From
Living Theology in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Evangelical Lutheran Church In America
Volume 2, Number 4
Epiphany 1998
Ecumenism and Full Communion
A Sermon
This week I felt compelled to set aside all of the
assigned texts before me--those for the “Festival of St. Bartholomew, Apostle”
as well as for this “The 16th Sunday after Pentecost”, and reflect seriously
upon events of last Sunday.
Christians of all denominations convene
assemblies--annually, bi-annually or tri-annually. They do so with varying
degrees of gusto and, quite often, with little or no interest generated on the
parish level. Lutherans are no exception and even though our own church body,
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was meeting in Philadelphia the
better part of the week of August 10th, and historic votes were anticipated, it
was business as usual in parishes across the land. Furthermore, while I am
confident that a majority of ELCA congregations remembered our church leaders,
convention delegates and their convention deliberations in last Sunday
morning’s prayers, I suspect that very few pastors committed sermon time to the
important issues before that convention.
Pastor Gazzolo did and I am thankful for that! It
was an excellent sermon, by the way. I listened to an audio tape of it when I
returned to the office last Monday morning. But, even before doing so, I went
on the Internet to capture convention news, specifically the results of the
votes on separate resolutions favoring “full communion”--first with our
brothers and sisters of the Reformed churches and next with the Episcopal
Church. I am not embarrassed to tell you that I was in a state of shock for
hours after reading the twenty or more pages I printed off the ELCA’s “web
site.” In fact, when I first saw Barbara later in the morning I said, “What happened? Who’s going to call and
what should we say?” I was referring to a call that one of us would have to
make to Father George Counsel, Rector of Lake
Forest’s Church of the Holy Spirit regarding the narrow defeat of the “Lutheran
/ Episcopal Concordat.”
Barbara and I decided that we would speak to our
Episcopal colleagues that afternoon at a clergy reception honoring Pastor
Schliepsiek (Faith Lutheran Church, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.) Four o’clock came. Barbara and I were
sitting together at a table in Lake Forest Hospital’s new reception hall when
George Counsel and his assistant, Alan Gates, entered the room. Eye contact was
made all around and George smiled at Barbara and me and said, for all to hear,
something like, “I believe the Lutherans here present owe the Episcopalians a
hug!”
As George and I embraced he said : “Tony, we won’t let this die on the vine. As
Bishop Griswold said immediately following your convention vote : ‘The future
of cooperation between Lutherans and Episcopalians will be determined in the parishes
and not on the floor of a convention.’”
So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me
say this. Had I a vote last Sunday, I would have without hesitation voted for
the adoption of both resolutions, Reformed and Episcopal. Had I an opportunity
to influence the delegates, clergy or laity, I would have done so with every
bit of energy and passion I could muster. I had neither a vote nor an
opportunity to move even one delegate. And, while I accept that we must respect
the decisions and actions of those who served as delegates to this biennial
convention of our church, I am obviously very disappointed and more than a
little embarrassed. Do I remain hopeful
about the long-term future of ecumenical relations? Absolutely! And yet, for
the moment, I am gravely concerned.
The
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, more than any other church in the land
was recognized as having the theological
credibility and the corporate will
to bridge the gaps. Frankly, both our credibility and our will are now in
question. Not just among Episcopalians whom we courted and then jilted by a 6
vote margin and who, following an overwhelming majority vote at their earlier convention, were left
standing at “the altar of full communion” like a bride waiting for the
bridegroom. We are suspect among those Christians with whom we are now in full
communion as well--churches that were looking to us to build bridges that would
one day unite them with the Episcopal Church, and perhaps someday even with
Roman Catholics.
In my opinion we have neither the theological nor
political self-understanding to undertake that task! Ecumenical bridge
building may have to be left to others or be postponed indefinitely. We have,
for the time being, lost our window of opportunity to lead in that dimension.
The reasons are fairly clear.
·
First,
as a church, we are more divided than almost anyone within the leadership of
our church imagined.
·
Secondly,
there is within our church--even among our most respected theologians--a woeful
lack of understanding relative to what the “God of the Ages.” in his or her
wisdom, holds up to mankind as of eternal importance--that which might move his
stars just a bit.
I am sure that there are many individuals smarter than I willing to
argue the point, but trust me on this. God does not concern himself with who
might ordain his priests and how they are thought to be empowered (except by
his Spirit)--whether some who are set apart as bishops should alone ordain or
whether one humble pastor could indeed ordain another.
If a preoccupation with such matters is what kept
even six let alone 351 convention delegates from voting in favor of full
communion with the Episcopal Church (and I believe this is at the heart of it
all) there is most certainly weeping in heaven. The issue of apostolic
succession, pro or con, simply will not move the stars in God’s heavens, and if
Episcopalians are asking us to look more closely at that historic order for
ministry, why not take a closer look at it? To be ordained by a bishop who can
trace his lineage all the way back to Peter, as my ordaining bishop of the
Augustana Lutheran Church could, will not make me any more or less a
pastor, just as it does not make him any more or less or a bishop! So let’s not create obstacles that one day
will be seen as tiny specks on the vast canvass of Church history. Are we
medieval peasants, unaccustomed to dealing with authority and authority figures,
afraid of the church’s hierarchy and what it might do? Hardly! When and if any
one of you decided that church leadership, at any level, was abusing its power
and you believed that circumstances would never change for the better, you
would simply walk right out that door and not come back! And, how the church is
ordered from top to bottom, bottom to top, could not keep you from walking.
