Lutheran Divergences: How Lutherans are drifting apart

by Edward G. Kettner

“What’s the difference between he fact that there are two relatively large streams of the Lutheran synods?” Perhaps Lutherans in Canada which run parallel to those in the United there is no question more often TStates is something of an enigma, even to many Lutherans. Looking on the surface, it seems senseless, since it is very difficult asked of a pastor and no question to see the differences. The hymnal that is used by most congrega- more difficult to answer. As the tions in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC), The two major Lutheran Church bod- Lutheran Book of Worship, is used by quite a few congregations of ies in Canada, Lutheran Church– Lutheran Church–Canada (LCC) as well, and the newest of the Canada and the Evangelical hymnals in use in LCC, Lutheran Worship, bears many similarities Lutheran Church in Canada to it, from the orders of service down to many of the hymns. Fur- thermore, in the middle of this century The Lutheran Church– continue to drift apart, it becomes Canada, then a federation of the Canadian districts of The Lutheran increasingly important that we Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) was actively engaged in discus- understand some of the underly- sions with the two other large Lutheran bodies in Canada, the ing root causes for those differ- Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada (ELCC) and the Lutheran ences. In this article Dr. Kettner Church in America (LCA) Canada Section, with merger considered explores some of the fundamen- a distinct possibility. Indeed, from 1971 until it went out of exist- ence with the formation of the ELCIC on January 1, 1986, the tal differences that now exist LCMS, of which LCC was a part, was in full fellowship with the between these two synods that ELCC.1 Why, it might be asked, were we in agreement one day and bear the name Lutheran. out of it the next? Why, in the end, did the LCC decide not to participate in a merger that would have united all three of the major Lutheran bodies of Canada? What are the differences that continue to keep the two bodies apart? These questions are legitimate, and not all that easy to answer. It is not that there is no absolute truth; rather, it must be admitted that there is a wide variety of practices, and even some differences in theological orientation within both church bodies. Nevertheless, Dr. Edward Kettner is at professor Con- when one looks at convention resolutions, positions taken by theolo- cordia Lutheran Seminary, Edmonton gians and the textbooks used in the seminaries for teaching the and serves on the Commission of Theol- future pastors of the respective church bodies, the issues and prac- ogy and Church Relations of Lutheran tice which divide the bodies begin to come to light. In order to Church–Canada. provide an orderly view of the differences between the two bodies, Spring 1998 W&D3 some of the public statements which have into question. The issues involved the come out of the two Canadian bodies will be actual meaning of the text as it stood and referred to, as well as statements from the the role of the tradition of the Church in related bodies in the United States. In this determining divine truth. While there were way it can be seen that the differences some groups at the time of the Reformation between LCC and the ELCIC are such that who had abandoned the authority of the it must be stated that they are not in doctri- Scriptures, there was agreement that such nal agreement. To serve as an aid to under- groups were totally outside the pale of standing the differences, we first need to Christianity. look at the root question, that of the proper In the 18th century, there arose a move- interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and of ment in Europe called the Enlightenment. the place of the Lutheran Confessions in This movement declared that human reason this interpretation and in the life of the is the judge of all truth, and that God would church. From there we can look at some not and indeed could not break into the specific differences to show how this world to reveal Himself. From such belief, a difference in understanding plays itself out method of interpretation known as histori- in the two church bodies, particularly the cal criticism was developed and became, Lord’s Supper and the ordination of women. even within the visible church itself, the primary means of interpretation of the During the The Key: the interpretation of Scripture Scriptures. Historical criticism seeks to get Throughout the first 1700 years or so of at the root of the meaning of the Scripture Reformation era, the history of the Christian Church, the text by treating it as it would any other the inspiration of Holy Scriptures were unanimously recog- literary work. It looks to find the sources nized as the