Читать книгу Gift Exchange - Martin Hailer - Страница 10

Ministry and the Office of Oversight Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues

The theology of the ordained ministry is an odd topic in ecumenism. Church officials from various denominations will not hesitate to classify it as a topic of great importance, but if we ask lay people of the very same denominations, they will probably describe it as somewhat insignificant. They would be much more likely to point to topics such as the Eucharist, the sacraments in general, contemporary social and political issues, and so on. At least, this was my impression when I visited the Zweiter Ökumenischer Kirchentag (Second Ecumenical Church Congress) held in Munich during June of 2010. A Kirchentag in Germany is a big, perhaps even enormous, lay event which draws together more than 100,000 people for a few days of prayer, dialogue, Church concerts, and other events. The number of visitors was even higher when Catholic and Protestant lay organizations jointly organized an Ecumenical Church Congress in Berlin in 2003. The same was true a biblical seven years later when the meeting was held in Munich. One of the activities was dedicated to the core ecumenical topics of baptism, the Eucharist, and ministry. The discussions took place in an exhibition hall which held up to 6,000 persons, at least when they crouched on the cardboard stools typically used by the Kirchentag. On the first day, when baptism was discussed, the hall was almost full and there was a friendly and vivid discussion. Day 2 was dedicated to the question of Catholics and Protestants sharing the Eucharist and likewise saw a crammed audience. The hall was over-crowded and hundreds of visitors had to be refused admittance for safety reasons. The atmosphere was brimming with ecumenical prospect and anticipation, and frequently participants demanded a shared Eucharist or at least a reciprocal invitation to it. On the third day, however, the ordained ministry was scheduled. The debate was highly interesting. Bishops of several denominations, academic theologians, and lay people were all engaged, including some from ecclesial traditions that do not have an ordained ministry at all. However, the visitors did not respond to this and the participants on the podium saw more empty cardboard stools than people.

How come? I think it is too easy an answer if one claims that lay people simply do not understand the centrality of the topic. This idea is discussed quite frequently, so academic theologians and Church officials who think so should hesitate. It is not my intention to say that official Church politics and theological argumentations should follow a momentous sentiment of some lay people—that, of course, is far too simple an answer. Rather, the small audience in Munich may serve as a theological reminder that the topics of priesthood, the bishop’s office, and holy orders are in fact not a first-hand topic—both in the Holy Scriptures as well as in theology. As for the scriptures, it is only in the post-Pauline letters that these matters becomes prominent. Before Good Friday and Easter, Jesus was not interested in bishops, and neither were the Synoptic Evangelists. Moreover, while Paul did address them, he did not develop any special terminology for the topic. And if it holds true that John’s gospel is one of the latest writings in the New Testament, then this interest ceased once more when the writings of the second part of the bible were still being completed. Additionally, the same effect may be seen in in the history of theology again. One might admit that there were early and even poignant references to the bishop’s office. Consider, for example, Ignatius’ letters, which he wrote as a prisoner on his way to martyrdom in Rome sometime around 110. However, neither the other apostolic fathers nor the apologists regarded the bishop’s ministry as a topic of key interest. If we consider his letters in their entirety, not even Ignatius himself did so. The Church in the ancient world as a whole was not primarily concerned with ecclesiology and the theology of the ordained ministry. They were more focused on their struggles against Gnosticism, the Manicheans, and some platonic movements. In the first instance, all those struggles leading to and beyond the Trinitarian and Christological creeds dominated the scene for centuries. Even if there was a formal theology of ministry in the Church’s practice it was not before Augustine’s De Civitate Dei (The City of God) and his Confessions (if we think of the portrait of Bishop Ambrose of Milan which he drew in that book) that ecclesiology became a major topic at all.

This historical outline raises the following theological insight: the Church’s first concern is not her own identity but what she has to proclaim and whom her people are called to pray to. The desire to initially come to a consensus concerning God’s identity and Christ’s work for us is no mere contingency. Instead, it reflects the fact that the Church has a more basic calling than mere self-understanding. Secondly, this theological insight exposes questions concerning her identity and her function with the result that ecclesiology is necessarily part of theology, but not initially. Therefore, the considerably small audience at the Kirchentag’s discussion concerning ministry was not a mere happenstance, but it led to a valuable insight in ecclesiology which in fact reflected the Church’s own early development. This insight must be kept in mind as we now turn to a number of topics in the theology of ministry.

Insights from German Speaking Theology

In this next section I would like to proceed by giving an outline of the Church’s ministry in German speaking theology. This serves as a good example for several reasons. Firstly, classical intra-Lutheran debates take place in the Reformation’s motherland. Secondly, Lutheran and Anglican Churches seem to have similar problems with decreasing numbers in membership which in turn has adversely affected their theology of ministry. Thirdly, ecumenical dialogues—at least those noted publicly—mostly focus on specific problems between Protestants and Catholics thereby ignoring other denominations. This, of course, is both wrong and a pity, but I will argue that it is precisely this pattern which makes the Lutheran-Anglican dialogue so interesting. It can even be viewed as an ecumenical gift.

The classic Lutheran problem of ministry is best understood by looking at two articles of the Augsburg Confession (CA). CA VII reads: “Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree on issues concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.” And CA XIV reads, “Of Ecclesiastical Order, they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”²⁶

Of course, Melanchthon and his friends did not intend to express different views in these two articles. What happened later on, and especially in the 20^th century, was that two different theologies of ministry emerged. The first one emphasizes Luther’s concept of the ministry of all believers/baptized.²⁷ There is no need for a consecrated priest in order for a service to truly be a service as long as the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are administered according to their institution. This is basically a functional view. As long as these two conditions are fulfilled, a service takes place and the ever-existing Church exists at that very place. If one thinks that this is the very core of the Lutheran letter of refusal to Rome, it will mean that the person of a minister will disappear behind his or her function. More to the point, as long as there is ministry, there is the Church. The question of who fulfils the ministerial acts is secondary.

