The Concordat: Not the Way to do Ecumenism
by Michael Rogness, Th.D.*When Structure Does Make a Difference
The problem is that we are agreeing to adopt a form of ministry which binds us to a church which considers its form to be essential to its nature. So it will not consider our ministry authentic as it exists now, unless we agree to change to its structure. If the Concordat is adopted, then we are no longer free in terms of structure. We will be locked in to the practice of "Episcopal succession" and its prerogatives as practiced in the Episcopal Church.
The Concordat statement that "the Episcopalian Church hereby recognizes now the full authenticity of the ordained ministries presently existing within the ELCA" is only conditionally true. To be accurate and honest the sentence should conclude, " ... because the ELCA has agreed to adopt the episcopal structure ofthe Episcopalian Church." If the Episcopalian Church did truly recognize the authenticity of our present ministry, the requirements of the Concordat would not be necessary.
I welcome "full communion" with the Episcopalians, if we mean that we accept each other as truly Christian churches, and acknowledge that our ministries, preaching and sacraments can be received in both churches. Now, in spite of the fact that it is different from theirs.Things Indifferent to Ecumenism
We should begin ourecumenical outreach in the light of the Lutheran Church's faith statement, the Formula of Concord., Article 10. Itistitled, CHURCH
The Concordat statement that the Episcopalian Church hereby recognizes now the full authenticity of the ordained ministries presently existing within the ELCA, is only conditionally true.
Each church has its own confession(s), and there are differences between them; but they do not vitiate the fellowship and communion we share. While I was a staff member at the Lutheran World Federation's Institute for Ecumenical Studies in Strasbourg, France, my family and I worshiped regularly with an English-speaking, predominantly Anglican congregation. We grew to love its rich tradition from the Book of Common Prayer. But to be enriched by the Episcopal Church, I prefer rather to adopt certain aspects of their worship tradition from the Book of Common Prayer than to adopt its structure of Episcopal ministry.A Flawed Ecumenical Procedure
The Concordat is flawed as an ecumenical procedure. In terms of ministry structure it says, "Lutherans become Episcopalian, and Episcopalians stay Episcopalian." True ecumenism is not where one church "becomes like" another, but where they work to understand each other better. They work to clear up misunderstandings, realize they are closer to each other than previously recognized, and strive to enrich each other with new ideas and ways of doing things. True ecumenism between our two groups would take place if Episcopalians recognized the authenticity of our ministry as we have it usages, called adiaphora or "indifferent things." A lot of practices and convictions in the church are matters of human tradition and are therefore matters of freedom and flexibility. We Lutherans have traditionally put issues of church structure in that category, as "adiaphora."
The Reformation also said, however, that something is no longer an adiaphoron , "a matter of indifference," when one side insists on making that indifferent thing into a "matter of difference," a matter that must be observed or the faith itself would be threatened. For example, the acts of worship through liturgical forms, are essential to the church. But as human traditions they are "adiaphora," unless somebody comes along and insists, "You have to do it this one way, or else!" Lutherans can bend and compromise on many things, but when the other side insists on its way, then Lutherans have said no.
Isn't this what the proposed Concordat with the Episcopal Church assumes? We Lutherans are flexible, they are not, so why can't we do it their way, just as the Concordat intends? Lutherans believe that "for the true unity of the church it is enough (satis est) to agree concerning the teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments" (Augsburg Confession, Article 7). So what's the problem?Understanding of Ministry
Adopting the Concordat would result in a deep and fundamental change in our Lutheran understanding of ministry. The Augsburg Confession, Article 5: The Office of the Ministry, follows immediately after Article 4: Justification. That is, the Office of the Ministry is established as a means of obtaining that justifying faith which saves us. Ministry is in the service of God's saving work. It is established to convey the message of salvation.
For the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches the definition of ministry is located not with "justification," but as part of the nature of the church, i.e, structurally or organizationally. Vatican II makes that quite clear. They mean that ministry is seen as a part of how God intends the church to be organized. It is of the very esse, the essential nature, of the church.