only source and norm for which lie behind the text which we have, Scripture was Christian doctrine. That is, the teachings of and it eliminates any thought of supernatu- never called the Church were recognized as coming via ral origin for the Scriptures. In the end the divine revelation, and the Scriptures were Scriptures become the work of the believing into question. (and are) faithful accounts as to how God community rather than the revelation of has dealt with His people in history. What God. This means, then, that the Scriptures St. Paul testified about in 2 Tim. 3:15-16 themselves can be subject to the judgement concerning the Old Testament, that all of the Church. They at best are seen to be Scripture is inspired by God (literally “God- important guides to the history of the faith breathed”), was recognized also to apply to and the dogma of the Church, but not the New Testament. God’s designated necessarily the final word of God. representatives were authorized to speak for The Missouri Synod historically has stood Him as from His own mouth. In the Old by the understanding of the Scriptures given Testament the prophets were His designated by the Lutheran Confessions. During mouthpieces; in the New Testament it was doctrinal discussions with the American the apostles. Throughout his letters, St. Lutheran Church earlier in this century, the Paul appeals to his appointment by Christ Missouri Synod reiterated its confession of as an apostle as the witness to his authority a number of different articles of the faith, to speak on behalf of Christ. including that of the inspiration of the Holy The Lutheran Confessions are a summary Scriptures. In the document A Brief State- of Lutheran teachings agreed upon in 1580. ment of the Doctrinal Position of the It is to these confessions that Lutheran Missouri Synod, passed by the Synod in pastors and congregations have pledged convention in 1932, Synod declared in the their loyalty. These confessions themselves section Of the Holy Scriptures, declare, “We believe, teach, and confess that 1. We teach that the Holy Scriptures dif- the prophetic and apostolic writings of the fer from all other books in the world in Old and New Testaments are the only rule that they are the Word of God. They are and norm according to which all doctrines the Word of God because the holy men and teachers alike must be appraised and of God who wrote the Scriptures wrote judged.”2 During the Reformation era, the only that which the Holy Ghost commu- inspiration of Scripture was never called nicated to them by inspiration, 2 Tim. W&D4 Spring 1998 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21. We teach also that the also showed the diverging views of the two verbal inspiration (that every word in streams of Lutheranism in North America. Scripture is inspired by God) of the For those Lutherans open to the use of Scriptures is not a so-called “theologi- historical criticism, the norm for Christian cal deduction,” but that it is taught by teaching is, to be sure, the Gospel, that is, direct statements of the Scriptures, 2 God’s revelation in the person of Christ Tim. 3:16, John 10:35, Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. which creates faith. But whether particular 2:13. Since the Holy Scriptures are the events described in the Scriptures, even Word of God, it goes without saying that surrounding the life of Christ, actually they contain no errors or contradictions, happened in human history is not deemed but that they are in all their parts and all that important. In fact it doesn’t matter words the infallible truth, also in those if these things are true or not. The Scrip- parts which treat of historical, geographi- tures remain merely the record of the cal, and other secular matters, John Christian community’s response to being 10:35. confronted with the “Christ event.”6 This in turn also affects one’s understand- 2. We furthermore teach regarding the ing of the place of the Lutheran Confessions Holy Scriptures that they are given by in the life of the Church. The Confessions God to the Christian Church for the foun- describe themselves as a faithful witness dation of faith, Eph. 2:20. Hence the and interpretation of the Scriptures and they To depart from the Holy Scriptures are the sole source from repeat what Scripture teaches. They are not which all doctrines proclaimed in the to be understood as an independent standard doctrine of the Christian Church must be taken and of truth, but “merely witnesses and exposi- Confessions is to therefore, too, the sole rule and norm by tions of the faith, setting forth how at which all teachers and doctrines must be various times the Holy Scriptures were depart from the examined and judged.3 understood by contemporaries in the church doctrine of the of God with reference to controverted This statement, while more detailed than articles, and how contrary