The Continuing Relevance of the Formula of Concord, Article X: The Controversy over the Historic Episcopate

between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church in the United States of America

Benjamin TomczakChurch History 3038 – Prof. Siggelkow

December 22, 2005

It seems like every summer, or maybe just every other summer, we hear about the latest agreement that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has made with someone. In 1997 it was an agreement with the Presbyterian Church in the USA, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ. In 1999 the world was greeted with the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation (an organization of worldwide Lutherans of whom the ELCA is out front leading, in fact, the presiding bishop of the ELCA, Mark Hanson is the current president of the LWF). Also in 1999, the ELCA voted for full communion with The Moravian Church. Each agreement is trumpeted as another victory for ecumenism and Christian unity. Each agreement is, in the eyes of the ELCA and many churchmen around the world, another step towards achieving the total religious unity desired by so many, in fact, by Jesus Himself, who prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:22).

Tucked among those doctrinal declarations and merger agreements was another important document and agreement – Called to Common Mission. This agreement, passed in August of 1999 by the Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA in Denver, made official the relationship of “full communion” between the ELCA and The Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA). This was the culminating event of nearly ninety years of on-and-off dialoguing which had picked up speed in the last thirty years. The crux of the agreement? The ELCA and the ECUSA are now in full communion. They have not merged into one organic body, but they now profess to be one in faith and doctrine, or at least in “the essentials of the one catholic and apostolic faith.”1 This oneness and full communion allows members of the ELCA and ECUSA to worship and commune in each others churches, for churches to work together in all aspects and facets of ministry, and also for pastors and priests of the respective bodies to not only share pulpits and altars, but also to serve in each others churches as full time ministers. Also,

1 “Called to Common Mission: Official Text – A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 31, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/episcopal/ccmresources/text.html. Cf. Appendix 1 for the full text. This will be referred to as CCM from here on out.

the ELCA agreed to adopt the historic episcopate. Paragraph 18 of the agreement begins: “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America agrees that all its bishops chosen after both churches pass this Concordat will be installed for pastoral service of the gospel with this church's intention to enter the ministry of the historic episcopate.”2 While the historic episcopate is clearly a matter of major import for the ECUSA (as will be discussed later), for the sake of union with the ELCA, they were willing to suspend the famous (or infamous) Ordinal of 1662, which demands ordination into the historic episcopate, so that ELCA pastors and bishops can be recognized as true pastors. For many in the ELCA, this single point is, in the words of Shakespeare, the rub. For a large minority, the adoption of the historic episcopate is unacceptable. In the words of one protest document emanating from within the ELCA, The Admonition for the Sake of True Peace and Unity of the Church, “It seems clear that the ELCA, by accepting these practices as a condition of unity, has made an adiaphoron into a theological necessity, thus contradicting its own confessional basis.”3

Clearly, there is a controversy in the ELCA over this issue.In the words of Solomon, “What has been will be again, what has been

done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). These events between the ELCA and the ECUSA are not to be treated by us as something minor and unimportant, something outside the sphere of our interest. This controversy highlights key issues in our own doctrine and practice. What are we allowed to give up or concede to other church bodies? When is giving in to the demands of someone on an issue of adiaphora acceptable and when is it unacceptable? How do we protect the gospel and our Christian freedom? The Lutheran Church has been down this road before. There have been battles over adiaphora and agreements

2 CCM, Appendix 1. This historic episcopate is the transmission of apostolic authority from one bishop to another by the laying on of hands and prayer. When a bishop is to be ordained, he must be ordained and installed by other bishops who were ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops (and so on) all the way back to the earliest times in the history of the Church. In the words of the ECUSA, apostolic succession is “the belief that bishops are the successors to the apostles and that episcopal authority is derived from the apostles by an unbroken succession in the ministry. This authority is specifically derived through the laying on of hands for the ordination of bishops in lineal sequence from the apostles, through their performing the ministry of the apostles, and through their succession in episcopal sees traced back to the apostles” (www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_13758_ENG_HTM.htm).

3 “Admonition for the Sake of the True Peace and Unity of the Church,” (WordAlone Network, accessed on December 5, 2005); available from www.wordalone.org. The WordAlone network “is a grassroots movement of congregations and individuals in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) that desires altar and pulpit fellowship with your church, but not under CCM’s requirements.” It consists of, according to its website, over 110,000 people (in 2003) in 45 states, 64 of 65 synods, and over 200 member congregations (Mark Chavez and Jaynan Clark Egland, “Letter to Episcopal bishops,” (WordAlone Network Document Archive, accessed on December 5, 2005); available from www.wordalone.org).

with those outside of our fellowship. These battles occurred in the years shortly after the death of Martin Luther and led to Article X of the Formula of Concord, regarding rites in the church. These battles are known to history as “The Adiaphoristic Controversy.” This is an important controversy, one worth recalling.

The Adiaphoristic Controversy and Article X4

Shortly before his death, Martin Luther uttered prophetic words. “…remain steadfast in the Gospel; for I see that soon after my death the most prominent brethren will fall away. I am not afraid of the Papists…for most of them are coarse, unlearned asses and Epicureans; but our brethren will inflict the damage on the Gospel; for ‘they went out from us, but they were not of us’ (1 John 2, 19); they will give the Gospel a harder blow than did the Papists.”5 Sadly, Luther was right. It was the Lutherans then, and the Lutherans now, doing the greatest damage to the Gospel.

And it happened quickly. Luther died in 1546. With his death, the situation in the Holy Roman Empire suddenly shifted. Political advantage went to the Emperor and he launched an attack on the Lutheran Smalcaldic League. The Emperor’s forces won in crushing fashion. Prominent Lutheran leaders were captured and put into prison. Politically and militarily the Lutherans were up against it. On May 15, 1548 “the first step to reduce the Lutherans to obedience to the Pope”6 was issued – the Augsburg Interim.

The purpose of the Interim (one of whose authors was John Agricola, a Lutheran of questionable Lutheranness) was to establish order between Catholics and Lutherans until a general council could be held. It was meant to be a compromise. It allowed the Lutherans to keep some of their distinctive practices – like the marriage of clergy and communion in both kinds – but only until a general council ruled on these issues. The Interim also demanded that the Lutherans concede on major points, e.g., the restoration of Roman customs (like the Corpus Christi, full Eucharistic vestments, prayers, bells and whistles)7, the jurisdiction of bishops, and obedience to the Pope.8 The Interim reinstituted the seven sacraments and

4 Information regarding the Adiaphoristic Controversy has been taken from Bente’s historical introduction to the Book of Concord (F. Bente. Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord, St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1965, 93-112), the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims (Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen, eds. Sources and Contexts of The Book of Concord, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001, 144-196), and Wilbert Gawrisch’s essay, “Christians, Guard Your Liberty! A Sermon Study on Galatians 5:1-6” (Wilbert R. Gawrisch. “Christians, Guard Your Liberty! A Sermon Study on Galatians 5:1-6,” WLS On-Line Essay File).

5 Quoted in Bente, 94.6 Bente, 95.7 Kolb-Nestingen, Augsburg Interim, Article XXVI, 178-180. It’s put this way in the

Leipzig Interim: “The Mass shall be observed in this land with bells, lights, vessels, chanting, vestments, and ceremonies” (“On the Mass,” 194).

8 Kolb-Nestingen, Augsburg Interim, Article XIII, 158. It reads: “And although the church, which is the body of the one head, Christ, has many bishops, who rule his people, whom Christ has won through his precious blood, nevertheless, in order that it can more

transubstantiation which Luther had so powerfully abolished in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520).9 And finally, it fudged on the doctrine of justification by faith alone and decreed that “works are mandated by God as necessary to salvation.”10

One other concession demanded by the Emperor and the Pope was the reinstitution of the apostolic succession. Since that is the key point of contention and controversy between the ELCA and the ECUSA, it’s worth noting here and quoting from the Interim on this point. In Article X, “On the Marks and Signs of the True Church,” the Interim stated, “The fourth sign of the true church is that it is catholic and universal, that is, propagated in all places and continued in succession through the apostles and their successors to us, spread to the ends of the earth, according to God’s promises….”11 And this succession is necessary because of the Roman doctrine concerning the sacrament of ordination. In Article XX the Interim decrees, “The sacrament of Order, therefore, was instituted with the sign of laying on of hands and other appropriate rites, by which those who are consecrated to the offices of the church receive the grace by which they become fit, suitable, and capable of administering the same functions.”12

Some of the items demanded of the Lutherans were considered adiaphora, that is, things neither forbidden nor commanded. For example, many ceremonies connected to the Eucharist, like the elevation of the host, is neither commanded nor forbidden. So, conceivably, one could do some of these things. And that was the question Lutherans were asking, “Can we compromise on small things, things that are adiaphora, to protect ourselves?” Some Lutherans said, “Yes, we can compromise on these issues.” However, most Lutherans did not. Most believed “that the Interim was but the first step to a complete return to Romanism.”13 Elector John Frederick, in prison, boldly confessed that he would not compromise his faith so he could be freed. Flacius and other theologians wrote pamphlet after pamphlet condemning the Interim, “No adiaphora in a time of confession” was their battle-cry. Philip Melanchthon, unwilling to speak or write publicly, repeatedly voiced his displeasure in letters to various friends and colleagues. Finally, Elector Maurice of Saxony, called upon his theologians to write another document, soon to be known as the Leipzig Interim.

easily be kept in unity, on the basis of divine right, to prevent schism, it has one supreme pontiff, set over all the others, with plenitude of power, through the prerogative given to Peter.” “All Christians then should obey the supreme bishop and everyone his own bishop” (159).

9 Kolb-Nestingen, Augsburg Interim, Article XIV, 159, and Article XVIII, 163.10 Kolb-Nestingen, Augsburg Interim, Article VII, 154. Confer Articles IV and VI for

justification by faith.11 Kolb-Nestingen, 157.12 Kolb-Nestingen, 165.13 Bente, 96.

On December 22, 1548, Maurice’s theologians (including Melanchthon) had produced this next Interim document. Bente characterizes it thus: “…the theologians yielded, declaring their willingness to submit to the will of the Emperor with respect to reintroduction of Romish ceremonies and to acknowledge the authority of the Pope and bishops if they would tolerate the true doctrine.”14 Lutheran apologists for the Leipzig Interim claimed that their goal was to hold the line on justification by sacrificing and giving ground on all other fronts. Melanchthon wrote concerning his work, “In order, therefore to retain necessary things, we are not too exacting with respect to such as are unnecessary, especially since heretofore these rites have, to a great extent, remained in the churches of these regions.”15 But the Leipzig Interim was no better. “To many loyal Lutherans it was obvious that the Leipzig Interim was a surrender to Catholicism, but Maurice forcibly imposed it on the churches of Electoral Saxony.”16 And despite deposition from office, the threats of violence and arrest, many Lutherans (including Flacius, along with other notables like Amsdorf and Westphal) spoke out against the agreements. Flacius, among others, in 1549, was forced to flee to Magdeburg to avoid imprisonment and death.

That the Leipzig Interim was no improvement is obvious from a reading of the document. Everything that the Augsburg Interim decreed, so did the Leipzig. It restored papal supremacy and episcopal ordination. It required the reintroduction of Romish ceremonies (like the laying on of hands, the seven sacraments, all the bells and whistles). It required a following of the Roman Church Year Festival calendar (including the Corpus Christi and Marian festivals). Again, some of the items (like certain ceremonies and religious festivals) could be considered adiaphora. However, Flacius, one of the Gnesio-Lutherans,17

maintained that under the prevailing circumstances even such ceremonies as were in themselves true adiaphora ceased to be adiaphora and could not be reintroduced with a good conscience, because they were forced upon the Lutherans by the enemies of the Gospel, because they were accepted for

14 Bente, 98.15 Quoted in Bente, 99. Gawrisch put it this way, “Melanchthon’s intent was to

maintain the truth while yielding in non-essential matters in order to avoid persecution” (Gawrisch, “Guard Your Liberty!”).

16 Gawrisch, “Guard Your Liberty.” Bente writes, “The obnoxious features of the Augsburg Interim had not been eliminated, but merely toned down” (99).

17 Recall that the Lutherans were basically divided into three ideological camps at this time: the Gnesio-Lutherans (the most strict and conservative group, demanding that we follow Luther literally, word for word) – men like Flacius, Amsdorf, Westphal, Hesshusius, and the faculty of Jena and the city of Magdeburg; the Philippists (the liberal, unionistic group that tended towards compromise) – men like Melanchthon, Cruciger, Jr., Strigel, Eber, Pezel, and the faculties of Wittenberg and Leipzig; and the Middle Party (the solid, confessional group) – men like Chemnitz, Brenz, Andreae, Selnecker, Chytraeus.

reprehensible reasons, such as fear of persecution and desire for external peace, and because their reintroduction confounded the consciences, offended the weak, and gave comfort and encouragement to the enemies of Christ.18

Such strong language was based on the reasoning offered by the so-called Adiaphorists of the Melanchthonian party. They consistently reasoned that they were holding the line on the essential doctrines, and thus had to give in on so-called non-essentials. They also argued that such a document was necessary to maintain peace between Catholics and Lutherans and within the Empire itself. They claimed that it was for the weak brothers among the Lutherans. Finally, they claimed that they were only doing what Luther had done in 1521 when he conceded that people could take communion in one kind until they were ready for both kinds.19

But the Gnesio-Lutherans would not budge. “…under the prevailing circumstances a concession to the Romanists, even in ceremonies harmless in themselves, was tantamount to a denial of Lutheranism,”20 was the view Flacius took. When free things are demanded, or forced upon people, they are no longer free.21 Many others followed along with Flacius, even Melanchthon, who in 1557 and 1558 admitted that the Leipzig Interim was a mistake and too much of a concession to Rome. Overall, the Leipzig Interim, like the Augsburg Interim, was reviled by the people of Saxony. Elector Maurice, ever conscious of his political positioning, understood that he was in big trouble with his people. So, as any Machiavellian would do, he flipped sides. Having once betrayed the Lutherans in order to become the Elector of Saxony, Maurice now betrayed the emperor, nearly capturing him at Augsburg. This bold reversal led to the Peace of Passau (1552) and the Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555). These two agreements allowed the Lutherans to maintain their doctrine and practice over against the Roman Catholic Church.

Though the immediate controversy appeared to be over, the effects lingered on (and continue to linger into today). Thus, in the next decades, discussion concerning issues of adiaphora continued, finally resulting in the

18 Bente, 110.19 While this is getting a little ahead of myself, notice how similar these arguments

in the 1500s are to the arguments of the ELCA today in this controversy. “We agree in substantial points of doctrine!” they cry. “We’re following the Augsburg Confession!” they shout. “We’re doing it to carry out more gospel work!” they volley.

20 Bente, 110.21 Gawrisch wrote, “Neither should one consider as adiaphora ceremonies which

might give the impression that the Lutheran and Catholic religions are not far apart, whether for the purpose of avoiding persecution or in the hope of reconciling the two religions.” Later, “To yield in such circumstances not only robs Christians of their liberty, it also confirms false teachers in their error and is an offense to the faith of true believers” (“Christians, Guard Your Liberty!”).

addition of Article X to the Formula of Concord. This article endorsed the position of the Flacian anti-adiaphorist party.

Let us briefly examine the contents of Article X. The basic premise regarding ceremonies and church rites, like vestments, ordination practices, the apostolic succession, we confess to be, “that ceremonies or ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but have been established only for good order and decorum, are in and of themselves neither worship ordained by God nor a part of such worship” (Formula of Concord [FC], Epitome [Ep], Kolb-Wengert, 515:3).22

What does this mean? If it ain’t commanded by God, it can’t be commanded by anyone else. Therefore, we have some freedom as we deal with certain things in church life. We also, therefore, have the authority to alter those things neither forbidden nor commanded “as may be most useful and edifying for the community of God” (FC, Ep, 515:4). Thus, if I find it beneficial in my parish to elevate the host and chalice, that’s fine and good, but I can’t command anyone else to do it. Also, if it becomes detrimental to the worship life of the people at my parish, I have the freedom to get rid of it. Likewise, if I choose to wear an alb instead of a black geneva, or vice versa, that’s fine. And, I even have the right to switch at a later time from the alb to the geneva. And I am free from criticism in these matters, so long as they are carried out in a fitting and orderly way with proper care for souls and catechetical instruction and explanation. “We also believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn another because the one has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other has, when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments…” (FC, Ep, 516:7).

However, this is not always the case. There may come a time when things that are in and of themselves free things, adiaphora, may no longer be considered free. “We believe, teach, and confess that in a time of persecution, when an unequivocal confession of the faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the opponents in such indifferent matters” (FC, Ep, 516:6). Why? “…for in such a situation it is no longer indifferent matters that are at stake. The truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake. The confirmation of open idolatry, as well as the protection of the weak in faith from offense, is at stake” (FC, Ep, 516:6). Furthermore, it is not permissible to change or compromise on free things merely to “come to terms with the enemies of the holy gospel” (FC, Ep, 516:11)23 or to do so “in

22 All quotations from The Book of Concord will be from the Kolb-Wengert edition (cf. bibliography). Page numbers and paragraph numbers correspond to their pagination and numbering system.

Some might argue that this is a new and different Scriptural position for the Lutherans. It is not. Article VII of the Augsburg Confession states: “It is not necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by human beings be alike everywhere” (AC, VII, 43:3).

23 Note the elaboration of the Solid Declaration, “…when the enemies of the holy gospel have not come to agreement with us in public teaching” (FC, Solid Declaration [SD],

a way that suggests that the community of God is not free at all times, according to its specific situation, to use one or more of these ceremonies in Christian freedom, as it is most beneficial to the church” (FC, Ep, 512:12). Finally, we do not cry, “Peace, peace” or “Agreement, agreement,” where there is no peace and there is no agreement. The Solid Declaration states:

Nor are such ceremonies matters of indifference when they are intended to create the illusion (or are demanded or accepted with that intention), as if such action brought the two contradictory religions into agreement and made them one body or as if a return to the papacy and a deviation from the pure teaching of the gospel and from the true religion had taken place or could gradually result from these actions. (FC, SD, 636:5)

For as Paul urges the Galatians, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (5:1).

The Augsburg and Leipzig Interims were a case in point. The Emperor was demanding concessions.24 These concessions were virtual denials of all that the Lutherans had fought and battled for since 1517. These concessions gave the appearance that there was agreement between Rome and Wittenberg. Finally, these concessions were not merely window dressing, as they hinged on the doctrines of justification by faith alone, the means of grace, the doctrine of church and ministry, they touched the central foundation of Holy Scripture – the gospel. By accepting such concessions, the Lutherans would be throwing away the work of Christ on their behalf and relying on a system of works to merit their own righteousness. That such a seemingly slippery slope is no illusion, Paul pointed this out to the Galatians who were tempted to concede to Judaizers in the now indifferent matter of circumcision,

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again, I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (5:2-4)

635:2).24 From the Introduction to the Augsburg Interim: “…that the remaining estates

who have introduced novelties either conform to the common estates and agree with them in the observation of the statutes and ceremonies of the universal Catholic church, or immediately conform their doctrine and ecclesiastical ordinances completely to the aforementioned council, and not institute or attempt anything beyond this. In cases where they have introduced something more, they shall confirm firmly in everything to the council and confession, and persevere in it” (Kolb-Nestingen, Augsburg Interim, 147).

Again from Paul, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing” (Galatians 2:21)!25

The Successionist Controversy Let us turn now to our present day controversy, which could be

termed “The Successionist Controversy.” This controversy did not begin with the passage of Called to Common Mission, but rather is the one big sticking point that has existed between the ECUSA and the ELCA (and its predecessor bodies).

Since dialogues began in the early twentieth century, there has been a continual progression of agreement between many Lutherans in America and the Episcopal Church in America. In 1982 the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches came to an “interim” of their own with the Episcopal Church. This interim allowed for Eucharistic sharing between the churches. It was seen as a stepping stone to the full communion finally reached in 1999 with Called to Common Mission. Discussions hit a roadblock when in 1997 a document laying out a full-communion agreement, The Concordat of Agreement, failed to pass in the ELCA Churchwide Assembly. The main reason was the position that the historic episcopate and the three orders of ministry (bishop, presbyter, and deacon) held in the document. Those against the agreement in the ELCA felt too much was being given away. It should be noted, however, that the Concordat failed by the smallest of margins. In 1997 684 people voted for it, while 351 were against, a failure of passage of less than 1%. In 1999, CCM passed by about 2%, 716-317. This passage came after two years of intense study and negotiation. A close reading of the two merger documents will help you see that much like the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims, they are virtually the same.26

For the ECUSA, the historic episcopate has always been a requirement for “the restoration of unity among the divided branches of

25 Some might claim that the applications of this principle regarding adiaphora are innovations of the Formula. Article XV of the Augsburg Confession states in regard to church rites and ceremonies that are free: “However, people are reminded not to burden consciences, as if such worship were necessary for salvation” (AC, XV, 49:1-2). Cf. Article XXVIII: “…it is lawful for bishops or pastors to establish ordinances so that things are done in the church in an orderly fashion, not so that we may make satisfaction for our sins through them or so that consciences may be obliged to regard them as necessary acts or worship” (AC, XXVIII, 99:53).

26 As noted above, Called to Common Mission is included as Appendix 1 to this paper. The Concordat of Agreement, along with commentary can be found in two small volumes. James E. Griffiss and Daniel F. Martensen, eds. A Commentary on “Concordat of Agreement,” Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1994. William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch, eds. “Toward Full Communion” and “Concordat of Agreement,” Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue III, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1991.

Christendom.”27 The position of the American Anglicans was expressed in 1886 in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (Chicago being the location of the American declaration, which was affirmed by the every-ten-year churchwide assembly, held at Lambeth, in 1888): “…we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity…can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence.”28 There are four principles: the Word of God, the Nicene Creed, the two sacraments, and “the historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called to God into the unity of His Church.”29 Thus, we see that for the ECUSA the historic episcopate is not considered a free thing. And this shouldn’t surprise us. The official position of the Anglican Communion, and the ECUSA, is expressed in their Book of Common Prayer thusly, “No persons are allowed to exercise the offices of bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church unless they are so ordained…by bishops who are themselves duly qualified to confer Holy Orders.”30 This is the so-called “Ordinal of 1662” referred to above, which the ECUSA suspended for the ELCA until such time as the ELCA is fully integrated into the historic episcopate.31

27“Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral [CLQ] – 1886,” (Anglican’s Online website, accessed October 2005); available from http://anglicansonline.org/basics/Chicago_Lambeth.html. This is included as Appendix 3.

