No. 19 Many Lutherans say that the differences between Lutherans and Reformed from the time of the reformation regarding the sacraments have been overcome. How do we see this issue? Have we moved on these doctrines? Have the Reformed? >> Well, the short answer would be both. But let's put it in a wider framework. Lutherans and Reformed in a way were always somewhat close. That is they were both churches that originated in the Reformation. And the problem was in a way that the Lutherans saw the Reformed as a distinct church. As a church of which they were divided by doctrines that were church dividing, especially the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. But the Reformed oftentimes did not have this same view. They rather saw the Lutherans as cousins. But cousins of the same family. And of course they -- the Lutherans in their view had a strange view of the Lord's Supper. But that was really not church dividing. Now, mind you they were a strong and straight Calvinistic churches that didn't share that. But there was also a strong tendency in the Reformed church that saw them as sister churches. Pietism and rationalism in the 18th Century eroded the confessionalism in the Lutheran church and also in the Reformed church further. So that the in the 19th Century a lot of people said: What's the big deal? There is the Evangelical Reformed church and there's the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Well, they are both Evangelical. So let's just get together. And in the 19th Century you have the first major church unions. Especially in Germany which was mixed. You have Roman Catholics, Reformed and Lutheran. There was a strong tendency to unite everything that was non-Catholic in a powerful church that could be accounted to the Roman Catholic Church. So you had the most famous of these unions, the Prussia union. Prussia was the largest state in Germany. And Fredrick William III united the Evangelical and the Reformed churches. Because they were both state churches, he could do that. United them in one new Evangelical church. And originally he planned that it was just a merger. That you blend them together and then you have as he put it one new revised Evangelical church. But there was so much opposition that he had to revise that plan on the go and say: Well, the Reformed and the Lutherans joined together in one federation. They say that the differences are no longer church dividing. But they can retain their identity as Lutherans and Reformed. Of course, as long as you say it's no longer church dividing and you agree to be in one organization, there is a shift in how you define Reformed and how do you define Lutheran. There were other unions in Germany in other territories that were not federative. But they were called consensus union. That is you made up actually a new confession. You merged it and you came to a new confession that was neither Lutheran nor Reformed. In the United States you actually had a sister church of the Prussian union. That was the Evangelical church that later on merged into the United Church of Christ. And sometimes in some areas you find there's a Lutheran Church and a UCC church close by. Because in the 19th Century they had a fight in a congregation. Some wanted to be confessionally Lutheran and some wanted to be more generic Lutherans. Because they came from Prussia. And so they divided up. So you have these two churches that actually come from one group of Germans to this area. But the situation in the United States was always a little bit different. Because in Germany it's basically Roman Catholic, Reformed Lutheran. Whereas, okay, you just have to open the phonebook in the Yellow Pages under churches and you realize it's not quite as neat here as in Germany. You have all of these different churches. So the question "Well, why should the Reformed and the Lutheran be separated?" is more urgent in Germany than it is here. Well, you have 60 different denominations to begin with. So well, there is no reason to focus on Reformed Lutheran unity. In Germany you had further ecumenical talks about the Lord's Supper in the 20th Century. And Germany became somewhat of a pacemaker in the worldwide negotiations between Reformed and Lutherans. Important were the so-called Arnoldstein theses in 1957. That was an agreement by a commission of Reformed and Lutheran theologians that said, "Well, the differences between Lutherans and Reformed can be overcome." And from the Arnoldstein thesis I quote what they said about the Lord's Supper. The words which our Lord Jesus Christ speaks when he offers the bread and the cup tell us what he himself gives to all who comes to this supper. "He the crucified and risen Lord permits himself to be taken in his body and blood given and shed for all through his word of promise with the bread and wine and grants us participation by virtue of the Holy Spirit in the victory of his lordship so that we believing in his promise may receive forgiveness of sins, life and salvation." That's almost as long as that quote from the Council of Trent about Scripture and tradition. Not quite. But it's rather convoluted. If it sounds convoluted in English, it's actually because it's convoluted in German. And you see how they try to mix together the two traditions. There are certain statements that sound pretty good for a Lutheran. Okay, he gives himself to all who come to the supper. That directs us to that idea that everybody receives Christ for your blood. The eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood also by the unbelievers. What is called in Latin the ***mandu cachum indenorum you find that in the Formula of Concord Solid Declaration at 7. Okay. He permits himself to be taken in his body and blood shed for all. What exactly does that mean? Through his word of promise with the bread and wine. So if you want to, you can interpret it in a Lutheran way. But you