# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S406
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

406 ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The ELCA’s “confessional paragraph” seems to give pre-emi-
nence to the Augsburg Confession. In itself, this would be no prob-
lem, since the Formula of Concord regards not itself but the Augs-
burg Confession as the “symbol of our epoch.” Nor have strict
Lutherans in the past questioned the orthodoxy of those who for
historical reasons had no formal subscription to the Formula, but
genuinely adhered to the Augsburg Confession. The ELCA, how-
ever, while acknowledging “the other confessional writings in the
Book of Concord . . . as further valid interpretations of the faith of
the Church,” merely “accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession
as a true witness to the Gospel,’ which latter alone is
“confesse[d].” Given the ELCA’s deliberate exclusion of biblical
infallibility/inerrancy from its constitution, all further commitments
rest on a slippery slope of relativism. Not surprisingly. “[t]he dis-
pute now is not over anything so refined as the relationship of Law
and Gospel. It is, just for starters, over what the Gospel is. whether
there is any Law at all, and just who this necessary Christ might
be?

In evaluating the Agreement, our response takes advantage of
the entire Book of Concord (1580), without in any way diminishing
the primacy of the Augsburg Confession (1530), which is as anti-
Reformed as the Formula of Concord (1577): “Of the Supper of
the Lord it is taught thus, that the very body and blood of Christ
are verily present under the form of bread and wine in the Supper,
and are there distributed and received. Therefore also the contrary
doctrine is rejected.”*

Pivotal for the Agreement is the “satis est consentire” of Au-
gustana VII: “For the true unity of the church it is enough to agree
concerning the teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the
sacraments.” [n this article not only Lutherans, but also the Re-
formed, who do not accept the Augustana, find a basis for their al-
liance.

Adoption of the Agreement has an immediate effect in altering
the confessional status of Augustana X, which was intended to ex-
clude Zwinglian teaching. Even the Lutheran World Federation’ s
Harding Meyer noted that acceptance of the Leuenberg Concord
(1973), expressly approved by the Agreement, meant a major
change in “Lutheran confessionality.” [t could “only mean that both
churches no longer hold to the same position on certain points
which had for a long time been considered important.” For one
thing, “the previous Lutheran insistence on the Unaltered Augs-
burg Confession” is given up.’ For the Agreement, then, the his-
toric doctrinal differences between Lutherans and Reformed are no
longer obstacles to fellowship between the churches at any level.
Since the UCC makes no confession binding, historical precedent
presents no obstacles.'°

The ELCA’s recognition that the sacraments are rightly admin-
istered in the Reformed churches puts the positions on the Lord’s
Supper of Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Knox and other classic Re-
formed and Calvinist teachers, along with their traditional confes-
sions like the Consensus Tigurinus,'' the Second Helvetic Confes-
sion, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession on an
equal footing with what is confessed in the Book of Concord. Thus
pastors and congregations who explicitly deny or deliberately avoid
saying that the bread of the Sacrament is the body of Christ and the
cup is the blood of Christ are now recognized by congregations of
the ELCA as those among whom “the sacraments are rightly ad-
ministered.” This clearly disavows the teaching of the Lutheran Re-
formation (AC VI and X). In effect..the Agreement puts the doc-
trine of the Lord’s Supper into the category of adiaphora, matters
on which there may be disagreement without disrupting the unity of
the faith and the church. It follows logically that the Agreement
“withdraw[s] any historic condemnation by one side or the other
as inappropriate for the life and faith of our churches today.”'” To
cite a critique of the Roman Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration
on the Doctrine of Justification: “The document seems to hold to a

2001 Convention Workbook

hermeneutic that would have us believe that disagreements can be
overcome if we wil! only agree that the disjunctive statements re-
ally” do not matter any more.'* Richard John Neuhaus, a former
ELCA clergyman, refers to an article by Leonard Klein, a current
ELCA clergyman, to offer this assessment: “In the larger world of
ecumenical affairs, there has been much talk in recent years about
‘reconciled diversity.’ The idea is that differences once thought to
be church-dividing may not be so, that unity does not mean unifor-
mity, and so forth. ‘What we have achieved with the Reformed.’
writes Pr. Klein, ‘true to the mood of the inclusive church, is un-
reconciled diversity.’

The Lutheran Confessions hold that the true body of Christ is
present in or under the bread [water der Gestalt des Brots| and that
this excludes the contrary Reformed position.'* Within the new
frame of reference, opposing views are valued as equal approxi-
mations of the truth.’ Accordingly, the condemnations of the
Lutheran Confessions against the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's
Supper are no longer operable and are therefore withdrawn. With
this the Lutheran Confessions are relegated to the position of mere
historical documents, which no longer can claim the exclusive right
to articulate the faith of Lutherans in the ELCA. Thus ELCA con-
gregations and pastors are incidentally and not necessarily
Lutheran. The practical outcome of this new understanding is that
pastors of the Reformed tradition, with their denial of the real pres-
ence of the Lord’s body and blood in the Supper, are welcome to
officiate at Lutheran altars and the Reformed laity are allowed to
commune at these altars. In turn, Lutheran pastors and Jaity may
celebrate and receive at Reformed tables.

Eucharistic hospitality is conceded by the Lutherans, not the Re-
formed. In this ecclesiastical treaty between the two great Reforma-
tion churches, the Lutherans and not the Reformed have made the
accommodation in formally instituting mutual eucharistic hospital-
ity. Already at Marburg, Zwingli extended a cucharistic invitation to
Luther, which the Reformed have continued to offer Lutherans with
few exceptions in the intervening four centuries. In the case of the
Prussian Union, this invitation was legally enforced by penalties
against Lutherans who conscientiously objected to it. The Agree-
ment calls on the Reformed to keep on doing what they have always
done and requires the Lutherans to do what they have historically
refused to do. Concession is totally on the Lutheran side.

Since the ELCA has long practiced open communion (the for-
mer American Lutheran Church had full fellowship with the Re-
formed [1986]), the Agreement with the Reformed hardly repre-
sented a real crisis for them. It received an eighty-two percent
approval vote.'’ Subscription by ELCA congregations and pastors
to the Augustana—for some this may include one or more of the
other Confessions, something that may differ from congregation to
congregation—has been replaced by the Agreement requiring a
practice that is contrary to the Confessions. This situation is most
serious for pastors, who must now act contrary to their ordination
vows. Here is a parallel to the Prussian Union.'* The renunciation
of the Confessions becomes most evident in the ELCA’s recogni-
tion of the UCC, which, in its blending of Congregational, Baptist,
Reformed, and Evangelical (Lutheran-Reformed) churches into one
denomination, long ago gave up any concept of confessional sub-
scription.|”

The Agreement has meaning for ELCA laity. They are urged to
participate in communion services led by Reformed ministers in
Lutheran or Reformed churches. In both instances they may hear a
liturgical formula in the distribution of the Lord’s Supper that is
different and even contrary to what they have been accustomed to
hearing in a Lutheran service. Such liturgical ritual has doctrinal
implications, because it either confesses or does not confess the
truth. What is distributed in such situations may in fact be no Sacra-
ment at all. The Reformed have never gone beyond seeing the