28CLQ29 CLQ30 Book of Common Prayer, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press,

1977, 510.31 Compare that Ordinal with these words from the Leipzig Interim: “…no one shall

be permitted to hold any ecclesiastical office unless he has, as stated previously, been presented by the patron and admitted to office by the bishop so that no one barge into an ecclesiastical office in an unfitting fashion or be placed into that office in an unorderly fashion” (Kolb-Nestingen, The Leipzig Interim, 193). Note also these words from paragraph 16 of CCM: “The purpose of temporarily suspending this restriction, which has been a constant requirement in Anglican polity since the Ordinal of 1662, is precisely in order to secure the future implementation of the ordinal’s same principle in the sharing of ordained ministries. It is for this reason that The Episcopal Church can feel confident in taking this unprecedented step with regard to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America” (cf. Appendix 1). What a bold and stunning announcement that should have pricked the ears of the ELCA that this was not, in fact, the free thing that they trumpet it to be, and that the ECUSA has conceded nothing and changed nothing, but is in fact waiting for the ELCA to change. Michael Rogness, a professor at Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota (ELCA), demonstrates that not all in the ELCA are blind. He writes: “The Episcopalian Church is willing to suspend its rule and recognize our clergy, but only on the condition that we adopt their form of episcopal ministry. (This is not an unreasonable position on the Episcopalian part. They are simply following their own policy.) In 50-80 years, when all our bishops and clergy are episcopally ordained and installed, the ELCA will have radically changed its ministry and the Episcopalian Church will remain the same with no changes” (Michael Rogness, “16 Simple Reasons to Defeat CCM,” [WordAlone Network Documents Archive, accessed on December 5, 2005]; available from www.wordalone.org.).

What does this mean for the ELCA? It means that from the time of their “full communion” with the ECUSA they are required to have present at the ordination of their bishops at least three other bishops who have been ordained in the apostolic succession.32 This is a requirement, a command, a law. Only in the most extreme of exceptions are ELCA pastors to be ordained by anyone other than a bishop (preferably the presiding bishop of the Synod).33 And in such a case, the ECUSA will not allow an ELCA pastor ordained by another pastor to serve an Episcopal parish.34

Meanwhile, the ELCA has wrestled with the idea of the historic episcopate for many years. In the basic dogmatics textbook of the ELCA seminaries, Christian Dogmatics, edited by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson (published 1984), Philip Hefner wrote the locus on the Church. In that portion of an arguably unLutheran dogmatics text, Hefner goes back and forth on the issue of the ordained ministry and the succession. He writes with no real conviction, only a searching for answers, a swimming towards a destination. It frustrates one who seeks an answer, a hard and fast position on which to stand. What follows is a selection of Hefner’s thoughts and “conclusions” from the locus on the Church that are pertinent to our discussion of the apostolic succession.

32 CCM, paragraph 19. In the ELCA a bishop is the equivalent of one of our district presidents.

33A 2001 bylaw from the ELCA’s Constitution: “Ordination in Unusual Circumstances. For pastoral reasons in unusual circumstances, a synodical bishop may provide for the ordination by another pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America of an approved candidate who has received and accepted a properly issued, duly attested letter of call for the office of ordained ministry. Prior to authorization of such an ordination, the bishop of the synod of the candidate’s first call shall consult with the presiding bishop as this church’s chief ecumenical officer and shall seek the advice of the Synod Council. The pastoral decision of the synodical bishop shall be in accordance with policy developed by the appropriate churchwide unit, reviewed by the Conference of Bishops, and adopted by the Church Council” (7.31.17, www.elca.org/secretary/Constitutions/ConstitutionsBylawsandContinuingResolutions2005.pdf, 30-31).

34 Cf. “Lutheran Resolutions on ‘Ordination in Unusual Circumstances,’” (ECUSA website, accessed on October 11, 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/6947_10409_ENG_HTM.html. Commenting on the bylaw in footnote 33, the ECUSA declares: We continue to be deeply concerned about how the by-law may be used. We have received strong and frequent assurances from the ELCA that the provisions in the by-law will effectively restrict to the rarest and most serious of circumstances exceptions to a bishop’s participation in the laying-on-of-hands at the ordination of a member of the clergy (CCM para. 20). We also note that our own General Convention has stated officially that those ordained in unusual circumstances will not serve congregations in the Episcopal Church.” This gives us a clear view of how the Episcopal Church views the historic episcopate, not as a free thing, but as something necessary. It is so necessary, that without it, these two churches in “full communion” can not share pastors.

The form which unity should take has been an item of controversy throughout the church’s history. The arguments range from those that require the most tangible visible unity conceivable, to those that propose a unity of ‘spirit’ and attitude, even though churches remain outwardly separated. Among the former are claims that organizational unity is desirable, or that full agreement on theological articles is necessary, or that obedience to a common church authority is prerequisite to unity.35

The historical career of the church has led it to adopt certain concrete forms that are not in themselves theologically necessary. However, because these forms have become empirically necessary for the church’s life and mission, they must be interpreted theologically. Traditionally they have been called ‘marks’ of the church, and they include ministry, liturgy and sacraments, preaching and teaching, care of souls, mission, and church order.36

There would be no reason to deviate from this classical formula of faith and governing authority in the tangible succession of the apostles, except for two facts: first, it is a matter of record that not all bishops who have held the authority in direct succession have been orthodox in faith, and second, since the Reformation of the sixteenth century, most Protestants have been unable to claim direct linkage with apostolic governing authority, even though in some geographical areas they are the church for believers who have withdrawn from Roman Catholic jurisdiction in overwhelming numbers or who were never under that jurisdiction.37

The basic strategy of the Reformation churches in the face of the judgment of history has been to assert that the apostolic succession of faith is preeminent over succession in the rite of ordination.38

35 Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds. Christian Dogmatics, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984, II:205.

36 Christian Dogmatics, II:223.37 Christian Dogmatics, II:230.38 Christian Dogmatics, II:230.

Lutherans acknowledge the primary role of Peter among the apostles and the continued efficacy of his primacy in the ‘Petrine function’ within the church. This function refers to the symbol of embodied unity in the church, that is, a teaching office freely accepted by the churches as their rallying point in the world.39

Regardless of their affirmation of faith, Protestant ordinations are not recognized by Catholics and Orthodox because they do not take place within the context of the apostolic succession of governing authority and do not include obedience to the bishops, and ultimately to the pope, who stand in that succession. Since the Eucharist requires a validly ordained presider, and since the communicants profess unity with the bishops through that presider, Roman Catholic and Orthodox authorities insist that it is improper for Roman Catholics and Orthodox to receive communion from Protestant priests.40

Protestants have no option but to insist that succession in the faith of the apostles is primary.41

Anglicans approve the episcopal organization of the church as very nearly essential to its existence. They have argued that if the episcopacy is not of the church’s esse (being), it is at least of its bene esse (well-being), or the plene esse (full being).42

39 Christian Dogmatics, II:230-231. To the confessional Lutheran, the only response to this paragraph is, “WHAT??!?!?!?!?!” That is our response, because we have read Melanchthon’s (ironically) Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. “Therefore, since Paul makes it clear that he had no desire to ask for Peter’s confirmation, even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, that Peter was not superior to other apostles, and that ordination or confirmation was not to be sought from Peter alone” (Tr., 331:10). “Thus [Paul] grants neither preeminence nor lordship over the church or the other ministers to Peter” (Tr., 331:11).

40 Christian Dogmatics, II:231. There are hints here of the big picture of ELCA ecumenical policy: “If we accept the apostolic succession with the Anglicans, we can then look towards unity with Rome and Constantinople and no one can cry, ‘Unfair!’ or ‘We never saw it coming!’”

41 Christian Dogmatics, II:231.42 Christian Dogmatics, II:236. And nothing has changed in the ECUSA, so why

should ELCA come to an agreement with them?

Lutherans have never considered a specific church order necessary. They have defined the essence of Christianity in terms of proper understanding of the gospel of grace, rather than in terms of community structures. As we noted, Lutherans have increasingly come to accept the possibility of episcopal organization, as long as it is considered to be a matter of human law and not of divine law. Such a view is open to episcopal order but denies that it is of the esse of the church.43

Consequently, although they [Lutherans] have no difficulty accepting various church orders for the sake of harmony, by human decision, they can scarcely resist the temptation to judge other bodies’ insistence on specific organizational forms as an implicit denial of the primacy of grace. Such a judgment is patently unfair and misguided in many cases, and the fact that it is so provides the challenge for Lutherans, not only to goad other churches into a clearer sense for the implications of a theology of grace, but also to be more sensitive themselves as to how their insistence on grace can be ecumenically constructive and foster a proper church unity.44

Hefner concludes the locus by noting rightly that Lutherans consider church order and others issues adiaphora and handle them according to Scripture (while he doesn’t cite them, we could – Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8) and the Confessions (like FC X). He then points out that “[Lutheran’s] opponents on the question of church order deny that it is in this category.”45

And the good confessional Lutheran would ask those in the ELCA arguing for adopting the succession despite the ECUSA’s obvious demand for it as necessary, “Shouldn’t that tell you something?” And even Hefner seems to have it right when he says that “while we may decide to accept differing practices and forms…it is a violation of faith to insist that adiaphora be accepted as a condition of unity.”46 Yet, Hefner is hamstrung by his own inability to take a stand, and by the theology of the church in which he is a member, which has denied the authority, sufficiency, and clarity of the Word of God. Without that, he is able to draw no real conclusions and to eliminate nothing. Thus, the door is open for a change in doctrine and a denial of any good things Hefner might say.

43 Christian Dogmatics, II:236.44 Christian Dogmatics, II:237.45 Christian Dogmatics, II:239.46 Christian Dogmatics, II:239-240.

