Volume 9, Number 4

Don't Be Stuck With The CCM
by Robert J. Marshal*

This morning I sat down in that chair and went to pull it up to the table.1 got my fingers stuck on some chewing gum. 1 thought, "I have a new illustration of our relationships with the Episcopalians!"
I think our relationships as Lutherans with the Episcopalians have been very good. So I have to say that I am sorry for the direction that has been taken, first by the Concordat and now by its revision, the Call to Common Mission (CCM). For it would make it necessary for us to adopt the historic succession for bishops.
To me that's the chewing gum that we will get our fingers stuck on if we adopt it in our church. 1 have three reasons for this. 1 have to begin with our Lutheran statement of faith, the Augsburg Confession, Article 7:
"It is taught among us that one holy Christian church will be and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel for it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine word."

The Very Being of the Church
We have here what I would say is a clear statement of what Lutherans consider to be the esse, the "very being" of the Church. The "essence" of the church are the word of the Gospel and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We admit it is not all there is or may be for the bene esse, for the "good" of the church, for what is beneficial, useful, helpful in the church.
For me, therefore, the issue is to be phrased as a question whether the Historic Episcopate is not only essential but is good, helpful, useful for the church. I come up with the answer, NO!
While It is considered essential part of the esse of the church by the Episcopal Church-adoption of it would mean for us that our concept of ONE MINISTRY in the church would be tainted. Some ordained ministers would have more significance than others, for the bishops would be the sign of the "unity of the church."
Some ordained ministers would have more power. Bishops and only bishops would have the power of ordination. Today we may order our church so that it is "normal" for the bishop to do the ordaining, but it is not a rule. When I was President of the Illinois Synod, I would ask a pastor from time to time to assist me in ordaining a pastor when I couldn't be present. That would no longer be possible under the provisions of the CCM.
Faulty Ecumenical Relationship Secondly, I am not in favor of the CCM because it does not represent the best form of ecumenical relationships. We would be entering into an agreement whereby one church would have to become like the other church in order to be in "full communion. "
There is a better form already in existence of such agreements, the one adopted at the ELCA Assembly in 1997 with the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. In that agreement the churches were honest about their differences. There was no requirement that either church had to change in spite of those differences. The churches did not need to become more alike. Even with their differences, it was declared that we could share pulpits and altars, exchange ministers and cooperate in mission.

Actually, this had developed over the years without any formal agreement. We were accepting Presbyterians at our communion and on occasion you might have a Presbyterian preach or you might preach in a Presbyterian Church. It was a development among the people of the church, the assembly of believers, without the dictates of theologians or bishops or anyone except perhaps--would you say-the Holy Spirit. The Spirit does have a way of getting into the life of the church in spite of us.
I would say the agreement with the Presbyterian/Reform Churches should be considered a model for all future arrangements for full communion.
The CCM adopts a different principle for full communion. It will mean that we will be saying to ourselves, "We have to change to satisfy one church when we have not changed to satisfy other churches. We will be practicing a form of ecumenism that opens the door to saying that every time we consider full communion with another church we have to consider becoming like that church. We would have to be different for each different church." That I call "the ecumenism of chaos."
Or, we are going to say to ourselves, "The Episcopal Church is the only Church where we will change. We will not do that for any other church. That I call "the ecumenism of favoritism." I would not want either of those forms of ecumenism.

The New Rigidity
This CCM ecumenism involves a new rigidity in the understanding of the government of the church, the order of ministry, the office of Bishop, and in the understanding of Ordination. It is a new rigidity we do not have in our practices today.
Does such rigidity make sense in the setting of the United States? Sure the Church of Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia have the Historic Episcopate. But they have it as a bene esse. So it does not keep us from communion with them or sharing pulpits or joining in mission. They do it as Lutherans would do it.
But the Episcopal Church does not.
It requires us to accept the rigidity about ministry which they practice. I say this does not make sense in the ecclesiastical environment of the United States, where the advance of Christianity is happening among the free churches, not among the churches with greater rigidity.
Shall we cast our lottor a restriction on the advance of mission for the future? Is it not possible that in the 21 st century the great ecumenical challenge will be relationship with the free churches? Not with those churches that like to call themselves catholic churches?