The other side looks more closely at CA XXIV and understands itself as a relativization of the high spirit of the first position. There is ministry in the Church and this fact is no mere human design. As can be read in CA V, “the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted.” This position can only be filled by a person rite vocatus (rightly called). The main motive for this position is that of the outwardness of God’s word. God’s grace is not instantaneously in humans but is something strange to them. It has to be applied by preaching and sacraments. Therefore there must be a suitably qualified and officially called person to carry out these acts. The Church’s ministry is not a matter of human choice but iure divino (by God’s right). Philipp Melanchthon even considered the ordination to be a sacrament (Apologia Confessionis 13).

Both of these two positions represent core convictions of the reformers and none of them claims to be correct in itself. They rather indicate a somewhat open space for ongoing debate in Lutheran theology. On the one hand, there are some Lutheran Churches denying ordination to women and base that (though not alone) on CA XIV.²⁸ On the other hand, in other cases a curates’ presiding the Eucharist is seen as justified by reference to CA VII. In the academic conversations, the second position seems to prevail,²⁹ but it often struggles to make itself comprehensible to the average congregant.

This situation leads to my second point, namely, that both Anglicans and Lutherans face decreasing numbers of Church members—not to mention the actual number of a normal parish service for a typical Sunday gathering. One of the effects of this painful situation is a decrease in income which in turn leads to the decrease in the number of ordained parish ministers. In fact both Churches installed an office for lay persons following the vir probatus (well-proven and reliable person) tradition according to which lay persons may preach and, under special conditions, administer the sacraments. A reader in the Anglican communion resembles the predicant’s ministry in the Lutheran world. The exact status of predicants is theologically unclear. Are they part of the Church’s ministry as defined in CA V and XIV? And what then is the exact difference between their ministry and that of the ordained ministry? This problem remains to this day, especially in the context of the ecumenical dialogues with the Roman and Orthodox traditions. On the other hand, if the predicant’s ministry derives from CA VII alone, this might imply that the ordained ministry is somehow incomplete. I do not wish to interfere with inner-Anglican discussions, but the fact that both denominations have some sort of a lay clergy’s ministry establishes a parallel theological problem. Nonetheless, this issue does not play a significant role in official Anglican-Lutheran dialogue papers—a fact which should be altered in the near future.

A third point from the German situation is that speaking of ecumenism mostly means speaking of catholic-protestant relations. For the average worshipper, journalists, and even a significant number of ministers, ecumenism simply means dialogues and debates between the roman and “the” Protestant Churches—with little appreciation for the variety within Protestantism. As deplorable as this is even in itself, it bears some additional consequences for the theology of the ordained ministry. Speaking of ecumenism in this way means reducing it to a few notoriously difficult problems. The first of such problems is one of the Catholic conditions for proper ordination, namely, celibacy. In this case, the focus is primarily directed to the Catholic defectus ordinis (improper ordination) argument. That is, Protestant ministers are considered irregular ministers since they have been ordained by a person who is not technically entitled to perform this act. Therefore their defectus ordinis hinders their being proper ministers.

The discussion in German-speaking theology and Churches is somewhat exclusively concentrated on this argument. Catholics typically hold to it, although sometimes with notable regret, while Protestants give a more mixed response. For them, on the one hand, the Catholic position comprises a certain tone of defiance concerning their own tradition of ordination. On the other hand, there is a notable effort to claim that a minister’s ordination is proper by pointing out that he or she stands in the apostolic succession, having received it from a person who himself or herself stands in it. What is missing in these responses is a proper appreciation of the theological meaning and value of apostolic and/ or historic succession. As has been publically acknowledged, this is an either-or-debate: either one finds that succession is of considerable importance concerning ordination or one thinks that the validity of Protestant ordination has nothing to do with it. Of course, these two tendencies depict the two corresponding tendencies in interpreting the Confessio Augustana’s doctrine of the ordained ministry as quoted above.

This situation is notable because the argument for succession is retained or rejected without properly discussing its meaning. The discussion is marred by the idea that the apostolic and/ or historic succession does not constitute a single argument in itself but instead represents a whole series of arguments. That is, in this view, apostolic/historic succession entails a host of corollary questions like the bible hermeneutics, faithfulness to witnessing the truth, diversity and harmony within the Church, and some others. In short, the typical Protestant argument, ‘shall succession play a role or shall it not?’ suffers from a contraction which hinders the discussion of the theological arguments that it stands in for. In my opinion, this deplorable situation could be remedied through a series of rigorous Anglican-Lutheran dialogues that have already taken place. Thus, an analysis of the somewhat gridlocked dialogue situation between Catholics and Protestants as well as the situation within Lutheranism leads to the insight that a widening of ecumenical horizons including the Anglican-Lutheran situation may bear much fruit. Prior to analysing official documents for that purpose I will give some hints concerning status and atmosphere of the Anglican-Lutheran relations.

Anglican-Lutheran Relations

The Meissen Declaration (see details below) proudly states that Anglicans and Lutherans have never condemned each each other (MD 10). That is true, but only partly so. As the document rightly states in the very same sentence, Lutherans and Anglicans have been estranged for centuries. Hence nowadays, dialogues do not face the difficulties arising in the case that a condemnation is put aside.³⁰ They instead have to undo the damage piled throughout centuries.

The main damage caused by ignorance is prejudice. With regard to the Lutheran side, the main prejudice about Anglicans is the tendency to reduce their self-understanding to the act of supremacy enacted by King Henry VIII in November 1534. The Anglican Communion itself states that it mainly exists due to a mixture of private and dynastical deliberations pursued by the ruler of Britain at that time. What is not even at stake in some major contributions to Konfessionskunde is what we might call the Anglican plea for Catholicity. That is, although the denomination is doubtlessly a product of the 16^th century, its understanding itself as having historical continuity which reaches from the past and on into the future. The somewhat diminished outside perspective often forgets about John Wycliffe centuries before the age of the Reformation. It is also unaware of the special tradition of Christianity in Britain inaugurated by Augustine after his arrival at Canterbury in 597. But generally, the ill-informed outside perspective is unaware of the strong Anglican emphasis that the act of disobedience towards the Bishop of Rome is to be understood as an act of faithfulness to the ongoing tradition of the one and holy Church. There is a strong sense of tradition and continuity within the Anglican self-understanding that for far too long a time has not been mentioned in Lutheran und Reformed denominations. For they, broadly speaking, consider the act of reformed discontinuity to be more central than the aspect that precisely this had to be done as an act of faithfulness to the one Church.

Things may be different in other parts of the world. We will soon see that in the United States, for example, there is a different setting which obviously allows solutions that seem to be delicate to dialogue partners in Europe. In America there is a much stronger sense of communion from the very beginning of Christian life on that continent than could ever influence self-understanding in the regions where the Reformation took place.

These are considerations concerning the atmosphere of self-understanding and perception of the dialogue partner. However, evidently they are somewhat primitive and fail to withstand thorough debate. But it is important to mention them here because even a learned debate takes place within general assumptions and within a long-term tradition of perceiving the partner. We must mention them before analysing documents delivered by official Church commissions in order to shed light on the tacit presuppositions which, verbalized out or not, somehow govern the steps towards community between partners who have been estranged for such a long time.

Contacts and dialogues worth noting did not take place prior to the founding years of the World Council of Churches. At least two of them are of interest here. The first one is mainly a personal relationship that proved its ecumenical validity only later on: the contact between the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishop George Bell. Bonhoeffer, being an early Lutheran ecumenist, had presided over the youth conference at the assembly of Life and Work in Fanø (Denmark) in 1934. When he came to London in October 1933, he was appointed to work in parish in a Lutheran community; nonetheless, he established a dialogue with Bishop George Bell of Chichester. The details do not matter here,³¹ but a certain nonchalance in the contact once established is of interest. Both dialogue partners seemed to not be bothered with any preliminary questions concerning mutual acknowledgement of their denominations. An obviously close connection between the two denominations was simply there. Bishop Bell and Bonhoeffer did see no need whatsoever to argue for it. On the Lutheran side however, this conviction was withheld from publicity for quite a while. The reason for this is that once Bonhoeffer decided to join the resistance against Hitler, he was subject to heavy criticism within his own denomination and the Lutheran-Reformed Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church). The Bekennende Kirche even refused to add him to their list of names for intercessory prayer, which contained the names of those of their members who were captured by the regime. Additionally, after his martyrdom merely a few days before the end of World War II, Bonhoeffer’s theology was mainly received based on what he wrote when in prison. Widerstand und Ergebung was the first of his works to be published after the war,³² and even his manuscripts concerning ethics were only received quite reluctantly. Thus for a long time Bonhoeffer’s legacy as part of an Anglican-Lutheran dialogue did not receive the attention it certainly deserves to the day.

The second early action concerning Anglican-Lutheran relations was not confined to a mutual dialogue. In 1938 Archbishop William Temple was appointed President of the WCC. The war, however, stopped the plans of its founding fathers and it wasn’t until 1948 that the first general assembly took place. William Temple did not live to see this. However, the symbolic message was clear. The Archbishop of Canterbury was to play a crucial role in one of the most remarkable steps towards Christian union since the reformation period.

This being the case, the early history of Anglican-Lutheran relations may be seen as a hopeful start. Therefore it still remains an open question why it took several decades to establish official mutual dialogues between the two denominations. These are the Reuilly Common Statement (signed 2001), the Meissen Declaration (drafted 1988, accepted 1991), the Porvoo Common Statement (1993), and Called to Common Mission (1999/2000). All of them deserve closer inspection, especially with regard to what they say about ordained ministry and the office of ecclesial oversight.

Meissen and Porvoo: The Office of Oversight and the Apostolicity of the Whole Church

Three of these bilateral dialogue documents have been drafted and accepted in Europe. They vary in dialogue partners, style, and outcome. In this section I want to have a closer look at two of them, namely, The Meissen Declaration (hereafter MD) and the Porvoo Common Statement (hereafter PCS). I will argue that their notably different conclusions may be due to the composure of participants but mainly rest on a theological presupposition concerning terminology.

Meissen brought together a group of participants that partly no longer exists. The series of dialogues were attended by the Church of England, the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD, German Protestant Church) and the Bund Evangelischer Kirchen in der DDR (BEK, Communion of Protestant Churches in the GDR). The German side presented itself as multifaceted in that both Church communions comprised of Lutheran, Reformed, and Unionist Churches while the Lutheran Churches and their leading theologians often set the tone—and still do so to this day. Secondly, they represented Church life and experience from both eastern and western Germany. It is partly due to the events of the German reunion that the final signation of the declaration took place three years after the draft had been accepted by both sides. During that process the BEK ceased and the EKD took over its place by now representing next to all mainline Protestant churches in Germany.

Broadly speaking, MD states a large—if not huge—range of agreement between the signatory Churches. However, it sees a small but important aspect of ongoing disagreement. The main topics of agreement are as follows.

• Ecclesiology: The Church is a sign and instrument of God’s kingdom. This includes the idea of the ongoing importance of the Church even after history has ended. And of even more importance here, it also includes the need for every possible endeavour to establish unity since the Church is an instrument of God’s goal to unite all mankind in His kingdom. Therefore the reality of the Church is godly in itself, even though it fully participates in human weakness and sinfulness and thus is in constant need of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and graceful renewal (MD 1–3). MD gratefully adopts an ecclesiology of communion developed mainly in the 1980s. The Church is considered as koinonia (communion) of fellow Christians and at the same time as participatory koinonia with the living God. Both facts show the urgent need that the Church may come to a fuller communion in itself and via missionary endeavours with all mankind. At this point MD expresses a statement of guilt. Although Protestants (I will use this terms to abbreviate “Lutherans, Reformed and United”) and Anglicans have never condemned each other they lived in reciprocal ignorance, which is an active sin against what God prepared for His Church by granting it koinonia (MD 10).