Lutherans say that ministry exists because God has given us the commission of conveying the gospel through Word and Sacraments. Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans believe that ministry exists because that is how God (or Jesus/Bible/tradition) intended the church to be organized. It is a fundamentally different placement and understanding of the nature of ministry. If one defines ministry in the terms of the progression of Articles 4 and 5 of the Augsburg Confession,-our basic Lutheran statement of faith-then the ministering of Word and Sacrament is with the ordained ministry. Ordained persons serving in non-parish settings (positions not doing direct, regularWord/ Sacrament ministry) are considered still ordained, because their calls in one way or another enable and serve those doing Word and Sacrament ministry. They are in "specialized" ministry, as we often say.Lay Persons and Ministry
The matter of licensing lay persons for ministry provides a clear illustration of the fundamental difference between these two views of ministry. The Lutheran understanding of ministry allows lay persons to be "licensed," to function as ministers of Word and Sacrament in specific situations. We are committed to the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments as the ministry of the church (the progression of Articles 4 to 5), that is, to MINISTRY DETERMINED BY MISSION. Therefore if no ordained person is available where the Word should be proclaimed and the Sacraments administered, the task of ministry should nevertheless not be neglected or withheld. We therefore make provision for lay persons to be authorized for Word and Sacrament ministry. Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans, who derive their view of ministry from the structure of the church, have trouble with that. Adopting the Concordat, they anticipate, would set into motion a process which will eventually eliminate the licensing of lay persons for needed ministry.
If that becomes the case, the Lutheran understanding of "ministry as defined by MISSION,"would be replaced by "ministry as defined by structure." This is precisely what the Lutheran understanding of ministry has opposed. This limitation of Word and Sacrament ministry would be to my mind a severe contradiction of the Lutheran tradition.Here Comes the Bishop!
To adopt the Concordat would lead to understanding the bishop's office as an office interposed between and quite apart from the progression established between Article 4 and 5 of the Augsburg Confession. It would thus also ultimately be distinct from the office of a parish pastor.
Adopting the Concordat would inevitably mean the understanding and establishment of the bishop's office as a separate, distinct, and higher level of ministry above a pastor-by virtue ofthe fact that only bishops can ordain. Our understanding is that one is ordained to the ordained ministry by an ordained minister. Pastors ordain pastors. Our current practice in the ELCA, that bishops authorize ordinations, is done for the sake of good order, and bishops routinely delegate ordinations to pastors.
To take ordination away from pastors and make it an exclusive mark of the bishop's office means that the bishop is a distinct office of ministry, and, in fact and practice, is an elevated office. Ceremonially this appears already the case in the ELCA, since the bishop is administratively the head of a synod and presides at synod functions. Taking the right of ordination away from pastors would make the division of pastors and bishops irrevocable, a move which as recently as the last national Assembly in 1993, the ELCA rejected.
The proposed Concordat is heading in the wrong direction for our century. The hope of the church is the reactivation of the laity. The Concordat goes in exactly the opposite direction, adding a preoccupation with an office above the pastor, in effect add ing another layer to the clergy. Indeed, we are probably adding two layers of ministry, since adopting the Concordat will also lead us to adopt a three-fold structure of ministry (which the ELCA expressly chose not to do in 1993). Hierarchical churches define themselves from the top down, not as "communion of saints," which is our traditional Lutheran understanding.
I hear it said, "Of course, with episcopal succession and so on, we are not changing our view of the church and the importance of the laity." But the fact is that the weight will shift inexorably toward a clergy-heavy church, as it has always done in episcopal/hierarchical churches.Which Way to Mission?
We Lutherans have always said that structure is determined by mission. I cannot see any way that adopting the Concordat enhances our mission. Whatever we could do with the Episcopalians "in mission," we can do now. Adopting the Concordat will leave us a divided church, perhaps deeply divided. It will alienate those people who are not attracted to hierarchical structure, or to the ceremonialism surrounding a more exalted bishop's office, or to the traditionally lax theological confessional ism among Episcopalians. It will cut ties to other Lutheran and other Protestant churches in the USA. It will not even bring us closer to the Roman Catholics or Orthodox, since they do not recognize any Episcopal bishops or clergy as legitimate.
Whatever gains the Concordat seeks to achieve can be accomplished better in other ways. There is, for example, the wide-spread concern over certain theological ideas peddled around ELCA circles these days. Some think a strengthened episcopal office would produce more faithful preaching and teaching. I too believe that fidelity to our theological heritage is crucially important. I hope that bishops will provide wise theological guidance, but there is no evidence that a practice of episcopal succession produces orguarantees that. The only thing that an elevated episcopal office guarantees is that bishops will be regarded as the more important clergy, well above the rank of pastor. The proposed Concordat is not the way to theological intearity orthe best way to do ecumenism.* Dr. Rogness is Professor of Homiletics at the ELCA's Luther Seminary, St Paul, MN
DANGER-GO SLOW "ON CHURCH UNITY"
by Dr. George MeudekingShould the ELCA move this summer toward "full communion"-to intimate unrestricted relationships-with the Episcopalians, and the three Reformed Church bodies; and to mutual disarmament over against the Roman Catholic Church? The arguments in favor of these resolutions have been offered at every Synod Assembly and in the official ElCA publication, the Lutheran. Your last FOCl-POINT was the single national publication, outside of a few limited-access theological journals and the Lutheran Commentator, that ventured to explore the reasons why the ElCA might not be ready at this time for this move. Not until this last May issue of the Lutheran were any dissenting considerations offered from any ElCA national structures.
