The reconciled diversity of the ecumenical program of the ELCA and its Canadian counterpart have borne fruit and time will tell what kind of fruit. I am sure that those on the one side will herald this as a dramatic confirmation of the dialogues and documents that forged this fellowship. In the end, it troubles me for a several reasons. On the one hand, it suggests that either there are no differences between the Lutheran Confessions (at least as the ELCA/ELIC or it means that those differences count for nothing. Both are problematic for this Lutheran.
I have many friends in the Episcopal Church and much respect for some of its theologians -- though I seem to find some of them are leaving the original structures just as the Lutherans are moving in. I do not mean to disparage them or their troubled path of faithfulness amid the departures from Christian doctrine, faith, and morality within the original Anglican structures in North America and some across the world. Yet as close as I feel to some of them, they would be the first to admit that Anglicanism and Lutheranism are not the same, not nearly so. The ones I am friendly with have great reservations about Lutheran orders because they hold to an understanding of apostolic succession held by hardly any Lutherans. I have great reservations about how clearly held are such doctrines as the Real Presence (rather ambiguous and not treated much in the 39 Articles not merely historical documents, at least according to the current prayer book).
I remain thoroughly indebted to the Anglicans for teaching us German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, and other Lutherans how to speak English. Our own collects reflect the wonderful language of the Book of Common Prayer (especially 1662) and Cranmer's careful attention to the sound of the words used in worship. I appreciate the rich tradition of Anglicanism and its role as one of the treasures and guardians of the history of the English people (to which we are much in debt). Yet I continue to be perplexed by a church which can house such folks as a Gene Robinson or Katherine Jefferts Schori or, the bigger albatross of John Shelby Spong. And I find myself confused by a church body and tradition more united in the prayer book and the way of worship than doctrine and faith (which, should be confusing to me since I belong to one which is perhaps more united in doctrine in faith than it is in the way we worship).
The Anglicans have done a good job at keeping the structure but it has not kept them orthodox. Lutherans have done a good job at keeping the Confession but it has not kept all of us orthodox either. The marriage between the Anglicans and the Lutherans has seemed to unite them more in their weaknesses than their strengths. Lutherans got a bit more structure and Anglicans appreciated a little more the Confession but neither headed an inch closer to orthodox doctrine and faith. So, perhaps, we should let it go there...
All in all, I know that some will think the appointment of a Lutheran as dean of the diocese for the Anglican Cathedral in Winnipeg is a good thing. I just cannot for the like of me figure out why it is so good.... unless you want to ignore differences in confession and practice for the sake of a good photo op.
5 comments:
A first, but it won't be the last, and not just in Canada.
However, utterly predictable. An outward structural and liturgical unity does not produce orthodoxy and does not induce orthodoxy. And that is why one finds heterodoxy despite those things. The fruit does not produce the flower.
It is entirely understandable to took to these things amid our problems, but imposition of them is not the answer and heterodox churches are the result. They just look nicer in their photo ops and liturgical shows.
What percent of the members of those churches could even tell you the difference between Anglican and Lutheran? Of course, they don't mind, they have no idea what the churches (used to) teach. Dumbing down in order to get a sort of superficial unity. There is probably less agreement within either the ELCA or the Anglican churches than there is between them. People nowadays in those denominations are free to believe whatever they want as long as they keep filling the offering plate. They are social clubs.
Think of the truths that cannot be taught to the children in those churches because the leaders don't want to offend any sinners and are ashamed of both the law and the gospel.
When the ELCA declared altar and pulpit fellowship with the Episcopal church (and others) it was telling that the most outspoken critics in the ELCA were not against the agreement because of a difference of doctrines, but rather apostolic succession, for fear their pastors would be second class citizens. Their fears were apparently unfounded. Unfortunately the elephant in the room was as usual, completely ignored.
If I remember correctly, there was a provision in the "altar and pulpit" thing where future ELCA episcopal consecrations would be held with ECUSA participation so "apostolic succession" would be restored, but existing ordination were grandfathered.
Hell, if it matters, it matters, and you either don't wink where it wasn't present or you don't insist on it being present just from going forward. Bogus as it gets.
Just people who like to dress up and play church, and with their churches dwindling, need a bigger church for their charades.
Post a Comment