Participants described current relations among Anglicans and Lutherans in their home countries. They discovered considerable diversity but also identified a number of practices which already reflect mutual recognition, support, and common mission. They reviewed the work of earlier meetings of the Commission, particularly from Harare in 1999. They discussed Dr Ishmael Noko’s analysis of steps that would lead toward a full communion agreement: mapping current relationships among our churches; analyzing the contexts; taking account of the changing ecumenical landscape; developing common projects; and giving responses to historically divisive issues, both making use of ecumenical resources and speaking from African contexts.
The Commission decided to move ahead simultaneously along several lines. First, it will seek to work with bishops to plan a joint regional meeting of Anglican and Lutheran bishops in 2009: movement to full communion will require that the bishops deepen their networks of personal relationships, commit the resources of their churches, and endorse the theological vision in their communications. Second, it will ask the LWF and CAPA offices, with other structures, to seek ways to bring together sub-regional groups from all areas of the churches’ life – youth, women, theologians, etc.: movement to full communion will require staff support from appropriate international bodies. Third, members themselves will continue to develop the narratives of local relationships which were shared during the meeting in order to contribute to the process of mapping. These narratives will form the basis for the work of a group of theologians who will meet before the next full Commission meeting. This theological reflection will allow a proposal for full communion to emerge from the life of these communities in Africa.
This is an important step. Anglicans and Lutherans have much to gain from a full communion relationship, and we have a strong common witness to offer.
Augsburg,
While I agree that Anglicans and Lutherans have much to gain, I would urge considerable caution about moving towards full communion.
Full communion in the sacraments is an expression of full agreement in the faith, and such communion ought to be regarded as the result of, rather than a means toward, that full agreement in the faith. Historically, Anglicanism has not often had such full agreement even within itself; and at the present time Anglicanism is struggling with the whole issue of unity in faith and practice.
Meanwhile, many Lutheran bodies associated with the Lutheran World Federation are in crisis over the same issues (authority of Scripture, human sexuality, etc.) that are plaguing the Anglican Churches. From the Anglican re-asserters’ perspective, it might perhaps be less than helpful to enter into union with another Christian body which is rife with the same heterodoxy and heteropraxis that the re-asserters are struggling with in their own Churches.
Rather than pursue reunion with the liberal LWF, re-asserters would do better to cultivate relationships with more traditional Lutheran bodies, whose teaching and practice come out of a full commitment to the Lutheran Confessions. Even that would be difficult, given the loyalty of many re-asserters to specifically Reformed theology, with which confessional Lutherans disagree. But that dialogue, however difficult, would be more worthwhile than dialogue with the LWF, which inevitably would involve compromises with theological liberalism.
(Full disclosure: I am a Missouri-Synod (non-LWF) Lutheran.)
Greetings Chris. In keeping with the theme of full disclosure, I am a conservative, second-career, ELCA seminarian. So, I appreciate much of your concern regarding doctrinal compromise. What I believe, however, is that the African churches are generally all of the same stripe – traditional, orthodox bodies. Thus, the LWF is not uniformly liberal. On this side of the Atlantic, the full communion agreement between the ELCA and ECUSA is considerably more problematic, of course. Yet, I find myself in agreement with my conservative Episcopal colleagues just the same as those who are liberal agree with each other, and thus, we can learn from each other even under these circumstances.
I doubt very much that a single leader in any Lutheran Churches in Africa are under any illusions about the current situation. I think most already understand exactly where LCMS and LWF stand. Many are members of both, but they are horrified at what is happening in one.
I think this situation is very interesting. Noko is in an interesting position. He has to know that it is something of a minefield because many are pondering how much they are going to play a role like Anglican Global South.
To be candid, as an Anglo-Catholic, I struggle with the idea of full communion with bodies that are not in the historic apostolic succession and do not embrace the collective wisdom of all of the early Church Fathers and the authority of the mind of the Church universal as expressed in the great Ecumenical Councils. The foundations of Lutheranism in the Reformation simply don’t quite meet these basic orthodox catholic criteria. However, I am encouraged by the seriousness towards true common understanding of key theological questions that is manifest in this communique.