don't have to interpret. And that's part of the problem with a lot of these ecumenical consensus documents. They are ambiguous. Or as some people would say, they are a compromise in a formula only. But the matters, really the issues, have not been dealt with. So when the Arnoldstein -- theses were published, they were received kind of lukewarm in Germany. The confessional Lutherans didn't like them. And the Reformed said: Well, yeah, we can accept them. But of course only if we understand them that there is no eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood by the unbelievers. And of course there is no talk about consecration. Because when it says that he himself permits himself to be taken in his body and blood given and shed for all through his word of promise, a Lutheran like Peter ***Bulna said: Here we have the doctrine of consecration, that the Words of Institution actually do something, that they create the presence of Christ's body and blood. And ***Vernon Easel, who was one of the participants on the Reformed side said: By no means. Of course we don't believe that. That's just Roman Catholic. So you see as long as the Lutherans and the Reformed left the table, they again interpreted it totally different and there was no true unity. But the pressure was just so big in Germany to come to some kind of a common statement. Especially because through the events of World War II you had many people who grew up in united churches and were now living in Lutheran churches. Because in the eastern part of Germany, that became part of Soviet Union and part of Poland. You had 12 million displaced people. So they live now suddenly in Lutheran territories. But they are not Lutheran. And there was no provision that they could join a united or Reformed Synod. So there was just such a big pressure from the base. And also since all of the Protestant churches were united in the Evangelical church in Germany, there was a pressure for intercommunion. So that went on. And that led to a statement, the so-called ***Loinberg Concord. Loinberg was a town in Switzerland. This was not just a German enterprise but it was a European enterprise. It was the Concord of churches of the Reformation in Europe which was published in 1973. The Loinberg Concord says in the Lord's Supper the risen Christ imparts himself in his body and blood given up for all through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thereby grants us forgiveness of sins and sets us free for a new life of faith. He enables us experience anew that we are members of his body. He strengthens us for service to all men. When you hear that, it sounds again much like the Arnoldstein thesis and of course the Loinberg Concord is dependent on the Arnoldstein theses. So the same problems that arise out of the Arnoldstein theses are in the Loinberg Concord. And that's why the confessional Lutheran free church, the ***sisolic churches of the Missouri Synod in Germany did not agree with the Arnoldstein thesis or the Loinberg Concord. They saw this as a sellout. They saw it as a theology that really avoids the kind of tough questions that were debated between Lutherans and Reformed. For example, one of these tough questions is: What is the bread and the wine in the Lord's Supper? And there is no unambiguous confession. It's the body and blood of Christ. It's a true body and blood of Christ. Truly and substantially. So the Loinberg Concord nevertheless were accepted by many churches in Europe, almost all churches that were either of the Reformed tradition or the Lutheran tradition. And even beyond that. There was even a Methodist church in South America that subscribed to that. The dialogues between Lutherans and Reformed in the United States used German dialogues. And in 1997 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ended into an agreement with the churches of the Reformed tradition called a formula of agreement, which established intercommunion between the ELCA and the UCC and the Reformed church in America and the Presbyterian Church in the United States. And quoting from this statement a major focus of the condemnations was the issue of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Lutheran and Reformed Christians need to be assured that in their common understanding of the sacraments, the Word of God is not compromised. Therefore, they insist on consensus among their churches and certain aspects of doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper. In that regard Lutheran and Reformed Christians recalling the issues addressed by the conversations agree that in the Lord's Supper the risen Christ imparts himself in his body and blood given for all through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thus gives himself unreservedly to all who received the bread and wine. Faith receives the Lord's Supper for salvation. Unfaith for judgement. That's a direct quote from the Loinberg agreement. Another quote from there: We cannot separate Communion with Jesus Christ in his body and blood from the act of eating and drinking. It's the act of eating and drinking. It's not the elements. To be concerned about the manner of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper in abstraction from this act is to run the risk of obscuring the meaning of the Lord's Supper. Also a quote from the Loinberg Concord. So the basis of church fellowship between the ELCA and these three churches of the Reformed tradition are the European dialogues between Lutherans and Reformed. And it's quite amazing that there hasn't been this much of original theological work. Actually most of it is an exception of what was done in Europe. Now, the magical formula to get all of the problems out of the way is really "Well, we shouldn't really discuss the manner of Christ's presence." And that's not a new formula. But that's really pretty old. So Lutherans and Reformed agree that Christ is present. They just don't agree on the how he is present. I do think that is really a trick out of a pretty old hat. You try to find a common denominator and then you say: Well, we agree on that. Well, Republicans and Democrats really agree on that because they think democracy is a great thing. So what's the big fuss about all of these differences? I mean, they are agreeing on the essential things so they are really one. Well, you know in Germany you say the devil is in the detail. Details do matter. And that's one of the things that you have to be reminded of. You can't make Christianity in some kind of bland general formula because what you get is a pretty bland Christianity. And Jesus didn't say, "By the way, I am present with you in the Lord's Supper." He spoke about this bread being his body and this cup being the New Testament in his blood. So to dissolve that into some kind of a personal presence might get you into a formula everybody can agree on. But of course it's so general that it doesn't really catch what the text says. And again it's about the text. It's about the Words of Institution. It's not just "Well we are Lutheran and we want to be right." It is: Does that do justice to the Words of Institution? I do think that one of culprits for the watering down of the Lutheran doctrine on the Lord's Supper is historical criticism. I quoted before John ***Royman who said: Well, we can't really know what Jesus said in the night when he was betrayed. Well, if that's your starting position of course then it's absolutely meaningless to insist "Well, you have to say this is the body of Christ. This is the blood of Christ." Because we don't know. Afterall what the Lord's Supper is about is Jesus comes and has fellowship with you. Well, true. But not enough. It is a specific fellowship. Now, Jesus has fellowship with you through baptism because you are now incorporated into his body. He has fellowship with you when you hear a sermon because there he is speaking to you. He has fellowship with you when you read the Bible because that is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ speaks to you and you hear his voice. That's why we stand up for the Gospel reading because we say it's not just a historical narrative but it's the voice of the living Christ. The specific thing about the Lord's Supper is not that Christ is there. But it is actually that -- the way how he is there. That he is there giving his body and blood. And any attempt to unite churches or to come to an agreement between churches that kind of glides over this specificity of the Lord's Supper again empties the Lord's Supper. And you end up with: Oh, Jesus is here. Well, you know, I can go into my closet and pray because Jesus is there, too. So why the heck should I go to the Lord's Supper? There is a different mode and specific mode in which Christ comes to us in the Lord's Supper. And the Lutheran Reformed dialogues in my opinion have not really resolved the issue. What happened was that the Lutheran position shifted. It shifted mostly due to the fact that the Lutherans were no longer convinced that the Words of Institution mean that what the Lutherans confessed in Augsburg in the Small Catechism and in the Formula of Concord. Of course also the Reformed have changed. If you go to a PCUSA church, you will not find the Geneva of John Calvin there. The Reformed also have changed, for example, in that way that they no longer talk about this dualism in the Lord's Supper, that we have the elements and then the soul in faith through the Holy Spirit goes up into heaven and sacramentally eats Christ's body and blood. We look for therefore a picture where neither the Lutherans nor the Reformed are faithful to their confessions in the 16th Century. And they are free to do so. Okay? They are free to do so. Just don't tell us at the same time that you are faithful. That you haven't given up. I mean, just be honest about these things and say: We have changed. We don't believe these things anymore. We know better. Because Scripture speaks to us in a new way. But to maintain that you can be a faithful subscriber to the Formula of Concord and to adhere to the Loinberg Concord is just ridiculous in my view. And it is dishonest. So if the ELCA finds agreement with the Reformed, that's fine. But the price is they depart from the historic confessions of the Lutheran Church. And therefore that's one of the reasons why at the 2001 convention of the Missouri Synod, there was this harsh resolution calling the ELCA a heterodox church. Now that sounds nasty. It's name calling. But it just states a fact. That if you use the measure of the confessions, the ELCA does no longer live up to it. And that's not nasty. They call us fundamentalists. It's not retaliating. It's just saying if you use that measure, then you have to say you don't live up to that standard. That's really all we are saying. This does not mean that every member in the ELCA is a heretic. There are good people there. They are caught in a denomination that is going downhill fast. And you just have to read some of the material that's coming out of the more conservative quarters of the ELCA to realize quite a lot of opposition in the ELCA. It's not a time to be ***delevo or as the Germans have this word ***shadenfoid. That means you're happy because somebody else falls into the ditch. It's rather a time for a Soranus and an admonition to us how fast things can go downhill. Because we have no monopoly that everything will remain well with us. But to remain faithful to the Gospel is a continual struggle. And it only can happen when we continually apply ourselves to the Word of God and evaluate all positions at the Word of God. You can't inherit faith and you can't inherit being a confessional Lutheran. In that sense every generation has to struggle anew to make that his own or her own what was handed down from the fathers.