The groundwork for this change arrived in 1989, when the ELCA promulgated its official position on ecumenism, entitled, Ecumenism: The Vision of the ELCA.47 In this document the ELCA states its “negotiating position.” The ELCA “seeks to manifest the unity that God wills for the Church in a future that is open to God’s guidance”; “to be ready to sacrifice nonessentials”; to “recognize the burden of proof that rests with the resistance to unity in spite of agreement in the Gospel”; and “seeks to express oneness in Christ in diverse models of unity, consistent with the Gospel and mission of the Church.”48

These positions require some basis and foundation. First, Scripture. Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17 rules all.49 Next, the ELCA finds them in the Confessions. According to the ELCA, a number of articles of the Augsburg Confession (VII, XV, XXVII), the Smalcald Articles (Part III, the intro), and even the “inner Lutheran theological debate and disagreement” of the Formula of Concord, all demonstrate that the Confessors “were willing, upon recognition of legitimacy of these reforms, to remain in fellowship with those who did not share every theological formulation or reforming practice.”50 Thus, “[i]n recognizing these diversities as expressions of the one apostolic faith and the one catholic Church, traditions are changed, antagonisms overcome, and mutual condemnations lifted. The diversities are reconciled and transformed into legitimate and indispensable multiformity within the one body of Christ.”51 And now the ELCA “…will not be dominated by attention to our past theological controversies and diversions. It will focus rather on present and future theological reflection and missiological action.”52 Therefore, “From its evangelical, catholic, and ecumenical stance, with an obviously close relationship with mission, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is free to seek such forms of structure, ministry, and common action as will provide true witness to Christian faith and effective expression to God’s love in Christ.”53 Finally, “Agreement in the Gospel can be reached and stated without adopting Lutheran confessional formulations as such. It allows for flexible, situation-oriented decisions about order and decision making structures. It does not demand organic union, though it does not rule it out.”54

This same tortured reading of Scripture and the Confessions found its way into the discussions surrounding the first, failed concordat of 1997. The same articles of the Confessions were appealed to and the argument was given: The Reformers wished to remain in the succession and serve under the bishops, thus we are simply following in the footsteps of what

47 Ecumenism: The Vision for the ELCA, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1994, 9-29.48 Ecumenism, 23.49 Ecumenism, 10.50 Ecumenism, 13-14.51 Ecumenism, 18.52 Ecumenism, 24-25.53 Ecumenism, 25.54 Ecumenism, 29.

Luther said and correcting an historical anomaly.55 In this way, the ELCA laid the ground for accepting the historic succession of bishops. In this way they are able to say that they are on the side of Scripture and the Confessions. And despite their very fervent denials to the contrary,56 the ELCA has fully adopted the apostolic succession not as a free thing, but as a command and new law. Listen to their Constitution. In it is demonstrated the entire capitulation of the ELCA to the ECUSA’s position on bishops and the apostolic succession. There it says that the presiding bishop can “exercise solely this church’s power to ordain (or provide for the ordination by another synodical bishop of) approved candidates who have received and accepted a properly issued, duly attested letter of call for the office of ordained ministry.”57 This says that all the power to ordain, that is, make someone a bishop, and thus to make someone a pastor, to pass on the “gift” of ministerial character, or at the very least, the authority to serve in that office, now resides in the office of the presiding bishop of the ELCA. And if he sees fit to delegate that right and authority to someone else, so be it. How papal! Furthermore, “The authority to administer private censure and admonition upon an individual or public censure and admonition upon a congregation is inherent in the office of the bishop.”58 Authority is taken

55 Cf. CCM, paragraph 11; cf. Norgren-Rusch, 47-50; cf. also Griffess-Martensen, 53-54.

56 CCM, paragraph 13: “While our two churches will come to share in the historic institution of the episcopate of the church…each remains free to explore its particular interpretations of the ministry of bishops in evangelical and historic succession.” Later in paragraph 13, “The Episcopal Church is free to maintain that sharing in the historic catholic episcopate, while not necessary for salvation or for recognition of another church as a church, is nonetheless necessary when Anglicans enter the relationship of full communion in order to link the local churches for mutual responsibility in the communion of the larger church. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is free to maintain that this same episcopate, although pastorally desirable when exercised in personal, collegial, and communal ways, is nonetheless not necessary for the relationship of full communion.” Paragraph 18: “By thus freely accepting the historic episcopate, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does not thereby affirm that it is necessary for the unity of the church (Augsburg Confession 7:3).” Then note the Tucson Resolution (included in Appendix 1), point 6, there is “no requirement that the Ordinal (rules) of The Episcopal Church will apply to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”

57 Constitution of the ELCA, 190. Read the Treatise, “However, since the distinction of rank between bishop and pastor is not by divine right, it is clear that an ordination performed by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine right” (Tr. 340:63-65). While the 2001 ELCA by-law on ordination in unusual circumstances seems to demonstrate an understanding of this by the ELCA, the ECUSA’s response, noted above (notes 33 and 34), shows that they reject this.

58 Constitution of the ELCA, 156. This stems from a faulty understanding and concession on the office of the ministry. While the ELCA tries to pay lip service to the Scriptural teaching that there is one ministry, the ministry of the Word, and many forms created to carry out that ministry, they have succumbed to the Anglican/Roman/Orthodox teaching of hierarchy. Cf. CCM, paragraph 5, a part of their declaration of doctrinal agreement: “We believe that a ministry of pastoral oversight (episcope), exercised in personal, collegial, and communal ways, is necessary to witness to and safeguard the unity and apostolicity of the church.” Again, bad exegesis and forgetfulness of their confessional heritage. The ELCA, not to mention the Anglicans, Rome, and Constantinople, have

from the gospel and put into the hands of men, bishops. More authority is given to the bishops when it is stated that “[e]ach congregation of this synod shall consult the bishop of this synod before taking any steps leading to the extending of a call to a prospective pastor,” “the letter of call shall be submitted to the bishop of this synod for the bishop’s signature,” and “[n]o ordained minister shall accept a call without first conferring with the bishop of this synod.”59

Despite the official changes of the church constitution and the official agreement of full communion with the ECUSA, which means bishops are now being ordained in the apostolic succession, there are still people fighting the move. We noted above the organization called the WordAlone Network. They desire fellowship with the ECUSA, but not according to CCM (cf. note 3). So, while they have issues to deal with as regards full agreement in doctrine and practice (Romans 16:17, Augsburg Confession, Article VII), they seem to be on track in this debate, though largely unable to effect change as of right now. Their position can be summed up in these words from their Admonition for the Sake of True Peace and Unity of the Church:

Since what makes the church the church, and what makes it one, holy, catholic and apostolic, and is sufficient for this, is the pure proclamation of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments, none of those elements which are indifferent as regards justification and the being of the church can be made necessary for its unity (Augsburg Confession 7). Therefore, it is wrong "when anyone imposes such ceremonies, commands, and prescriptions upon the community of God with coercive force as if they were necessary, against its Christian freedom, which it has in external matters" (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article X). The distinction between that which is necessary and that which is not necessary in the church must be absolutely clear, both in the teaching and practice of the church. If any "indifferent" element is made a condition for the being, the apostolicity or the unity

problems understanding that the terms bishop, presbyter, and pastor, as used by Scripture are synonymous and interchangeable. Paul uses all three to describe the same person in Acts 20:28! Also, in the Treatise, Melanchthon writes, that not a bishop, but the Gospel gives the authority to people to hold the office of the ministry and carry out its functions, and he too uses the various terms for a minister of the gospel interchangeably: “It is universally acknowledged, even by our opponents, that this power is shared by divine right by all who preside in the churches, whether they are called pastors, presbyters, or bishops. For that reason Jerome plainly teaches that in the apostolic letters all who preside over churches are both bishops and presbyters” (Tr., 340:60-62).

59 Constitution of the ELCA, 202.

of the church, this distinction is blurred. Thus Christian freedom, which is an essential dimension of the Christian faith, is destroyed, and the Lordship of Jesus Christ over His Church is compromised.60

How could Article X settle this?Why is this such a big deal? Why is so much ink being spilled over a

controversy in a church body whose Lutheranness we routinely question? Why? Because the Holy Christian Church is one body, and when a part of that body is hurting, or hurting itself, the whole body hurts. Despite our lack of external altar and pulpit fellowship with the ELCA, we can’t help but be concerned with what is occurring in their church body. And perhaps this also has to do with the fact that they call themselves Lutheran and we call ourselves Lutheran and sometimes we (despite our strongest and loudest protestations to the contrary) get lumped together under the term “Lutheran.” Finally, we do this because we have a deep and abiding love for God’s Word. The Lord commands us to read, learn, and inwardly digest His Word. He commands us to preach the gospel to all nations. He desires to use us as instruments to share the good news that offers faith and gives faith in Jesus Christ, who lived and died to take away the sins of the world. And so, we are concerned about this controversy in the ELCA, because it not only demonstrates that history repeats itself, but also because the ELCA has compromised Christian freedom, they have denied the truth of God’s Word, and these errors lead to a corruption of the doctrine of justification. Pastor Curtis Jahn wrote:

There is a close relationship between the doctrine of justification through faith and Christian freedom in matters of adiaphora. In the history of the church, wherever we see the doctrine of justification, that is, the gospel, faring well, we usually also see a more or less evangelical understanding and practice of Christian freedom in matters of adiaphora. On the other hand, wherever the doctrine of justification has not fared well, the church’s understanding and practice of Christian freedom have also suffered.61

This is nothing if not a restatement of Paul’s words in Galatians 5:1-4. The conclusion, then, is that the ELCA has either already, or is in severe danger of being “alienated from Christ” (Galatians 5:4). For they are

60 “Admonition for the Sake of the True Peace and Unity of the Church,” (WordAlone Network, accessed on December 5, 2005); available from www.wordalone.org.

61 Curtis A. Jahn. “Christian Freedom: Lessons from the History of the Church,” paper presented at A Symposium on Christian Freedom at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, September 24-25, 2001, WLS On-Line Essay File.

following “a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6-7). Thus, for our own sakes, and perhaps as a testimony and confession to the ELCA, we must now demonstrate how Article X of the Formula of Concord applies to this situation and how perhaps the tide of error could be reversed.

#1 – Recognize that the Historic Succession is not, at this time, a free thing and is not viewed that way by the ECUSA, and thus not for the ELCA either

…that ceremonies or ecclesiastical practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but have been established only for good order and decorum, are in and of themselves neither worship ordained by God nor a part of such worship (FC, Ep, 515:3).

…in a way that suggests that the community of God is not free at all times, according to its specific situation, to use one or more of these ceremonies in Christian freedom, as it is most beneficial to the church (FC, Ep, 512:12).

We noted above that for the ECUSA, the historic succession is not a free thing, it is a command. Thus, they are in violation of the Scriptural principles laid out in the Formula, and by conceding this matter to the ECUSA, the ELCA finds themselves suggesting that they are not free in this matter that God has set up as free. Let us once more hear some of the clearest statements from the ECUSA that profess this.

In paragraph 14 of Called to Common Mission it is agreed that “[f]or the Episcopal Church, full communion, although begun at the same time, will not be fully realized until both churches determine that in the context of a common life and mission there is a shared ministry of bishops in the historic episcopate.”62 Thus, the ELCA immediately enters into full communion and makes every change the ECUSA requires. The ECUSA waits until the ELCA has changed as they desire until saying there is full communion. Such a position does not indicate that this is a free matter “for good order and decorum,” but rather a very lengthy and burdensome process, and seems to say that the ELCA is not really, fully the Church until they have the historic succession integrated into their ministry.

In the document providing commentary on Called to Common Mission, the ELCA comments on paragraph 13 of the document (cf. note 56). The ELCA stresses once again that they are free to practice whatever kind of church polity that they desire, and they lean on Article VII of the

62 CCM, paragraph 14.

Augsburg Confession and Article X of the Formula of Concord. For the ECUSA, however, it’s a little different.

The Episcopal Church continues the understanding held by all churches in the Anglican Communion that the relationship of full communion can be entered into only with the church bodies that practice the historic succession of bishops. This understanding was clarified in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which has expressed the ecumenical vision of the Anglican Communion since 1888.63

Such a statement puts the lie to the ELCA’s statements to the contrary. The ECUSA sees this as a required thing. It is not free. It is “worship of God.” As Shakespeare says, “A rose by any other name….” The ELCA claims that nothing has changed. They have given in to nothing. This sounds like Melanchthon in his writing of the Leipzig Interim. But, to quote ESPN football analyst Lee Corso, “Not so fast, my friend!”

