LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 411

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 411

Pledge themselves to living together under the Gospel in such a
way that the principle of mutual affirmation and admonition be-
comes the basis of a trusting relationship in which respect and love
for the other will have a chance to grow.

This document assumes the doctrinal consensus articulated in
A Common Calling: The Witness of Our Reformation Churches in
North American Today, and is to be viewed in concert with that
document. The purpose of A Formula of Agreement is to elucidate
the complementarity of affirmation and admonition as the basic
principle for entering into full communion and the implications of
that action as described in A Common Calling.

A Common Calling, the report of the Lutheran-Reformed Com-
mittee for Theological Conversations (1988-1992) continued a
process begun in 1962. [1] Within that report was the “unanimous
recommendation that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Amer-
ica, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in
America, and the United Church of Christ declare that they are in
full communion with one another” (A Common Calling, pp. 66-67).
There followed a series of seven recommendations under which
full communion would be implemented as developed within the
study from the theological conversations (A Common Calling, p.
67). As a result, the call for full communion has been presented to
the four respective church bodies. The vote on a declaration of full
communion will take place at the respective churchwide assem-
blies in 1997.

Mutual Affirmation and Admonition

A concept identified as early as the first Lutheran-Reformed Di-
alogue became pivotal for the understanding of the theological con-
versations. Participants in the Dialogue discovered that “efforts to
guard against possible distortions of truth have resulted in varying
emphases in related doctrines which are not in themselves contra-
dictory and in fact are complementary . . .” (Marburg Revisited,
Preface). Participants in the theological conversations rediscovered
and considered the implications of this insight and saw it as a foun-
dation for the recommendation for full communion among the four
churches. This breakthrough concept, a complementarity of mutual
affirmation and mutual admonition, points toward new ways of re-
lating traditions of Reformation churches that heretofore have not
been able to reconcile their diverse witnesses to the saving grace
of God that is bestowed in Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church.

This concept provides a basis for acknowledging three essen-
tial facets of the Lutheran-Reformed relationship: (1) that each of
the churches grounds its life in authentic New Testament traditions
of Christ; (2) that the core traditions of these churches belong to-
gether within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; and (3)
that the historic give-and-take between these churches has resulted
in fundamental mutual criticisms that cannot be glossed over, but
need to be understood “as diverse witnesses to the one Gospel that
we confess in common” (A Common Calling, p. 66). A working
awareness emerged, which cast in a new light contemporary per-
spectives on the 16th century debates.

The theological diversity within our common confession pro-
vides both the complementarity needed for a full and adequate wit-
ness to the gospel (mutual affirmation) and the corrective reminder
that every theological approach is a partial and incomplete witness
to the Gospel (mutual admonition) (A Common Calling, 66).

The working principle of “mutual affirmation and admonition”
allows for the affirmation of agreement while at the same time al-
lowing a process of mutual edification and correction in areas
where there is not total agreement. Each tradition brings its “cor-
rective witness” to the other while fostering continuing theological
reflection and dialogue to further clarify the unity of faith they
share and seek. The principle of ‘‘mutual affirmation and admoni-
tion” views remaining differences as diverse witnesses to the one
Gospel confessed in common. Whereas conventional modes of

thought have hidden the bases of unity behind statements of differ-
ences, the new concept insists that, while remaining differences
must be acknowledged, even to the extent of their irreconcilabil-
ity, itis the inherent unity in Christ that is determinative. Thus, the
remaining differences are not church-dividing.

The concept of mutual affirmation and admonition translates
into significant outcomes, both of which inform the relationships
of these four churches with one another. The principle of comple-
mentarity and its accompanying mode of interpretation make it
clear that in entering into full church communion these churches:

Do not consider their own traditional confessional and ecclesi-
ological character to be compromised in the least;

Fully recognize the validity and necessity of the confessional
and ecclesiological character of the partner churches;

Intend to allow significant differences to be honestly articulated
within the relationship of full communion;

Allow for articulated differences to be opportunities for mutual
growth of churchly fullness within each of the partner churches and
within the relationship of full communion itself.

A Fundamental Doctrinal Consensus

Members of the theological conversations were charged with
determining whether the essential conditions for full communion
have been met. They borrowed language of the Lutheran Confes-
sions: “For the true unity of the church it is enough to agree (satis
est consentire) concerning the teaching of the Gospel and the ad-
ministration of the sacraments” (Augsburg Confession, Article 7).
The theological consensus that is the basis for the current proposal
for full communion includes justification, the sacraments, ministry,
and church and world. Continuing areas of diversity, no longer to
be seen as “church-dividing,” were dealt with by the theological
conversations under the headings: The Condemnations, the Pres-
ence of Christ, and God’s Will to Save.

On Justification, participants in the first dialogue agreed “that
each tradition has sought to preserve the wholeness of the Gospel
as including forgiveness of sins and renewal of life” (Marburg Re-
visited, p. 152). Members of the third dialogue, in their Joint State-
ment on Justification, said, “Both Lutheran and Reformed churches
are .. . rooted in, live by, proclaim, and confess the Gospel of the
saving act of God in Jesus Christ” (An Invitation to Action, p. 9).
They went on to say that “both. . . traditions confess this Gospel in
the language of justification by grace through faith alone,” and con-
cluded that “there are no substantive matters concerning justifica-
tion that divide us” (An Invitation to Action, pp. 9-10).

Lutherans and Reformed agree that in Baptism, Jesus Christ re-
ceives human beings, fallen prey to sin and death, into his fellow-
ship of salvation so that they may become new creatures. This is
experienced as a call into Christ’s community, to a new life of faith,
to daily repentance, and to discipleship (cf. Leuenberg Agreement,
[[].2.a.). The central doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s
Supper received attention in each dialogue and in the theological
conversations. The summary statement in Marburg Revisited, re-
flecting agreement, asserts:

During the Reformation both Reformed and Lutheran Churches
exhibited an evangelical intention when they understood the Lord’s
Supper in the light of the saving act of God in Christ. Despite this
common intention, different terms and concepts were employed
which . . . led to mutual misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
Properly interpreted, the differing terms and concepts were often
complementary rather than contradictory (Marburg Revisited, pp.
103-104).

The third dialogue concluded that, while neither Lutheran nor
Reformed profess to explain how Christ is present and received in
the Supper, both churches affirm that “Christ himself is the host at
his table . . . and that Christ himself is fully present and received in
the Supper” [emphasis added] (An Invitation to Action, p. 14). This

2001 Convention Workbook