While it is correct that the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) are not currently in "full communion," they maintain a close relationship, and the ACNA/NALC Ecumenical Consultation has proposed the term "sister churches" to describe it. This status reflects a deep commitment to shared missional efforts and theological dialogue.
Regarding the assertion that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it is crucial to highlight that this interpretation is contested. Many within the Anglo-Catholic tradition and other theological perspectives within Anglicanism would deny that interpretation. This is evidenced by the cooperation between the NALC and ACNA in academic and ecclesiastical settings, such as the North American Lutheran Seminary (NALS) being housed at Trinity Anglican Seminary (formerly Trinity School for Ministry). Faculty at this institution, including Lutherans, must sign an affirmation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, indicating a broader acceptance and interpretation that aligns with Lutheran Eucharistic theology. Furthermore, as you already know, it is important to note that the Thirty-Nine Articles do not serve as a binding confessional standard for Anglicans in the same way that the Book of Concord does for Lutherans.
Furthermore, it is inaccurate to state that no discussions have taken place regarding Eucharistic theology between the two bodies. The ACNA/NALC Ecumenical Consultation produced a significant joint pastoral affirmation of Holy Communion in 2017, which affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This document, overwhelmingly supported by the ACNA College of Bishops, explicitly states:
"We believe that at the heart of the Gospel is the person of Jesus Christ, in the totality of his incarnation, death, and resurrection. 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 1:14). As the Word, Jesus Christ is the principal subject of Scripture, and now speaks through Scripture. As the Word, he gives his flesh and blood to us, broken and poured out in the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:28; Acts 2:42)."
"We take Jesus at his word when he said, 'This is my body…. This is my blood' (Matthew 26:26-28). St. Paul affirms this when he states, 'The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?' (1 Corinthians 10:16)."
"Jesus Christ is present in both his divinity and humanity in the Sacrament. By Christ’s promise and the power of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Jesus are present in the earthly elements of bread and wine."
This affirmation underscores a shared belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, bridging the theological expressions of both the NALC and ACNA. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that joint worship and Holy Communion between the two bodies occur without doctrinal consideration or mutual understanding.
While I applaud the ACNA's attempts to return to Biblical Orthodoxy regarding the Sacrament of the Altar and long to see a sustained and continued effort in this direction, I have to object to the supposition that there is no more work to be done and that our Communions have reached full agreement in this matter. In this respect, I find your contentions to be equally, if not more, "misleading".
I can say this because I have recently partially taught a Continuing Education course for the NALS and in order to do so, I was asked to sign on to a Statement of Faith that was decidedly opposed to our Lutheran teaching in the Formula of Concord in two respects at least: to wit, the language in the statement upheld the typically Calvinist denial of the manducatio impiorum and manducatio oralis - that is - the "eating of the unworthy" and the "oral eating" of the Sacrament.
Granted, the NALS and Trinity School for Ministry did allow me to stipulate that I would not teach in accord with the doctrinal position of the school in these respects. But this is definitive proof that we do not - formally at least - share the same Confession regarding the reality of the Sacrament of the Altar. And this is a cause for concern.
Regarding your statement regarding the 39 Articles, that these are not "binding" for Anglicans - this is more cause for concern. What does this Communion confess? It would seem that there are, again, formally speaking, multiple and mutually exclusive teachings that are acceptable in the ACNA. And, regarding the tolerable Anglo Catholic positions in respect to the 39 Articles... all I can say is that initial Anglo Catholic somersaults around the stated position of the Articles is hardly convincing to this particular Lutheran - not in terms of Anglo Catholic sincerity, but in terms of their position being commensurate with the stated doctrine of these Articles. Although I have read Newman's own attempt to deal with them, and some of the Tractarian literature that followed his lead, I come away with the impression that this is sophistic. Perhaps there are more convincing accounts of how Anglo Catholic conviction and the 39 Articles meet and do not militate against one another, but I have not seen them.
The critical questions remain: do unbelievers actually eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, substantially and truly, or are they unavailable to unbelievers, despite Christ's clear Words that "this is my body, this is my blood"; Orthodox Lutherans will always recourse to the clear Words of Christ's Institution and not to try to spirit away the body and blood that Christ Himself makes available.
Further, you admit that the 39 Articles are not "binding" for the consciences of Anglicans. If this is so, what is binding? We Lutherans can't determine this for the Anglicans. But they should be clear about what it is that they do and do not believe. How can a body of Christians enter into altar and pulpit fellowship if they do not agree about this primary issue of the faith?