teachings were Church. that of the Lutheran Confessions neverthe- rejected and condemned.”7 less is consistent with it. A reading of the The Missouri Synod has always under- Lutheran Confessions indicates that this is stood the Confessions as they understood precisely the understanding of the Scrip- themselves: as a faithful exposition of the tures with which the writers of the Confes- teaching of the Scriptures. As such, they sions operated. themselves serve as a doctrinal norm for the This understanding, however, is not held Church. To depart from the doctrine of the throughout North American Lutheranism Confessions is to depart from the doctrine today. While all Lutherans take the Scrip- of the Church. The Brief Statement makes tures seriously and recognize the Spirit of this clear in its section, Of the Symbols of God working through the Scripture, there the Church: are differences in the methods of interpreta- 46. Since the Christian Church cannot tion in the two groups. The North American make doctrines, but can and should sim- inter-Lutheran dialogues under the auspices ply profess the doctrine revealed in Holy of the Lutheran Council in the USA Scripture, the doctrinal decisions of the (LCUSA) have made this evident. In the symbols are binding upon the conscience late seventies this was acknowledged with not because they are the outcome of doc- the publication of a report and accompany- trinal controversies, but only because ing essays on hermeneutical questions (that they are the doctrinal decisions of Holy is, questions concerning how to interpret Scripture itself. the Scriptures) put out by LCUSA. This was entitled The Function of Doctrine and 47. Those desiring to be admitted into Theology in Light of the Unity of the the public ministry of the Lutheran Church4. This then led to the publication of Church pledge themselves to teach ac- the study papers in 1979 under the title cording to the symbols not “in so far as,” Studies in Lutheran Hermeneutics,5 which but “because,” the symbols agree with Spring 1998 W&D5 Scripture. He who is unable to accept as The Lord’s Supper Scriptural the doctrine set forth in the Traditionally, Lutherans have begun any Lutheran symbols and their rejection of look at the theology of the Lord’s Supper the corresponding errors must not be ad- with a look at the words of institution, those mitted into the ministry of the Lutheran very words which Christ spoke on the night Church.8 on which he was betrayed. When Luther In North America, those church bodies explains the Sacrament of the Altar in the which held to this understanding of the Small Catechism, he cites those words, Confessions formed the now-disbanded recorded (with slight variation) in the Synodical Conference of which the Missouri Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Synod was the largest member. The members also in 1 Corinthians. For Luther, these of the Synodical Conference held to the words declare clearly that Christ is giving understanding that the Lutheran Confessions His true Body and Blood to the communi- must be accepted “because” they agreed with cants to eat and to drink. Testimony to the Scripture. Those Church bodies which became Real Presence can be found in many parts of part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Lutheran Confessions, such as the America (ELCA) and ELCIC held to differing Augsburg Confession, Article X, and in the understandings. These Church bodies agreed Apology to the Augsburg Confession, For Luther, these with the Confessions “in so far” as they agreed Article X.1-2. In such places the confessors with Scripture. In general, the more liberal note that Lutherans stand firmly with Rome words declare churches held to a view of the Confessions and with the Greek Church.11 Over against clearly that Christ is which saw them as historically significant, and the Reformed theologians who denied the as documents which should be taken seriously Real Presence, the Formula of Concord VII giving His true Body by interpreters of Scripture, but in no way defends this article of faith in detail. and Blood to the normative.9 The implication of this is that they Such an interpretation makes sense only if were unwilling to be pinned down to definitely one holds to a “precritical” understanding communicants to believing or “confessing” some of the plain of the authority of Scripture, as did Luther eat and to drink. truths of Scripture. Perhaps of greatest signifi- and the other confessors, an understanding cance today is the view that sees the Confes- which 1) sees these words as the actual sions only as “ecumenical proposals,” a view words of Jesus, and 2) declares that “is” promulgated by two prominent ELCA theolo- means “is”. While the different Scriptural gians, Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson. This accounts of the Words of Institution do vary, view is evident in the Christian