• Basic Christian doctrines: The participants agree to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, to the Creed of Nicea and Constantinople and the Creed of the Apostles, and to the trinitarian and christological dogmas that followed. The basic reformation creeds such as the Thirty Nine Articles of Faith, The Common Book of Prayer and the Ordinal, the Augsburg Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are regarded as communicating the Reformer’s heritage which is common to all signatory Churches (MD 9, 15.1–2).

• The sacraments: Although the signatory Churches do not have Church communion, they acknowledge that in all of them there is adherence to the apostolic faith and mission, baptism, the Eucharist, and the ordained ministry (MD 12). This assertion is complemented by a double-sided strategy. On the one hand, MD mentions the full Church union as declared between the signatory Churches of the Leuenberg Concord and thus leaves no doubt that the formulation as found in this paper is adequate to describe a joint understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (MD 13.4). MD adds a quotation from a paper drafted by the Anglican-Reformed International Commission affirming Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and his once-for-all offering which cannot and need not be repeated by any other person (MD 15.5). MD thus offers a new kind of reinterpretation of the Leuenberg Concord. Leuenberg declared full Church union since its signatory Churches could agree to a common understanding concerning Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. This formula, however, does not present a view of Christ’s presence which fully encompasses both sides. Nevertheless, it was regarded as sufficient to overcome the disagreements and even condemnations which had held true for centuries. MD mentions the very same statement concerning the Eucharist but speaks of separate Churches explicitly. Thus, it obviously regards the remaining differences concerning the office of ecclesial oversight to be a hindrance to declaring mutual acceptance. This is the feature in the Meissen Declaration which is most worthy of attention. We will therefore return to it shortly.

• Ordained Ministry and Episcopé: All signatory Churches declare that an office of pastoral oversight is needed to ensure and to testify to the unity and Apostolicity of the Church. This office of oversight may vary in form and be personal, communal or collegial, but its necessity as such is clearly stated (MD 15.9).

MD thus offers an unprecedented expression of agreement between Churches who are not formally united. It fully and mutually acknowledges that the Churches belong to the one, holy and apostolic Church, and that they have properly ordained ministries and administration of the sacraments. A reciprocal invitation to receive the sacraments is included as well as a large number of subsequent joint activities such as regular conferences, joint projects, and even the institution of special libraries.

Restrictions apply to the doctrine of the office of ecclesial oversight. In brief, MD states that the Protestant Churches do not confess themselves to the bishop’s succession as a sign of Apostolicity in the life of the whole Church. In their opinion, fully visible union is not connected to that special form of the office of oversight. Since this is the case within the Anglican Communion, the full interchangeability of ordained ministers is thereby hindered (MD 16). Consequently, joint celebrations of the Eucharist should be presided by a clergy person of only one of the denominations and Anglican priests as well as bishops will not participate fully in an ordination of a protestant minister.

The remaining point of divergence is small but obviously of some importance. With reference to a formal analysis it can be depicted by the following points.

1. Main argument, equally shared: the aim of full, visible unity of the Church (as deriving from the koinonia-ecclesiology from MD).

2. First conclusion, equally shared: A sign for the Apostolicity in the life of the whole Church is necessary.

3. Second conclusion (a), Lutheran-Reformed-United side: a bishop’s succession may be considered a sign as stated by the first conclusion but is one among others.

4. Second conclusion (b), Anglican side: fully visible union necessarily includes historic episcopacy and interchangeability of ministers.

Prior to comparing this statement of disagreement to the solution to be found in PCS, two aspects should be noted. First, sentences (1) and (2) are a remarkable ecumenical achievement in themselves. For the protestant Churches, the term “apostolic” has long since failed to play a significant role. Its use was restricted to be one of the characteristics of the Church, but the term was not assigned a special significance in its own right. Nowadays, MD states that the Apostolicity of the Church has its special meaning in the Church’s visible unity. Speaking about Apostolicity does not only serve as a reminder of the fact that the Church exists because the Lord instructed and blessed His apostles; Apostolicity also points to the indispensable fact of the oneness and unity of the Church. Secondly, MD 16 uses two similar but distinct terms, namely, the bishop’s succession (3) and historic episcopacy (4). This approach, and the fact that both terms are used to state a certain difference between the Protestant Churches on the one and the Anglican Church on the other hand but are not a subject to discussion themselves gives room to further debates. Sentences (1) and (2) once agreed that matters have not been settled by the partial disagreement as depicted in sentences (3) and (4). Obviously, there is more than one term for the matter in question, which indicates room for discussion. MD finishes with a disagreement but the way this disagreement is presented, MD makes clear that there should be a way for further negotiation and understanding.

Although the Porvoo Common Statement has admittedly not been planned as a sequel of the Meissen Declaration, as I would like to point out now, it can be taken as an example of an ongoing discussion at precisely the point where MD seems to see a final point of misunderstanding. Before doing so, however, we should be aware of the different settings and conditions of this ecumenical settlement. First, unlike the situation between the Church of England and the EKD-Churches, there is a tradition of dialogue between Anglican Churches, on the one hand, and Lutheran Churches in Scandinavia, on the other. With contacts as early as 1909, a tradition of dialogues was established decades before the negotiations began that directly led to the common statement. Additionally, both the Church of England and the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches are national Churches such that an important aspect of self-understanding is shared by most of the dialogue partners. This holds true even if the status of a national Church is under debate in several of the Scandinavian participants. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, is the fact that unlike in the Meissen dialogue process, the Anglican side is not represented by the Church of England alone. Signatory Churches on the Anglican side are the Church of England and of Ireland, the Church in Wales, and the Scottish Episcopal Church. As is well known, the situation in Ireland and in Scotland is quite different from the one in England, with Ireland being mainly Catholic and Scotland having a highly dynamic history which includes lively contentions with the Church of Scotland. Even though nothing of that instance is mentioned in the common statement itself, a stipulation like this sets the tone, so to speak. A view widely shared is being looked at attentively if some of the fellow participants live within a minority situation. The result is hermeneutical attentiveness to ideas that might be taken for granted under different conditions. Thirdly, the Porvoo dialogue process is more open than that of the Meissen dialogue. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark signed the statement in 2010, whereas the Lutheran Church in Great Britain and the Latvian Church Abroad have been granted observer status. Additionally, the signatory Churches are not confined to northern Europe. The Lusitanian Church in Portugal and the Reformed Episcopal Church of Spain are also members of the group. For reasons which will soon be obvious, the Porvoo Churches regard themselves as being more than a loose cluster or assembly of Churches. Signing the PCS is beginning to mean becoming part of a network of independent organizations. Although, theologically speaking, it is a communion of Churches.

