LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 404

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

404 ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Formula of Agreement
in Confessional Lutheran Perspective

An evaluation of the Formula of Agreement
by the Department of Systematic Theology
Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne

With a summary and study guide prepared by
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

A Summary and Study of the Seminary Evaluation

1. The 1997 assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America (ELCA) adopted by an 82 percent majority A Formula of
Agreement (FOA), which was signed by the Presbyterian Church
(USA), the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church
of Christ. This document says that the signatories “recognize each
other as churches in which the gospel is rightly preached and the
sacraments rightly administered according to the Word of God.”
Perhaps the most significant point of difference that FOA declares
to be settled is the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

2. Regarding this and other historic points of Lutheran-Re-
formed difference, FOA says: “in light of the radically changed
world of the twentieth century, it was deemed inappropriate to de-
fend or correct positions and choices taken in the sixteenth century,
making them determinative for Lutheran-Reformed witness today.”
In essence, this says that the historic confessions are no longer
binding. Such an assertion is perhaps compatible with an open-
ended Reformed understanding of confessional subscription or with
the ELCA constitution which identifies even the Augsburg Con-
fession as simply a “true witness” to the Gospel. It is not compati-
ble with the binding nature of confessional subscription in historic
Lutheran tradition. The present evaluation of FOA is informed by
all of the Lutheran Confessions found in the Book of Concord.

3. Signatories to FOA “recognize each other as churches in
which the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly ad-
ministered.” By adopting FOA, the ELCA extends this recognition
to pastors and congregations who deny or avoid saying that the true
body and blood of Christ are present in or under the bread and wine
of the Lord’s Supper. But the Lutheran Confessions teach precisely
this, and they reject the contrary Reformed position (Small Cate-
chism; Augsburg Confession X; Formula of Concord VII).
Lutheran and Reformed doctrine and practice concerning the
Lord’s Supper truly are contradictory, not “complementary” as
FOA claims. In FOA’s new frame of reference, opposing views are
valued as equally acceptable versions of the truth.

4. The adoption of FOA by the ELCA has implications for both
pastors and laypeople in that church body. Pastors will act contrary
to the Lutheran Confessions, to which they pledged themselves in
their ordination vows. Laypeople will participate in communion
services led by Reformed ministers in Lutheran or Reformed
churches where questions may arise about whether what is distrib-
uted is actually the body and blood of Christ. In effect, subscrip-
tion to the Augsburg Confession by ELCA congregations and pas-
tors has been supplanted by FOA’s requirement of a practice that is
contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

5. FOA holds that while neither Lutherans nor Reformed pro-
fess to explain how Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper, both af-
firm that Christ Himself is present and received in the Supper. This
is only partly correct. While it is true that no one knows “how”
Christ’s body and blood are present, nonetheless the Lutheran Con-
fessions identify “where” the presence is and “what” is present. In
the sacramental] union (unio sacramentalis), bread and wine are
the body and blood of the Lord. (As Jesus said, “This is My body.”)

2001 Convention Workbook

These are received and eaten and drunk specifically by the mouth
(manducatio oralis), and not merely by faith. Also unbelievers eat
and drink the true body and blood of Christ with the mouth (mand-
ucatio indignorum). Christ is received in the Sacrament precisely
because He is present with His body and blood in, with, and under
the elements of bread and wine. Simply saying that Christ is the
host at the table or that Christ is fully present — without specifi-
cally mentioning His body and blood as He did in instituting the
Lord’s Supper — is not to confess the biblical doctrine of the
Sacrament.

6. Identifying what is eaten and drunk in the Lord’s Supper was
the historical point of contention between Lutherans and Reformed.
It is simply not true that the two agreed about the fact of the “Real
Presence,” but differed only as to the mode of that presence. The
Reformed claimed that Christ could not be present in the Sacra-
ment according to His human nature. They said that a human body
can only be in one place at a time, and that Christ’s body is at the
right hand of God, understood as a specific place in heaven.

7. FOA raises other issues of concern besides the Lord’s Sup-
per. Since the Reformed do not practice emergency baptism, for
example, Lutheran parents with a child in danger of death should
not expect a Reformed pastor serving their congregation to be
overly concerned. Likewise, since FOA speaks of justification as
“including forgiveness of sins and renewal of life,” it is possible
for it to say, “there are no substantive matters concerning justifica-
tion that divide us.” But FOA fails to define justification properly
or precisely in Scriptural and confessional terms.

8. In short, FOA simply glides over historic differences that
have separated Lutheran and Reformed churches. What was once
considered false doctrine by one party or the other 1s now under-
stood as “mutual misunderstanding and misrepresentation” and
“complementary rather than contradictory.” By agreeing to FOA,
the ELCA has effectively denied its own confessional basis by ap-
proving positions rejected in the Lutheran Confessions.

Study Questions
(Paragraph numbers refer to paragraphs in the summary above.)
Paragraph 1
What is the basic affirmation made by FOA?
Paragraph 2

How does FOA’s understanding of the role of confessions differ
from that expressed in the Book of Concord itself? See the Preface
to the Book of Concord (Tappert ed., pp. 12-14) and the Preface to
the Formula of Concord (Tappert ed., pp. 504-506).

Paragraph 3

Are Lutheran and Reformed positions on the Lord’s Supper
contradictory or complementary? Why?

Paragraph 4

What challenges does the adoption of FOA by the ELCA pre-
sent for the pastors and laypeople of that church body?

Paragraphs 5-6

What are the three hallmarks of Lutheran teaching about the na-
ture of the Lord’s Supper (whether or not you use the Latin catch-
phrases to refer to them)? Identify the basis for each in 1 Cor.
10:16-17 and 1 Cor. 11:23-29.

Why can we say that the body of Christ born of Mary is present
in the Lord’s Supper? See 1 Cor. 10:16-17 and 1 Cor. 11:23-26.
How is it possible that this body is present in the Lord’s Supper?
See Matt. 28:18, 20; Eph. 1:20-23; 4:7-10; 1 Cor. 15:27; Heb. 2:8.