Listen to this resolution from the ECUSA. This is an April 2000 “Mind of the House” resolution regarding Called to Common Mission.

The Episcopal Church’s recognition of the full authenticity of the ministers ordained in the ELCA and its predecessor bodies (CCM para. 15) is made in view of the voted intention of that church to enter the ministry of the historic episcopate (para. 18). According to catholic tradition of which The Episcopal Church is a part, the order of the historic episcopate properly includes all three of these orders.64

The Episcopal Church understands that in order to enter into agreements, it is necessary to have doctrinal agreement (even if only in essentials), and part of that agreement is on the historic succession, part of the “catholic tradition.” This is their demand and command, a demand and command that God has not made. Thus, this is false unity, for this is false teaching. No agreement has been reached by the ELCA and the ECUSA, only an agreement to disagree. One can conclude either that the ELCA is supremely ignorant or disingenuous when, in their pastoral question and

63 “Commentary on Called to Common Mission – Adopted by Lutheran-Episcopal Coordinating Committee February 5, 2002,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 31, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullCommunion/episcopal/index.html.

64 Cf. Appendix 2. This “Mind of the House” resolution was included in the “Commentary on Called to Common Mission.” The orders referred to are those of bishop, presbyter, and deacon.

answer documents they repeatedly state that no doctrine has changed and that there is no secret or hidden agenda for instituting the three-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon.65 Or else, it is total honesty, since the agenda is not hidden, but rather is as plain as the noses on all our faces in the words of the ECUSA. Therefore, this continues to be a matter in which the ELCA cannot come to agreement, this is a case of confession, and as Flacius truly proclaimed, when it’s a time of confession, there is no adiaphora.

#2 – Doctrinal agreement has not been achieved

“…when the enemies of the holy gospel have not come to agreement with us in public teaching” (FC, SD, 635:2).

It is the claim of both the ELCA and the ECUSA that doctrinal agreement has been achieved, at least in the essentials. This is the point of the early paragraphs of the agreement, to make a statement of their common faith. However, a glance at the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church (which is used by the ECUSA), reveals a number of areas of doctrine where one is forced to say: “That is not what Scripture says. That is not what the Lutheran confessions teach.”

We’ve already discussed the Ordinal of 1662, which demonstrates that the ECUSA has problems in the area of church and ministry and is limiting Christian freedom. As if that weren’t bad enough, more is to be found in their “Outline of Faith.”66 Regarding bishops they note that part of their ministry is “to ordain others to continue Christ’s ministry.”67 It specifically does not say that priests or pastors can ordain others, but only bishops.

The ECUSA teaches falsely regarding the descent into hell. They teach that Jesus “went to the departed and offered them also the benefits of redemption.”68 This is not the teaching of 1 Peter 3:18, the Creeds, or Formula of Concord, Article IX. This may not be a major impediment for the ELCA, since in Braaten and Jenson’s dogmatics, the descent into hell, as well as most of the events mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed are considered mythological.69

The ECUSA teaches falsely regarding objective justification and the source of our salvation. In their “Outline of Faith” they describe the new

65 “Called to Common Mission – Questions and Answers, June 2000,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed October 31, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/Episcopal/CCMresources/ccm_q_a.html. “Questions and Answers on ‘Called to Common Mission’ – June 2001,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 31, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/Resources/since_you_asked.html.

66 Book of Common Prayer (BCP), 845-864.67 BCP, 855.68 BCP, 850.69 Christian Dogmatics, I:529.

covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 as “the new relationship with God given by Jesus Christ, the Messiah, to the apostles; and, through them, to all who believe in him.”70 The new covenant was not given to the apostles alone so that they could be mediators of that covenant. This is the Roman teaching regarding the pope and the character of priests as mediators of God’s grace. There is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Furthermore, this seems to state that Jesus created a new relationship (justification and forgiveness) first with the apostles. The world is only included in so far as the apostles (that is, the bishops following them in succession) pass on the news of this new relationship.

The ECUSA teaches falsely regarding the sacraments. They call them “outward and visible sings of inwards and spiritual grace.”71 They then go on to say without saying it in so many words that there are seven sacraments.72 For example, under ordination it says that God “gives authority and the grace of the Holy Spirit to those being made bishops.”73

So far as I know the ELCA does not teach the Roman seven sacrament system. Luther demolished this system in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church, as did the Lutheran Confessions, especially the Apology.

The ECUSA also teaches falsely regarding prayers for the dead. “Why do we pray for the dead? We pray for them, because we still hold them in our love, and because we trust that in God’s presence those who have chosen to serve him will grow in his love, until they see him as he is.”74

There are no levels of heaven, no purgatory, as this seems to hint at. The Book of Hebrews teaches that “man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). This is not a periodic judgment, as if God comes back to check on you. It’s a yes or no, heaven or hell, all or nothing kind of judgment.

The ECUSA also teaches, if not falsely, than in a very Melanchthonian way about the Lord’s Supper. In the “Outline of Faith” they write that “The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.”75 In their Articles of Religion from 1801, also included in the Book of Common Prayer, they clearly have a Calvinistic conception of the Supper: “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.”76 This is clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture in the Gospels and in 1 Corinthians. It is also contrary to the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord, Article VII. Since the ECUSA recommends the Book of Common Prayer to members of the ELCA to read for understanding ECUSA doctrine, and the ELCA recommends the Book of Concord to the

70 BCP, 850.71 BCP, 857.72 BCP, 860-861. Here marriage, ordination, and unction are mentioned as

conferring grace.73 BCP, 860-861.74 BCP, 862.75 BCP, 859.76 BCP, 873.

ECUSA for the same reason,77 it would behoove both to come to terms with this contradiction, and in the case of the ELCA, false teachings that prevent unity.

#3 – Called to Common Mission has created an “illusion” of agreement, and thus brought the Lutheran Church nearer again to Rome and the Antichrist.

“Nor are such ceremonies matters of indifference when they are intended to create the illusion (or are demanded or accepted with that intention), as if such action brought the two contradictory religions into agreement and made them one body or as if a return to the papacy and a deviation from the pure teaching of the gospel and from the true religion had taken place or could gradually result from these actions” (FC, SD, 636:5).

That this is an illusion is made manifest from point 1 of the ECUSA’s “Mind of the House” resolution of April 2000: “The Episcopal Church agrees that each of the two churches has the right to interpret the same document according to its own standards…so long as neither church contradicts the text or spirit of the document.”78 With such a principle laid out, what agreement couldn’t we reach? Answer: none, because in every and any situation I can see it my way and you can see it your way. That this is being carried out is clearly evident from the ELCA’s words in defense of their capitulation to the ECUSA. It is also evident as it defends this decision to the growing minority within its ranks who are sick and tired of such compromise.

That this “illusion” of agreement has brought the Lutheran Church, or at least this Lutheran Church, closer again to the papacy, can be seen from these words in an article regarding Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogues, in which the Anglicans defend their full communion agreement with the ELCA: “This approval was based upon the Episcopal Church’s recognition of ‘the essentials of the one catholic and apostolic faith’ in the ELCA, despite their considerable canonical, liturgical, and theological differences.”79 The ECUSA ignores doctrinal deviations at this time, because it has gotten the ELCA to cave on the big one – the succession. Now, they defend themselves

77 “Principles for the Orderly Exchange of Pastors and Priests,” (ECUSA website, accessed October 11, 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/1521_29251_ENG_HTM.htm.

78 Cf. Appendix 2. 79 “Agreed Report on the Local/Universal Church – Anglican/Roman Catholic

Dialogue,” (ECUSA website, accessed October 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/6947_9394_ENG_HTM.htm.

to Rome, saying that nothing stands in the way of further negotiations between you and us.

And, sadly, this is what the ELCA appears to be after in the long run. Since they signed their Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999, they have been seeking closer and closer ties with Rome. By denying the forensic aspects of justification taught so clearly in Romans 3:21-28, 8:33-34 and many other places, and tying themselves to Osiandrian teaching condemned by Formula of Concord Article V, the ELCA continues in its illusion of unity with Canterbury and Rome, which, sadly, becomes less and less of an illusion the more and more the ELCA changes their doctrine, sacrificing the essentials of the faith while blithely calling them the non-essentials. Thus, this simple denial of Christian freedom in one little article, the apostolic succession, is clearly one that proves that “a deviation from the pure teaching of the gospel and from the true religion had taken place or could gradually result from these actions” (FC, SD, 636:5).

How can the ELCA return to the moorings of true, confessional Lutheranism? The same way Luther did. By searching Scripture! If Galatians 5:1-4 were allowed to speak to their hearts, perhaps they would see the dangers of caving on this small item of freedom. If Galatians 2:1-21 were brought out in full force, they would see that we don’t blindly seek unity with the big, popular kid (Canterbury, Rome, Constantinople) while ignoring all his faults. We boldly confess to the truth, even if we’re in an unpopular minority. We stand up to Peter and say, “You are wrong!” Because if we don’t, we run the risk of emptying the cross of its power, of making the sacrifice of Christ a vain and empty thing.

The ELCA must be led to see that a proper practice of church fellowship, as laid out in Romans 16:17 (“Watch out…keep away!”), is a loving act, meant to be a call to repentance for those to whom we reject the right hand of fellowship. Paul’s exhortations in 2 Corinthians 6:14, 17 also apply, as we must not be unequally yoked. For the teachings of Rome and Canterbury are clearly “wickedness” and “darkness” (v14). As Canterbury loses its moorings in Scripture, as evidenced by gay bishops being ordained and undisciplined, and bishops like John Spong denying the key doctrines of Scripture, like the resurrection, without being disciplined, it is time to say, “Enough.” As Rome proclaims again and again its blasphemies concerning salvation, Mary, the Saints, Indulgences, the sacraments, and the power and primacy of the Pope, it is time to say, “Enough.” Our exhortation to the ELCA? “Therefore come out from them and be separate” (v17).

What will be next? Will it be an agreement of full communion with Rome? Or perhaps with the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or maybe an agreement that the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran is the same God? Based on the doctrine and exegetical principles evidenced by their merger with the ECUSA and their denial of Christian freedom by taking up the historic, apostolic succession, it is hard to tell where the ELCA is going next. It is our prayer that the ELCA would be led to repentance and reform!

Oh that the Lord would raise up within their midst “another angel flying in midair” proclaiming “the eternal gospel.” For the “hour of judgment” is coming (Revelation 14:6-7).

Study Questions1. How does this controversy highlight the importance of clear and

precise language in documents meant to demonstrate doctrinal unity?

2. How can we balance a desire for unity and fellowship among the Holy Christian Church expressed in John 17:22 with the call of Romans 16 to “Watch out for those who cause divisions….Keep away from them” (16:17)?

3. Could there be a situation where we could adopt the apostolic succession and the historic episcopate in our church body?

4. How does this agreement impact the ELCA’s discussions with the Roman Catholic Church?

Bibliography

Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) Publications, Explanations, Doctrinal Statements, Etc.