Other Models
I would finally say that there are other models for relationships with Episcopalians than the one provided by the CCM. Among them would be the agreements reached between the Lutherans and Reform Churches in Germany with the Church of England, in the Meiszen Agreement It does not adopt the Historic Episcopate.
I would also call attention to the Porvoo Agreement, which includes the Church of Norway without the Historic Episcopate as well as the other Scandinavian and Baltic churches. It does not require adoption of the Historic Episcopate. These are some of the vital vibrant forms of ecumenism taking shape in the present time. The form that is being put before us in the CCM is not as free and vibrant, as I would like.

*Dr. Robert J. Marshall, esteemed former President of the Lutheran Church in America, gave this adapted address at a conference entitled, 'Upholding Lutheran Confessions," held at St. Andrew's Lutheran Church, Mahtomedi, Mn. 2/8/99.

FOCL-Board Advisory Board member, Dr. Morris Sorenson, Jr., has recently been invited to come and live in the home Jesus prepared fro him (John 14:2). We are deeply grate for his ministry to God’s people, and for his willingness to share his prestigious life in the ELCA with the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans. As a Mi
ssionary to Japan, head of the World Mission Division of the American Lutheran Church, and top drawer assistant to the bishop of the ELCA, he embodied FOCL’s mission statement, “encourage biblical, evangelical, and confessional faithfulness to our Christian heritage.” Thank you Jesus.

Bad for the ELCA.

Obviously there are many ELCA people opposed to the CCM. Does it make any sense to make a move toward unity with another church body and destroy the unity within your own? From a purely pastoral point of view it's not good for the ELCA.

Unfair procedure.
The role of the ELCA national church office in Chicago should be to present the issue so that people can make up their own minds. Instead ELCA officers have become resolute advocates of the CCM. The publicity and materials from the national office have been one-sided, and CCM advocates have been sent to meetings around the country.
The decision of the church following the 1997 vote against the Concordat was to organize a 3-person panel to draft a new document. Before the panel met, presiding Bishop H. George Anderson announced that the historic episcopacy must be part of the new proposal. That eliminated any possibility for the panel to explore other options.

An unequal and unbalanced proposal.
The Episcopalian Church is willing to suspend its rule and recognize our clergy, but only on the condition that we adopt their form of episcopal ministry. When all our bishops and clergy are episcopally ordained the ELCA will have radically changed its ministry and the Episcopalian Church will remain the same with no changes. The Episcopalians can only say that full communion is" ... will not be fully realized until. .. there is a shared ministry of bishops in the historic episcopate" (CCM 14), which would not be completed for years.
Is it a healthy marriage where one partner says, "I'll marry you if you change, but I don't have to," and "We won't really be fully married until you've changed?"

Unnecessary for ecumenical mission.
For all the CCM talk about "availability and interchangeability" of clergy, it would not change the present policy that a clergy person of one church called to serve in the other church is subject to the discipline and doctrinal agreements of the other church. That is the case now and would remain so.
The reasons for opposing the CCM are not ecumenical - people on both sides urge closer cooperation. The issue is the differing understanding of ministry, structure and hierarchy.