Several days have passed since the assembly
adjourned. Delegates have returned to their homes, our church leaders to
Michigan Avenue and Higgins Road, and I have gradually come to grips
with the close vote rejecting the Episcopal/Lutheran Concordat. What I cannot
yet make sense of, however, is the overwhelming approval, by the same
convention delegates, of the resolution to accept full communion with Reformed
churches. A decision which, I repeat, I fully support but which makes no sense
given the decision not to accept full communion with the Episcopal Church.
Does not this action mean that the majority of those who were against
full communion with Episcopalians (with whom we are in full doctrinal agreement
concerning the Sacrament of Holy Communion),
were in favor of full communion with Presbyterians, the Reformed Church
in America and the United Church of Christ (with whom there remain long
standing doctrinal disputes concerning the same sacrament?) Bishops and priests
aside, I’m talking about Holy Communion in the purest sense, “the eating and
the drinking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ!”
Let me emphasize: Any dispute we may have with
Reformed churches concerning the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is
not an issue that would have kept me from voting in favor of “full communion”
with them. I agree with the position Pastor Gazzolo took in last Sunday’s
sermon: “We come to that communion rail
with whatever understanding of Christ’s presence we can put together in our
limited way!” I am simply struggling to understand why assembly delegates
gave greater weight to a question of church order, namely the exclusive right of
bishops to ordain, than to the central question of sacramental theology (when,
where and how is Christ present in the Lord’s Supper?”).
It would seem to me that questions of church order have more to do with human authority
and the question of “real presence” with divine
power. I ask you: Which do you think is of greater consequence in the grand
scheme of things, authority and order in the church or the forgiving, empowering, saving presence of Christ in the
Sacrament of Holy Communion? Which, in
your humble layman’s opinion, might move the stars?
Some who cast these votes of
obvious inconsistency say: “So what!” It’s not the end of the
world!” Of course it isn’t! Just the same, history will show that what we
have just witnessed is a wrong headed step backward by a body of Lutherans that
has always prided itself for its bold steps forward. In the history of the
Faith, Christian men and women have never lacked for excuses. But why should
Lutherans of the ELCA now, at this crucial juncture in the life of the Church
behave so foolishly? What will be our excuse for failing to give lively
expressing to the inclusive Christ of the Gospel in a world that is
experiencing, more and more, deadly denominational-exclusivity?
One excuse that I saw reported in a news account is
that most delegates from the Upper Midwest have had little exposure to and
experience with ecumenical cooperation. Lutherans are so dominant within their
communities they have never felt a need to find “common ground” with their
church neighbors, least of all with a denomination a fraction of their size (no
matter how affluent or influential its members). Well, I am not ready to accept
that excuse because I don’t believe that the 300+ Lutherans who made up the
“opposition minority” could be that narrowly provincial.
In my search for a better explanation I settled on
this very real possibility: I am convinced that a growing number of devout
Lutherans are simply ill-informed about how confessional Lutheranism should
relate to Scripture--how doctrinal positions can be held and defended only in
the revealing light of the Gospel. Consequently, we have become a church like
so many others--moving (or not moving) by whim and wave rather than by the
Spirit.
The leaders of both the Reformed and Episcopal churches openly
acknowledge that they have long appreciated the firm foundations of Lutheranism
that help them define their doctrinal positions and from which dialogue between
so many churches is sustained and ever greater consensus can grow. The Reformed
Churches must be more confused than I am by what has taken place. News releases
say that while the leaders of the Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Church in
America and the United Church of Christ celebrated our convention’s somewhat
surprising endorsement of full communion with them, they were deeply saddened
and bewildered by the unexpected rejection of full communion with the Episcopal
church with which we have had far longer discussion, closer ties, and far
greater agreement.
I’m always searching for illustrations to make a
sermon point :
A bishop, so the story goes, was presiding over the
liturgy in a large cathedral. He sensed that the microphone wasn't working
properly, and as he was about to begin the traditional "The Lord be with you," he tapped the mike several times.
Hearing nothing and convinced that he was speaking into a dead mike, he said, "There's something wrong with this
blasted microphone." To which
the people responded, "And also with
you."
It
may seem harsh, but I view the actions taken by the delegates to the ELCA’s
Philadelphia Convention as illustrated by the story of that bishop. There is
something wrong with us as a church, at least as a church in convention,
when we allow impatience, frustration and ego to govern our decision making.
So, where do we go from here? Well, we continue to talk to each
other--Lutherans and Episcopalians, Lutherans and Roman Catholics, Lutherans
and Orthodox--whoever is willing to share their faith toward greater Christian
understanding and unity.
We must not take our new relationship with the Reformed Churches for
granted. We must build upon what has now been established and, at the same
time, renew efforts to resolve the perceived differences that keep Lutherans
and Episcopalians apart.
Further, let me say I don’t want to imply that those who voted to
reject the Lutheran/Episcopal Concordat acted irresponsibly. I believe they
took their role as delegates to a Churchwide Assembly very seriously. I would
simply suggest that we all need to return to our catechisms and rediscover the
catholicity, the universality, of Luther’s faith.
·
the
inclusiveness that, given time, I believe would have allowed Luther to work
toward Christian unity much more deliberately than have the churches which bear
his name—even a unity with Rome.
·
a
love for Christ’s Church on earth that would have awakened the other
“reformation churches” to the necessity that they find a way down that same
road; a road which I happen to believe is wide enough to accept the Church’s
historic episcopacy without fear and trembling among Lutherans.
If we are willing to do this kind of self-examination I am confident
that we will soon be walking side by side with our Episcopal brothers and
sisters nationally and our Anglican brothers and sisters worldwide--walking
together with those of the Reformed churches and, who knows, perhaps others far
less catholic than we. We will walk not necessarily to Rome, but toward “Rome,”
and toward Constantinople, as our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and
sisters meet us all somewhere along the way.
Pastor,
Saint James, Lake Forest