“Agreed Report on the Local/Universal Church – Anglican/Roman Catholic Dialogue,” (ECUSA website, accessed October 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/6947_9394_ENG_HTM.htm.

Book of Common Prayer, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1977.

“Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral – 1886,” (Anglican’s Online website, accessed October 2005); available from http://anglicansonline.org/basics/Chicago_Lambeth.html.

“Definition of Apostolic Succession,” (ECUSA website, accessed October 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_13758_ENG_HTM.htm.

“Lutheran Resolutions on ‘Ordination in Unusual Circumstances,’” (ECUSA website, accessed on October 11, 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/6947_10409_ENG_HTM.html.

Prayer Book Studies VIII– The Ordinal, New York: The Church Pension Fund, 1957.

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA)-ECUSA Merger Documents

“Called to Common Mission: Official Text – A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 31, 2005); available from

www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/episcopal/ccmresources/text.html.

“Commentary on Called to Common Mission – Adopted by Lutheran-Episcopal Coordinating Committee February 5, 2002,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 31, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullCommunion/episcopal/index.html.

Griffiss, James E. and Martensen, Daniel F., eds. A Commentary on “Concordat of Agreement,” Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1994.

Norgren, William A. and Rusch, William G., eds. “Toward Full Communion” and “Concordat of Agreement,” Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue III, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1991.

“Principles for the Orderly Exchange of Pastors and Priests,” (ECUSA website, accessed October 11, 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/1521_29251_ENG_HTM.htm.

ELCA Publications, Explanations, Doctrinal Statements, Etc.

“Admonition for the Sake of the True Peace and Unity of the Church,” (WordAlone Network, accessed on December 5, 2005); available from www.wordalone.org.

Braaten, Carl E., and Jenson, Robert W., editors. Christian Dogmatics, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984, II:203-243.

“Called to Common Mission – Questions and Answers, June 2000,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 31, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/Episcopal/CCMresources/ccm_q_a.html.

Mark Chavez and Jaynan Clark Egland, “Letter to Episcopal bishops,” (WordAlone Network Document Archive, accessed on December 5, 2005); available from www.wordalone.org.

Herbert W. Chilstrom, “Presentation made at American Lutheran Church Sun City, Arizona,” (ECUSA website, accessed on October 11, 2005); available from www.episcopalchurch.org/6947_561_ENG_HTM.htm.

“Constitution of the ELCA,” (ELCA website, accessed December 6, 2005); available from www.elca.org/secretary/Constitutions/ConstitutionsBylawsandContinuingResolutions2005.pdf.

Ecumenism: The Vision of the ELCA, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1994, 9-29.

“Guidelines and Worship Resources for the Celebration of Full Communion: Introduction,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 11, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/episcopal/guidelines/introduction.html.

“Guidelines and Resources for the Celebration of Full Communion: Holy Communion or Holy Eucharist,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 11, 2005); available from

www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/episcopal/guidelines/holy_communion.html.

Michael Rogness, “16 Simple Reasons to Defeat CCM,” (WordAlone Network Documents Archive, accessed on December 5, 2005); available from www.wordalone.org.

“The Episcopal Ministry within the Apostolicity of the Church – A Lutheran Statement 2002,” (an LWF statement found on the WordAlone Network Documents Archive, accessed December 5, 2005); available from www.wordalone.org.

“The Episcopal Ministry within the Apostolicity of the Church – A Lutheran Response 2003,” (WordAlone Network Documents Archive, accessed on December 5, 2005); available from http://www.wordalone.org.

“Questions and Answers on ‘Called to Common Mission’ – June 2001,” (ELCA Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, accessed on October 31, 2005); available from www.elca.org/ecumenical/Resources/since_you_asked.html.

The Lutheran Confessions, their history, and sources

Bente, F. Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord, St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1965, 93-112.

Kolb, Robert and Nestingen, James A., eds. Sources and Contexts of The Book of Concord, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001, 144-196.

Kolb, Robert and Wengert, Timothy, eds. The Book of Concord, Minneapolis,

MN: Fortress Press, 2000. Augsburg Confession, Article VII, Concerning the Church;

Article XIV, Concerning Church Order; Article XV,

Concerning Church Rites; Article XXVIII, Concerning the Church’s Power

Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Articles VII-VIII, The Church; Article XIV, Church Order; Article XV, Human Traditions in the Church; Article XXVIII, Ecclesiastical Power

Smalcald Articles, Part Three, Article X, Concerning Ordination and Vocation; Article 12, Concerning the Church

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope Formula of Concord, Article X, Ecclesiastical Practices,

Epitome and Solid Declaration

Wisconsin Synod papers and presentations on the Formula of Concord, Article X and the matter of adiaphora

Gawrisch, Wilbert R. “Christians, Guard Your Liberty! A Sermon Study on Galatians 5:1-6,” WLS On-Line Essay File.

Jahn, Curtis A. “Christian Freedom: Lessons from the History of the Church,” paper presented at A Symposium on Christian Freedom at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, September 24-25, 2001, WLS On-Line Essay File.

Kassulke, Peter R. “Does an Adiaphoron Ever Cease to be an Adiaphoron?” Presented to the Metro-North Pastoral Conference, September 15, 1986, WLS On-Line Essay File.

World Council of Churches documents

“Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry – Faith and Order Paper No. 111, 1982 [30th Printing 1996]” (World Council of Churches, accessed on November 29, 2005); available from www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/bem5.html.

All references to Holy Scripture are from the Concordia Self-Study Bible, the New International Version, unless otherwise noted.

Major Documents concerning the merger of the ELCA and the

ECUSA and the issue of the historic episcopate

Appendix 1 – Called to Common Mission (including the Tucson Resolutions), August 19, 1999

Appendix 2 – The Mind of the House Resolution of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, April 2000

Appendix 3 – The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, 1886/1888

Appendix 1

Called to Common Mission: Official TextA Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of AgreementAs Amended by the 1999 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America(August 19, 1999)

http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullcommunion/episcopal/ccmresources/text.html

A. AgreementsB. Actions of The Episcopal ChurchC. Actions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaD. Actions of Both ChurchesE. Conclusion

1. The Lutheran-Episcopal Agreement of 1982 identified as its goal the establishment of "full communion (communio in sacris/altar and pulpit fellowship)" between The Episcopal Church and the churches that united to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. As the meaning of full communion for purposes of this Concordat of Agreement, both churches endorse in principle the definitions agreed to by the (international) Anglican-Lutheran Joint Working Group at Cold Ash, Berkshire, England, in 1983, which they deem to be in full accord with their own definitions given in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's policy statement "Ecumenism: The Vision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" (1991), and in the "Declaration on Unity" of The Episcopal Church (1979). This agreement describes the relationship between our two church bodies. It does not define the church, which is a gift of God's grace.

2. We therefore understand full communion to be a relation between distinct churches in which each recognizes the other as a catholic and apostolic church holding the essentials of the Christian faith. Within this new relation, churches become interdependent while remaining autonomous. Full communion includes the establishment locally and nationally of recognized organs of regular consultation and communication, including episcopal collegiality, to express and strengthen the fellowship and enable common witness, life, and service. Diversity is preserved, but this diversity is not static. Neither church seeks to remake the other in its own image, but each is open to the gifts of the other as it seeks to be faithful to Christ and his mission. They are together committed to a visible unity in the church's mission to proclaim the Word and administer the Sacraments.

3. The Episcopal Church agrees that in its General Convention, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America agrees that in its Churchwide Assembly, there shall be one vote to accept or reject, as a matter of verbal content as well as in principle, the full set of agreements to follow. If they are adopted by both churches, each church agrees to make those legislative, canonical, constitutional, and liturgical changes that are needed and appropriate for the full communion between the churches. In adopting this document, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church specifically acknowledge and declare

that it has been correctly interpreted by the resolution of the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, adopted at Tucson, Arizona, March 8, 1999.1

A. Agreements

Agreement in the Doctrine of the Faith 4. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church recognize in each other the essentials of the one catholic and apostolic faith as it is witnessed in the unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, and The Book of Common Prayer of 1979 (including "Ordination Rites" and "An Outline of the Faith"), and also as it is summarized in part in Implications of the Gospel and "Toward Full Communion" and "Concordat of Agreement," (containing the reports of Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue III), the papers and official conversations of Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue III, and the statements formulated by Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogues I and II. Each church also promises to encourage its people to study each other's basic documents.

5. We endorse the international Anglican-Lutheran doctrinal consensus which was summarized in The Niagara Report (1989) as follows: "We accept the authority of the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. We read the Scriptures liturgically in the course of the church's year.

"We accept the Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Apostles' Creeds and confess the basic Trinitarian and Christological Dogmas to which these creeds testify. That is, we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is true God and true Man, and that God is authentically identified as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Anglicans and Lutherans use very similar orders of service for the Eucharist, for the Prayer Offices, for the administration of Baptism, for the rites of Marriage, Burial, and Confession and Absolution. We acknowledge in the liturgy both a celebration of salvation through Christ and a significant factor in forming the consensus fidelium [the consensus of the faithful]. We have many hymns, canticles, and collects in common.

"We believe that baptism with water in the name of the Triune God unites the one baptized with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, initiates into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and confers the gracious gift of new life.

"We believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, distributed, and received under the forms of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. We also believe that the grace of divine forgiveness offered in the sacrament is received with the thankful offering of ourselves for God's service.

"We believe and proclaim the gospel, that in Jesus Christ God loves and redeems the world. We share a common understanding of God's justifying grace, i.e. that we are accounted righteous and are made righteous before God only by grace through faith because of the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not on

account of our works or merit. Both our traditions affirm that justification leads and must lead to 'good works'; authentic faith issues in love.

"Anglicans and Lutherans believe that the church is not the creation of individual believers, but that it is constituted and sustained by the Triune God through God's saving action in Word and Sacraments. We believe that the church is sent into the world as sign, instrument, and foretaste of the kingdom of God. But we also recognize that the church stands in constant need of reform and renewal.

"We believe that all members of the church are called to participate in its apostolic mission. They are therefore given various ministries by the Holy Spirit. Within the community of the church the ordained ministry exists to serve the ministry of the whole people of God. We hold the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament to be a gift of God to his church and therefore an office of divine institution.

"We believe that a ministry of pastoral oversight (episkope), exercised in personal, collegial, and communal ways, is necessary to witness to and safeguard the unity and apostolicity of the church.

"We share a common hope in the final consummation of the kingdom of God and believe that we are compelled to work for the establishment of justice and peace. The obligations of the kingdom are to govern our life in the church and our concern for the world. The Christian faith is that God has made peace through Jesus 'by the blood of his cross' (Colossians 1:20) so establishing the one valid center for the unity of the whole human family."Agreement in Ministry6. The ministry of the whole people of God forms the context for what is said here about all forms of ministry. We together affirm that all members of Christ's church are commissioned for ministry through baptism. All are called to represent Christ and his church; to bear witness to him wherever they may be; to carry on Christ's work of reconciliation in the world; and to participate in the life, worship, and governance of the church. We give thanks for a renewed discovery of the centrality of the ministry of all the baptized in both our churches. Our witness to the gospel and pursuit of peace, justice, and reconciliation in the world have been immeasurably strengthened. Because both our churches affirm this ministry which has already been treated in our previous dialogues, it is not here extensively addressed. Both churches need more adequately to realize the ministry of the baptized through discernment of gifts, education, equipping the saints for ministry, and seeking and serving Christ in all persons.