Dogmatics they all contain the word “is”. This impor- which they edited and which was published tant word makes clear to the Church what is in 1984, and which is the primary dogmatics being given and received. It demands that textbook in use in the ELCA and ELCIC. In we treat the Words of Institution as Christ’s contrast to Missouri’s view that doctrinally Words and not merely a later interpretation the Confessions simply reflect the teachings of Christ’s original action. of the Scripture and add nothing that had not This traditional Lutheran focus on the gift been taught in the Church in the past, this given in the elements is radically changed view sees the Confessions as breaking new when one interprets the texts in an histori- dogmatic ground and proposing new dogma cal critical way. A look at a study on the for the Church.10 While such an understanding Lord’s Supper by the ELCA theologian John has merit in so far as it recognizes that the Reumann, for example, shows both impor- Church must confess its faith in ways under- tant insights relating to the background of standable to an ever changing world, it leaves the texts, but problems as well. In his work open the danger of accommodating the truth to the Scriptures are treated as only the first the changing world rather than faithfully layer of the Church’s tradition, and as such, proclaiming the unchanging truth to the world. subject to critical study themselves. Though A short look at some of the issues now in the Supper is recognized from the begin- controversy in the two Lutheran bodies will ning as the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), it show how the two views lead to different is nevertheless also described in a way conclusions which have significant bearing on which seems to make it first and foremost the life and the teaching of the church. the Church’s Supper. For example, W&D6 Spring 1998 Reumann states, “‘The Lord’s Supper’ The main textbook used in ELCA semi- refers to the rite involving bread and wine, naries for teaching Lutheran Doctrine is which the early church developed, origi- entitled Christian Dogmatics. In this book nally in the context of a proper meal, one of the editors, Robert Jenson, discusses according to 1 Corinthians 11, at the Lord’s the Supper in a way that echoes Reumann’s command.”12 The Words of Institution, then, words and makes the Words of Institution are understood as “a set of interpretative the Church’s interpretation of Christ’s sayings, indicating the significance of bread original action. Jenson declares: and wine,”13 that is, that they reflect the Much historic difficulty will be overcome Church’s understanding of the purpose of if we have it always clearly in mind: So their continued obedience to the actions of long as we are exegeting14 for dogmatic Christ as it pertains to the bread and wine. 15– rather than historical or perhaps An interpretation, or exegesis, of the Lord’s homiletic16 – purposes, our concern is Supper does not start with the words which primarily not with what these sentences Christ spoke on the night when He was might have meant as utterances of the betrayed but with the setting of the Lord’s historical Jesus, but with what they mean Supper in the first-century congregation. as interpretations, canonically authori- The analysis of the Lord’s Supper thus tative17, of the church’s rite, the very rite proceeds to move to the place of the Supper in whose origins we have sketched and For Luther, these the context of the other meals over which which Paul and John discuss. However words declare Jesus presided, the place of meals in fellow- the institution narratives may have come ship among Christians (and even in other into being, and whatever relation to the clearly that Christ is cultures and religions), and what happens events of Jesus’ Last Supper they may giving His true Body when the Church celebrates this meal com- have, it is as rubrics18 and interpretation manded by Christ. All of this may be impor- of the church’s Supper that we have and Blood to the tant but it deliberately avoids or even rejects them. Within the narrative structure of communicants to the traditional Lutheran position on the the accounts, it is decisive for the mean- subject, which boldly confesses the real ing of the sayings that they appear in the eat and to drink. presence of Christ’s true Body and Blood for mouth of Jesus.19 the forgiveness of sins as the central gift given Jenson’s interpretation goes on to interpret by Christ in the Sacrament. The question, the words in a way which sees them fulfilled “What did Christ mean when He spoke the in the church’s action rather than in the gift Words of Institution?” or “What do the promised: the true, substantial presence of Words of Institution mean grammatically?” Christ’s Body and Blood. The thanksgiving is not addressed by Reumann because it has cup is the covenant, (noting that covenants ceased to be relevant. What is now relevant throughout the Old Testament are established is the question “How does the church’s by blood) and the sharing of the cup is that action show itself to be the body of Christ as which establishes the community. The body it re-enacts the first Supper?”