For Orthodox Lutherans, it is a primary matter of doctrine. As Luther has said, "The Sacrament [of the Altar] is the Gospel".
I will, of course, readily admit that our own Communicants do not always hold to our Communion's stated doctrine regarding the Sacrament, but this is not due to unclarity in our Confessions, but is due, at least in part, to our inability to consistently teach and hold forth these Confessions publicly. For this, we Lutherans in the NALC should be penitent. The pastorate especially is responsible for this defection, and it is lamentable.
I largely concur with what Christopher has said here.
To the requirement concerning Lutherans employed by (and attending?) NALS and their affirmation of the Articles. While it's praiseworthy that Trinity would take its own governing documents and doctrinal position seriously (who could blame them, I am calling for the same thing here!), it seems that, from the Lutheran side, this is a disclosure in which the NALC, its congregations, and its ministerium would have an interest. I'm not aware of any such disclosure outside the comment above. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist; I might just be unaware. But if there wasn't any public discussion of this at the time NALS came home to Trinity, nor any in the time since, it would seem to confirm the fears underlined in this piece – namely, that Lutherans have forgotten how to passionately engage doctrinal issues which, in the not-so-distant past, were deemed worth engaging with wisdom, knowledge, and precision. I’m not so naïve to be unaware that institutional inertia is a powerful force. It often keeps people doing just what they think that they’ve always been doing (even if it’s not). And the hospitality of Trinity following exit from the ELCA was indeed a welcome change I’m sure.
As for the Four Pastoral and Educational Affirmations, notice that I did not say that there has been no discussion of the Lord's Supper between representatives of the ACNA and the NALC. What I did say is that there has been no public discussion internal to the NALC – of which I'm aware – about the doctrine of church fellowship and how that might inform the NALC's de facto intercommunion with the ACNA. The scriptural, confessional, and dogmatic dimensions of full communion and altar and pulpit fellowship have been touched upon in the two documents linked in the post. But to my knowledge they have been neither contested nor applied in connection to the question of intercommunion with the ACNA. At most, we might conclude that the "local" nature of selective fellowship set forth in the statement on "Altar and Pulpit Fellowship" leaves the issue up to individual and pastoral discretion.
Christopher is right in my judgment that the Affirmations do not resolve much. They are a starting point for local collaboration and conversation, not a conclusion arrived at by intellectuals in advance. I would go further to say that the Affirmations are inadequate, both in some of the things they affirm and in what they also decline to deny. As far as what they affirm, the connection to Passover is at best unclear and implies continuity between Passover and the Supper where Lutherans have tended to emphasize their discontinuity. The language of Christ present in “divinity and humanity” seems designed to assuage Lutheran concerns about Christ’s bodily presence. But such language is of Roman Catholic origin, and is often used to justify communion in only one kind, since Rome teaches that the whole Christ is received in the bread alone. This might seem like a minor objection, but its ramifications are significant since such language is used to justify disobeying Christ’s words, “take and drink.” That’s why I avoid it. Finally, what the Affirmations say about anamnesis echoes twentieth century Roman Catholic liturgical scholarship that used a certain kind of Platonism to explain the logic of eucharistic sacrifice. Such a concept of re-presentation runs against the clear confession of Melanchthon’s Apology and Luther’s Smalcald Articles.
But the real crux of the matter is what the Affirmations refuse to reject. This is important because the Lutheran confession of Christ's bodily presence in the bread and wine is not simply an affirmation. It is also a rejection of alternative formulations, as well as a rejection of minimal formulations designed to include various positions which are in reality contradictory. In the formation of the EKD following WWII, the Leuenberg Concord in the 70s, and the ELCA's Formula of Agreement in the 90s, it is this dimension of the Lutheran confession – that of affirmation as well as rejection – which has been discarded. There is in fact nothing in the Affirmations which excludes a spiritual rather than bodily presence of Christ in the Supper. It doesn't really exclude a Lutheran understanding of the Supper either (as I take the Articles plainly to do). But precisely because it consists only of mutual affirmations, omitting further clarifications concerning the bodily eating of the ungodly and all necessary rejections, then I can only conclude that the statement is not Lutheran, but Reformed.
