From
Living Theology in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Evangelical Lutheran Church In America
Volume 1, Number 3
Easter 1996
Ecumenism
Witness and Unity in Lutheran-Reformed
Relationships
Nicholas
Zook and Frank C. Senn
Far be it from us to raise barriers to
the unity of churches for our greater common witness to the gospel of Jesus
Christ. After all, it is our Lord's
prayer "that they may be one" precisely for the sake of witness to
the truth of the gospel.
Just so, it is necessary that we
remember that our call is to witness to the gospel and in this to discover the
unity that exists among fellow witnesses.
It was precisely disagreement over the
implications of the gospel of the Incarnation, that "the Word became flesh
and dwelt among us," as that is instantiated in the sacramental presence
of Christ, that caused Luther to say to Zwingli, "You have a different
spirit."
Zwingli is not the whole of the
Reformed tradition; there were more mediating witnesses in the persons of Bucer
and Calvin. Nevertheless, Lutherans
have understood the confession of the real presence of the body and blood of
Christ in the Eucharist to be a christological issue: it is a confession that
God meets us in Christ "deep in the flesh." In other words, in the historic controversies between the
Lutherans and the Reformed, especially over the Eucharist, the gospel itself
was seen to be at stake.
Has this and other historic
controversies been transcended through dialogue in the twentieth century? Several rounds of Lutheran-Reformed Dialogue
have said so. If so, it would be very
important to "receive" the results of the dialogues in our churches,
to test them and to respond to them.
This is exactly what happened in the
Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogues, where there were no historic church dividing
issues. Lutheran Churches in America
and The Episcopal Church entered a period of "interim eucharistic
hospitality" during which we invited each other to the other's altars and
experienced for ourselves the unity in faith and practice which we share. During this time further dialogue took place
as a result of which it is being proposed that our Churches enter into full
altar and pulpit fellowship in 1997.
Also in 1997 we are asked to consider
this very same kind of relationship with the Reformed Church in America, the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the United Church of Christ. This step was proposed in A Common Calling (1993) with reference
to the Leuenberg Agreement among Lutheran and Reformed Churches in Germany
(1973), which nearly 80 Reformation Churches in Europe have signed. That historic agreement developed among
Christians who had shared a common witness to the gospel against Nazism in the
Confessing Church movement. It must
also be candidly admitted that there was some concern for a united Protestant
confession in Germany in the face of a
Roman Catholic Church renewed by the Second Vatican Council.
But even if A Common Calling has resolved historic differences, what happened
to the "reception process?"
What about congregation-oriented study materials to be jointly shared
with neighboring Lutheran and Reformed/Presbyterian/UCC. parishes? What about a process of responding to A Common Calling by congregations,
synods, and seminaries? What about
opportunities to discover for ourselves a unity in faith and practice through
an "interim eucharistic sharing?"
Would we discover such a unity at one
another's altars? Minimally, we would
have to transcend significantly different liturgical orders and worship styles
in local congregations in order to do so.
Are these differences irrelevant, or is it the case, as the church
fathers used to say, "that the law of prayer ought to establish the law of
belief?"
There are other questions as well. Why
are relationships to three distinct churches bundled together to be acted on as
one, as though there were no differences between these three churches in the
Reformed tradition? If each of these
church bodies is unique, should we not be considering our relationship to each
one separately? One answer given to this
question is that our dialogue was with three church bodies, and agreement with
one means agreement with all. But, of
course, part of the reception process is to evaluate also the ecclesiastical
self-image presented by the participants in the dialogue. Do we agree that a Lutheran view of things
has been fairly and adequately presented by our representatives? Members of the three Reformed churches must
also ask this of their representatives?
Do members of the Reformed Church in America and the United Church of
Christ have the same ecclesiastical self-image?
Another answer is that the ELCA needs
to balance proposed fellowship with The Episcopal Church with proposed
fellowship with the Reformed Churches, so as to balance the so-called
"catholic" and "protestant" wings of our own church body. This is the political strategy of providing
something for everyone.
If indeed this political answer "
is the reason for the proposal of fellowship with the Reformed churches, then
more than a common witness to the gospel could be lost in 1997. The integrity of commitment to the truth of
the gospel in the ELCA could be questioned.
Indeed, we would be acting in bad faith with all dialogue partners. We would have reduced their gospel witness
to pawns in our internal political machinations.
We prefer to think that the political
answer is not the real one, and that the rush to fellowship in 1997 represents
a zeal to advance the unity of witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. But we are concerned that a real
breakthrough to unity could be jeopardized precisely because the reception
process has been short-changed. The
fact is that covenants between Lutheran synods and Reformed judicatories are
not nearly as widespread as covenants between Lutheran synods and Roman
Catholic and Episcopal dioceses.
We believe that an interim step is
necessary similar to the one the ELCA and its predecessor bodies have enjoyed
with The Episcopal Church since 1982.
Give us a chance to test the agreements that have been reached in the
Lutheran-Reformed Dialogues by getting to know our Reformed brothers and sisters
in the ways in which we will have to know them if we are to be in full altar
and pulpit fellowship with them. The
proposal of full fellowship with The Episcopal Church can still be considered
on its own merits because of a history of reception and agreement in the gospel
without the fear that we cannot enter into one relationship without entering
into the other.
Frank
C. Senn
Pastor of Immanuel, Evanston
Nicholas
J. Zook
Pastor of Concordia, Chicago