7. We acknowledge that one another's ordained ministries are and have been given by God to be instruments of God's grace in the service of God's people, and possess not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also Christ's commission through his body, the church. We acknowledge that personal, collegial, and communal oversight is embodied and exercised in both our churches in a diversity of forms, in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles. We agree that ordained ministers are called and set apart for the one ministry of Word and Sacrament, and that they do not cease thereby to share in the priesthood of all believers. They fulfill their particular ministries within the community of the faithful and not apart from it. The concept of the priesthood of all believers affirms the need for ordained

ministry, while at the same time setting ministry in proper relationship to the laity. The Anglican tradition uses the terms "presbyter" and "priest" and the Lutheran tradition in America characteristically uses the term "pastor" for the same ordained ministry.

8. In order to give witness to the faith we share (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above), we agree that the one ordained ministry will be shared between the two churches in a common pattern for the sake of common mission. In the past, each church has sought and found ways to exercise the ordained ministry in faithfulness to the apostolic message and mission. Each has developed structures of oversight that serve the continuity of this ministry under God's Word. Within the future common pattern, the ministry of pastors/priests will be shared from the outset (see paragraph 16 below). Some functions of ordained deacons in The Episcopal Church and consecrated diaconal ministers and deaconesses in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America can be shared insofar as they are called to be agents of the church in meeting needs, hopes, and concerns within church and society. The churches will over time come to share in the ministry of bishops in an evangelical, historic succession (see paragraph 19 below). This succession also is manifest in the churches' use of the apostolic scriptures, the confession of the ancient creeds, and the celebration of the sacraments instituted by our Lord. As our churches live in full communion, our ordained ministries will still be regulated by the constitutional framework of each church.

9. Important expectations of each church for a shared ordained ministry will be realized at the beginning of our new relation: an immediate recognition by The Episcopal Church of presently existing ordained ministers within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and a commitment by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to receive and adapt an episcopate that will be shared. Both churches acknowledge that the diaconate, including its place within the threefold ministerial office and its relationship with all other ministries, is in need of continuing exploration, renewal, and reform, which they pledge themselves to undertake in consultation with one another. The ordination of deacons, deaconesses, or diaconal ministers by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not required by this Concordat.

10. The New Testament describes a laying-on-of-hands to set persons apart for a variety of ministries. In the history of the church, many and various terms have been used to describe the rite by which a person becomes a bishop. In the English language these terms include: confecting, consecrating, constituting, installing, making, ordaining, ordering. Both our traditions have used the term "consecration of bishops" for this same rite at some times. Today the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America uses the term "installation" while The Episcopal Church uses the word "ordination" for the rite by which a person becomes a bishop. What is involved in each case is the setting apart within the one ministry of Word and Sacrament of a person elected and called for the exercise of oversight (episkope) wider than the local congregation in the service of the gospel.

11. "Historic succession" refers to a tradition which goes back to the ancient church, in which bishops already in the succession install newly elected bishops with prayer and the laying-on-of-hands. At present The Episcopal Church has

bishops in this historic succession, as do all the churches of the Anglican Communion, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at present does not, although some member churches of the Lutheran World Federation do. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888, the ecumenical policy of The Episcopal Church, refers to this tradition as "the historic episcopate." In the Lutheran Confessions, Article 14 of the Apology refers to this episcopal pattern by the phrase, "the ecclesiastical and canonical polity" which it is "our deep desire to maintain."

Commitment and Definition12.  As a result of their agreement in faith and in testimony of their full communion with one another, both churches now make the following commitment to share an episcopal succession that is both evangelical and historic. They promise to include regularly one or more bishops of the other church to participate in the laying-on-of-hands at the ordinations/installations of their own bishops as a sign, though not a guarantee, of the unity and apostolic continuity of the whole church. With the laying-on-of-hands by other bishops, such ordinations/installations will involve prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit. Both churches value and maintain a ministry of episkope as one of the ways, in the context of ordained ministries and of the whole people of God, in which the apostolic succession of the church is visibly expressed and personally symbolized in fidelity to the gospel through the ages. By such a liturgical statement the churches recognize that the bishop serves the diocese or synod through ties of collegiality and consultation that strengthen its links with the universal church. It is also a liturgical expression of the full communion initiated by this Concordat, calling for mutual planning and common mission in each place. We agree that when persons duly called and elected are ordained/installed in this way, they are understood to join bishops already in this succession and thus to enter the historic episcopate.

13. While our two churches will come to share in the historic institution of the episcopate in the church (as defined in paragraph 12 above), each remains free to explore its particular interpretations of the ministry of bishops in evangelical and historic succession. Whenever possible, this should be done in consultation with one another. The Episcopal Church is free to maintain that sharing in the historic catholic episcopate, while not necessary for salvation or for recognition of another church as a church, is nonetheless necessary when Anglicans enter the relationship of full communion in order to link the local churches for mutual responsibility in the communion of the larger church. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is free to maintain that this same episcopate, although pastorally desirable when exercised in personal, collegial, and communal ways, is nonetheless not necessary for the relationship of full communion. Such freedom is evidenced by its communion with such non-episcopal churches as the Reformed churches of A Formula of Agreement and most churches within the Lutheran World Federation.

14. The two churches will acknowledge immediately the full authenticity of each other's ordained ministries (bishops, priests, and deacons in The Episcopal Church and pastors in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). The creation of a common and fully interchangeable ministry of bishops in full communion will occur with the incorporation of all active bishops in the historic episcopal succession and

the continuing process of collegial consultation in matters of Christian faith and life. For both churches, the relationship of full communion begins when both churches adopt this Concordat. For the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the characteristics of the goal of full communion - defined in its 1991 policy statement, "Ecumenism: The Vision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America"-will be realized at this time. For The Episcopal Church, full communion, although begun at the same time, will not be fully realized until both churches determine that in the context of a common life and mission there is a shared ministry of bishops in the historic episcopate. For both churches, life in full communion entails more than legislative decisions and shared ministries. The people of both churches have to receive and share this relationship as they grow together in full communion.

B. Actions of The Episcopal Church 15. The Episcopal Church by this Concordat recognizes the ministers ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or its predecessor bodies as fully authentic. The Episcopal Church acknowledges that the pastors and bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America minister as pastors/priests within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and that the bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are pastors/priests exercising a ministry of oversight (episkope) within its synods. Further, The Episcopal Church agrees that all bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America who are chosen after both churches pass this Concordat and installed within the ministry of the historic episcopate will be understood by The Episcopal Church as having been ordained into this ministry (see paragraph 18 below).

16. To enable the full communion that is coming into being by means of this Concordat, The Episcopal Church pledges to continue the process for enacting a temporary suspension, in this case only, of the seventeenth-century restriction that "no persons are allowed to exercise the offices of bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church unless they are so ordained, or have already received such ordination with the laying-on-of-hands by bishops who are themselves duly qualified to confer Holy Orders" ("Preface to the Ordination Rites," The Book of Common Prayer, p. 510). The purpose of this action, to declare this restriction inapplicable to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, will be to permit the full interchangeability and reciprocity of all its pastors as priests or presbyters within The Episcopal Church, without any further ordination or re-ordination or supplemental ordination whatsoever, subject always to canonically or constitutionally approved invitation. The purpose of temporarily suspending this restriction, which has been a constant requirement in Anglican polity since the Ordinal of 1662, is precisely in order to secure the future implementation of the ordinals' same principle in the sharing of ordained ministries. It is for this reason that The Episcopal Church can feel confident in taking this unprecedented step with regard to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

17. The Episcopal Church acknowledges and seeks to receive the gifts of the Lutheran tradition which has consistently emphasized the primacy of the Word. The Episcopal Church therefore endorses the Lutheran affirmation that the historic catholic episcopate under the Word of God must always serve the gospel, and that the ultimate authority under which bishops preach and teach is the gospel itself

(see Augsburg Confession 28. 21-23). In testimony and implementation thereof, The Episcopal Church agrees to establish and welcome, either by itself or jointly with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, structures for collegial and periodic review of the ministry exercised by bishops with a view to evaluation, adaptation, improvement, and continual reform in the service of the gospel.

C. Actions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 18. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America agrees that all its bishops chosen after both churches pass this Concordat will be installed for pastoral service of the gospel with this church's intention to enter the ministry of the historic episcopate. They will be understood by The Episcopal Church as having been ordained into this ministry, even though tenure in office of the Presiding Bishop and synodical bishops may be terminated by retirement, resignation, disciplinary action, or conclusion of term. Any subsequent installation of a bishop so installed includes a prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit without the laying-on-of-hands. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America further agrees to revise its rite for the "installation of a Bishop" to reflect this understanding. A distinction between episcopal and pastoral ministries within the one office of Word and Sacrament is neither commanded nor forbidden by divine law (see Apology of the Augsburg Confession 14.1 and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 63). By thus freely accepting the historic episcopate, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does not thereby affirm that it is necessary for the unity of the church (Augsburg Confession 7.3).

19. In order to receive the historic episcopate, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America pledges that, following the adoption of this Concordat and in keeping with the collegiality and continuity of ordained ministry attested as early as Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I, a.d. 325), at least three bishops already sharing in the sign of the episcopal succession will be invited to participate in the installation of its next Presiding Bishop through prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit and with the laying-on-of-hands. These participating bishops will be invited from churches of the Lutheran communion which share in the historic episcopate. In addition, a bishop or bishops will be invited from The Episcopal Church to participate in the same way as a symbol of the full communion now shared. Synodical bishops elected and awaiting installation may be similarly installed at the same service, if they wish. Further, all other installations of bishops in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will be through prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit and with the laying-on-of-hands by other bishops, at least three of whom are to be in the historic succession (see paragraph 12 above). Its liturgical rites will reflect these provisions.

20. In accord with the historic practice whereby the bishop is representative of the wider church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America agrees to make constitutional and liturgical provision that a bishops shall regularly preside and participate in the laying-on-of-hands at the ordination of all clergy. Pastors shall continue to participate with the bishop in the laying-on-of-hands at all ordinations of pastors. Such offices are to be exercised as servant ministry, and not for domination or arbitrary control. All the people of God have a true equality, dignity, and authority for building up the body of Christ.

21. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by this Concordat recognizes the bishops, priests, and deacons ordained in The Episcopal Church as fully authentic ministers in their respective orders within The Episcopal Church and the bishops of The Episcopal Church as chief pastors in the historic succession exercising a ministry of oversight (episkope) within its dioceses.

D. Actions of Both Churches Interchangeability of Clergy: Occasional Ministry, Extended Service, Transfer 22. In this Concordat, the two churches declare that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian faith, although this does not require from either church acceptance of all doctrinal formulations of the other. Ordained ministers serving occasionally or for an extended period in the ministry of the other church will be expected to undergo the appropriate acceptance procedures of that church respecting always the internal discipline of each church. For the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, such ministers will be expected to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments in a manner that is consistent with its "Confession of Faith" as written in chapter two of the Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. For The Episcopal Church, such ministers will be expected to teach and act in a manner that is consistent with the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church. Ordained ministers from either church seeking long-term ministry with primary responsibility in the other will be expected to apply for clergy transfer and to agree to the installation vow or declaration of conformity in the church to which she or he is applying to minister permanently.