. This is not to of Christ is nothing other than the person. say that the question of what the church does Thus, he says: when it celebrates the Sacrament is unimpor- We may summarize the sacramental situ- tant, but the Lutheran Church of the Refor- ation as Paul grasps it: In that the bread mation era recognized that without a clear and the cup are given, there is a body understanding of Christ’s words, “This is My present that is Jesus, and there is a body Body, This is My Blood,” the significance of present that is the community, and a per- the Church’s action of receiving what Christ son’s relation to the one is not distin- gives, namely His Body and Blood for the guishable from that person’s relation to forgiveness of sins is lost. Luther recognized the other.20 that unless the Church and the individual This understanding not only goes beyond believers communing were in fact receiving the dogma set forth by the Lutheran Confes- the very Body and Blood of Christ which sions; it clearly rejects it as faulty. But it is participated in the crucifixion, there is no only such an understanding that makes other significance for the Supper other than possible, and makes understandable, com- a mere memorial meal. munion fellowship between Lutheran and Spring 1998 W&D7 Reformed. It is clearly also the understand- forbid some from receiving the Sacrament ing of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in (Augsburg Confession XXIV.36).24 Thus, it Canada, which, in its Statement on Sacra- can clearly be seen that the two major mental Practices, adopted by convention in Lutheran bodies in Canada are not in 1991, eschews Body and Blood language agreement on the nature of the Lord’s and replaces it with the statement “In Holy Supper, either in doctrine or in practice. Communion the crucified and risen Christ is present in word and action. This presence The question of women’s ordination is a mystery.”21 This paves the way for the The differences between the two streams acceptance of such practices as “eucharistic of Lutheranism in North America also can hospitality,” that is, communion of all be seen in relationship to the question of the baptized Christians, whether or not they ordination of women. Those churches which have been catechized in the Lutheran stand in the catholic tradition (Rome, understanding of the Christian faith, and Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheran- gives permission to Lutherans to commune ism) have traditionally not ordained at the altars of other Christian “faith women. This has not been a mindless communities.”22 It also makes possible tradition, but is a practice that finds its agreements for eucharistic sharing with roots in the Scriptures themselves. The fact The two major churches which historically have rejected that Jesus never appointed women as the Lutheran (that is, the biblical) under- apostles and that Paul and his associates Lutheran bodies in standing of the real presence. In the ELCIC never appointed women to the position of Canada are not in such agreement has taken place with the elder and presbyter, though they all clearly Anglicans, and in the United States during had high views of women and their place in agreement on the the summer of 1997 it took place between the Church, has been taken as normative for nature of the the ELCA and the United Church of Christ, the Church down through the ages. This is the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the further demonstrated by two clear passages Lord’s Supper, either Reformed Church in America. The passage from the writings of St. Paul: 1 Cor. 14:33- in doctrine or of the ELCA-Reformed “Formula Agree- 35 and 1 Tim. 2:12-15. Both passages reject ment” caused LCMS president Alvin Barry the idea of women speaking in the public in practice. to declare that this represented “a signifi- assembly, and 1 Timothy ties this to God’s cant movement away from the Scriptural order of creation. and Confessional position of historic Now, it is true that the Lutheran Confes- Lutheranism,” and that “we feel that the sions do not speak about this issue. How- long-standing differences between the ever, this was not an issue of controversy at Lutheran and Reformed churches are not the time of the Reformation, and the being adequately addressed, but merely churches of the Augsburg Confession allowed to exist as equally valid opinions continued the ancient practice of reserving regarding important teachings of our Lord the office of public ministry to men. Any Jesus Christ.”23 change in the practice should come on the Those who come