This is also put before the church the analysis of the proposals for agreement with the Reformed bodies, by its own president, Dr Herbert Schaefer. His ecumenical experience as founder of the Mekane Yesus Church in Ethiopia, the Lutheran consultant on the merger of the Church of North India, and education secretary for the global Lutheran World Federation, is unparalleled in ElCA circles.
Add from the last FOCl-POINT, the comments by one of the actual lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue members, Dr Paul Berge, whose reflections were part of the minority report ofthe ElCA dialogue members. The changed vote of a single additional ElCA dialogue member would have found the ElCA in opposition to the the Concordat, the "full communion" agreement, which the ElCA Assembly will act on this August. How singular that this report has not been made available to the ELCA. The reason given is that since certain "minor and non-substantive" modifications were made in the final Concordat document, the minority report no longer deserved any consideration by the delegates to the August Assembly.What's the Rush?
In the light of the cogency of these warnings, it remains only for your editor to speculate why they have been so artfully kept from various synodical assemblies and studiously ignored when various church leaders peddle the case for "full communion" around the church. Probably three reasons come forward.
The first is widely recognized and commented on by observers of the American religious scene. When organizations lose their clout because they have abandoned their particular purposes, they look to mergers of one sort or another to restore their preeminence. They struggle to grab hold of any partner who is sinking in the waves alongside them. Both are most likely to go down together however, as witnessed by every main-line church denominational hookup in recent times. Again this year, according to the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, every 'main-line' denomination-in which also the ELCA is proud to claim a place-has lost membership. "Full communion" can not be expected to "enhance mission," the reason so opportunely offered to solicit support.
We should be able to agree that the hope the ELCA will bail itself out of its spiritual apathy by these bargain-basement alliances- after ten years of evidence from its own stumbling history as a merged church that such liaisons are largely nonproductive-is to be seriously misled. The ELCA will not be rescued out of its stagnation even if that prospective partner enjoys the place in the sun that Tracy Early of Ecumenical News International gives it: "Traditionally, Americans have tended to identify the Episcopal Church with the social elite of the nation."Danger-- Go Slow What Isn't Church Unity
The second reason every thoughtful dissent to these ecumenical proposals is shunted aside, arises from a misunderstanding of what constitutes "the unity" of the church. Jesus' prayer was that his disciples should be "one" as He and the Father are "one" (In. 17: 21). Lay members are especially sensitive to this directive, since they must daily face a rejection of their Gospel invitation with, "But why your church?" Even, nowadays, "WhyyourChrist?" Church professionals can argue their way out of that challenge; but lay people are not so regularly equipped.
If being "one" means some human organizational unity, we're sunk. Never in the history of the church has there been such. To say that the merging of organizations "furthers unity," as the argument goes with these proposed agreements, is sophistry. Either "one" is "ONE" or it remains "many." No matter how many mergers or agreements are crafted, It is not a whit closer to fulfilling Jesus' prayer. Until all of the 25,000 known Christian denominations are organizationally one, we have really done almost nothing to "further" Christian unity. Evidently Jesus' prayer had something else in mind.
Dr Gary Gilthvedt reminds, "No external form can guarantee the preservation ofthe gospel. The gospel itself is the power of God for salvation, authenticates itself, is not dependent on an external form to make the gospel effective, nor to guarantee its preservation. The gospel is its own guarantee, needs no special form to be authentic, and indeed, authenticates the church's forms as they are measured by faithfulness to the gospel."So, Just Give In a Little
Support for the Concordat is solicited, nevertheless, on the plea that Lutherans shouldn't mind the absolutistic demand made by the U.S. Episcopal Church when it insists that its alleged unbroken line of bishops from the days of the ancient church will have to become an essential characteristic ofthe Lutheran Church-or the Concordat must not be approved. Lutherans, however, in their confessional statements (Augsburg Confession, Article VII ) don't give a fig for or against bishops as a "mark ofthe unity ofthe church." So why not push on full steam ahead, amusedly tolerating this Episcopal idiosyncrasy? So the Lutheran Concordat supporters argue.
"Furthering church unity" does not lie ahead on this road, however. More than 2/3rds of the Christians of the world, the Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches, totally refuse to recognize these Episcopalian bishops as legitimate expressions of "the historic episcopate." Pope Leo XIII, for example, in 1896 pronounced Anglican episcopal and priestly orders "utterly null and void." More Concordat-hatched bishops won't help us to display a "unity" that will impress the world.