Joint Commission23. To assist in joint planning for mission, both churches authorize the establishment of a joint commission, fully accountable to the decision-making bodies of the two churches. Its purpose will be consultative, to facilitate mutual support and advice as well as common decision making through appropriate channels in fundamental matters that the churches may face together in the future. The joint commission will work with the appropriate boards, committees, commissions, and staff of the two churches concerning such ecumenical, doctrinal, pastoral, and liturgical matters as may arise, always subject to approval by the appropriate decision-making bodies of the two churches.Wider Context24. In thus moving to establish, in geographically overlapping episcopates in collegial consultation, one ordained ministry open to women as well as to men, to married persons as well as to single persons, both churches agree that the historic catholic episcopate can be locally adapted and reformed in the service of the gospel. In this spirit they offer this Concordat and growth toward full communion for serious consideration among the churches of the Reformation as well as among the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. They pledge widespread consultation during the process at all stages. Each church promises to issue no official commentary on this text that has not been accepted by the joint commission as a legitimate interpretation thereof.

Existing Relationships

25. Each church agrees that the other church will continue to live in communion with all the churches with whom the latter is now in communion. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continues to be in full communion (pulpit and altar fellowship) with all member churches of the Lutheran World Federation and with three of the Reformed family of churches (Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.], Reformed Church in America, and United Church of Christ). This Concordat does not imply or inaugurate any automatic communion between The Episcopal Church and those churches with whom the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is in full communion. The Episcopal Church continues to be in full communion with all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, with the Old Catholic Churches of Europe, with the united churches of the Indian subcontinent, with the Mar Thoma Church, and with the Philippine Independent Church. This Concordat does not imply or inaugurate any automatic communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and those churches with whom The Episcopal Church is in full communion.

Other Dialogues 26. Both churches agree that each will continue to engage in dialogue with other churches and traditions. Both churches agree to take each other and this Concordat into account at every stage in their dialogues with other churches and traditions. Where appropriate, both churches will seek to engage in joint dialogues. On the basis of this Concordat, both churches pledge that they will not enter into formal agreements with other churches and traditions without prior consultation with each other. At the same time both churches pledge that they will not impede the development of relationships and agreements with other churches and traditions with whom they have been in dialogue.

E. Conclusion

27. Recognizing each other as churches in which the gospel is truly preached and the holy sacraments duly administered, we receive with thanksgiving the gift of unity which is already given in Christ.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers -- all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:15-20).

28. Repeatedly Christians have echoed the scriptural confession that the unity of the church is both Christ's own work and his call to us. It is therefore our task as well as his gift. We must "make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). We pray that we may rely upon, and willingly receive from one another, the gifts Christ gives through his Spirit "for building up the body of Christ" in love (Ephesians 4:16).

29. We do not know to what new, recovered, or continuing tasks of mission this Concordat will lead our churches, but we give thanks to God for leading us to this point. We entrust ourselves to that leading in the future, confident that our full communion will be a witness to the gift and goal already present in Christ, "so that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28). Entering full communion and thus removing limitations through mutual recognition of faith, sacraments, and ministries will bring new opportunities and levels of shared evangelism, witness, and service. It is the gift of Christ that we are sent as he has been sent (John 17:17-26), that our unity will be received and perceived as we participate together in the mission of the Son in obedience to the Father through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.

Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen (Ephesians 3:20-21).

1 RESOLVED, that the Conference of Bishops affirm the following understandings of "Called to Common Mission":

A. The Conference of Bishops understands that "Called to Common Mission" contains:

1. no requirement that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America must eventually adopt the three-fold order of ministry. Rather, "Called to Common Mission" recognizes that the present understanding of one ordained ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, including both pastors and bishops, may continue in effect;

2. no requirement that ELCA bishops be elected to serve as synodical bishops for life. Rather, they will continue to be elected and installed for six-year terms, with eligibility for re-election, subject to term limits, where applicable;

3. no defined role for the presiding bishop or synodical bishops after their tenure in office is completed;

4. no requirement that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America establish the office of deacon, nor that they be ordained;

5. no requirement that priests of The Episcopal Church will serve congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America without the congregation's consent;

6. no requirement that the Ordinal (rules) of The Episcopal Church will apply to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America;

7. no commitment to additional constitutional amendments or liturgical revisions other than those presented to the 1999 ELCA Churchwide Assembly (ELCA constitutional provisions 8.72.10-16.; 9.21.02.; 9.90.-9.91.02.; 10.31.a.9.; 10.81.01., and parallel provisions in synodical and congregational constitutions); and further

B. The Conference of Bishops has the expectation that:

1. ordinations of pastors will continue to be held at synodical worship services and in congregations, as is the present pattern;

2. the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will continue to receive onto the roster of ordained ministers, without re-ordination, pastors from other traditions, some of whom will not have been ordained by a bishop in the historic episcopate;

3. following the adoption of "Called to Common Mission," if someone who has been received onto the roster of ordained ministers of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America who was not ordained into the pastoral office in the historic episcopate is elected bishop and installed, he or she will be understood to be a bishop in the historic episcopate;

4. lay persons may continue to be licensed by the synodical bishop in unusual circumstances to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion as is the present practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America;

5. "Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline of Ordained Ministers" will apply to priests of The Episcopal Church and ordained ministers of the Reformed churches serving ELCA congregations [under continuing resolution 8.72.15.b., A...to live in a manner consistent with the ministerial policy of this church."];

6. the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not in any way changing its confessional stance that, "For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments" (Augsburg Confession, Article VII);

7. The Episcopal Church accepts fully, and without reservation, present Lutheran pastors and bishops who are not in the historic episcopal succession;

8. priests of The Episcopal Church and ordained ministers of the Reformed churches will not be asked to subscribe personally to the Confession of Faith of the Lutheran Church as their personal faith. They will be expected to recognize the agreement in faith of the churches and to preach and teach in a manner consistent with the Lutheran Confessions;

9. the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America receives the historic episcopal succession as a sign of and service to the continuity and unity of the Church and in no way as a guarantee of the faithful transmission of the faith;

10. future decisions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on matters of common concern will be made in consultation with churches with whom a relationship of full communion has been declared, but these decisions will not require their concurrence or approval;

11. future Churchwide Assemblies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will be free to make whatever decisions they deem necessary after mutual consultation on matters related to full communion;

12. the joint commission [to which reference is made in "Called to Common Mission"] will have no authority over the appropriate decision-making bodies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or The Episcopal Church; and

13. pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will continue to preside at confirmations.

Appendix 2

The Mind of the House Resolution of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, which was adopted in April 2000, reads:

Resolved that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church specifically acknowledges and declares that the following understandings shall govern our interpretation and acceptance of the document “Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement” within The Episcopal Church:

1. The Episcopal Church agrees that each of the two churches has the right to interpret the same document according to its own standards, as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has already done for itself and referenced in CCM para. 3, so long as neither church contradicts the text or spirit of the document. In full communion, “churches become interdependent while remaining autonomous” (para. 2).

2. In common with all churches of the Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church continues to maintain, as the Preface to the Ordination Rites makes clear (Book of Common Prayer, 510), that “three distinct orders of ordained ministers,” namely, bishops, priests, and deacons, are “characteristic of Christ’s holy catholic church,” and that “it has been, and is, the intention and purpose of this Church to maintain and continue these three orders.”

3. The Episcopal Church’s recognition of the full authenticity of the ministers ordained in the ELCA or its predecessor bodies (CCM para. 15) is made in view of the voted intention of that church to enter the ministry of the historic episcopate (para. 18). According to catholic tradition of which The Episcopal Church is a part, the order of the historic episcopate properly includes within itself all three of these orders.

4. In view of the firmly voted intention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that “a bishop shall regularly preside and participate in the laying-on-of-hands at the ordination of all clergy” (para. 20), it is necessary to state that according to the standard of The Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion and of catholic Christianity it is the rule (regula) that no exception to Episcopal ordination can be allowed. Therefore if any ordination within the ELCA were to be carried out after full communion begins without an ELCA bishop presiding and participating in the laying-on-of-hands, it would not be acceptable for interchangeability and reciprocity in The Episcopal Church under para. 16 of CCM . In this regard The Episcopal Church welcomes the ELCA’s explanation of para. 20 recorded in the minutes of its 1999 Denver Churchwide Assembly that “The use of ‘regularly’ establishes the ELCA’s intent to adhere to the same standard of ordination by a bishop as practiced by The Episcopal Church” in the USA and the word “‘regularly’ does not imply the possibility of planned exceptions.”

5. Although the ELCA may continue to receive onto its roster of ordained ministers, without reordination, pastors from other traditions, some of whom will not have

been ordained by a bishop in the historic episcopate, only pastors ordained in the ELCA or its predecessor bodies w ill be considered for interchangeability with The Episcopal Church (para. 16, 22). Pastors not ordained by a bishop in historic succession who transfer into the ELCA from other traditions after passage of CCM will not be regarded as interchangeable. Rostered ELCA pastors who were not ordained in the ELCA or its predecessor bodies will not be interchangeable under the provisions of CCM.

6. Although lay persons in the ELCA may continue to be licensed by its synodical bishops in unusual circum stances on rare occasions to preside at celebrations of the sacrament of Holy Communion for specified periods of time and only in a given location, it is well known that The Episcopal Church follows the consensus of catholic Christianity in not allowing or recognizing this practice, nor is it accepted or even mentioned in the text of the CCM (cf. para. 16).

Appendix 3

The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, 1886/1888

Adopted by the House of Bishops Chicago, 1886We, Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Council assembled as Bishops in the Church of God, do hereby solemnly declare to all whom it may concern, and especially to our fellow-Christians of the different Communions in this land, who, in their several spheres, have contended for the religion of Christ:

Our earnest desire that the Savior's prayer, "That we all may be one," may, in its deepest and truest sense, be speedily fulfilled;

That we believe that all who have been duly baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are members of the Holy Catholic Church.

That in all things of human ordering or human choice, relating to modes of worship and discipline, or to traditional customs, this Church is ready in the spirit of love and humility to forego all preferences of her own;

That this Church does not seek to absorb other Communions, but rather, co-operating with them on the basis of a common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visible manifestation of Christ to the world.

But furthermore, we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity...can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

As inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:

1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.

2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.3. The two Sacraments,--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,--ministered with

unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.

Furthermore, Deeply grieved by the sad divisions which affect the Christian Church in our own land, we hereby declare our desire and readiness, so soon as there shall be any authorized response to this Declaration, to enter into brotherly conference with all or any Christian Bodies seeking the restoration of the organic unity of the Church, with a view to the earnest study of the conditions under which so priceless a blessing might happily be brought to pass.

Note: While the above form of the Quadrilateral was adopted by the House of Bishops, it was not enacted by the House of Deputies, but rather incorporated in a general plan referred for study and action to a newly created Joint Commission on Christian Reunion.

Lambeth Conference of 1888 Resolution 11

That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion:

(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.