So much for a short introduction to the notably different settings between the dialogues of Meissen and Porvoo. Of course, they do not yield all the theological differences if one compares the two documents. Nevertheless, it should be clear that theological arguments, penetrating and solid though they may be, are not grounded in themselves but rather in the actual life of communities.

PCS, very much like MD, states a considerably large number of agreements as well as some remaining differences. Its conclusion, however, does not deny the jointly celebrated Eucharist and it encourages the ordination of bishops to be held on the condition of the full participation of a bishop from the partner denomination. I would like to take a closer look at the reasons for that difference.

“Anglicans of Britain and Ireland and Lutherans of the Nordic and Baltic lands have at no time condemned one another as Churches and have never formally separated” (PCS 29). This statement is almost identical with the one quoted from MD 10 (see above). One of the striking differences between MD and PCS, however, is that PCS does not begin with this idea; instead, it is the first clause in the sub-section, “What We Agree in Faith.” The statement itself starts with a number of preliminary remarks which mainly concern the history of the relation between Anglicans and northern Lutherans and, even more important, with a primer on ecclesiology. Thus, the section “What We Agree in Faith” is a sequel to a basic understanding concerning the nature and the unity of the Church. This hermeneutical and theological aspect is doubtlessly in need of closer inspection. For the sake of brevity, I will call it “ecclesiology first,” indicating a basic common understanding of the nature of the Church. Then what is “ecclesiology first”? “The faith, worship and spirituality of all our Churches are rooted in the tradition of the apostolic Church. We stand in continuity with the Church of the patristic and medieval periods both directly and through the insights of the Reformation period. We each understand our own Church to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and truly participating in the one apostolic mission of the whole people of God” (PCS 7).

In brief, this quotation depicts a theological hermeneutic. All that is involved in being a Christian today can only properly be thought of when it is clear that this takes place within the tradition of the Apostolic Church. The Church is, so to speak, the hermeneutical site or realm within which “faith, worship and spirituality” take place. The conclusion here is that an agreement concerning the basics of the Christian faith also takes place within that hermeneutical realm. Therefore it is not an exaggeration to say that any given MD signatory would agree to that. But a different tone is set by underlining the existence of that hermeneutical realm.

The section at stake here is titled “The Nature and Unity of the Church.” It starts with a short inference of the topic of the Church. The sending of the Son is God’s offering of koinonia with all those who hear and believe it. This is the essence of the Church: “We are brought from death to new life (Rom. 6:1–11), born again, made sons and daughters by adoption and set free for life in the Spirit (Gal. 4:5, Rom. 8:14–17). This is the heart of the gospel proclamation of the Church and through this proclamation God gathers his people together. In every age from apostolic times it has been the purpose of the Church to proclaim this gospel in word and deed” (PCS 15). God’s act of making³³ sons and daughters is identical with the existence of the Church. Hence, there is a twofold conclusion. a) “The Church and the gospel are thus necessarily related to one another” and b) “there is no proclamation of the word and sacraments without a community and their ministry. Thus, the communion of the Church is constituted by the proclamation of the word and the celebration of the sacraments, served by the ordained ministry” (PCS 17, both). So far, the “ecclesiology first” strategy has established a clear-cut connection between God’s offering koinonia with himself, on the one hand, and the Church and its ordained ministry, on the other. This is a strategy is quite precarious because if that clear-cut connection holds true, no agreement will be accepted as satisfactory which does not agree within the theology of the ordained ministry.

“Ecclesiology first” gives a number of additional hints as to how the clear-cut connection should be understood. The text mainly substantiates the nature of the Church and the nature of the ordained ministry. First, the Church is defined as “a divine reality, holy and transcending present finite reality; at the same time, as a human institution, it shares the brokenness of human community in its ambiguity and frailty. The Church is always called to repentance, reform and renewal, and has constantly to depend on God’s mercy and forgiveness” (PCS 20). This quotation offers a regulative statement with two aims. First, the signatory Churches position themselves against a purely congregational self-understanding of the Church. It is more than a human congregation of men and women and of divine substance, so to speak. Needless to say, this goes well with the Lutheran understanding of the Church as a creature of God’s word. Alternately, the signatory Churches position themselves with a critical distance from denominations like the Baptists and Anabaptist traditions, both of whom at times obviate the term “Church” for themselves as a critique of the institutionalization of the fellowship of Christ. Ecumenical partners like these are not at stake in PCS, but consequences like these will restrain the signators’ aims in further dialogues. Secondly, the quotation indicates a critical distance from Roman Catholic self-understanding. The clear-cut connection between God’s self-revelation, the Church, and its ministry could be read as an advancement towards the Roman Catholic idea of totus Christus (entire Christ), i.e., the unity of Christ and the Church. The phrase that nobody can have God as his or her father who does not have the Church as his or her mother depicts this idea. Benedict XVI’s denial to speak of the Church’s sins, and therefore of her necessity of repentance, is a reminder that the phrase is of importance for Catholic self-understanding even today. PCS is quite clear here and obviously fully aware of potentially problematic consequences. The Church exists by means of God’s forgiveness and is in constant need of repentance, reform, and renewal. A definition like this would not be possible within the boundaries of a totus Christus-ecclesiology. PCS thus holds that the divine character of the Church is in no way a hindrance to emphasize its constant need of repentance.

