LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

namely, the participation of all people baptized in the apostolic mission, the existence of an ordained ministry, and the existence of a ministry of pastoral oversight.

      The agreement in ministry is then laid out in greater detail (CCM 6–11). The main argument here is as follows: “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” (CCM 8). The participants mutually acknowledge the other’s ordained ministry and agree to a double-step policy which is explained further below. According to this policy, over the intervening years the ECUSA fully accepts ELCA ministers and conversely future ELCA bishops are willing to enter the historic succession. Before we turn to the details of this agreement, the sentence just quoted must receive closer inspection. It affirms a connection between two features: witness to the jointly shared faith and common mission as well as the notion of a shared ordained ministry. The connection between these two features is expressed in the two a features themselves. Point A is that the “in order to” invokes a certain degree of obligation. That is, a jointly shared faith leaves no room, so to speak, for a future without a jointly shared ministry. Point B is of a slightly different tone. It is that “we agree” implies a deliberation of some aplomb and composure. Obviously it is their own sovereign decision. But how are points A and B linked together?

      In my opinion this is a crucial point. The assumption of a direct connection between a shared faith on the one hand and a shared ministry on the other hand is the theological core of the present paper. What follows is a series of administrative deliberations, which is completely dependent on that very sentence. Unfortunately, CCM does not supply further elaboration on this crucial point. Although to be clear, this does not in any way mean that the connection between jointly witnessed faith and shared ministry is something theologians should abstain from endorsing. On the contrary, an assertion this central should be argued for with more care.

      Next, here are some brief notes on what follows in CCM. The episcopal succession is regarded “as a sign, though not a guarantee of the unity and apostolic continuity of the whole Church” (CCM 12, bolds omitted), so that ordination and/ or installation will need the assistance of the Holy Spirit. That ground being laid, the crucial article 14 reads like this: “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 commences 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.”

      For the reasons given above, a shared ordained ministry is desirable. That takes place in a somewhat asymmetrical way, namely, the acceptance of CCM marks the event of full relationship. This is to be seen in two perspectives. The Lutheran side articulates a satis est to the acceptance, but the episcopal side sees the event of full communion as an interval of time. In others words, although it begins with the acceptance, it will only be fully achieved once all Lutheran bishops share with the historic episcopate. For the time being, a temporary suspension of the Preface to the Ordination Rites concerning the qualification to confer Holy Orders is offered (CCM 16). The act of temporal suspension of an otherwise indispensable element of the ordination shows clearly that the episcopal side would not be willing to accept Lutheran bishops as fully ordained without the prospect of a future full communion in historic succession.

      On the other hand, the Lutheran side has stated that the mutual acceptance of bishops as proper bishops is sufficient. However it “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” (CCM 19).

      Subsequent actions of both Churches have not been against expectations of a reader of the concordat so far. The interchangeability of clergy is assured (CCM 22), a joint commission is established (CCM 23), and the assurance given that the concordat does not imply any automatic consequences for inter-Church relationships which one of the two signatory Churches is part of (25).

      So much for a brief presentation of CCM. Prior to a joint discussion of the three documents at stake here, I want to comment on two issues. First, it is not merely chance that CCM, unlike MD and PCS, is regarded a concordat. Two Churches, though remaining autonomous as administrative instances, agree to a high level of interrelation. This is clearly more than a fraternal dialogue (MD) and even a document that, once mutually agreed, makes the signatories part of a communion of Churches (PCS). At least in German-speaking theology, this unprecedented occurrence in the younger ecumenical history has attracted only scant attention. Secondly, the concordat implies considerable impositions for both partners. The episcopal side has to agree to a temporal suspension of core convictions concerning its theology of the ordained ministry and office of oversight. And on the other hand, the Lutheran side agrees to enter historic succession, which is not part of her own conviction to render a person a proper bishop. Therefore, we should ask whether an ecumenical theology of gift (see introduction for details) always has and should have a certain element of imposition for every participant. The exchange of gifts between persons may act as an example here. Giving something to a person one feels affection for means ipso facto adulterating and impairing one’s own possibilities. Given that the gift is of certain value, this extent of value is not at one’s own disposal anymore. The act of giving is inevitably connected to a certain wilful decrease of the giver’s autonomy. If we transfer that aspect to the project of an ecumenical theology of giving, it may lead to an appreciation of the reciprocal imposition the signatory Churches of CCM will be willing to accept. Although I will argue in the next section, that the outcome of CCM shows a severe disadvantage, this remains an aspect of significance for ecumenical endeavours in general.

       Porvoo and Beyond: Deepening Anglican-Lutheran Relationships

      In this section I will argue that despite the different outcome MD and CCM share a basic conviction and that PCS’s strategy seems most promising not only to deepen Anglican-Lutheran relationships but as a model for further ecumenical negotiations in general.

      If we have a look at the outcome of MD and CCM we could as well state that they agree to disagree. MD (3) and (4) state a disagreement that CCM is willing to overcome by the mutual exchange of ecumenical gifts. From an MD perspective there is simply no reason to offer that gift, because that would mean offering something which is completely unfamiliar to the partner offering it—and that would mean to abrogate the idea of offering at all. On the contrary, from a CCM perspective one cannot understand why for the sake of the jointly shared faith the move towards one another should not be possible. The disagreement is based on different emphases in the argumentation. It can be put into short statements like these:

      • MD: A wide range of agreements can be stated, but a certain crucial point leaves no room for further consent. Concerning historic succession a consensus would have been needed but is not at hand.

      • CCM: Indeed, there is no consensus concerning historic succession. But because there is agreement in faith, both sides declare that they are willing to deal with this disagreement, though the ways of doing this are not satisfactory for both of them.

      That

Скачать книгу