LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 412

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

412 ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

doctrinal consensus became the foundation for work done by the
theological conversations.

The theme of ministry was considered only by the third dia-
logue. Agreeing that there are no substantive matters which should
divide Lutherans and Reformed, the dialogue affirmed that:

Ministry in our heritage derives from and points to Christ who
alone is sufficient to save. Centered in the proclamation of the
Word and the administration of the sacraments, it is built on the af-
firmation that the benefits of Christ are known only through faith,
grace, and Scripture (An /nvitation to Action, p. 24).

The dialogue went on to speak of the responsibility of all the
baptized to participate in Christ’s servant ministry, pointed to
God’s use of “the ordained ministers as instruments to mediate
grace through the preaching of the Word and the administration of
the sacraments,” and asserted the need for proper oversight to “en-
sure that the Word is truly preached and sacraments rightly admin-
istered” (An Invitation to Action, pp. 26, 28, 31).

The first dialogue considered the theme of church and world a
very important inquiry. The dialogue examined differences, noted
the need for correctives, and pointed to the essentially changed
world in which the church lives today. Agreeing that “there is a
common evangelical basis for Christian ethics in the theology of
the Reformers,” (Marburg Revisited, p. 177), the dialogue went on
to rehearse the differing “accents” of Calvin and Luther on the re-
lation of church and world, Law and Gospel, the “two kingdoms,”
and the sovereignty of Christ. The dialogue found that “differing
formulations of the relation between Law and Gospel were
prompted by a common concern to combat the errors of legalism
on the one hand and antinomianism on the other.” While differ-
ences remain regarding the role of God’s Law in the Christian life,
the dialogue did “not regard this as a divisive issue” (Marburg Re-
visited, p. 177). Furthermore, in light of the radically changed
world of the 20th century, it was deemed inappropriate to defend or
correct positions and choices taken in the 16th century, making
them determinative for Lutheran-Reformed witness today. Thus,
the theological conversations, in a section on “Declaring God’s Jus-
tice and Mercy,” identified Reformed and Lutheran “emphases” as
“complementary and stimulating” differences, posing a challenge
to the pastoral] service and witness of the churches. “The ongoing
debate about ‘justification and justice’ is fundamentally an occa-
sion for hearing the Word of God and doing it. Our traditions need
each other in order to discern God’s gracious promises and obey
God’s commands” (A Common Calling, p. 61).

Differing Emphases

The Condemnations:

The condemnations of the Reformation era were an attempt to
preserve and protect the Word of God; therefore, they are to be
taken seriously. Because of the contemporary ecclesial situation
today, however, it is necessary to question whether such condem-
nations should continue to divide the churches. The concept of mu-
tual affirmation and mutual admonition of A Common Calling of-
fers a way of overcoming condemnation language while allowing
for different emphases with a common understanding of the pri-
macy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the gift of the sacraments. A
Common Calling refers with approval to the Leuenberg Agreement
where, as a consequence of doctrinal agreement, it is stated that the
“condemnations expressed in the confessional documents no longer
apply to the contemporary doctrinal position of the assenting
churches” (Leuenberg Agreement, IV.32.b). The theological con-
versations stated:

We have become convinced that the task today is not to mark
the point of separation and exclusion but to find a common lan-
guage which will allow our partners to be heard in their honest con-
cern for the truth of the Gospel, to be taken seriously, and to be in-

2001 Convention Workbook

tegrated into the identity of our own ecumenical community of
faith (A Common Calling, p. 40).

A major focus of the condemnations was the issue of the pres-
ence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Lutheran and Reformed Chris-
tians need to be assured that in their common understanding of the
sacraments, the Word of God is not compromised; therefore, they
insist on consensus among their churches on certain aspects of doc-
trine concerning the Lord’s Supper. In that regard Lutheran and Re-
formed Christians, recalling the issues addressed by the conversa-
tions, agree that:

In the Lord’s Supper the risen Jesus Christ imparts himself in
his body and blood, given for all, through his word of promise with
bread and wine. He thus gives himself unreservedly to all who re-
ceive the bread and wine; faith receives the Lord’s Supper for sal-
vation, unfaith for judgment (Leuenberg Agreement, III.1.18).

We cannot separate communion with Jesus Christ in his body
and blood from the act of eating and drinking. To be concerned
about the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper in ab-
straction from this act is to run the risk of obscuring the meaning of
the Lord’s Supper (Leuenberg Agreement, III.1.19).

The Presence of Christ:

The third dialogue urged the churches toward a deeper appreci-
ation of the sacramental mystery based on consensus already
achieved:

Appreciating what we Reformed and Lutheran Christians al-
ready hold in common concerning the Lord’s Supper, we never-
theless affirm that both of our communions need to keep on grow-
ing into an ever-deeper realization of the fullness and richness of
the eucharistic mystery (An Invitation to Action, p. 14).

The members of the theological conversations acknowledged
that it has not been possible to reconcile the confessional formula-
tions from the 16th century with a “common language . . . which
could do justice to all the insights, convictions, and concerns of our
ancestors in the faith” (A Common Calling, p. 49). However, the
theological conversations recognized these enduring differences as
acceptable diversities with regard to the Lord’s Supper. Continu-
ing in the tradition of the third dialogue, they respected the different
perspectives and convictions from which their ancestors professed
their faith, affirming that those differences are not church-dividing,
but are complementary. Both sides can say together that “the Re-
formation heritage in the matter of the Lord’s Supper draws from
the same roots and envisages the same goal: to call the people of
God to the table at which Christ himself is present to give himself
for us under the word of forgiveness, empowerment, and promise.”
Lutheran and Reformed Christians agree that:

In the Lord’s Supper the risen Christ imparts himself in body
and blood, given up for all, through his word of promise with bread
and wine. He thereby grants us forgiveness of sins and sets us free
for a new life of faith. He enables us to experience anew that we are
members of his body. He strengthens us for service to all people.
(The official text reads, “Er starkt uns zum Dienst an den Men-
schen,” which may be translated “to all human beings”) (Leuen-
berg Agreement, I1.2.15).

When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper we proclaim the death of
Christ through which God has reconciled the world with himself.
We proclaim the presence of the risen Lord in our midst. Rejoicing
that the Lord has come to us, we await his future coming in glory
(Leuenberg Agreement, II.2.16).

With a complementarity and theological consensus found in the
Lord’s Supper, it is recognized that there are implications for sacra-
mental practices as well, which represent the heritage of these Re-
formation churches.

As churches of the Reformation, we share many important fea-
tures in our respective practices of Holy Communion. Over the
centuries of our separation, however, there have developed char-