Full Communion: ELCA and The Reformed Churches

By Dr. Herbert Schaefer

As a missionary in India, 1 was told repeatedly that in our understanding of God we were like seven blind men who met an elephant. One, feeling the leg, said that the elephant was like a tree. Another, holding the tail, said that it was like a snake. Another, patting the side, said it was like a wall. Still another, putting his ear to the belly, said it was like a gurgling brook. Each had a perception that was true, but only partial. My Hindu friends argued, "This is the way religions proclaim God." Each religion is true, but only partially so. Each religion is valid for its adherents living in their context, for each is a way to God.

Against this reasoning stand the words of Jesus. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6). "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not, shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). One position is inclusive; the other is exclusive. One argues that it does not make much difference what you believe, just as long as you believe in God. The other insists it makes a world of difference what you believe about God, for there is only one true God, and Him only shall we serve.

The debate on whether or not the ELCA should establish full communion with the Reformed Churches follows much the same line. Those who favor full communion maintain that the Reformation language is passe, no longer appropriate forthe 20th century. They argue that whether or not Christ is actually present in the Lord's Supper physically, spiritually, or symbolically, really makes no difference, just so long as one believes that He is present. They maintain that whether or not one believes that Christ in his resurrected body is an indivisible whole, integrally united in spirit and body, or whether Christ's spiritual body is everywhere present (omnipresent) while his physical body is bound in heaven, actually makes no difference. The important thing is that one just believes in Christ.

WHAT THE WORD SAYS

But the Word of God is quite specific about this issue. Christ says, "This is my body...this is my blood." This is not a spiritual or symbolic presence that He proclaims, but an actual physical presence. Christ's body and blood are broken and given for me. At Christ's ascension, the angel said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the sameway as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11)

Yet, at the same time we have the promise of Christ himself when He said, "Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt.28:20). Eitherwe take seriously the Word of God and believe what it actually says or we interpret it in terms of what we want to believe or what seems logical. Eitherwe stand firm as a church on Holy Scripture or we are like the blind men and their interpretation of the elephant, interpreting on the basis of our own experiences and what we want to believe.

Is this a splitting of hairs, a purely semantic argument that has no validity in today's world; or is it a matter of being faithful to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessionsfor the salvation of souls, my own included? Holy Scripture is very specific and very clear in what it says. Its witness is good for all times and all placesùfor every nation and tongue, for every society and for every generation within societies. But we have to hold to it, cherish it, treat it with respect, and honor it.

Every ELCA pastor publicly accepts the normative guidance of Holy Scripture in his ordination vows. I cannot understand, therefore, that there should be any debate on it in our circles.

In the third paragraph, I have stated a charge. Let us now look at the reason.

THE CONDEMNATIONS

Recommendation 2 in A Common Calling, the document supporting full communion reads, "that they [the signature churches] withdraw any historic condemnations by one side or the other as inappropriate for the life and faith of our churches today."

Notice the words, "withdraw" and "inappropriate." Withdraw means to take back, retract or revoke, and, therefore, not meant. Inappropriate means unsuitable, not applicable. Are we really prepared as Lutherans to revoke or withdraw what we believeùthe scriptural teaching and doctrine concerning the person of Christ, his presence in the Lord's Supper, predestination, etc? To say that we withdraw the statements of faith made at the time of the Reformation, is to say that we no longer believe they are true. But how can we say this?

I wonder why we were never told to which articles of faith or condemnations this resolution pertains? We may assume that the resolution to lift the condemnations against the Reformed churches refers to Lutheran doctrines in the Formula of Concord, which the ELCA Constitution "accepts as [a] valid interpretation^] of the faith of the Church." Chapter 7 of the Formula deals with the Lord's Supper, Chapter 8 with the person of Christ and Chapter 11deals with predestination.

