The LCA and
the Anglican Church of Australia
A Criticism of the
document entitled, ‘Common Ground: Covenanting for Mutual Recognition and
Reconciliation between the Anglican Church of Australia and the Lutheran Church
of Australia’ (CG)
1.
What is this document?
· It is the result of discussions between the two churches over thirty years.
· It claims sufficient doctrinal agreement to allow a Covenant of eucharistic hospitality and recognition of ministry in certain recognized regions. It is not yet a declaration of church union.
· It is a platform for reaching a future Concordat of eucharistic sharing and “full interchangeability” of each Church’s ministry on a national level.
· In
particular this document concentrates on the way the historic episcopate
“serves the continuity of the church, its apostolicity and catholicity.” (Foreword)
2.
Which Anglican Church are we dealing with?
· The
Anglican Church is roughly divided into Anglo-Catholics, Liberals and
Evangelicals, and combinations of all three.
· The
CG says that the Articles of Religion (Thirty-nine Articles) are
foundational for Anglican doctrine. However, in practice these articles are
treated mainly as historical documents. The Anglo-Catholics do not follow them,
or re-interpret them. The Liberals ignore them. Only the Evangelicals take them
seriously.
· Liberals
are mainly interested in ethical and social problems. Some liberal bishops have
been accused of denying the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.
Liberals have now elected a practising homosexual bishop in the USA.
· Many
Anglo-Catholics follow Roman Catholic teaching with the exception of
recognizing the pope as the head of the Church.
· The
Evangelicals of Sydney take a strong stand on Scripture, and they teach the
doctrine of justification by faith alone as presented in the Thirty-Nine
Articles. Unfortunately, they also uphold Articles XXVIII and XXIX, which
follow the Reformed teaching on the Lord’s Supper, and which reject the
Lutheran teaching on the Real Presence.
3. What is the main ecumenical document of the Anglican Church?
· The main source for Anglican doctrine for Christian unity is the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888). This makes four points:
· 1). Scripture is the ultimate standard of faith. 2). The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are a sufficient statement of faith. 3). Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two Sacraments instituted by Christ. 4). The historic episcopate is necessary for apostolic succession.
· It is this last teaching on apostolic succession that has become an essential teaching (almost the material principle) of the Anglican Church. It considers that its special role in ecumenical discussions is to lead “imperfectly organized” churches into the “full” apostolic succession through the laying on of hands within the historic episcopate and the three-fold order of bishop, priest and deacon.
4.
What can be said in general about the theological statements of Common Ground?
· With
reference to the Lutheran statements, although there are parts that are
correct, there are also other parts that are ambiguous and misleading. There
are also parts that are blatantly wrong. Most seriously, there is the
neglect, tantamount to deliberate omission, of public doctrines as expressed in
the Theses of Agreement. In general, the statements made in the 1970s
are far more clear and incisive than the later statements.
· Common
Ground deals mainly with church order, i.e. with the teaching about episcope
(oversight in the church), the office of the Ministry, ordination, the historic
episcopate, apostolicity, authority. This is very much in keeping with the
fourth point of the Lambeth Quadrilateral. There is even a lengthy appendix
(nearly five pages) describing the responsibility and work of an Anglican
bishop. One wonders why equal attention was not given to the Lutheran
arrangement of congregations, pastors, presidents, synod. Is this any less
significant? CG follows an Anglican agenda.
· No. Lutherans mean that a church is truly apostolic (Ephesians 2.2), that is, it is spiritually built on the foundation of the apostles, when it teaches the pure Word of the apostles contained in the Holy Scriptures, and faithfully uses the Sacraments according to that Word:
· Anglicans
add a third condition: the order of bishop, priest and deacon, with the
bishop as ordinant; the bishop must stand in historical succession of
consecration from the apostles: “Anglicans understand catholicity and
apostolicity to extend also (i.e. besides the Word and the Sacraments,
P.K.) to the ordering of ministry. Specifically to the threefold order of
bishops, priests and deacons that has been handed down from the early church.
The episcopal office is seen as a sign and symbol of the apostolicity
and catholicity of the church.” (Agreement on Ministry, 23.2) “…Anglicans
affirm the importance of Episcopal succession as a sign of the continuity of
the apostolic faith.” (23.3) “For Anglicans, the acceptance of episcopacy as
part of the life of the church (and of Episcopal ordination as the rule of the
church) is at present a prerequisite for the formation of a fully united church
with Anglican participation.” (II Ministry, 10.1; also see Agreement in Faith
and Order, 18).