Dr. James Bangsund, from the Makumira Lutheran Theological College in Tanzania puts the issue nicely: "Episcopalians insist that we adopt their episcopal structure. This implies that in the eyes of the Episcopal Church, there is not yet sufficient grounds for full communion. This is an Episcopalian problem, not a Lutheran problem, and it is important that they solve it, rather than that we merely take on the additional weight of an episcopal superstructure" [emphasis added].
And it is especially an "American" Episcopal problem, since full communion in the European Lutheran and Anglican churches has been declared (the Provoo agreement) without insisting on this "historic episcopate" baggage, without demanding Lutherans become Episcopalians.One in Christ
The "unity" we are seeking is to be "one" in Christ. That is, we recognize each other's discipleship and find our hearts beating as one. This can and does occur across denominations all the time; or we couldn't have a National Council of Churches or a National Association of Evangelicals - or a Lutheran World Federation, for that matter. Since we already have that unity ("You are all one in Christ Jesus," Gal. 3:28) the only valid reason for making "agreements" with other Christian bodies is that together we might better do our task of telling the world about the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.
This happened in the early Church (Acts 15) when St James' Church and St Paul's Church each committed themselves to a common task of sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles-but without diminishing their fervor by reaching for the baitand-switch "unity"of church organization politics and turf allocations.Save Us from The Little Tent
The third reason for this otherwise unaccountably aggressive push to endorse the three ecumenical proposals has been suggested by a clergy member of your editor's acquaintance. "Lutherans live in a little tent of self-sufficiency," she substantively said. ''They feel guilty about this, especially since their insistence on confessional integrity sets them at such odds with the content-less faith of so many churches these days. To relieve this feeling, they, without further questions, embrace these sorts of ecumenical tie-ins."
How else can we decently explain the fact that, as Dr. Schaefer in his essay pointed out in the last FOCL-POINT, every single one of the conflicting doctrines of who Christ is and what His Supper is-the major and continuing disputes between Reformed Church teaching and Lutheran-are now suddenly-on the strength of a committee's edictsaid to be no longer of consequence, or even to exist at all?
Or worse, if some prehistoric theologians still wander about with the delusion that these doctrines continue essentially to be descriptive of Lutheran and Reformed articles of faith, the ecumenical proposals therewith will declare them non-existent. When the churches pass the proposals, these conflictful doctrines will have magically disappeared like an unsaved computer file.What Must Be Believed
Now this is a particular burden for Lutherans. One of the Reformed Church participants is the United Church of Christ. In accord with its "congregational" governance its congregations need only "with the greatest respect" decide to, or decide not to, adhere to the public teachings of even their own denomination. Additionally, a second hoped-for partner, the Reformed Church in America, has this summer seen a voting majority of its classises (synods, to us), refuse to approve a constitutional resolution sent down from its General Synod. It required of its clergy "an annual affirmation that salvation is through Christ alone." For the ELCA to pass all this by as though it had not happened-as though doctrinal conflicts were no longer an issue between us-can only be understood as the surrender of theological faithfulness-the single, everywheretrumpeted, contribution of Lutheranism to the ecumenical scene.
Glamorizing and compounding all these ecumenical adjustments still more, is the third proposal before the ELCA Assembly, to endorse the document, Joint Declaration for the Doctrine of Justification" authored at the Lutheran World Federation and Vatican level. The document purports to have addressed the mutual understandings of the doctrine of Justification, and to have found the remaining differences not church dividing.
Since the days of the Reformation, Lutheranism has committed itself to the conviction that the church stands or falls in relation to the centrality of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, "the chief article of faith." It certainly behooves the ELCA delegates then to ponder those "understandings" to see how "mutual" they really are. The delegates ought to be made aware that a number of eminent theologians in the ELCA have written, "We find ourselves unanimous in our opposition to this document, since it does not do justice to the Reformation and implies more a repudiation of the Reformation than an agreement or consensus incorporating its basic teaching."
At issue is whether or not God declares the sinner right ("righteous") in His sight by virtue only of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ-which is appropriated for the sinner by faith alone. Or does God look upon the "infused" grace placed into the heart of the believer, as defining evidence that He then can declare the sinner righteous?
This document deserves much more study than the few months given the delegates to look it over. Your Lutheran editor does not bring this caution as a Catholic baiter. For years he served as a trusted member of the board of publication of the President of US Conference of Catholic Bishops. He offers the warning because the church does stand or fall in terms of how the sinner is "justified" before the Lord of heaven and earth.So What's the Hurry?