DOCTRINAL IMPASSE

Can we in any way go back on or deny the actual physical presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, which the Formula of Concord, Chapter 7 affirms? Can we deny the perfect melding of the two persons of Christ into one holy being who is both God and man, indivisible, who is able to be simultaneously present with the bread and wine whenever the Lord's Supper is partaken, as the Formula of Concord, Chapter 8 affirms? (The Reformed churches teach that the physical body of Christ is localized in heaven but the spiritual body is capable of being omnipresent.) Can we deny that God wills all people to be saved and cannot and does not want anyone to be damned, as the Formula of Concord, Chapter 11 affirms?

These are not doctrines that are matters of indifference! (adiaphora). They are at the very heart of, yes, they are the quintessential qualification for church unity, as the Augsburg Confession, Article 7 says. (This is the Satis Est principle.) That is, pulpit and altar fellowship is to be recognized when within respective communities of believers the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity and the sacraments are rightly administered. When the Gospel of Christ is so taught that by God's grace through faith salvation is proclaimed to the sinner and Christ's body and blood are received for the forgiveness of sins, then and only then can there be full communion. Otherwise, the unity we proclaim is a sham, forthere is no real unity.

presence? R.C. Sproul, in his book, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, states in simple, clear language the current teaching of the Presbyterian Church based on the Westminster Confession and Catechism. He writes concerning Christ's presence in Holy Communion:

It is clear that Luther insisted on the real physical and substantial presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. He repeatedly cited Jesus words of institution, "this is My body," to prove his point. Luther would not allow the verb is to be taken in a figurative or representative sense. Luther ... adopted the doctrine of the communication of attributes by which the divine attribute of omnipresence was communicated to the human nature of Jesus, making it possible for His body and blood to be present at more than one place at the same time ...

Zwingli and others argued that Christ's body is not present in actual substance at the Lord's Supper. The supper is a memorial only, with Christ's presence no different from His normal presence through the Holy Spirit ... Calvin, on the other hand, .. when he addressed Roman Catholics and Lutherans, used the term substantial to mean ''physical.'' He denied the physical presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. When he addressed the Anabaptists, he insisted on the term substantial in the sense of "real." Calvin thus argued that Christ is really or truly present in the Lord's Supper, though not in a physical sense ...

[Calvin, and so also the Presbyterian Church today, insists that]. .. the human nature of Jesus is presently localized in heaven. It remains in perfect union with His divine nature. Though the human nature is contained in one place, the person of Christ is not so contained because His divine nature still has the power of omnipresence ... Calvin taught that though Christ's body and blood remain in heaven, they are spiritually "made present" to us by Jesus' omnipresent divine nature. Wherever the divine nature of Christ in present, He is truly present (Sproul: pp.231 -33).

WHO CHANGED POSITIONS?

This is Reformed doctrine, held and taught within the congregations of the Reformed Churches. The three Reformed Churches can in no way be expected to back down on it. The Lutheran Confessions condemn this teaching. Now we Lutherans are asked to withdraw these teachings, these confessions. Are we to accept the Reformed teaching that Christ is really present in the Lord's Supper, but his presence is a spiritual presence, not actual physical presence?

Who has changed its doctrinal position? The Presbyterian Church? The Reformed Church? The United Church of Christ? Or is the Lutheran Church being asked to close its eyes to the differences that exist under the principle of a "complementarity of mutual affirmation and admonition," as the proposed Formula of Agreement has it, whereby these different theologies are to be made fruitful to each other and the church at large? But is it not much more realistic to recognize that our mutual witness will be stronger if in honesty we see ourselves as a church seeking full communion rather than as churches-despite these unresolved differences-already in full communion?

Between the ELCA and the Reformed Churches there simply is no true agreement as yet in our teachings on the Gospel, the person of Jesus Christ, or the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

On what basis then can we vote for full communion? How would a declared full communion help the mission of the church when, for example, I am told one Sunday that I partake of the real body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lutheran Church, and the next Sunday that I partake of only the spiritual presence of Christ in a Reformed Church? I am left confused, questioning and doubtful that any of the churches knows what it is teaching.

This is NOT splitting ecclesiastical hairs. Nor is it holding to a Reformation theology and language which is not appropriate today. When Christ says, "This is my body, this is my blood," He means just that. He is really present. If we admit any other position we are like the blind men and their experience of the elephant.

OTHER TROUBLING ISSUES

The resolution on full communion contains six sub-resolutions. If taken together, they call for far more than pulpit and altar fellowship. The authors of the resolutions say that they do not mean merger. They go as far as they can, however, without meaning merger. But can we be certain that merger will not be forthcoming as the next step?

These resolutions call for pulpit and altar fellowship, recognition and exchange of pastors, provision for consultation and decision making, theological study and dialogue, and provision for common planning and action in evangelism, witness, and service.

The proposal for pulpit and altar fellowship totally ignores our doctrinal differences. We have already dealt with this problem above.

The sub-resolution on the recognition and exchange of pastors involves all kinds of problems. For example, if the ELCA also votes at its coming Assembly for full communion with the Episcopalians and thus elects to initiate the "historic episcopate and apostolic succession" for the ELCA, [see Paul Berge's article, "Agreeing with the Concordat", p. 1] how could a Presbyterian or United Church of Christ pastor serve in an ELCA congregation? He or she is not exempted from having the required apostolic succession – as would be the ELCA pastors under the Concordat's "temporary suspension" concession which would grandfather-in the ELCA's presently ordained. Will his/her service in an ELCA congregation not negate the intent of the Episcopal exemption of ELCA pastors?

If a Reformed Church of America pastor is called to serve a Lutheran congregation ora Lutheran pastor is called to serve a Reformed congregation, what doctrine does he/ she preach, since that pastor does not need to subscribe to the other church's confessions? The requirement for ordination to the ELCA clergy is subscription to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. The proposal forfull communion says that a pastor is not required to accept the other church's confessions. Yet, in the same breath, the documentation says that pastors from the otherchurch will be subject to the call procedures and disciplines of the second church concerned.

AND STILL ANOTHER COMMITTEE!

A sub-resolution says that provision is to be made for the orderly exchange of pastors. Inevitably, this will mean a committee. A committee will have to have something to do. Resolutions will be passed, and the ELCA and Reformed Churches will be saddled with actions and structures none of the churches want and which may not be in accordance with current needs.

Another sub-resolution calls for the establishment of "appropriate channels of consultation and decision-making within the existing structures of the churches." What does this mean? What channels, what decision-making bodies and on what issues will action be taken? This could mean committees to further future doctrinal dialogues, but it may also mean inter-church committees that have a life of their own which, in effect, takes ministry still another step farther from the congregation. These committees may become almost super churches.

What is meant when the Formula of Agreement pledges to "foster common expressions in evangelism, witness and service?" Does this mean joint planning for mission, for witness, or for service? Will it mean following agreements as to which church does what in terms of new mission starts, conduct of service projects, etc? Will it mean merging Lutheran World Service with Reformed programs?

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons and even more so, for the doctrinal issues involved in the sub-resolution on withdrawing the condemnations, we conclude that the proposal to establish full communion with the Reformed Churches is premature. More dialogue on doctrine is imperative, and different recommendations should be brought to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches concerning what is meant by full communion and how it is to be implemented.

As with full communion with the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., here too the ELCA is being pushed into a position similar to the blind men, and away from adherence to the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions.

God's mission is not served best by the ELCA's becoming bigger in the hope that its voice will be heard more easily. Faithful adherence to God's Word and Sacraments as taught by the Lutheran Confessions, is the better way to mission. -f

Dr Schaefer, former ELCA missionary in India, founder of the Mekane Yesus Church in Ethiopia, Hong Kong seminary professor, and Education Director for the Lutheran World Federation, is president of FOCL, the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans.