From
Living Theology in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Evangelical Lutheran Church In America
Volume 1, Number 3
Easter 1996
Ecumenism
ECUMENICAL DECISIONS AND MISSION
Frank
C. Senn
As of now the 1997 Churchwide Assembly
of the ELCA is scheduled to make decisions on two momentous ecumenical
proposals: full communion (altar and
pulpit fellowship) with The Episcopal Church and with three Churches in the
Reformed tradition (the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Reformed Church in
America, and the United Church of Christ).
Both of these proposals are the result of three rounds of dialogue
beginning in the late 1960s. Three
rounds of dialogue with The Episcopal Church have produced the conclusion that
there are no church-dividing issues between Lutherans and Anglicans. Three rounds of dialogue with the Reformed
Churches have produced the conclusion that historic church-dividing issues have
been transcended by theological developments in the twentieth century.
In both cases, these conclusions have
been corroborated by the results of international discussions. In both cases, we in the ELCA will consider
these proposals in the light of full communion/fellowship agreements that have
been reached elsewhere. In 1973 the Leuenberg Agreement brought the German
Lutheran and Reformed Churches into altar and pulpit fellowship. Currently the
Porvoo Agreement is bringing the four Anglican Churches of Great Britain and
Ireland and the Nordic Lutheran Churches of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
and Estonia into full communion (Latvia has yet to vote, and Denmark voted down
participation for now). This creates a
great deal of pressure for our Churches in America to move on these issues.
We are being asked by the Concordat of Agreement whether we do, in
fact, share a common understanding of the gospel with the Episcopal
Church. We are being asked whether, for
the sake of greater unity, we can follow the lead of our confession when it
declares that we adopt traditional church polity for the sake of unity whenever
doing so does not compromise the gospel (see especially the Apology of the Augsburg Confession,
Article XIV). We are asked if we can adopt the historic episcopate over a
period of time. We would not require
ordinands of the Episcopal Church to subscribe to the unaltered Augsburg Confession, although they would
have to teach in accordance with it if they were serving a Lutheran
congregation. Certain constitutional
changes would be required to provide that all bishops would sit in the
Conference of Bishops, even if they are no longer active (e.g. by reason of
retirement or loss of election), and that only bishops would ordain clergy. The Episcopal Church is being asked, in the
case of the ELCA only, to set aside the provision in its Ordinal that requires
all ministers who serve in that Church to be ordained by bishops in apostolic
succession.
We are being asked by A Common Calling whether the historic
differences between Lutheran and Reformed Churches (e.g. predestination, the
real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper) should still divide our Churches
today. If they should not, then should
we not recognize each other as churches in which the gospel is rightly preached
and the sacraments rightly administered?
Should we not withdraw any historic condemnations by one side against
the other as inappropriate for our situation today? If this is done, then should we not also recognize each other's ministries
and make provision for the sharing of ministries (altar and pulpit fellowship)?
It must be understood that full communion/fellowship is not
merger. The identity of each church
body and tradition remains intact. Even
in the exchange or sharing of ministries (e.g. a minister on the roster of one
churc body pastoring one or more congregations in a different church body), the
liturgical, catechetical, doctrinal, and polity traditions of each congregation
are to be respected. So a Lutheran
pastor serving an Episcopal parish would be expected to use The Book of Common Prayer. A Lutheran pastor serving a Presbyterian
congregation would be expected to use The
Book of Common Worship. A Reformed
pastor or an Episcopal priest serving an ELCA congregation would use the Lutheran Book of Worship or whatever
other items the congregation uses in worship.
And, yes, an Episcopal priest or a Reformed pastor teaching a Lutheran
confirmation clas would have to teach Luther’s Catechism. Conversely, an ELCA
pastor teaching an Episcopal or Reformed confirmation class would have to use
the catechism of the respective tradition.
Obviously, these provisions call for
more joint seminary instruction in liturgics, catechetics, and
confessions. We will have to know one another's
traditions as well as our own. Maybe by
learning the traditions of others we will come to better understand and
appreciate our own better.
To keep these proposed fellowship relationships in
perspective it is important to note that we have had experience with altar and
pulpit fellowship before. Before the formation of the ELCA, the three
predecessor church bodies were in full communion wiht one another. The exchange
of ministers and the sharing of ministry was a possibility and was practiced in
some situations. Ironically, under the proposed agreements with the Episcopal
and the three Reformed Churches, it might actually be easier for a minister in
those church bodies to serve an ELCA congregation that it was then, for
example, for an ALC pastor to serve an LCA congregation.