· This statement shows clearly that Anglicans believe that without “properly” consecrated bishops, priests and deacons something is incomplete in a church’s apostolicity. It is also proved by the fact that a Lutheran pastor has to receive re-ordination by the laying on of hands from an Anglican bishop. This is already foreshadowed in the “joint commissioning” of clergy by an Anglican bishop and a Lutheran president for “covenanting” in special regional situations (Covenanting, 4.3)
6.
Do Lutherans teach that Christ commanded some special organization for the
church which establishes the authority of its ministers?
· No. Lutherans do not believe that a certain form of church government, be it bishops, presidents, superintendents, has merit before God, giving divine authority to the ministers.
· Traditionally,
Reformed churches (e.g. Uniting Church, Presbyterians) have insisted that by divine
right the organization must be a collegial order of ministers and elders.
Anglicans, on the other hand, have claimed that it must be the historic
episcopate (bishops). Lutherans have said it is a matter of indifference (an
adiaphoron).
· “Nevertheless
the Church is not Platonic or an imaginary state, not a geographic or political
organization, not an external polity bound to any land, kingdom, or nation (Apology
VII-VIII, 10) or to any particular form of church government..”(TA V.6).
7.
Is it permissible to have bishops instead of presidents?
8.
Would it be right then for the Lutheran Church of Australia to choose to have
bishops instead of presidents in order to reach unity with the Anglicans?
· No.
It would still be wrong. For the Lutherans, choosing to have bishops is a
matter of freedom. For the Anglicans, it remains a matter of necessity,
a sign of being apostolic and
catholic. Under these circumstances, if
we use our freedom in order to unite with the Anglicans, we are consenting to a
false teaching; we are giving their error equal standing with what we teach
as right.
· In
other words, an indifferent matter in this situation is no longer
indifferent. This is a very serious theological point, and it has been
carefully stated in the Lutheran Confessions:"…..every individual
Christian, and especially the ministers of the Word as leaders of the community of God, are
obligated to confess openly, not only by words but also through their deeds and
actions, the true doctrine and all that pertains to it, according to the Word
of God. In such a case we should not yield to adversaries even in
matters of indifference, nor should we tolerate the imposition of such
ceremonies on us by adversaries in order to undermine the genuine worship of
God…"(SD X,10)
9. Do the Lutherans in CG suggest that our church should work to accept
bishops in order to reach unity with the Anglicans?
·
Yes they do. This is their Conclusion on
p.15, 24.2.3 (see the overhead).The language used here is ambiguous,
misleading, and wrong. The following statements all demand comment:
·
'for the sake of peace and unity' (to use the
language of the confessors)
·
the cause of co-operation
·
accept the episcopal office as a sign of the
apostolicity and catholicity of the church. See TA V.8, VI.6
·
affirm the value....without implying that the
episcopal office is necessary for salvation
·
or (without implying) that it guarantees, by
itself, the orthodoxy
·
ensure that future bishops of the LCA are consecrated
by a Lutheran bishop or bishops in the historic succession.
·
(24.3) ensure that the faith ....
·
understand the difficulties...Anglican bishop
must lay hands
·
recognize the intention of the Lutheran
church ...
10. Why have the Lutherans in Australia always been wary of introducing
bishops (episcopacy), even though the Lutheran Confessions do not forbid it?
·
So much false teaching has attached itself to the
historic episcopate wherever it is used (Roman Catholic, Anglican, Swedish
Lutheran, ELCA) that the danger is that these teachings will also follow it
into any church that adopts it.
·
Its teaching about authority speaks of the
clergy as forming a special caste above the laity.
·
It either obscures or nullifies the Lutheran teaching
of the Office of the Keys as the ultimate responsibility of all God's
people, the Priesthood of all Believers.
·
It rejects the doctrine of the Call from the
congregation/church, which alone gives the ministers the right to perform
their public functions without additional sanctions from the bishops or clergy
(TA VI.5,6,7,8; Tractatus 70), and ensures the continuation of the Ministry
from generation to generation. (cf. Agreement on Ministry 22.8, 22.9)
·
It teaches the false doctrine that the ministry
(bishops/presbyterate) has the power of self-perpetuation. The people give
their consent, but the power of consecration resides in the bishop. It teaches
the idea: “Only a minister can make a minister”.
