fire some years ago.
For those who aren't too bothered about the language differences, the Swedish and Norwegian churches in London offer regular worship in their respective traditions, mostly Eucharistic, and they are in full communion with the C of E. If I didn't have mobility issues, I'd do a couple of Mystery Worship reports!
My jokes don't always transfer very well to the PC screen.
Apologies for over-reacting.
Apologies to @Mary Louise too for picking her up on her unfamiliar idiom.
I may start a 'recovering Englishness' thread at some point - although I know that's been discussed aboard SoF before ... you know, rescuing the concept of 'Englishness' from the far-right and the 'Little Englanders' and so on. That would be something to discuss elsewhere as our Host has indicated.
Meanwhile, I am learning a lot from this thread and very much appreciate Mary Louise's contributions from a Southern Hemisphere / South African perspective as well as Bishop's Fingers observations about Lutheran hymnody.
@Forthview
thview - yes, the Wesleys were very much influenced by Count Zinzendorf - although relations between them and the 'Inghamites' and other 'societies' influenced by Moravian or Lutheran pietism were far from cordial.
'These boars from the German wood,' Wesley's adjutant in Yorkshire, the redoubtable and intense stonemason John Nelson called them.
There were, of course, both conscious and unconscious influences plying back and forth across Europe and across the Atlantic back in the 1700s and 1800s.
It's only comparatively recently that we've had influences coming from the Southern Hemisphere so it's been good to see those perspectives here too.