Now, there is another critical problem in the current international situation. Chris Jones touches on it, but the need for each historic communion/federation to clarify its own identity and bring together the various credally orthodox factions within itself is really the first priority. There can be no real agreement between Anglicans and Lutherans until the parameters of orthodox soteriological, ecclesiological, and moral doctrine and hermeneutics are delineated in each family and then confirmed through a process of serious reflection, debate, discernment, and prayer. For Anglicans, God willing, the Covenant process may make this happen. I do not know how Lutherans would travel this road.
#5,
The irony is of course that some Lutherans would say the same when reflecting on Lutheran vs. (some) Anglican understandings of the Eucharist, where they would doubtless say the Evangelical position was more in conformity with the teaching of the Church than more Reformed understandings which had long periods of ascendancy in the C of E. So I guess it’s pick your emphasis.
Young Joe, I fear that you may not be taking into account the very consistent sacramental understanding of the Eucharist (real presence/sacramental union) among Lutheran bodies, which is not present consistently in the Anglican Communion, especially in the evangelical branch. While the Lutherans have historically maintained that doctrine is more authentically Apostolic than structure, we can very readily adopt the historic episcopate to remedy issues of polity. The breadth of Anglicanism presents a more difficult issue for confessional Lutherans. What I (sadly) recognize, however, is the serious breach of liberal Lutherans (as well as Anglicans) of issues of biblical authority and morality, which presents a problem for all of us.
I largely agree with no. 5. Despite itself and despite the influence of Reformed theology in the Anglican Church it does posess the three-fold ministry of bishop/priest/deacon. I do support agreements between Lutherans and Anglicans even though the role of the priest in connection with the eucharist has been finessed rather delicately, so far. At the same time, each Communion should be more purposeful in settling its own self-definition. And, Chris, while I do recognize that Reformed and even Zwinglian views of the Presence have pertained in the Church (and I believe those views are gravely wanting, the Lutheran refusal to grant any currency to the Sacrifice in the eucharist is a deficiency. An interesting side discussion would of course be “What does it actually take to effect the Real Presence in anyone’s eucharist, whether RC, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbytyerian, Congregational, Baptist, or whatever”. Is it dependent on a valid ministry (priesthood), doctrinal statements, credal or otherwise, proper form, or faith of the worshipper? A Blessed Christmas to all.
It is worth noting, too, that in some African countries (e.g., Kenya) the Lutheran church there is adamantly opposed to WO, while the Anglican church has embraced it with enthusiasm. (Presiding Bishop Walter Obare Umwaza of the Lutheran Church of Kenya [himself a former Anglican] provided episcopal Orders for the “Mission Province” of Sweden — a body somewhat analogous to the AMiA here in the USA.)
Lutherans and Roman Catholics have made great progress on the issue of the “sacrifice” of the Mass. The Lutheran objection that the Mass is not a re-sacrificing of Christ, which occurred once and for all at the cross, has been met by RC statements that there is no re-sacrifice, but only the making present of that one-time sacrifice. This is considerably less objectionable to us than the idea that priests are acting de novo at the altar, or that they maintain some type of supernatural power to make Christ present. For Lutherans, the Presence is accomplished by Christ’s own promise, and the issue of Orders is about Eucharistic discipline and church order.
The RC doctrine was never a re-sacrifice. And the RC/Anglican ARCIC agreements settled agreement on that some time ago. Is there anything in the current Lutheran liturgy that re-introduces that concept. As for Christ’s promise, would Lutherans say that the Presence is likewise accomplished in the Eucharist of the Reformed family of churches?
rob k, the Lutheran/RC dialogues in Round I likewise settled that issue a while ago (1967). I agree with you that official RC teaching, at least after Trent, was not re-sacrifice, but the liturgy/common understanding made it rather ambiguous. Lutheran liturgy does not use sacrificial language. Great Thanksgiving, Sanctus, Words of Institution, Epiclesis, Agnus Dei are the primary elements in the ELCA Eucharistic liturgy. As for the issue of the Reformed Eucharist, their concept of Christ’s Presence is slightly different, but they do state a belief in the Real Presence, and the ELCA (not LCMS) has entered into Full Communion agreements with the RCA, PCUSA, and (much to my dismay) the UCC. Obviously, however, the Zwinglian view is not included.