Another important feature can be seen in the following text: “it is a Church which is served by an ordained apostolic ministry, sent by God to gather and nourish the people of God in each place, uniting and linking them with the Church universal within the whole communion of saints” (PCS 20). The statement declares a theology of the ordained ministry which, from a Lutheran point of view, confines itself to the statement of grounds as derived from CA XIV solely (see above). Additionally, it defines the ordained ministry as being “apostolic.” The usage of this word is a new momentum in comparison to what was at stake in the Meissen dialogue process. This can be made clear by a close inspection of the word “apostolic” or “Apostolicity” in PCS. I follow Ludwig Wittgenstein’s conviction that the meaning of a word is at least partly constituted on the basis of its application.³⁴

The key insight is that the usage of “apostolic” is not reduced to “apostolic ministry” or “apostolic office of oversight.” Rather, “apostolic” is used within a wider frame of reference. For example, note the following phrases: “the one apostolic mission of the whole people of God” (PCS 7), “tradition of the apostolic Church” (ibd.), “apostolic times” (PCS 15), “confession of the apostolic faith in word and in life” (PCS 20), “response to the apostolic preaching” (PCS 24), “We accept the canonical scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments to be the sufficient, inspired and authoritative record and witness, prophetic and apostolic, to God’s revelation in Jesus Christ” (PCS 32), “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” (ibd.), “apostolic life and witness” (32), “apostolic continuity of the Church as a Church of the gospel” (PCS 34), “Apostolicity of the Church” (ibd.), “the normative apostolic witness to the life, death, resurrection and exaltation of its Lord” (PCS 37), “the Apostolicity, catholicity and unity of the Church’s teaching” (PCS 43), “apostolic calling of the whole Church” (PCS 52), “apostolic continuity” (PCS 57). This wide-ranging usage of the term is formative for PCS’s argumentative strategy. If one concentrates on the issue of a ministry which is designated apostolic, one certainly misses the point by a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The term rather indicates a quality of a wider range of subjects. It is part of the fourfold quality of the Church as being one, holy, catholic and apostolic; but it also refers to its preaching, to the Scriptures, to the Church’s calling and to continuity in general. PCS’s strategy, then, is to secure that wider range of meaning and, in a second step, to concentrate on what the Apostolicity of the Church’s ministry might mean.

At one point a definition for that wider understanding of Apostolicity is given: “Apostolicity means that the Church is sent by Jesus to be for the world, to participate in his mission and therefore in the mission of the One who sent Jesus, to participate in the mission of the Father and the Son through the dynamic of the Holy Spirit” (PCS 37, italics omitted). This is a sound definition and it extends the meaning of Apostolicity to the clear-cut connection between God’s self-revelation and today’s practice of His Church. The animus of that usage of the term is quite clear. If it holds true that key insights concerning the life of the Church as a whole can, and rather should, be named apostolic, then affirming the notion of an apostolic ministry is only a matter of consistency. It does not add anything new to what has been stated in ecclesiology in general. PCS 39 makes this quite clear: “Thus the primary manifestation of apostolic succession is to be found in the apostolic tradition of the Church as a whole.”

In MD, the notion of there being a personal office of oversight which would serve as a sign of the Church’s unity was characterized as an unsolved problem. PCS focuses on the same subject but does so on the grounds just pointed out, namely, that the Apostolicity of the office of oversight is not a problem but an outcome of the Apostolicity of the Church as a whole. The key insight concerning the office of oversight are to be found in paragraphs 34, 35, 46 and 51 and can be presented like this:

1. Basic assumption, equally shared: The Apostolicity of the Church as a whole

2. First premise: The bishop’s office “is a visible and personal way of focusing the Apostolicity of the whole Church” (PCS 46)

3. Second premise, part 1: The notion of succession: “the Apostolicity of the whole Church and, within that the apostolic ministry, succession in the episcopal office and the historic succession as a sign” (PCS 35)

4. Second premise, part 2: Churches leaving the apostolic succession have taken close care of their remaining in the apostolic tradition (PCS 34)

5. Conclusion: succession, now named “historic” instead of “apostolic” is a sign of the whole Church’s Apostolicity and not a guarantee for apostolic loyalty (PCS 51).

What benefit, then, comes from that argument? It is mainly that sentences (3) and (4) elucidate the meaning of “succession.” It is clear from sentence (1) that any notion of succession does not add something new to the idea of the Apostolicity of the Church as a whole. Sentences (3) and (4) instead unfold implications from sentence (2) as one might see, for example, in a classical syllogism. That is, if the notion of succession does nothing new, then it should be read as a sign for what is held true in sentence (2)—this is the main purpose of sentence (3). But what were Churches to do whose former leaders wilfully left the succession? One can certainly appreciate how they took every effort not to annul what, according to sentence (4), succession as a sign stands for. The solution is then that historic succession stands for the Apostolicity of the whole Church but is not to be identified with it (5).