11. Has the CG given adequate expression to the Office of the Keys and
the Priesthood of all Believers as taught in
our public doctrine?
·
No. The statement on Ministry, 1975, gives a
correct summary of Lutheran teaching; but subsequent statements by their
omissions fail to do justice, and even falsify, the public doctrine of the
Lutheran Church. Compare the statement of II Ministry.5, point two (1975) and
Agreement on Ministry 22.9 (2001). This should be compared with TA VI, 7. (See
the overhead). The significance of the Priesthood of all Believers has been
particularly neglected and obscured in Episcope and Unity (1993).
12. Does the CG present a false teaching on the "special
status" of the Pastor?
·
Yes. Already it teaches that the Lutheran
pastors have a sort of “indelible character”. In II Ministry
(revised 1984), Ordination and Permanent Status it is said that "ordination
is not merely the public ratification of the right to exercise ecclesiastical
functions, but that it also confers a sacred ecclesiastical office
with a dignity which derives from the sacred means of grace that are administered
by the office. 2. Our formularies do not explicitly state that ordination
confers a character indelebilis which becomes an inherent part of the
person holding office. However, our common practice is that, where a man is
re-admitted into the active Ministry after leaving it, he is not
re-ordained."
·
Undoubtedly the pastor possesses a dignity by virtue of
what he does (“the ministry is the highest office in Christendom”, Luther), but
so do all Christians who faithfully carry out their Christian duties,
especially when they remit and retain sin, and certainly this does not give
the pastor a "permanent status" or "indelible character"
and place him in a separate class from the laity. Besides, why single out “dignity”
as archetypal of the Ministry? Why not “humility” or “purity” or “fidelity”
or “suffering”?
·
As to the matter of not re-ordaining, this has nothing
to do with a “permanent status”. If a pastor resigns or is deposed from the
ministry, he does not retain the office of the Ministry, unlike a deposed
priest whose “indelible character” still gives him the power to perform the
sacrifice of the Mass. This, by
the way, has been in part the cause of the trouble behind the movement of
paedophile priests.
·
To say that our Confessions do not "explicitly
state" that ordination bestows an “indelible character” suggests
that implicitly they do permit it. Not only is this misleading, but
it is dishonest, because it ignores the fact that the Confessions (Ap.
XIII, XXIV) reject totally the Roman Catholic teaching of the
priesthood, and the “indelible character” is an essential part of
that teaching.. Luther also explicitly rejects it in his writings (see
Elert, p.354). For this reason our public doctrine states: "The office
of the ministry....is not a Levitical priesthood of the New Testament,
nor are those who bear it an exclusive class distinct from Christians generally;
nor do they possess a peculiar sanctity or an indelible character; nor
does the ministry possess the power of self-perpetuation."(TA VI,
5)
Also:
Ordination does not confer a special status or an indelible character. (DSTO, The Right to the Use of the Title “Pastor”, 1974)
13.
What would happen if the LCA accepts the Anglican teaching of the Apostolic
Succession?
·
First and foremost we would be practising a false
fellowship, unionism, because there is no agreement on doctrine and practice; even
the Anglican Church itself is deeply divided on doctrine.
· Secondly, we would become participants in their false teaching, as has already happened in the USA. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) agreed to the same sort of relationship with the Episcopalian Church USA (ECUSA) that CG is seeking. Under their concordat the ELCA presidents were consecrated as bishops by the ECUSA, and the two churches now have a fully interchangeable ministry of bishops. Lutheran bishops join in consecrating Episcopal bishops and vice versa. This means that a Lutheran bishop will now join in consecrating Canon Gene Robinson, a practising homosexual, whose consecration has been approved by the Episcopalian House of Bishops.
14.
Are there other serious errors in CG?
15.
Summary
Our church is in danger of losing two teachings: the
Office of the Keys for all Christians, and the Priesthood of All Believers. At
the same time the divinely instituted office of the Ministry is threatened by
those who seek its authority in the historic episcopate rather than in the Word
and Sacraments alone. Only by understanding that the Ministry is not above the
congregation, nor the congregation above the Ministry, but that they work
together according to the authority given to them by Christ will we continue to
be the Confessional Lutheran Church of our fathers.