The further conclusion to which this leads me is a sad one. It would mean that the barrier to intercommunion and full communion is impossibly high, since for the ACNA to embrace Christ’s real presence would mean to exclude – both formally and in practice – anything less than what the Lutheran Confessions make so clear. That is, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are Christ’s body and blood, such that all communicants – both believing and unbelieving – receive the body and blood of Christ by the mouth. To the believing, faith receives all the benefits which Christ attaches to his body and blood – forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. To the unbelieving, they eat and drink the Lord’s body and blood unto their judgment.
But this rather sad conclusion should not be surprising. Many Lutherans have historically thought that unity in doctrine and practice – however restrictively one construes the two – are prerequisites for church fellowship. Lutherans in America have litigated the proper confession of Christ’s bodily presence within their own churches and synods in the past, as evidenced by the controversies around S.S. Schmucker which led to the Galesburg Rule in the first place. It would be entirely inconsistent, if not hypocritical, to require one thing of Lutheran pastors (what the Book of Concord teaches) and tolerate another position (a Reformed understanding of the Supper) within the big tent of full communion or intercommunion. It would also be an unfortunate betrayal of our ancestors in the Christian faith who contended for a clear confession of the gospel and the sacraments.
The present position of the NALC appears inconsistent, regardless. On the one hand, the NALC formally maintains selective fellowship with those who share our understanding of Christ’s real presence. In practice, the NALC shares intercommunion with those who might, or might not, hold that view. Since many LGBT affirming clergy and laity of the ELCA would give great Small Catechism answers to questions about the Supper, selective fellowship appears to have some rather arbitrary strings attached – since the NALC does not understand itself to be in communion with the ELCA. Unfortunately, the simplest conclusion one can draw from this is that the NALC has made adherence to traditional marriage as its rule of intercommunion. Important though that surely is, this comes at the expense of the myriad biblical and theological considerations well-understood by previous generations of Lutherans in the NALC’s family tree. All I can say is that I find this an unfortunate and saddening situation, indeed.
You're right that there is a general boredom with theological issues in the NALC. I can't figure out how to feel about that myself, even as a guy who came to the NALC out of the "too Missourian for Missouri" Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod. I miss theological discussions charged with exegetical expertise immensely, but I also saw such discussions playing a central role in Wisconsin's Matthew 23 problem. You better be darn sure when you bind a conscience in Jesus' name. Churches in general have been sure at times when they should not have been simply due to the fact that they thought they were defending truth or Jesus' honor by answering a question they thought had been settled in the past only later to realize it wasn't quite settled properly or it wasn't quite the same question.
John,
While it is correct that the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) are not currently in "full communion," they maintain a close relationship, and the ACNA/NALC Ecumenical Consultation has proposed the term "sister churches" to describe it. This status reflects a deep commitment to shared missional efforts and theological dialogue.
Regarding the assertion that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it is crucial to highlight that this interpretation is contested. Many within the Anglo-Catholic tradition and other theological perspectives within Anglicanism would deny that interpretation. This is evidenced by the cooperation between the NALC and ACNA in academic and ecclesiastical settings, such as the North American Lutheran Seminary (NALS) being housed at Trinity Anglican Seminary (formerly Trinity School for Ministry). Faculty at this institution, including Lutherans, must sign an affirmation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, indicating a broader acceptance and interpretation that aligns with Lutheran Eucharistic theology. Furthermore, as you already know, it is important to note that the Thirty-Nine Articles do not serve as a binding confessional standard for Anglicans in the same way that the Book of Concord does for Lutherans.
Furthermore, it is inaccurate to state that no discussions have taken place regarding Eucharistic theology between the two bodies. The ACNA/NALC Ecumenical Consultation produced a significant joint pastoral affirmation of Holy Communion in 2017, which affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This document, overwhelmingly supported by the ACNA College of Bishops, explicitly states:
"We believe that at the heart of the Gospel is the person of Jesus Christ, in the totality of his incarnation, death, and resurrection. 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 1:14). As the Word, Jesus Christ is the principal subject of Scripture, and now speaks through Scripture. As the Word, he gives his flesh and blood to us, broken and poured out in the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:28; Acts 2:42)."
"We take Jesus at his word when he said, 'This is my body…. This is my blood' (Matthew 26:26-28). St. Paul affirms this when he states, 'The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?' (1 Corinthians 10:16)."
"Jesus Christ is present in both his divinity and humanity in the Sacrament. By Christ’s promise and the power of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Jesus are present in the earthly elements of bread and wine."
