From
Living Theology in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Evangelical Lutheran Church In America
Volume 2, Number 4
Epiphany 1998
Ecumenism and Full Communion
Wayne R. Cowell
Following
the narrow defeat of the Concordat of Agreement in the recent ELCA Churchwide
Assembly, the Assembly then adopted two resolutions aimed at restarting the
move toward full communion with the Episcopal Church.
The first declares the intention of the ELCA to preserve
conversation and eucharistic sharing with the Episcopal Church, and to bring a
revised proposal for full communion to the 1999 Churchwide Assembly. The second
recognizes "our need as the ELCA to understand our own doctrine, creeds,
and polity, and that of the Episcopal Church," and requests that the
leadership create educational opportunities throughout the ELCA "designed
to communicate the history, theology, and ecclesiology" of both churches.
After the overwhelming
passage of these resolutions, Presiding Bishop H. George Anderson turned to the
Episcopal representatives and asked for patience: "[You have heard] the
urgent and heartfelt desire of our church to enter into full communion with
your church. We ask for time to set ourselves in order and to find ways to join
you in what you have already committed yourselves to and to which we
aspire." (The Lutheran, Oct.,
1997, p. 8.)
No
doubt various motivations prompted “yes” votes on these resolutions. Obviously
many who had rejected the Concordat voted to keep the matter of full communion
with the Episcopal Church open, perhaps because they believed that the
commissioned study would reveal a new way out of the impasse represented by the
historic episcopate. Others may have read the resolutions as an admission that
the Assembly was not well prepared to act on the Concordat. Whatever the
individual reasons, the collective action raises important questions, in
particular:
1.
How serious will be the commitment to a study?
The
commitment of the ELCA leadership to full communion with the Episcopal Church
is not in doubt, but we do not yet have a measure of commitment to a study in
the depth implied by the resolution. Taking the Assembly action at face value,
if the ELCA moves intentionally toward better understanding of the history,
theology, and ecclesiology of both churches (and hence of the church catholic),
the consequences of an informed membership would reach far beyond
reconsideration of full communion with the Episcopal Church. We can pose this
question to the leadership, we can stimulate discussion, and we can reflect on
the reception of the Concordat during 1996-97 in the hope that we can grow from
that experience.
2.
Assuming that the ELCA is serious, what would be the nature of such a study?
Here
we can offer a serious suggestion. The Lutheran and Episcopal theologians who
worked together in a dialogue that began 28 years ago produced a collection of
papers and reports which have been edited and gathered into readily-available
books. Some of the vocabulary is technical, but the main directions of the
dialogue could be expressed in terms congenial to catechized laypersons.
Indeed, there is a model: one of the reports of the third round of dialogue, Implications of the Gospel (William A.
Norgren and William G. Rusch, eds., Augsburg Fortress, 1988), includes a study
guide by Darlis J. Swan and Elizabeth Z. Turner. (This might need to be updated
and expanded but it shows what could be done.) We will sketch the contours of a
study based on the dialogue, but it is only an intellectual exercise unless the
ELCA makes a serious commitment, and so we return to the first question.
The
late debates on the Concordat impel us toward a pessimistic answer about the
ELCA's capacity to examine great questions with great care. After attending the
Assembly, Pastor Leonard Klein pictured a reconsidered Concordat as an
accommodation, its meaning contaminated by a deep malaise within Lutheranism: "In
two years some plan, very possibly a slightly improved version of the
Concordat, will likely pass. Lutherans will find a way to move slowly into the
historic episcopate, but long before they arrive at the fullness of that goal,
unreconciled diversity and flat-out liberalism will have done their work, and
any genuine Lutheran confessionalism, to say nothing of a truly catholic view
of Lutheranism, will long since have faded." (Forum Letter, Oct., 1997) This predicted Lutheran future may strike
many as too dark but it should be taken as a challenge, not dismissed as the
grumbling of a cranky minority.
In
referring to the debates we have used the plural intentionally; actually there
were two debates. The distinction between them was the depth they employed in the
use of sources, particularly the dialogue documents (including, but not limited
to the Concordat itself), Scripture, normative texts of Lutherans and
Anglicans, as well as social and historical data. The insights developed by the
first, "deeper" debate were useful for evaluating the Concordat and
the prospects inherent in full communion. The arguments, both pro and con, had
context; they could be related to the "big picture" - the church's
unity in Christ for the sake of the world.
On
the whole this first debate was an exception to Klein's picture of decayed
confessionalism. Sadly, its impact was severely limited. It was conducted by
the theologically well-informed, mainly on the pages of journals like Dialog and Lutheran Forum. Aside from simplified summaries in The Lutheran and an occasional
"teach-in" by theologians for lay leaders and parish pastors, there
was little from this debate communicated to and made part of the discussion
among the people in the pews and in the parish pulpits. To ask, "Why not?"
is a fair question to pose to the leadership as they ponder how we may
"set ourselves in order." If the answer is that the people are not
ready for this kind of discussion then we see the size of the task of preparing
to reconsider the Concordat.
The
second, "shallower" debate was somewhat amorphous and anecdotal but
one could get the drift of it from the pages of The Lutheran. Pro-Concordat arguments often cited John 17 (a good
start) and told of how much we shared with the Episcopalians. They described
particular Lutheran/Episcopal cooperative arrangements (many of which did not
really depend on full communion), but their assurances that lifetime bishops
were not contrary
"Shallowness"
is a pejorative term for this debate but it is precisely to the point. The
historic episcopate was the great impasse to full communion that was worked
through and resolved by dialogue extending over nearly three decades, involving
some of the best minds in both churches. One may disagree with the way out of
the cul‑de‑sac but it deserves to be understood, which requires
that it be considered with the depth characteristic of the first debate.
An example will show how easy it is to be misled and to
mislead without careful attention to sources. (We do not claim that it shows
any intention to mislead.) Some Concordat opponents asserted that Episcopalians
regard the historic episcopate as a necessary element of the church, in
addition to Scripture, the creeds, and the sacraments. The assertion is wrong
but is subtly close to a related correct assertion. It is probably derived from
a misunderstanding of the Episcopalians' insistence that the historic
episcopate is essential to their identity as a communion and (together with
Scripture, the creeds, and the sacraments) a requirement for full union with
other communions. This is not the same thing as saying that the historic
episcopate is part of the essence of the church. Careful reading of the
dialogue documents, as we will propose below, makes the Episcopal position
clear.
This
kind of misunderstanding is more than semantic nicety. It traps the mind into
believing that Lutherans would relinquish their confessional position that the
church is the gathering of the faithful around rightly-proclaimed Word and
rightly-celebrated sacraments if they enter into full communion with
Episcopalians. It is easily confuted (and would be prevented in the first
place) by referring to the dialogue documents, which leads us back to our
second question: What might be the shape of a serious study to fulfill the mandate of the 1997 Assembly?
What
we sketch here is intended to provoke discussion; it is far short of a course
outline. Our suggested study would lay aside the Concordat until later and
would begin with a catechetical review. Summary material could be drawn from
Luther's catechisms and from more modern work such as Robert Jenson's A Large Catechism (American Lutheran
Publicity Bureau, 1991).
Second,
the study would work through Implications
of the Gospel, alluded to above, or material of similar nature. This is a
natural next step beyond catechism. It begins with Jesus' proclamation of the
reign of God, injected into human history by the resurrection. Thereafter, the
disciple community was able to reappropriate Jesus' life and death, and
Israel's past, and to reenvision God's future--a future not yet consummated but
already present as promise. Implications
goes on to take up the great doctrines of classical Christianity: Christ and
the Trinity. It deals with the church as a necessary implication of the gospel;
and the manifestation of the visible unity of the church is presented as the
fundamental vocation of the people of God. It examines the present cultural
context in which the church offers the gospel as an alternative vision for the
future of the world. Finally, Implications
takes up mission in terms of the interdependence of ecumenism, evangelism, and
ethics.
This
is a tall order for a thin volume of 128 pages! It offers only a peek at great
matters; but in a way that could be appropriated by adults in a parish setting.
As mentioned above, Implications has
a study guide and is a joint statement by Lutherans and Episcopalians. It
leaves no doubt that Episcopalians and Lutherans share common teaching at the
most basic level.
For
the third phase of the study, we propose that materials be developed to
recapitulate the modern Lutheran/Episcopal dialogue. Since the question of
shared doctrine would already be settled in the second phase, this phase would
deal with the remaining and most crucial issue, the historic episcopate. We
will not attempt to point to specific references here but the dialogue
documents provide a rich resource. This phase of study would examine the same
historical issues that the dialogue examined: the development of the ordained
ministry in the early church and the emergence of the threefold order of
bishops, presbyters, and deacons as one of the institutions for preserving the
apostolic witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It would discuss corrupting
influences in the church that precipitated the crisis of the sixteenth century
and would compare the English and German reformations that resulted in a
reformed episcopate in England and the development of confessionalism in
Germany.
This
historical sweep could be handled in summary fashion but it is necessary
background for understanding the way the dialogue arrived at common ground in
identifying the historic episcopate as a sign
of the present church's continuity with the church of the apostles while the substance of apostolicity lay in canon,
creed and sacrament, as these are proclaimed and "used" in the
church. This kind of thinking fit the Lutherans' confessional approval of a
reformed episcopate and enabled the Episcopalians to accept the Lutheran faithfulness
to a confessional consensus as a de facto
apostolic succession.
Finally,
in its fourth phase, our recommended study would return to the Concordat. By
now, to name a few of the benefits of their study, the participants could read with
greater appreciation that Episcopalians and Lutherans "recognize in each
other the essentials of the one catholic and apostolic faith..." They
should be able to see that neither the recovery of the historic episcopate by
Lutherans nor the Episcopalians' recognition of Lutheran ordinations need
trouble either side's conscience. These were not "negotiated"
settlements in a process of "I'll do this if you give up that" but
are results of common understanding. They should be able to consider
knowledgeably the position of the Lutheran dialogists who wrote a dissenting
report and the assenting answer (an exchange that was often misinterpreted in
the shallow debate). They should realize that Lutherans have the freedom to
have lifetime bishops who make a difference, an episcopate of women and men who
are chief pastors, teachers, defenders of the faith. Best of all, they might
just find that a revision of this document would be grounded in a confessional
consensus that would enable Assembly delegates to say with St. James of
Jerusalem, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."
Can
all of this be done in two years? Probably not. Would it give Episcopalians
confidence in the conversation. Surely, it would. Would its effect spread far
beyond Lutheran-Episcopal relations? It certainly would. Indeed, if a serious
study along these lines were mounted, it should give some hope to those who
yearn for a genuine Lutheran confessionalism and a truly catholic view of
Lutheranism.
Wayne R. Cowell
Member, Lutheran/Episcopal Dialogue