Two more observations concerning PCS should be made before we turn to the situation in the U.S.A. as depicted in the agreement known as “Called to Common Mission.” First, I will offer a brief comment concerning the style of argumentation in PCS and then a preliminary observation concerning the interrelation between MD and PCS. Firstly, putting PCS’s main achievement into the form of a syllogism is a questionable endeavour. This is done here for the sake of clarity, but it should be observed that the statement itself does not argue in this way. Its argumentation rather shows two characteristics. First, once the “ecclesiology first” strategy noted above is agreed upon, a reciprocal relationship is formed between this strategy and the corollary “ecclesiology first” conviction. Now it is fitting to quote PCS 35 once more, but this time including the following sentence: “an understanding of the Apostolicity of the whole Church and within that the apostolic ministry, succession in the episcopal office and the historic succession as a sign. All of these are interrelated.” The style of reasoning here has greater resemblance to a net than to a single syllogism. To put this in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s words once again, “If we start to hold something as true, then we do not hold it true as a single sentence, but as a whole system of sentences. (Light is being shed on the whole little by little.)”³⁵

Secondly, what are the results of discussing MD and PCS in relation to one another? I will give just a hint here and postpone the fuller discussion until after the presentation of the CCM document. PCS’s achievement is its conception of historic succession as a sign. There is a similar idea in MD (see sentences [2] and [3]). But what MD lacks is a thorough exploration what the Apostolicity of the whole Church might mean, including the idea that the Apostolicity of the ordained ministry does not add anything new to it. This is why the notion of succession is the very point of divergence between the discussion partners in MD. By contrast, with good reason this is not the case in PCS. If the latter holds true—a view which I prefer—then this is a matter of the presuppositions of the argument. That is, the consensus mainly rests on the notion of the Apostolicity of the Church as a whole. MD fails to account for that insight.

This, of course, is a rough sketch. With regard to MD it should also be noted that some of the protestant signatory Churches do not have a personal office of oversight and claim good reason for that. Therefore we need discretion when applying PCS’s achievements to the situation which the Meissen dialogue addresses. Even if the participants could accept the idea of the Apostolicity of the Church as a whole—which I hope they will—subsequent deliberations will be needed. Then what will be at stake is the question of whether several types of the office of oversight can be regarded as structurally equal. As it stands, a consensus concerning this matter is not in sight. I will discuss it more fully in what follows, but now we turn to Called to Common Mission.

Called to Common Mission: Toward Full Church Union

Having discussed these two European papers at some length, I will now briefly address this American paper, particularly with a view to the central point under discussion. There is good reason for doing this from the very structure of the paper itself, namely, because Called to Common Mission (CCM thereafter) is a document for Church governance rather than a document of extensive theological deliberation. It was drafted during the last years of the second millennium and accepted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in 1999 and by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 2000. However, some concerns about its outcome arose in the Lutheran communion to which the congregation of bishops answered. The Lutheran communion, in turn, responded by delivering a small note called “The Tucson Resolution.” Most editions of CCM contain that resolution as an amendment.

CCM, as mentioned before, is mainly a document for Church government. The topics which are the subject of lively debate in MD and PCS are here treated as resolved. A short introduction (CCM 1–3) states that a new relation between the signatory Churches has been established. More specifically, the new status is described as “interrelatedness” (CCM 2), although both Churches remain autonomous. The term “interrelatedness” indicates an even closer relation than “communion of Churches” offers according to PCS. Before explaining that CCM states theological agreement in a wide range of topics (CCM 4–5), both participants recognize essentials of the one and apostolic faith in each other, refer to the basic creeds and dogmas, recognize similarities in their liturgical practice, and recognize agreement concerning the understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Furthermore, their agreement covers the doctrine of justification as well as the basic convictions in ecclesiology, 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 clearly is a deadlock situation, because the crucial aspects of argumentation are situated in unalike positions in the two papers. A move on one side would be answered with a move at a different position on the other, so that no substantial acquirement is to be expected. One way of overcoming this dilemma is to have a look at a presupposition both papers share. What they have in common is that they state the idea of historic succession as an isolated one. Both papers declare a disagreement concerning it and, additionally, both papers do not make an attempt to discuss the idea by means of which it is connected to other theological themes. It is precisely at this point that the two papers agree—notwithstanding their considerably different outcomes. I want to argue that this puts both papers at a disadvantage. Not to discuss the theological location of historic succession may be called a fallacy of misplaced concreteness (see above, discussion of PCS) or, more precisely, a fallacy of misplaced isolation.

To avoid that detriment means to retrieve PCS’s strategy of argumentation once more. Its key insight, as sketched above, is the use of the word Apostolicity. PCS states that Apostolicity is a quality of the Church as a whole and therefore that the notion of the Apostolicity of the ordained ministry does not add anything new to it. Consequently, historic succession is a sign of a fact stated otherwise and does not bear any value apart from it. In other words, MD also speaks of the historic succession as a sign (MD 16). But if we look at the structure of its argument, MD makes no use of the signatory character of historic succession. PCS’s achievement is having shown why and how this is to be understood.

Thus, MD falls short of using an insight it itself has rightly stated. But, what about CCM’s proposals to overcome the disconnectedness by means of the Lutheran bishops’ entering historic succession? I am hesitant for two reasons. The first one has just been stated: if PCS’s notion of the historic succession as a sign holds true, then there is simply no need to require steps from both sides that are not congruent with both sides’ own presuppositions. But that on its own is not sufficient. As stated above, an ecumenical theology of gift may and should include willingness to offer something which is not easy to offer. The decrease in the giver’s autonomy is at stake here as well as the key ecumenical insight that the full truth of the gospel is not present within one denomination alone. Hence, further support is needed if CCM’s claim is to be rejected successfully. I can only try to achieve this from a Lutheran perspective, so that I will not discuss whether idea of the temporary suspension of the Preface to the Ordination Rites concerning the qualification to confer Holy Orders is possible within an Episcopalian framework. There is, so to speak, a specifically Lutheran problem connected to the idea of an intermediate status during which Anglican bishops recognize Lutheran ministers and bishops as proper, but do so reluctantly because full communion would require to re-enter historic succession. The problem here is that CCM speaks of two distinctly different steps of recognition and union, one of them being intermediate and the other in extenso and for all the foreseeable future. As mentioned above, one of the Lutheran approaches to ecclesiology is the satis est definition from the Augsburg Confession VI. “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough (satis est) to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.” If that holds true, the Lutheran side has no reason whatsoever to distinguish between the validation of a service held by a minister who is ordained by a bishop within the historic succession and a service presided by a minister ordained outside this succession. CA VI alone is not a sufficient theology of the ordained ministry, but it clearly states prerequisites for the occurrence of Church as Church. These prerequisites cannot be subject to distinction in grade, subtle though they may be.