Lutherans have never held that matters of church structure are essential to ecumenical unity, Lutherans have never considered organizational matters on the same level as Bible, Sacraments and creeds. Episcopalians treasure the Bible, Sacraments and creeds as much as we do. However, for full communion they add a 4th essential requirement, that of the historic episcopacy (the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886-1888). For them the structure of ministry, namely the historic episcopate, is an essential requirement for full communion with another church. By adopting the CCM we would, in effect, be agreeing that structure and the historic episcopate are on the same level as the Bible, Sacraments and creeds, because we would agree never to allow exceptions within the ELCA.
It is not true to say, "Adopting the CCM won't really change much."
The truth is that adopting the GGM will (a) reverse our 1993 ELGA decision on one office of ordained ministry, (b) change our constitution to conform to Episcopal practice , (c) adopt the practice of historic episcopacy with no exceptions ever allowed even for people who in conscience cannot accept it, (d) adopt the liturgical rites of the historic episcopate and (e) unite our ministry
?with the Episcopal Church (mutual availability and exchangeability). Can anyone really say that all these changes won't inevitably effect our evaluation of the office of bishop, i.e., that it is a more exalted office than at present?
The choice between one pastoral office or hierarchical levels of office.
The theology of the historic episcopate is: bishops are essential to the existence ofthe clergy and therefore to the existence of the church. That is, you cannot have pastors without bishops to make them. Only bishops can ordain clergy.
Lutheran view is: Pastors are created by God's gifts of Word and Sacrament. Who administers the vow is not what creates a pastor. The Episcopal Church is inflexible on this point: only bishops can ordain clergy.
The CCM would establish us as a church where bishops are the "chief pastors, (CCM 21). Lutherans in the USA have consistently opposed this move since the earliest Lutheran immigration to this country.

More centralized authority.
One of the strongest trends in the secular world in all areas of human enterprise-business, education, military, government, etc.-has been the decentralization of authority. While the eeM does not give bishops more actual authority, it does approve and adopt a system where bishops are the chief clergy. The trend toward more centralized identity of the church in its bishops would be unavoidable.
The office of bishop is basically a medieval institution, quite at odds with the New Testament pattern of leadership, as well as with the modern world, where we are learning the strengths of more decentralized leadership, authority and structure.

Centrality of Word and Sacrament.
In Lutheran churches the central ministry of the church is the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. We believe that it is God's Word and promise which makes them effective, and that a duly authorized layperson can read the Order of Service effectively.
The Word and Sacraments take precedent over the person or office officiating. The Episcopal Church forbids laypersons to administer Sacraments. For them the existence of an episcopally ordained pastor is necessary for the administration of the Sacraments. We believe that such a view elevates the presence of clergy above the availability of Word and Sacraments.
To say that the Lutheran Confessions intend to maintain the historic episcopate is misleading. This is an argument usually based on the Lutheran Confessional writings. Augsburg Confession (28) and the Apology (14) state that we intend to maintain the office of bishop. This we have done in the ELCA. The "historic episcopate" is not mentioned at all in any of the Confessions. These documents speak of a bishop in the same terms as we speak of a pastor. In the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (60-62), Luther himself states, "But since the distinction between bishop and pastor is not by divine right, it is manifest that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine right."(65)
In the decades and centuries following the. adoption of the Confessions in 1580, not one Lutheran church in Germany or Scandinavia changed its orders or constitution to reinstall either the practice or theology of the historic episcopate.

Consistent American Lutheran practice.
From Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (1700s, in very strong language!) down to the present day, whenever anybody has proposed Episcopal church government or the historic episcopacy, it has been rejected by all Lutheran church bodies in the USA. Considering the variety of Lutheran immigrant backgrounds and nationalities coming tothiscountry, this isa rather astonishing consensus.

Symbolism of the church.
In those churches with the historic episcopate there is always much pomp and ceremony surrounding the installation, functioning and office of bishop. Since the theology ofthe historic episcopate is that bishops are the central persons in the church, their presence and activity are inevitably accompanied by more ostentation. Isn't it time for the church to present an appearance to the world which is just the opposite?
Doesn't the real future of the church in the 21 st century center in the faith and vigor of the laity? Why are we so preoccupied with clergy orders and church structure? Has a church constitution ever saved anybody?

The historic episcopate is NOT a symbol of unity.
The three large church bodies which claim the historic episcopate are the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the Episcopalians/Anglicans. They do not recognize each others' bishops/ clergy, nor has the historic episcopate contributed anything to unity among them.
The historic episcopate does not serve to maintain the historical faith of the church.

