During their recent convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America adopted a full communion agreement with the United Methodist Church. According to the ELCA website, the church is also in full communion with the Reformed Church in America, United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church USA, Moravian Church, and the Episcopal Church. The formal agreements mean that the denominations agree to “freely join worship and exchange members; engage in common decision-making on critical matters; and lift criticisms that may exist between the churches.”
As Gene Veith notes, this means a “Lutheran congregation in the ELCA could have a Methodist or a Presbyterian or a graduate from a UCC seminary as its pastor.”
The ELCA is saying that it agrees with and will no longer criticize Calvinists AND Arminians AND the social gospel AND pietists AND moralists AND congregationalists AND episcopalians AND liturgists AND anti-liturgists AND people who believe in sacraments AND people who don’t believe in sacraments. So what is left that is distinctively LUTHERAN in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America?
Good question. What is distinctly Lutheran about the ELCA or distinctly Methodist about the UMC or distinctly anything about these other mainline denominations? What does it mean for mainline Protestantism if they are willing to gloss over any and all theological, liturgical, or ecclesiological differences?
August 26th, 2009 | 9:31 am
The ELCA is Lutheran only in name; in some sort of undefined legacy sense. There is nothing distinctly Christian (much less Lutheran) about its theology or practice. It hangs on to the name, as AT&T holds onto its second “T,” even though the actual service doesn’t actual form much of its present business plan.
Because without a vague emotional identification with the name “Lutheran” among people raised Lutheran, there’d be no reason for anyone to gather with the ELCA more than with the Hindus, or the Unity Church, or the Sierra Club.
August 26th, 2009 | 10:03 am
Upon reading Mr. Carter’s final question, the first thing which occurs as an answer is a literary allusion, through Umberto Eco, to Bernard of Moray.
What does it mean for mainline Protestantism if they are willing to gloss over any and all theological, liturgical, or ecclesiological differences?
It means that the rose of yesterday exists only as a name; we have merely bare names.
August 26th, 2009 | 10:09 am
Good question Joe… I’ve been so focused on the controversial votes last week with the ELCA that I didn’t even think about that agreement.
August 26th, 2009 | 12:45 pm
How is this any worse than the non-denominalization (and for that matter, the fundamentalization and neo-evangelicalization) of conservative Protestant churches in the US? It’s becoming harder and harder to find new churches opening affirming any sort of denominational or theological distinctives. If anything, it seems encouraging that the mainline churches are at least joining in institutional solidarity, although their declines make the ecumenical success bittersweet.
That is not at all to detract from your point, but only to point out that this trend is more of a broad US Protestant (and even Catholic) tendency than a specifically mainline trend.
August 26th, 2009 | 1:22 pm
Steve: How is this any worse than the non-denominalization (and for that matter, the fundamentalization and neo-evangelicalization) of conservative Protestant churches in the US?
That’s a good question and one that I’m not really qualified to answer since I don’t have a dog in this fight—I just raised the point on behalf of my theologically conservative friends who are still in the mainline denominations.
As an evangelical who attends a Reformed, but non-denominational, church, it would be hypocritical for me to complain about the blurring of denominational distinctions. But there is one way in which I think it may be worse than the non-denominalization of evangelical Protestants. The non-denominalization of evanglicalism came about because of a focus on a shared emphasis on the Bible and evangelism and a reaction against liberal Protestantism. Beneath the surface, you’ll find theological distinctions and disagreemnets, though they are normally set aside to focus on what we have in common.
What many fear is happening in mainstream churches are setting aside their differences because they see them as being less important than the liberal social outlook that they share. For example, what does it matter if you differ on infant baptism when you share a common interest in advocating for same-sex marriage? To many people, the first is a “angels on a pin” concern while the latter is a true matter of social injustice. This liberalized “social gospel” may now be the strongest bond between these denominations.
Whether this is the true motive behind the ecumenicism is unclear, but that perception that this is the case is likely driving the concern by the more conservative members of the Protestant churches.
August 27th, 2009 | 9:45 am
Um…if you go to the ELCA website link, it does not list the United Methodist Church anywhere being apart of this “full communion.” Either correct or publish a link verifying your facts.
August 27th, 2009 | 10:03 am
Mark: Um…if you go to the ELCA website link, it does not list the United Methodist Church anywhere being apart of this “full communion.” Either correct or publish a link verifying your facts.
From the ELCA website:
http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4242
August 27th, 2009 | 10:14 am
thank you
August 27th, 2009 | 11:47 am
Thanks for the reply, Joe. That definitely makes sense as a reason for the visceral reaction of conservative mainliners to such ‘unity’.
To me, though, such worries seem to ultimately stem from the apparent bankruptcy of the Protestant project as a whole. We’ll see what history says, but it seems that the original confessions of Protestant churches are now often more useful as ecclesial-political weapons (albeit possibly for good causes) than for any inherent conviction in such confessions over against one another (i. e., conservative Lutherans probably aren’t overly worried about doctrinal differences with conservative Methodists).
August 27th, 2009 | 10:36 pm
Isn’t intercommunion a good thing? Isn’t that why churches have all these meetings to try and settle denominational issues and reunite into one church? Maybe those minor denominational points aren’t all that important. Maybe you can’t untie the Gordian Knot. Just cut the rope. Religion means to bind together after all.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact