By Dr. 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.