Three years ago, with the discussions around the Concordat of Agreement, and now with those about Called to Common Mission (CCM), much of the argument in favor of communion in sacris and ministerial interchangeability with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has used the metaphor of marriage. "Far from giving things up, we will find our full identity in partnership with the beloved" seems to be the gist. I have never been able to let a figure of speech alone, and so please indulge me while I probe marital imagery.

In other times and cultures, romance had little to do with marriage. Rather, parents, marriage brokers, and even the town yenta, met together and planned matches between suitable young people. All questions of settlements, residence and ceremonial were worked out at this level. If the prospective bride and groom objected on the grounds of indifference or even aversion, they were told that suitability and affinity were far more important and that love would come later. Western literature from every land is replete, however, with what happened when love did not come later.

I suggest that CCM is such a professional arrangement, with ecumenical officers, seminary faculty, and some bishops playing the brokering roles, while the intended couple remain puzzled, indifferent, or even downright hostile to the proceedings. When one or the other has objected, most of the advice received has been of the "we know-better-than-you-what-is-good-for-you" variety, although of late there have been attempts at salvaging the betrothals by changes to the settlement itself.

It seems to me that the heart of disagreement between the bridal couple is their differing conceptions of the ordained ministry. It is not my purpose here to advance one over the other, but rather to state the difference. Whatever greater and lesser prelates might be part of the Episcopal baggage, the ordained ministry is irreducibly three-fold. Our ordained ministry consists of bishops, priests and deacons. The Lutheran concept of ordination, however, is clearly single: They are pastors, whatever political overlay may have been found convenient. Scriptural argument can be made for each of these conceptions, but they are not, in the final analysis, compatible and certainly not interchangeable.

Certain suspicions of some Episcopalians have now been fueled by the ELCA bishops' resolutions interpreting the basic document CCM. A.3, for instance, states that there will be no defined role for the Presiding Bishop or synodical bishops after their elected term expires. It is some comfort that if re-elected, such bishops will not again have hands laid upon them at their installations. B.2 states clearly that ordained ministers from non-episcopally ordaining traditions will be received onto the roster of ELCA pastors without re-ordination. That has evoked a quite specific reaction from the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops that such pastors will not be accepted as interchangeable. The ambiguity of the English word "regularly" has caused the House of Bishops to request clarification of paragraph 20 of CCM because as worded, it would appear to sanction ordination of pastors by pastors under certain circumstances. And A.4 would seem to rule out any adoption of an ordained diaconate by ELCA ever.

Some Episcopalians of "high church" stripe would welcome the apostolic gifts that Lutherans would bring to the common mission, specifically fidelity to scripture and greater doctrinal integrity. But we rather expect to be able to make our own apostolic contribution to the union. Both the basic revisions to the Concordat in CCM and the resolutions of the Lutheran Conference of Bishops make us think, however, that our contribution of apostolic order would deteriorate for the reasons stated above into an episcopate that is evanescent, a presbyterate that is uncertain, and a diaconate that is non-existent except in the person of the bishop. It would appear that the wedding gifts are being returned even before the ceremony.

Difficulties with in-laws are legendary in marital affairs. Here we find each tradition not only absolved in advance if it cannot cope with the other's kith and kin, but also relieved of any necessity even to try (paragraph 25).

All is not well, even with the professional marriage brokers. In paragraph 24 we read, "Each church promises to issue no official commentary on this text (CCM) that has not been accepted by the joint commission as a legitimate interpretation thereof." But simultaneous to the issuance of CCM, the Lutheran Conference of Bishops issued the resolutions cited above. That, of course, prompted the Episcopal House of Bishops to issue their own "Mind of the House" resolution on April 3. What the brokers have presented the bride- and groom-to-be is a prenuptial agreement with footnotes, one set for the bride and one for the groom.

The ELCA and the Episcopal Church have traditionally gotten along fairly well, and we have eucharistic sharing. Why take a perfectly good friendship and complicate it with matrimony, at least until such time as the couple are truly in love?

A good union has objective reasons for its success, but there are also subjective ones. Without strong attraction, without an overwhelming desire to make their way together, a bridal couple is doomed to misery or divorce or both regardless of how suitable a match their elders think it. Instead of a marriage made in heaven, I fear that CCM would become a match hatched in hell. o

The Rev. James Steele is the rector of St. Thomas' Church, Morris, Ill., and an alternate deputy to General Convention from the Diocese of Chicago.