from the Missouri Synod basis of the clear declaration of the text of tradition have reservations concerning such Scripture itself, and confessional Lutherans “eucharistic hospitality” on several grounds. have always declared that the text says what First of all, the Confessions clearly and it says. frequently state that Christians should be Since the early 1970s, however, the ELCA properly examined (clearly seen to be and ELCIC practised women’s ordination. preceded by instruction) before they are In doing so, they have rejected the tradi- allowed to receive the Sacrament (Augsburg tional understanding and interpretation of Confession XXIV.1; Augsburg Confession the relevant Scripture passages. Some, but XXV.1; Apology XXIV.1; Small Catechism not all of the supporters of women’s ordina- Preface 11; Large Catechism Preface 5; tion hold to this position because they Large Catechism V.2). They also quote the follow radical historical critical conclusions early church theologian John Chrysostom which state that 1 Timothy was not even approvingly in his statement that one of the written by St. Paul and that 1 Corinthians duties of the priest (that is, the pastor) is to 14 was something that someone else later W&D8 Spring 1998 added to the text (in spite of the fact that SBH is identical. The same confession, with there is no manuscript evidence that the some minor updating of language, appears passage was ever not there). Regardless, the in Lutheran Worship as one of the forms. supporters of women’s ordination do not The confession of sins as it is set forth in base their conclusions solely on the words the service of Holy Communion in TLH, of Scripture taken in context. They appeal identifies the “sinner” who was guilty of rather to such things as; the style of Christ’s “sinning.” A look at the confession of sins ministry, the cultural restrictions of the in the Lutheran Book of Worship, however, time, and the primacy of the Gospel which, shows a change. The confession there as they maintain, removes any restrictions begins with the words, “We confess that we against women holding the pastoral office.25 are in bondage to sin and cannot free It is certainly true that there are passages in ourselves.”27 While sins committed are which women speak the Gospel to men: the acknowledged in the next sentence, this women coming from the tomb to the apos- first sentence creates an erroneous impres- tles, Priscilla and her husband Aquila sion. A confession that “we are in bondage speaking to Apollos, and others as well. to sin” is not really a confession at all. However, these testimonies clearly come Rather than causing us to admit that we are from the announcement of the Gospel which by nature in rebellion against God, it Christians are always called upon to give to creates the impression that we are pleading each other. They do not refer to the public for mercy on the basis of our inability to The church’s proclamation to the gathered assembly avoid sin rather than simply acknowledging theology shapes its which is the central act of the office of our sinfulness without trying to excuse it. public ministry.26 This is not to say that we are not in worship, and in turn bondage to sin by nature. But the nature of its worship both Issues regarding worship our bondage is our rebellion against God— The Church has always recognized that that is, that we are in bondage according to reflects and teaches there is an intimate relationship between its our wills, not against them. While as its theology. theology and its worship. Its theology Christians we certainly recognize and shapes its worship, and in turn its worship lament this bondage, the change in focus to both reflects and teaches its theology. When bondage from the simple reality of our one finds changes in worship forms those sinfulness which needs forgiving, and the changes must be tested against the theology word of forgiveness which in turn actually of the Church to see that God’s revealed releases the sinner from bondage, is discon- truth is still being reflected. It is instruc- certing. tive, therefore, to compare the content of The diverging views among Lutherans some of the more recent published forms of concerning the Lord’s Supper can be seen in worship to illustrate how theological change the liturgy as well. In fact, the differing has taken place among Lutherans. A look, understandings among Lutherans which for example, at the confession of sins is manifest themselves in the abandonment of instructive. In the orders of service pub- Real Presence language and which open the lished throughout Lutheranism in the door to “communion of the baptized” are earlier part of the century, sins were con- reflected also in divergent understandings fessed both in terms of sinful nature and the of the nature of worship and liturgy itself. resulting sinful acts. The confession that we In the title of one