Why is full communion/altar and pulpit
fellowship desired? We know that
Christian unity is not our choice; it is Christ's desire, expressed in his high
priestly prayer, "that they may be one" (John 17:21). Ecumenism is not an option for the church
at any level of expression--local, regional, national, or global. Ecumenism is nothing less than the effort on
our part to discern the unity that the Holy Spirit gives to the Church. But does that unity have to be expressed in
the ecclesiastical-political act of establishing full communion?
Ecumenical strategy is determined by
missionary needs. When Jesus prayed
that his followers would be one as he and the Father are one, it was "so
that the world may believe that you have sent me." Missionary imperative has motivated the
ecumenical quest since the beginning of the twentieth century. It was The World Missionary Conference in
Edinburgh, 1910, that initiated the series of world meetings that led to the
formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948.
Developing strategies to deal with our missionary situation
in North America at the end of the twentieth century should be a major factor
in making ecumenical decisions. This requires an assessment of what our
missionary situation is. It is said that we live in a post-Christian society.
But we need to understand what “post-Christian” means in our American cultural
context.
“Post-Christian” in Europe refers to the emergence of a
secular culture that has replaced the culture of Christendom. This has brought
with it the actual or de facto
disestablishment of the Churches. The American nation has been officially
secular since 1789 when the US Constitution enshrined the principle of
separation of church and state. (This did not immediately apply to individual
states, and Congregational Church remained established in several New England
states until the eraly nineteenth century.) On the Other hand, our culture is
pervasively shaped by religions, ranging from denominations of major world
religions to secular humanism and neo-paganism. Polls consistently indicate
that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God and pray, and nearly
half of these attend public worship regularly. So “post Christian” cannot mean
the same thing in American society as it means in European countries.
Christian missioaries in every society have had to deal
with indigenous religions and spiritualities. Is there a dominant religiosity
or spirituality in our society? I have found the critique of Harold Bloom in The American Religion (Simon and
Shuster, 1992) especially helpful in assessing the religious situation in which
the Christian mission is pursued in our society. Bloom suggests that
“post-Christian” in America refers not only to the official secularism of our
government and the religious pluralism of our culture, but also to the
emergence of a prevailing form of christianity in our society that owes little
to historic Christianity. This form of Christianity is pervasively gnostic in
character and Pelagian in ethos. Gnostic elements include a sense of alienation
from nature, from history, from community, and from politics. These result in a
low tolerance for sacramental life, the historic liturgy, the mundane
complexities of church life, and traditional polities. Since the gnostic seeks
salvation through “knowledge” rather than through a saving relationship, the
gnostic is prone to the Pelagian style works-righteousness.
Given this missionary context, what
teaching best expresses the gospel of Christ? Sacramental realism or
sacramental symbolism? What strategy best preserves and extends the gospel?
Embracing our culture or standing over against it? What forms best celebrate
and express the gospel? Free church worship or liturgical worship? What kind of
polity best builds up the fellowship of the gospel as a community in mission?
One with a sense of continuity in the apostolic mission or one that expresses
local sovereignty or representative democracy? What other Christian communities
can best serve as our allies in the propagation of the faith in this
context?
These pragmatic missionary factors and
theological commitments will help to determine the ecumenical decisions we must
make in 1997. Three sets of Reformation Churches have the chance to come
together, but they offer different ways of life and they embody different
approaches to mission. We Lutherans are
caught between them, with elements in our church life common to both the
Episcopal and the Reformed traditions as well as elements that are unique to
our Lutheran confessional witness. Can
we enter into altar and pulpit fellowship with both Episcopal and Reformed
Churches simultaneously? Is the time
right to enter into fellowship with either of these communions? Is the political tack of declaring full
communion the best way to express Christian unity?
To a great extent these decisions will
be based on where we are as a church body now in our life and mission. Who are we and what are we called to proclaim
and celebrate in our missionary context in secular, religiously-pluralistic,
neo-pagan , syncretistic America? Can
one or both of these other traditions enrich and empower our sense of identity
and mission? Or, might fellowship with
one or the other or both of these Churches confuse our identity and blunt our
sense of the mission of the gospel in our cultural context?
The ecumenical decisions of 1997 are
finally decisions about our own sense of identity and mission as a community of
faith, an identity and mission which is not just of our own choosing.
Frank C. Senn
Pastor of Immanuel,
Evanston