This affirmation underscores a shared belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, bridging the theological expressions of both the NALC and ACNA. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that joint worship and Holy Communion between the two bodies occur without doctrinal consideration or mutual understanding.
Andrew,
While I applaud the ACNA's attempts to return to Biblical Orthodoxy regarding the Sacrament of the Altar and long to see a sustained and continued effort in this direction, I have to object to the supposition that there is no more work to be done and that our Communions have reached full agreement in this matter. In this respect, I find your contentions to be equally, if not more, "misleading".
I can say this because I have recently partially taught a Continuing Education course for the NALS and in order to do so, I was asked to sign on to a Statement of Faith that was decidedly opposed to our Lutheran teaching in the Formula of Concord in two respects at least: to wit, the language in the statement upheld the typically Calvinist denial of the manducatio impiorum and manducatio oralis - that is - the "eating of the unworthy" and the "oral eating" of the Sacrament.
Granted, the NALS and Trinity School for Ministry did allow me to stipulate that I would not teach in accord with the doctrinal position of the school in these respects. But this is definitive proof that we do not - formally at least - share the same Confession regarding the reality of the Sacrament of the Altar. And this is a cause for concern.
Regarding your statement regarding the 39 Articles, that these are not "binding" for Anglicans - this is more cause for concern. What does this Communion confess? It would seem that there are, again, formally speaking, multiple and mutually exclusive teachings that are acceptable in the ACNA. And, regarding the tolerable Anglo Catholic positions in respect to the 39 Articles... all I can say is that initial Anglo Catholic somersaults around the stated position of the Articles is hardly convincing to this particular Lutheran - not in terms of Anglo Catholic sincerity, but in terms of their position being commensurate with the stated doctrine of these Articles. Although I have read Newman's own attempt to deal with them, and some of the Tractarian literature that followed his lead, I come away with the impression that this is sophistic. Perhaps there are more convincing accounts of how Anglo Catholic conviction and the 39 Articles meet and do not militate against one another, but I have not seen them.
The critical questions remain: do unbelievers actually eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, substantially and truly, or are they unavailable to unbelievers, despite Christ's clear Words that "this is my body, this is my blood"; Orthodox Lutherans will always recourse to the clear Words of Christ's Institution and not to try to spirit away the body and blood that Christ Himself makes available.
Further, you admit that the 39 Articles are not "binding" for the consciences of Anglicans. If this is so, what is binding? We Lutherans can't determine this for the Anglicans. But they should be clear about what it is that they do and do not believe. How can a body of Christians enter into altar and pulpit fellowship if they do not agree about this primary issue of the faith?
For Orthodox Lutherans, it is a primary matter of doctrine. As Luther has said, "The Sacrament [of the Altar] is the Gospel".
I will, of course, readily admit that our own Communicants do not always hold to our Communion's stated doctrine regarding the Sacrament, but this is not due to unclarity in our Confessions, but is due, at least in part, to our inability to consistently teach and hold forth these Confessions publicly. For this, we Lutherans in the NALC should be penitent. The pastorate especially is responsible for this defection, and it is lamentable.
I largely concur with what Christopher has said here.
To the requirement concerning Lutherans employed by (and attending?) NALS and their affirmation of the Articles. While it's praiseworthy that Trinity would take its own governing documents and doctrinal position seriously (who could blame them, I am calling for the same thing here!), it seems that, from the Lutheran side, this is a disclosure in which the NALC, its congregations, and its ministerium would have an interest. I'm not aware of any such disclosure outside the comment above. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist; I might just be unaware. But if there wasn't any public discussion of this at the time NALS came home to Trinity, nor any in the time since, it would seem to confirm the fears underlined in this piece – namely, that Lutherans have forgotten how to passionately engage doctrinal issues which, in the not-so-distant past, were deemed worth engaging with wisdom, knowledge, and precision. I’m not so naïve to be unaware that institutional inertia is a powerful force. It often keeps people doing just what they think that they’ve always been doing (even if it’s not). And the hospitality of Trinity following exit from the ELCA was indeed a welcome change I’m sure.
As for the Four Pastoral and Educational Affirmations, notice that I did not say that there has been no discussion of the Lord's Supper between representatives of the ACNA and the NALC. What I did say is that there has been no public discussion internal to the NALC – of which I'm aware – about the doctrine of church fellowship and how that might inform the NALC's de facto intercommunion with the ACNA. The scriptural, confessional, and dogmatic dimensions of full communion and altar and pulpit fellowship have been touched upon in the two documents linked in the post. But to my knowledge they have been neither contested nor applied in connection to the question of intercommunion with the ACNA. At most, we might conclude that the "local" nature of selective fellowship set forth in the statement on "Altar and Pulpit Fellowship" leaves the issue up to individual and pastoral discretion.