Hence CCM’s proposal does not seem satisfactory concerning a core Lutheran conviction. This leads us back to a final discussion of whether there is considerable progress concerning that point to be found in PCS. I refer to the deliberations delivered above, and particularly the crucial statement concerning historic succession. It reads like this: “The use of the sign of the historic episcopal succession does not by itself guarantee the fidelity of a Church to every aspect of the apostolic faith, life and mission. There have been schisms in the history of Churches using the sign of historic succession. Nor does the sign guarantee the personal faithfulness of the bishop. Nonetheless, the retention of the sign remains a permanent challenge to fidelity and to unity, a summons to witness to, and a commission to realise more fully, the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles” (PCS 51).

This claim entails two denials but just one affirmation. This alone might as well be a rhetorical pattern to make the reader well-disposed towards what the author in his last sentence claims to be true. But if we have a closer look at that sentence we will see that the retention of historic succession is defined as a “challenge.” And this clearly marks a difference between PCS and the two other papers. MD as well as CCM understand historic succession as a stipulation for unity. PCS, having linked the concept within the wider framework of the Apostolicity of the Church as a whole, is free to downgrade the very same notion from stipulation to permanent challenge. In doing so, it does justice to the definition of historic succession as a sign which cannot be found in the other two documents.

Consequently, PCS’s outcome should be regarded a substantial ecumenical advancement. Based on sound theological deliberations it states, “Faithfulness to the apostolic calling of the whole Church is carried by more than one means of continuity. Therefore a Church which has preserved the sign of historic episcopal succession is free to acknowledge an authentic episcopal ministry in a Church which has preserved continuity in the episcopal office by an occasional priestly/presbyterial ordination at the time of the Reformation. Similarly a Church which has preserved continuity through such a succession is free to enter a relationship of mutual participation in episcopal ordinations with a Church which has retained the historical episcopal succession, and to embrace this sign, without denying its past apostolic continuity” (PCS 52).

I have discussed CCM as a contribution to an ecumenical theology of gift, including the critique that the gift-exchange recommended in that paper is disadvantageous. On the contrary, the solution offered in PCS 51 and 52 may also be regarded as an exchange of gifts. The Anglican side agrees to enter full communion with Churches that respect the ongoing challenge of the idea of historic succession but do not accept it as part of their self-understanding. Correspondingly, Lutheran Churches outside succession accept it as a significant and valid sign of the Church’s Apostolicity. This is an exchange of gifts since both sides declare their own theological tradition to be subject to interpretation and even circumspective change. What we have here is an exchange of gifts by means of finding a compromise. It does not go as far as a full consensus, but it is considerably more than the identification of a convergence.³⁶ Additionally, this compromise does justice to the sentiment of the Kirchentag-visitors mentioned at the beginning of the present chapter. Their impression was that the theology of the ordained ministry is not an ecumenical core problem. Porvoo’s compromise does justice to this sentiment insofar as it puts the topic of succession within the wider framework of the Church’s Apostolicity as a whole. Ecumenical theology should by no means just follow the spirit of the day, but it is an act of theological self-control to check one’s own conclusions with the sensus fidelium.

Two concluding remarks, one concerned with the overall status of the Anglican-Lutheran relationship, the other with the question whether Porvoo might serve as an example for further ecumenical dialogues. First, the problem at stake in this chapter should be classified as a problem of considerably low rank. The two denominations in dialogue are closely related to each other, though they have drifted apart for far too long a period. They not only share the common background of the western Church’s tradition and of the reformation period, also they share quite a number of basic assumptions. Ecumenical progress between two neighbour denominations such Anglicans and Lutherans is desirable and simply delightful—if of course it is successfully completed. But compared to the whole spectrum of ecumenical problems, it constitutes a fairly easy problem to deal with. This statement neither downplays the achievement of PCS nor does it say that PCS was eventually simply achieved. It rather focuses on how far from convergence—let alone compromise or consent—various other topics in various other processes of dialogue still are.

Consequently we should ask how Porvoo could serve as an example for other topics in ecumenism which are still under debate. This is mainly because observations concerning the structure of the argumentation may be helpful here. What PCS does—and in my opinion successfully does—is challenge the pattern of treating the various topics under discussion in isolation from one another. Concerning Apostolicity and historic succession, PCS’s main endeavour is to describe the background of the arguments in question. This leads to the insight that both are not separate motives but have a function within a wider range of theological argumentation. Once one accepts this point, it is possible to understand Apostolicity as a quality of the Church as a whole and to interpret the historic succession as a sign of the Church’s endeavour to be faithful to its apostolic character. PCS is thus an investigation into how a motive under debate is connected to other motives. This is its main difference in comparison to the two other documents under discussion in this chapter. The methodological principle could be extremely helpful when it comes to ecumenical dialogues that concern themselves with topics such as the veneration of the Virgin Mary or with the saints as intercessors before God. From a Protestant perspective there simply is no room for that kind of plea for intercessory prayer. But as soon as one begins to look for the various ways, motives like these are linked to others, matters may change. The veneration of the Virgin as performed in the Roman Catholic tradition, for example, is closely connected to basic assumptions in christology. More specifically, it is connected to the notion that Christ is primarily regarded the eschatological judge with the result that His role as a consoler becomes subsequently less important. That function is accomplished through the notion that the Virgin stands for God’s consoling presence. Of course, Protestants will not address veneration to Mary, but their understanding of what their fellow Catholic Christians do is likely to increase.

Admittedly, this is just an example and the issue surely needs closer inspection (see chapter 5 for a detailed discussion). For the time being, it should simply illustrate how we could utilize the major achievement of the Porvoo Common Statement as a model for ongoing ecumenical endeavours. In the next chapter we will turn to a field of problems in which insight such as this will greatly be needed.