American Episcopalian bishops
James Pike and John Spong and English bishop JAT. Robinson are three examples of Episcopalian/ Anglican bishops who have questioned basic beliefs of the Christian faith. They were criticized, but none was disciplined or reprimanded in any way.

The inaccurate description of the historic episcopate as a "gift."
A gift is something which gladdens the heart of the recipient. The CCM has only caused dissension and strife within the ELCA.

Cost.
With the CCM the installation of new bishops would obviously be more expensive. It will take three bishops, all in the historic episcopacy. Since only bishops can ordain, they will incur travel costs to ordinations, whereas now they can delegate a local pastor to ordain.

* Rogness is Professor of Homiletics at Luther Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota. This is an abridged version. of his article.

Perspecitives
It's the Schools' fault? No lack of blame-layers for the Littleton tragedy. What do our readers think of former U.S. secretary of education Wm. Bennett's finger pointing? "If those kids were walking around that school in black trench coats, saying 'Heil Hitler,' why didn't somebody pay attention? I guarantee you if little Cassie Bernall. .. and her friends had been walking through that school carrying Bibles and saying, 'Hail the Prince of Peace, King of Kings," they would have been haled into the principal's office."
Cultivating Death: Or did the entertainment media lay a heavy hand on Littleton? Does it really make no impression on youthful minds when they flock to "America's Premiere Heavy Metal Festival" in Milwaukee featuring these bands among others: Morbid Angel, Cradle of Filth, Rotting Christ, Twin Obscenity, Impaler, Dying Fetus, Myself Am Hell, Internal Bleeding, Deaden, Jungle Rot, Immolation, Bludgeon to Death.? Or do the devotees of Marilyn Manson learn nothing from his professed mission, "I try to show people that everything is a lie-pick the lie you like best."
It’s a war. Marine Lt. Col. Tom Hemingway (ret.) sees the Christian life as a war zone, where "the most numerous participants are refugees, people caught in the middle who really don't care who wins, so long as the conflict goes away. In a sense, most of our neighbors, business associates and acquaintances over a lifetime would fit neatly in this niche. Their goal is to be where the conflict isn't.
"On the other end of the spectrum" he writes in the May issue of Promise Keepers, "are the soldiers on the front line, those who are aware of the battle and are actively praying, reading the Word of God and spreading the Gospel to enlist more troops. Being on the front line carries with it a high level of danger. Satan targets Christians who are actively living out their faith and impacting their communities. Stay long enough at the front lines and you will get hit. It may not require a hospital visit, but it may mean discouragement in your daily Christian walk (i.e., too busy to pray or read the Bible, family problems or other hardhips.)
"Therefore, it is no surprise that small unit leaders (squad and platoon) become casualities more often. This is because they are exposed while they help, rally troops, distribute supplies and lead by example.
"Under which category do you find yourself? A refugee, unaware or uninvolved in the battle at hand? Or a frontline soldier, covering you and your family in prayer as you confront the evils of the day? Or somewhere in the middle? If you are on the front lines, which we hope you are, you need not fear. While the dangers are many, God is able and the outcome is sure – He wins."

Who Ordains the Clergy?
"[Ordination] was designed to engender implacable discord whereby the clergy and the laity should be separated farther than heaven and earth, to the incredible injury of baptismal grace and to the confusion of evangelical fellowship. This is the source of the detestable tyranny over the laity by the c1ergy who, relying on the external anointing of their hands, the tonsure and the vestments, not only exalt themselves above lay Christians, anointed by the Holy Spirit, but even regard them as dogs, unworthy to be included with them in the church . . .Here Christian brotherhood has expired and the shepherds become wolves. All of us who have been baptized are priests, but those whom we call priests are ministers chosen from among us that they should do all things in our name and their preisthood is nothing but a ministry. The sacrament of ordination, therefore, can be nothing other than a certain rite of choosing a preacher in the Church." -from THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.