No. 12 – Augsburg – Thanks for responding. I asked the question about sacrifice in the liturgy because some Lutherans I have discussed this with, and vehemently a few times with some very well informed people, completely reject any notion of sacrifice, including the for-all-time true catholic doctrine that in the eucharist the one, complete, and sufficient sacrifice of Christ is re-entered into and represented. Calvinistic views on the Real Presence are interesting, the most interesting to me being the High Calvinist belief that in the eucharist, while there is no Real Presence locally in or around the species, yet through them they as instruments elevate us up to heaven, the only place where He actually is, in His glorified body. That is somewhat close to the RC/Anglican/Lutheran doctrine or liturgical practice. Another question – why, to your knowlege, do Lutherans rarely reserve the Sacrament? I know that many say that the Presence is only “present” until distribution of the sacrament is completed. Why is that. One ELCA minister that I know told me that he privately reserves the sacrament for the needs of the sick. I am very interested inthe High Church movement in Lutheranism, especially in the ELCA. It might or might not amuse you, but I mistakenly assumed that you are LCMS(in my defense it seems that most Lutheran bloggers are LCMS for some reason.) Thx.
greetings again Rob. The primary reason for the (older) Lutheran tendency to celebrate Eucharist maybe 1x/mo was entirely logistical – there were not enough ordained pastors around in the early days of the US to consecrate Communion every week. The ELCA trend these days is for weekly Eucharist at least at one service per parish. As for the reserved sacrament, I believe the Lutheran position really has more to do with the RC practice of venerating the Elements. Luther’s argument was that the purpose of the Presence was consumption, not veneration. That being said, many Lutherans (at least in the ELCA) do practice the reserved sacrament (including my own parish). It really depends on the pastor. Some are okay with it, others not. Incidentally, I tend to be a high church Lutheran myself, am a (second career seminarian), and fall within the conservative wing of the ELCA.
Hello, Augsburg – Thx. again for your response. My understanding was that it was a matter of eucharistic doctrine that the Presence only inhered until distribution. But certainly I’m sure that also it was founded on objecting to RC eucharistic piety. The same prejudice was also present in the Reformation in England, and has also lasted in parts of Anglicanism. It’s hard to believe that the reformers, being usually very educated men, were ignorant of authentic Catholic eucharistic doctrine. But they had an ax to grind. You probably know that in 18th and part of 19th century Anglicanism celebration of the eucharist also lapsed, and at least in England not because of the lack of priests, but just because of slothful inattention. I know that in Lutheranism here and elsewhere, I presume, more frequent celebration has resumed, and it’s good to hear that the practice of reservation is picking up. I am grateful for the practice in parts of Anglicanism for occasions of eucharistic piety outside the eucharist itself. After all, it is not worshipping bread and wine. It is worshipping the Christ who is locally and especially THERE. I say “locally” while acknowledging Aquinas’ careful use of that word. I am a subscriber to the Lutheran Forun and to Pro Ecclesia, both very interesting publications. A Blessed Christmas to you & yours.
Greetings again Rob. There is no confessional, uniform Lutheran doctrine regarding the duration of Christ’s Presence in the elements, hence, there is variation. My own belief is that the Presence, or the Sacramental Union that occurs, ends when the purpose of the Eucharist ends, i.e., for consumption by the faithful. As for veneration of the elements, my personal piety is to bow to the altar after the Words of Institution are uttered. But I am in the small minority in my congregation in that regard.
I have only recently begun reading Lutheran Forum, which is excellent, and I enjoy Pro Ecclesia as well. On the Roman side of things, I like Father Neuhaus’ First Things website. Blessings to you and your family as well.
Thx. – Augsburg, for the clarification on duration of presence. I read First Things most of the time, but have never gone to its website. I’ll try it. Next year I’ll be away from this computer for about half the time each month, but I hope to continue corresponding with you. In the meantime – also to you and yours a Happy New Year!
Augsburg – I think you know this, but I’m not sure – I’m Anglican, not RC, but my affinities are very close, both theologically, but also in everyday life. OK for now.