The Galesburg Rule

By John Hoyum

In 1997, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) published a teaching document called The Use of the Means of Grace. As its title suggests, the document sets forth principles and applications for how churches of the ELCA should attend to the preaching of the gospel and the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Therein, concerning the Lord’s Supper, the document articulates a view of “eucharistic hospitality” which effectively amounts to open communion to the baptized. The document states that, “All baptized persons are welcome to Communion when they are visiting congregations of this church” (p. 85). Likewise, “Because of the universal nature of the church, Lutherans may participate in the eucharistic services of other Christian churches” (p. 86).

Interestingly, the document restricts the participation of clergy in the services of other churches to those with whom a reciprocal relationship prevails (p. 87). This would mean, I suppose, that ELCA clergy can only participate in the worship services of other churches if the ELCA is in full communion with the church body in question. Many NALC congregations are served by retired ELCA clergy for pulpit supply or vacancy coverage. On the basis of The Use of the Means of Grace, this might be looked upon with disapproval by their synod bishops.

It’s notable, therefore, that in the pastoral letter of Bp. John Bradosky, dated October of 2014, he admonishes the NALC concerning the necessity of baptism prior to receiving the sacrament. He also requests that a statement be included in the bulletins of all NALC churches – or that a verbal announcement along the same lines be read. Here, Bradosky limits who may receive somewhat more restrictively The Use of the Means of Grace does. It reads: “All are welcome to receive the Lord’s Body and Blood who are baptized and believe that Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, is truly present in, with and under the forms of bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.” This stipulation that only those who share a Lutheran understanding of the real presence are to commune represents a partial closure of the door on open communion – thrown open previously by the ELCA and its immediate predecessors.

The old Galesburg Rule (1875) – that Lutheran pulpits are for Lutheran pastors only, and that Lutheran altars are for Lutheran communicants only – hasn’t been retrieved explicitly in this case. A good Roman Catholic could presumably subscribe to such a statement. And many Anglicans – the kind that don’t hew too closely to the Thirty-Nine Articles – probably could too. But it’s conspicuous that Bp. Bradosky’s requested statement tacitly authorizes more pastoral discretion around the altar than has recently been the norm in many NALC churches. I take that to be a great thing, since open communion so frequently makes the sacrament into an afterthought, rather than a gift received in faith, repentance, and after self-examination (1 Cor. 11:28–29).

The context in which the Galesburg Rule was articulated was quite different from our own. It’s application by the various churches which adhered to it was also divergent well into the twentieth century. For example, the Minneapolis Theses (1925) emphasize that altar and pulpit fellowship requires unity in both doctrine and practice. This parallels the hallmark emphasis of the Missouri Synod’s strict understanding of orthodox and heterodox fellowship. The main thing at that point separating the American Lutheran Conference (those “middle synods” which would eventually become the American Lutheran Church, or ALC) from the LCMS was the status of secondary doctrinal issues – which Missouri did not, and does not, permit.

On the other hand, selective fellowship became common in the Norwegian Lutheran Church in America (the Evangelical Lutheran Church, or ELC, after 1944). The Galesburg Rule would be understood in that case to authorize congregations, pastors, and individuals to share altar and pulpit fellowship apart from formal agreements on a discretionary basis. Thus, the rule of the Minneapolis Theses requiring unity in primary doctrines and practice decayed significantly by the time The American Lutheran Church (TALC) was formed in 1960.

I am less familiar with the history of the Galesburg Rule in the eastern synods and can’t comment on its application there. But I do know that for many, the rule could be distinguished from Walther’s view of church fellowship because it did not necessarily include the matter of practice. In other words, church fellowship agreements might be deemed unnecessary altogether because of adherence to the Augsburg Confession. Therefore, all churches subscribing to the Augustana would, on this view, already share fellowship in principle. But for the old Synodical Conference and the middle synods seeking a third way between eastern Lutheranism and Missouri, church fellowship remained an important doctrine well into the twentieth century. It remains so for what’s left of the Synodical Conference. And for the predecessors of TALC, the Galesburg Rule informed how they thought about this doctrine – though at times inconsistently.

How might we characterize the NALC’s situation today? By examining the NALC’s statement “Altar and Pulpit Fellowship” (2013), it’s clear that a loose adherence to something akin to Galesburg prevails. This document endorses local, selective fellowship discerned by the “leadership of the respective congregations.” Likewise, if the pastor and congregation approve, “pastors of other Lutheran church bodies may teach, preach, and administer the sacraments” in NALC congregations. Presumably this would include ELCA clergy deemed sufficiently orthodox, or pastors of LCMC.

The “Statement on Full Communion” (2013) issued by the Joint Commission on Theology and Doctrine (now the Commission on Theology and Doctrine, or CTD) indicates that a full communion agreement might include some sort of statement on “specific major issues of doctrine and practice.” What the statement doesn’t address is what a “major” issue of doctrine or practice might be. Presumably, credal orthodoxy would be a major point of doctrine. But what about the real presence? Or the saving character of baptism? When TALC initiated interim eucharistic sharing with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Reformed Church in America in the 1980s, the rationale offered by President David Preus was that disagreements about the sacraments could be litigated within altar and pulpit fellowship. The legacy of the ELCA’s ecumenical ventures has, I think, proven that this was a mistaken presumption.

Practically speaking, the main issue surrounding church fellowship today in the NALC is its murky relationship with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). I hear frequently from ACNA clergy that we already have full communion between our two bodies – but this is news to me. A “specific major” issue of doctrine that would need to be addressed is the denial of the real presence in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Such discussion hasn’t so far happened, but it should. This is especially the case since joint worship including Holy Communion between the ACNA and the NALC already happens, and yet this could – on my interpretation – be prohibited by the very communion statement issued by Bradosky in 2014. Even in the case of selective fellowship, is the NALC going to quiz Anglican visitors to summer convocation on the Small Catechism’s teaching on the Sacrament of the Altar? The practical problems only multiply from there.

It's possible that pressing such an issue would be met with dismissal – along with charges of “Missourianism.” But, as I’ve laid out here, the application of the Galesburg Rule in some of the NALC’s predecessor bodies could be charged with the same. Indeed, the middle synods understood themselves to be crafting a third way “between” the Synodical Conference and eastern Lutheranism, and yet still insisted in the Minneapolis Theses that church fellowship was important and that it ought to be grounded in unity of both doctrine and practice. That is how they sought to situate themselves in the American Lutheran scene, taking the same lane that the NALC now occupies. If the NALC wants to take up the “center” of American Lutheranism as it claims, attending to the issue of church fellowship and its history can help us find where that center actually is. In my judgment it’s further “to the right” than many today would like to admit.

Unfortunately, these practical and theological problems are unlikely to merit much attention or interest. I find that prospect disappointing above all because ambiguity, permissiveness, and boredom with theology lie at the heart of the problem the NALC was designed to solve. Moreover, laxity and indifference are just plain uninspiring.