Lutherans Approve Full Communion with Reformed but Not with Episcopal Church -- Yet
Episcopal News Service. September 26, 1997 [97-1959]
(ENS) Facing ecumenical decisions of momentous significance, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) approved "full communion" with three Reformed churches -- but voted down a similar proposal with the Episcopal Church by only six votes.
In the closing hours of the assembly, however, the Lutherans sent a strong signal that they fully intend to deal with the issue again in 1999. By margins over 90 percent, they passed two resolutions that said the ELCA "remains committed to the ultimate goal of full communion" with the Episcopal Church and asked for intensive study in the next two years "to communicate the history, theology and ecclesiology" of both churches.
Addressing the Episcopalian representatives after the vote, ELCA Bishop George H. Anderson said, "You felt the urgent and heartfelt intent of this church to enter into full communion with the Episcopal 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."
After days of presentations, open hearings and floor debate, the ELCA Churchwide Assembly vote in Philadelphia on August 18 approved the new relationship with the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America and the United Church of Christ by over 81 percent. The vote on the Concordat of Agreement with the Episcopal Church was 66.1 percent, just shy of the required two-thirds, 684 in favor and 351 opposed. While the implications of the split decision sank in, the assembly participants sang a listless version of "The Church's One Foundation," as participants embraced each other in tears of joy or frustration.
"The ecumenical opportunity of the century has been lost," said Prof. J. Robert Wright of New York's General Seminary, a principal author of the Concordat. "This was a chance to bridge the great divide in Christianity between the Reform and Catholic traditions."
In his statement, Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning pointed out that the Episcopal Church had "overwhelmingly" approved the Concordat at its General Convention in the same convention center a month earlier. "An opportunity was created -- and I regret that we have missed it." Although he will encourage that the present relationship continue, he admitted that "a certain diminishment of enthusiasm will be inevitable as we pray that God will show each of us the way forward."
Bishop Ted Jones of Indianapolis, co-chair of the Lutheran-Episcopal Coordinating Committee, said during a press conference that "those close to the talks will be disappointed" but that "life will go on in the local churches." He warned against viewing the vote as "an ecumenical dead end."
Anderson said that he was "shocked at this narrowest of margins." In his opening address he had declared his support for both ecumenical proposals.
Throughout the discussion and debate one provision of the Concordat drew the strongest opposition -- a changed role for Lutheran bishops and their incorporation into historic episcopate.
Lutherans regard their ordained ministry as a single order which includes both pastors and bishops. Bishops are elected for six-year terms of oversight and then may return to the parish. Under the Concordat, they would be elected for life, even though they may continue to serve terms, and they would be "installed" by three bishops from each of the churches.
Speaker after speaker pointed out that the Augsburg Confession, the authoritative 16th century document of the Lutheran Reformation, says that agreement in Word and Sacrament is the only condition for unity. "The requirement of the Concordat is that we adopt the hierarchical system of episcopal structure as an additional condition for full communion, thus adding a condition for unity which we have never had before," argued Prof. Michael Rogness of the Luther Seminary in St. Paul.
While admitting that "Lutherans don't think the historic episcopate is necessary for ordained ministry," Prof. Walter Bouman of Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus argued that "the Lutheran confessions state that Lutherans have no objection to the historic episcopate." For the sake of unity and mission, therefore, Lutherans would agree to share the historic episcopate with Episcopalians who would, in turn, suspend temporarily the requirement that only clergy ordained by bishops in the historic episcopate could preside at the Eucharist. That would permit Episcopalians to recognize Lutheran clergy immediately. "The episcopate is not a limitation but an expression of our freedom," he said.
Dozens of Lutherans swarmed to microphones to passionately argue for and against the Concordat. Some were absolutely convinced that bishops in the historic episcopate would create a gulf between them and the rest of the church by moving toward a more hierarchical style by adopting the three-fold ministry of the Episcopal Church. "Every fiber of my being shouts out and cries no to the historic episcopate," said Connie McAllister of St. Paul. But John Stendahl of Massachusetts said that he liked the "subversive potential" of the Concordat and saw in the agreement possibilities for "mutual critique and admonition." Others openly warned that the issue was too divisive, asking if it was worth dividing the church over the issue.
Several speakers pointed out that the whole Christian world was watching whether the Lutherans would see the importance of healing divisions that have persisted since the 16th century.
Bishop George Mocko said that his synod in Delaware-Maryland had been opposed but that he had changed his mind because a failure to adopt the proposals would jeopardize other ecumenical discussions, leading those partners to think Lutherans were all talk and no action.
"Lutherans are free to accept the historic episcopate, not as necessary, but as a gesture of reconciliation," said Bishop Donald McCoid of Pennsylvania. But his colleague, Bishop Rick Foss of North Dakota, said that it would be dishonest to say yes out of a sense of fear or politeness. Don Maier of Montana said that he was afraid of the deep divisions, arguing that the whole process was flawed. "This may be the time, but this is not the way."
The Reformed observers expressed mixed emotions at a press conference following the vote. The Rev. John Thomas of the UCC said that he felt a "deep sense of disappointment" that it was not possible for both proposals to move forward. He said that his gratitude was mixed with grief and that he shared the hurt and pain among his Episcopal colleagues.
The ELCA had hoped to "move in multiple directions at the same time," said the Rev. Dan Martenson, ecumenical officer for the ELCA in the news conference following the vote. He worried that the decision in favor of the Reformed churches would now be perceived as moving in one direction. Yet he said that the ELCA is deeply resolved to continue its relationships with other churches both here and abroad.
"The ecumenical agenda is very much alive," added the Rev. David Perry, the Episcopal Church's ecumenical officer, because the votes demonstrated "broad-based support in both churches." The enthusiasm demonstrated for the Concordat at the General Convention is a clear sign that "the energy will continue." And he was particularly encouraged by the "solid core of younger people committed to ecumenism." July's meeting of almost 30,000 Lutheran youth strongly endorsed the ecumenical proposals.
While the vote may be "an honest and accurate reflection of where the Lutheran church is," Anderson agreed that it is clear that the majority of Lutherans want a close relationship with the Episcopalians. "With some additional work, we can complete the task."
That task seems daunting for some Episcopalians who feel that, despite an enthusiastic embrace of the Concordat, they have been left standing at the altar. "It is a sad day for the ecumenical movement," Prof. William Franklin of General Seminary said in a newspaper interview. "The Episcopal Church has never done anything like this before -- certainly not by such an overwhelming vote. We got jilted."
Presiding bishop-elect Frank Griswold told a reporter that the ELCA may need "to grow in cohesion a little more" before it could respond to the proposal for full communion. And he added that "there would be a reluctance to offer a new invitation without evidence that the Lutherans would respond positively." In the meantime, "Nothing is going to dampen my enthusiasm for full communion," he said.
The determination of the Lutherans to study the issue and respond in 1999 means that the Episcopal Church would be able to consider a response at the General Convention in 2000. In the meantime, the 1982 agreement on eucharistic sharing "continues to guide joint ministry efforts in worship, education and mission."
Anderson's hopeful comments about the future resonated with Browning's statement that "the unity in Christ which has always existed, and which awaits our acceptance, will be reestablished whenever God's people want it and claim it."
![[thumbnail: Episcopalians Respond to...]](/e-archives/ENS/photographs/thumbnails/97-1959_thb.jpg) |