Does adopting the CCM imply a change in confessional or doctrinal stance of ELCA?

• Is there anything in the CCM that contradicts the Confessions?
• Is the centrality of Word and Sacraments set aside in favor of historic episcopate?
• Do Lutheran Confessions reject "historic episcopate"?
• Does CCM imply that "historic episcopate" is part of the esse of the church?
• Are we losing anything in accepting the CCM?
• Why opt for a different church order when we already have one?

[Back to Table of Contents]

In CCM one of the most overlooked sections is the part titled, "Agreement in the Doctrine of the Faith." Paragraph 5 of CCM was added already to the "Concordat of Agreement" in 1997 at the insistence of those who realized the importance of restating the convergence in faith between the two churches. It simply quotes the consensus reached by international Anglican and Lutheran theologians and summarized in the Niagara Report of 1989.

From the collation of the Lutheran confessions and CCM outlined below, it appears that on the questions of doctrinal agreement, one can with some assurance say that there is remarkable doctrinal agreement. On the central issue of justification, CCM states even more clearly than CA IV that we are justified alone by grace through faith on account of Christ. On the question of the ordained ministry, again there is agreement on the centrality of the Word and Sacraments. Although the question of the sacramental nature of ordination does not come up in CCM, it is important to note that in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article XIII.11 states that "If ordination is interpreted in relation to the ministry of the Word, we have no objection to calling ordination a sacrament." The priesthood of all believers, not specifically dealt with in Lutheran confessional documents, has an important place in CCM.

A detailed comparison of CCM and Lutheran Confessisons is appended below [Appendix]. Adopting CCM does not contradict the confession position of the ELCA. Lutheran pastors still must subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions in their ordination vows, and Episcopal priests must do the same if they serve for longer periods in the ELCA. Congregations, too, must include in their constitutions a statement of such subscription.

To be sure, there are ways to interpret portions of the ministry section of CCM as contradicting the Lutheran Confessions. However, not only are there more generous ways of interpreting that material, but also it must never be forgotten that the doctrinal section of the document shows remarkable correspondence in both language and content to the Lutheran confessions. It is precisely because of doctrinal convergence that we can discuss the secondarily important issues of sharing ministries between our two churches.

CCM states very clearly the centrality of the Word and Sacraments for public ministry in its doctrinal section by calling it "the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament." CCM even speaks of the installation of bishops as "the setting apart within the one ministry of Word and Sacrament of a person elected and called for the exercise of oversight." Thereby CCM even acknowledges the current ELCA insistence on a single public office of ministry under the Word and Sacraments.

Nowhere do the Lutheran Confessions reject the historic episcopate. In fact, the CA cites as authoritative not only the Scripture but also the Church Fathers (including bishops such as Augustine and Ambrose) and the doctrinal statement of the Council of Nicea. CCM itself cites in par. 11 the Apology XIV and the Lutheran desire to maintain ecclesiastical and canonical polity. Even the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope does not reject episcopal authority.

What may come as perhaps the greatest surprise is that CCM does not mention historic succession in the doctrinal section. That is to be expected, however, since both churches admit that such a matter does not belong to the essentials of church and ministry but to a particular way of ordering it. CCM itself states in par. 11 that "‘Historic succession’ refers to a tradition which goes back to the ancient church, in which bishops already in succession install newly elected bishops with prayer and the laying-on-of-hands." It is a tradition, not part of the essence of the church or of the gospel. As CCM states, it is simply a "sign, though not a guarantee, of the unity and apostolic continuity of the whole church."

The question of "losing" and "gaining" is rather problematic from the outset. In one sense, by agreeing to a doctrinal statement that echoes the language and content of the Lutheran confessions, it is the Episcopal Church that is gaining the most important thing: a living confession of the faith of the church. In all negotiations for unity in which Lutherans have participated, they have always insisted upon a clear confession of faith. Only then were Lutherans prepared to deal with secondarily important matters of church order.

The final question, on church order, reveals how difficult it is to gain proper historical perspective on such matters. Take the oldest Lutheran Church in the United States, the Pennsylvania Ministerium, as an example. For the first 50 years, lay delegates were not permitted to vote. Only after the Revolutionary War did this practice begin. Even then, all matters related to candidacy for the pastoral office were voted on by the pastors of the Ministerium alone. This continued well into the twentieth century. Moreover, because the Ministerium predated the founding of its own seminary by over 100 years, seminary faculties were not a part of the candidacy process. First with the creation of the ELCA did that change. That means that for the first 240 years of the Ministerium’s varied existence the approval by a theological faculty was not required for ordination, despite the fact that this was the tradition of the University of Wittenberg in the 1500s and several other American Lutheran churches.

Of course, another tradition in Luther’s day was that in some places the city council and in others the local prince had to approve new pastors for a position. Thus, what is sometimes mistaken for Luther’s "congregationalism" actually involved the approval of the University of Wittenberg and the city council. In our country, no one could imagine needing permission of the local government to call a pastor. In a similar fashion, the ordination of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, a founder of the Pennsylvania Ministerium, was approved by the state-supported church consistory of Leipzig.

CCM asks the ELCA to adopt the "historic episcopate" for the sake of full communion with The Episcopal Church, USA. This means little more than having Episcopal bishops and others participate in the installation. Such a minor change in ceremony, for the sake of a church that requires it for full communion (though not as a guarantee of the gospel nor even to recognize the ELCA as church), pales in comparison to changes made over the years by the Pennsylvania Ministerium and its successors to order its ministry. Lutherans can enter this agreement so freely precisely because the particular form of the church is a matter of indifference, theologically speaking. Thus, for the sake of greater unity among two church bodies, we can easily adopt this change.

[Back to Table of Contents]