The Concordat: Not the Way to do Ecumenism

By Dr. Michael Rogness

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