of his papers on the are by nature “sinful and unclean” and that subject, Norman Nagel asks the question, we have sinned against God by “thought, “Whose Liturgy Is It?”28 In other words, word and deed” was present the liturgy of who is doing the work? Is it God, or is it the the Missouri Synod in The Lutheran Hym- people of God? nal and in the Service Book and Hymnal of Philip Pfatteicher and Carlos Messerli set the American Lutheran Church and the up a false dichotomy at the beginning of the Lutheran Church in America (which later ELCA’s Manual on the Liturgy which serves merged into the ELCA). In fact, the word- as a companion volume to the Lutheran ing of the confession of sins in the “page 5" Book of Worship, when they declare “Lit- service of TLH and that in “The Service” of urgy means ‘work of the people,’ but too Spring 1998 W&D9 often in the past the liturgy gave the im- living.”32 The real action is performed by pression that is was the work of the pas- God. The people receive and respond. tor.”29 This fails to take into account the When the celebration of the Lord’s Supper fact that the primary service of the New is understood in such a way as the Church’s Testament was Christ’s service on behalf of doing rather than God’s, then the ritual, the the people, not us to Him. Thus, the church doing by the people, is what matters, for the does not do the work, but receives the blessings come by the doing of the action benefits of the work that has been done on rather than by the receiving of a specific its behalf by the Great High Priest. That is gift. While there is no question but that why Norman Nagel, in the introduction to such acts by the people of God are acts Lutheran Worship, states: performed in faith, the understanding comes uncomfortably close to the Calvinis- Our Lord speaks and we listen. His Word tic understanding of the Supper, which also bestows what it says. Faith that is born focusses on the act rather than the specific from what is heard acknowledges the gift33. It leads one to the uncomfortable gifts received with eager thankfulness conclusion, then, that what we have in the and praise, enlarging and elevating the statements of agreement and concord is not adoration of our gracious giver God. . . . so much a consensus based upon the resolv- ing of the differences, but, as Alvin Barry Sadly, the two The rhythm of our worship is from him put it, an abandonment of the historic church bodies to us, and then from us back to him. He Lutheran position and the adoption of a gives his gifts, and together we receive position that Article VII of the Formula of seem to be going and extol them. We build one another Concord of the Lutheran Confessions was in different up as we speak to one another in psalms, written to reprove. hymns, and spiritual songs. Our Lord directions. gives us his body to eat and his blood to Some concluding thoughts drink. Finally his blessing moves us out The two major strands of Lutheranism in into our calling, where his gifts have Canada have a lot in common. Attendance their fruition.30 at the worship services of the two bodies (at least at those services where the hymnals of This theme is borne out in the essays in the church are used as the primary resource) the book Lutheran Worship: History and would undoubtedly convince the visitor that Practice, the companion volume to the the churches share a common confession. hymnal Lutheran Worship. In his essay on Sadly, the two church bodies seem to be the nature of corporate worship, Roger going in different directions. One maintains Pittelko quotes the above words, and adds: its ties with principles of Scripture interpre- tation used by the church of the past and Worship is God speaking. It is our lis- continues to see its confession as normative tening. Worship begins with God’s Word. for its teaching. The other has embraced at He is the content. Evangelical Lutheran least some of the tools of historical criti- worship begins with God giving us his cism, and the end result has been a change Word. It comes to us and we respond in in theology which will become more and faith and devotion. It is God’s action, not more apparent as time goes on. We pray the ours. He is the mover, the doer. Faith Lord of the Church that by the power of His comes as the gift from God, not from our Spirit working through the Word the truth own doing or action.31 of the Gospel be confessed everywhere, false teaching be rooted out, and people prepared Charles Evanson continues this motif in through the gift of the forgiveness of sins his discussion of the place of the Sacrament for eternal life. in Divine Service, saying, “In the Service of Holy Communion God joins his act and deed to his Word; he gives us the body offered and the blood shed for the forgive- ness of our sins and strength for Christian W&D10 Spring 1998 Endnotes Real Presence philosophically. 1 For a full discussion of the history of the relation- 12 John Reumann, The Supper of the Lord: The New ships within Lutheranism in Canada during this Testament, Ecumenical Dialogues, and Faith and century, see Norman J. Threinen, Fifty Years of Order on Eucharist (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, Lutheran Convergence: The Canadian Case Study, 1985), 1. Lutheran Historical Conference Publication No. 3 13 Ibid., 6. (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1983). For a 14 “Interpreting” detailed look at the history of the doctrinal discus- 15 “Doctrinal” sions, see pages 143-205. 16 “For purposes of preaching” 2 Formula of Concord, Epitome, Rule and Norm 1, in 17 “If the words truly are part of Scripture” The Book of Concord, trans. and ed. Theodore 18 “Direction on how to do something” Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 464. 19 Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson, eds., 3 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, A Brief Christian Dogmatics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri 1984), 2: 347. Synod (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, n.d.). 20 Ibid., 346-347. 4 “The Function of Doctrine and Theology in Light of 21 Division for Parish Life, Evangelical Lutheran the Unity of the Church” (New York: Division of Church in Canada, Statement on Sacramental Theological Studies, Lutheran Council in the USA, Practices (1991), par. 5.2. 1978). 22 Ibid., par. 6.13, 6.14. 5 John Reumann, ed., in collaboration with Samuel 23 “Barry: ELCA actions move church away from H. Nafzger and Harold H. Ditmanson, Studies in historic Lutheranism,” Reporter, September 1997, 1. Lutheran Hermeneutics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 24 For a fuller discussion of this issue, see the 1979). Lutheran Church–Canada Commission on Theol- 6 The Missouri Synod’s continual affirmation of its ogy and Church Relations document, The Sacra- traditional understanding of Scripture and its ment of Unity in a Divided Christendom: Closed rejection of so-called “Gospel reductionism”, the Communion in Contemporary Context (Winnipeg: process of reducing the important parts of the Bible Lutheran Church–Canada, 1996). to only those bits which directly talk about the 25 A detailed examination of the Scriptural data on Gospel, are reflected in two papers submitted to the ordination of women from the perspective of the Church by the Missouri Synod’s Commission on those favouring it may be found in John Reumann, Theology and Church Relations: The Inspiration of Ministries Examined (Minneapolis: Augsburg Scripture, published in March 1975, and Gospel Publishing House, 1987), 78-139. and Scripture, published in November 1972. Both 26 For a further explanation of the Scriptural position documents, along with the Brief Statement, can be on the ordination of women see “Ordination of found on the Project Wittenberg page of the Women?” by Hermann Sasse. Word &Deed pages Internet, http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ 13-18, Vol. 2 Issue 1 wittenberg/wittenberg-home.html 27 Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg 7 Formula of Concord, Epitome, Rule and Norm 8, in Publishing House; Philadelphia: Board of Publica- Tappert, 465. tion, Lutheran Church in America, 1978), 56, 77, 98. 8 The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Brief 28 Norman E. Nagel, “Whose Liturgy Is It?” Logia 2, Statement. no.2 (April 1993):4-8. 9 Charles P. Arand, who teaches systematic 29 Philip H. Pfatteicher and Carlos R. Messerli, theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO, has Manual on the Liturgy: Lutheran Book of Worship recently published a study documenting the (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1979), 9. various views of confessional subscription which 30 Lutheran Worship (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing have existed among Lutherans in North America. House, 1982), 6. See Charles P. Arand, Testing the Boundaries: 31 Fred L. Precht, ed., Lutheran Worship: History and Windows to Lutheran Identity (St. Louis: Concordia Practice (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, Publishing House, 1995). 1993), 45. 10 Ibid., 239, quoting Carl E. Braaten, “The Lutheran 32 Ibid., 419. Confessional Heritage and Key Issues in Theology 33 “Calvinism” refers to the teaching of John Calvin Today,” Currents in Theology and Mission 8 (1981): and his doctrinal system adopted by the Reformed 261. Churches. Calvin held to the spiritual presence of 11 It must be noted that, while the Confessions here Christ in the Lord’s Supper but not the doctrine of clearly identify with Rome in teaching the true, the real presence of Christ’s body and blood. substantial presence of Christ’s Body and Blood, they elsewhere (Smalcald Articles III.VI.5) reject transubstantiation, Rome’s attempt to explain the

Spring 1998 W&D11