FOCL-POINT agrees with ELCA Bishop Rick Foss who wrote to his Dakota congregations, "For now I hope we will find a way to move toward one another as members of the Body of Christ, without trying (or pretending) to become one another."
Definitely, there is a sign for every delegate to see, posted over the entrance of the ELCA's Philadelphia Assembly this August. With the Episcopalians we already have Lord's Supper agreements and preaching agreements and do not need to become American Episcopalians with their rigid church structure of "episcopal succession." With the Reformed we should first come to agreement on the teachings that distinguish our denominations. With the Roman Catholics we should first ask more seriously, "Why was the Reformation necessary?" So FOCL-POINT urges, "GO SLOWDANGER AHEAD!"
Reader ResponsesDear Editor:
The proposed "Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament: The Use of the Means of Grace," is to be presented to the ELCA Assembly for action in August. It calls for extensive rethinking before it can be accepted as the convictions of the Church about the Sacraments and their use.
The use of the term "the baptized" which is found throughout the document, has replaced the use of the term "the believers" which is found numerous times in the Bible and in the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church. We have to wonder how and why the "priesthood of all believers" has now to become "the priesthood of all the baptized," as it also states in the document.
The document says that Lutheran congregations celebrate Holy Communion every Sunday "according to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession." Then it says, 'This confession remains the norm for our practice." That single statement in the Apology, written by Philipp Melanchthon, was actually a reply to the Roman "Confutation to the Augsburg Confession." The context clearly indicates that it is a descriptive statement and to turn it into a prescriptive norm for our practices is, to say the least, a highly questionable contention.
The document also says, "Admission to the Sacrament is by invitation of the Lord, presented to the church to those who are baptized." Nowhere in the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church does it say that being baptized is sufficient qualification to receive Holy Communion. On the contrary, on page after page, the confessional writings speak of the importance of faith! To say that all that is required is baptism, implies that nothing else is necessary-no confession, no contrition, no repentance, no faith. Is this assertion, so contrary to Lutheran reliance upon faith alone in our relationship to
God, simply a way to set us up for "infant communion?"Pastor Russell C Lee,
Faith Lutheran, Albuquerque, NM.Dear Editor:
Your article on, "Fear the Lord, the Beginning of Wisdom" [Winter 1996]I think you hit the nail on the head. I also enjoyed Dr Forell's "The Reformation Continues". There are helpful reminders here for all of us in the Evangelical circlenot just Lutherans-as we think about Reformation Sunday.Pastor Rich Powers,
Church of the Nazarene, Napa, CADear Editor:
Kudos to you and the FOCL people for your alerting us to the sins of our ELCA. God bless!Beth Rice Issaquah, WA
Dear Editor:
"[ Regarding FOCL-POINT]: With regularity I have found myself appreciative of the effort to stand for the Lutheran Confession of the Biblical Faith of the Church Catholic. But there was always something that left me just a tad uneasy; something I could never quite get my finger on. The Newsletter is full of good solid critique of the new "Formulae of Agreement." I am hopeful though hardly optimistic that, with the help of pieces such as these, we might be able to ward them off. But then on page 7, I come across a piece supporting and endorsing an upcoming Billy Graham Campaign in the Bay Area. What am I to make of this?
If ever there was a theological position that strikes at the heart of our Lutheran Confession ofthe faith, surely it is the theology that informs the Billy Graham enterprise. His doctrine of free choice with respect to the matter of salvation, and denial of baptismal regeneration, to cite just two items among many, would render any cooperation in mission and ministry as out of the question as that with the Episcopalians and Reformed. This kind of inconsistency leads me to wonder just what "Confessional" and "Lutheran" really mean in the title of the Newsletter's sponsoring body. Could it be that within the Confession garb there is an Anglo-Arminian Protestantism lurking?
I hope that within FOCL there is the intellectual space to work with an authentically confessional critique-and even self-critique. For when it comes to Confessional witness in this time and place we need all the forces we can muster. But the mustering must take place in terms of unity in the truth of the Confessional witness to the alone-saving Gospel of the one and only Savior, The Lord Jesus Christ who lives with His Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit.Dr. Louis A Smith
Waynesboro, VADear Editor:
Blessings! I believe some people need to be jolted-to basics. The Father meant for us to be different.Pastor Clarence Moore
Somerset, PA.Dear Editor:
Your running of Pastor Joe Wright's prayer said as the invocation before the Kansas State Legislature [ FOCL-POINT, Winter 1966] confirms a suspicion I've had for a long time: Your publication and organization isn't primarily a Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans, but a Fellowship of Conservative Lutherans. There is a difference!Pastor William Crabtree Lodi, CA