Christopher is right in my judgment that the Affirmations do not resolve much. They are a starting point for local collaboration and conversation, not a conclusion arrived at by intellectuals in advance. I would go further to say that the Affirmations are inadequate, both in some of the things they affirm and in what they also decline to deny. As far as what they affirm, the connection to Passover is at best unclear and implies continuity between Passover and the Supper where Lutherans have tended to emphasize their discontinuity. The language of Christ present in “divinity and humanity” seems designed to assuage Lutheran concerns about Christ’s bodily presence. But such language is of Roman Catholic origin, and is often used to justify communion in only one kind, since Rome teaches that the whole Christ is received in the bread alone. This might seem like a minor objection, but its ramifications are significant since such language is used to justify disobeying Christ’s words, “take and drink.” That’s why I avoid it. Finally, what the Affirmations say about anamnesis echoes twentieth century Roman Catholic liturgical scholarship that used a certain kind of Platonism to explain the logic of eucharistic sacrifice. Such a concept of re-presentation runs against the clear confession of Melanchthon’s Apology and Luther’s Smalcald Articles.
But the real crux of the matter is what the Affirmations refuse to reject. This is important because the Lutheran confession of Christ's bodily presence in the bread and wine is not simply an affirmation. It is also a rejection of alternative formulations, as well as a rejection of minimal formulations designed to include various positions which are in reality contradictory. In the formation of the EKD following WWII, the Leuenberg Concord in the 70s, and the ELCA's Formula of Agreement in the 90s, it is this dimension of the Lutheran confession – that of affirmation as well as rejection – which has been discarded. There is in fact nothing in the Affirmations which excludes a spiritual rather than bodily presence of Christ in the Supper. It doesn't really exclude a Lutheran understanding of the Supper either (as I take the Articles plainly to do). But precisely because it consists only of mutual affirmations, omitting further clarifications concerning the bodily eating of the ungodly and all necessary rejections, then I can only conclude that the statement is not Lutheran, but Reformed.
The further conclusion to which this leads me is a sad one. It would mean that the barrier to intercommunion and full communion is impossibly high, since for the ACNA to embrace Christ’s real presence would mean to exclude – both formally and in practice – anything less than what the Lutheran Confessions make so clear. That is, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are Christ’s body and blood, such that all communicants – both believing and unbelieving – receive the body and blood of Christ by the mouth. To the believing, faith receives all the benefits which Christ attaches to his body and blood – forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. To the unbelieving, they eat and drink the Lord’s body and blood unto their judgment.
But this rather sad conclusion should not be surprising. Many Lutherans have historically thought that unity in doctrine and practice – however restrictively one construes the two – are prerequisites for church fellowship. Lutherans in America have litigated the proper confession of Christ’s bodily presence within their own churches and synods in the past, as evidenced by the controversies around S.S. Schmucker which led to the Galesburg Rule in the first place. It would be entirely inconsistent, if not hypocritical, to require one thing of Lutheran pastors (what the Book of Concord teaches) and tolerate another position (a Reformed understanding of the Supper) within the big tent of full communion or intercommunion. It would also be an unfortunate betrayal of our ancestors in the Christian faith who contended for a clear confession of the gospel and the sacraments.
The present position of the NALC appears inconsistent, regardless. On the one hand, the NALC formally maintains selective fellowship with those who share our understanding of Christ’s real presence. In practice, the NALC shares intercommunion with those who might, or might not, hold that view. Since many LGBT affirming clergy and laity of the ELCA would give great Small Catechism answers to questions about the Supper, selective fellowship appears to have some rather arbitrary strings attached – since the NALC does not understand itself to be in communion with the ELCA. Unfortunately, the simplest conclusion one can draw from this is that the NALC has made adherence to traditional marriage as its rule of intercommunion. Important though that surely is, this comes at the expense of the myriad biblical and theological considerations well-understood by previous generations of Lutherans in the NALC’s family tree. All I can say is that I find this an unfortunate and saddening situation, indeed.
–JWH
You're right that there is a general boredom with theological issues in the NALC. I can't figure out how to feel about that myself, even as a guy who came to the NALC out of the "too Missourian for Missouri" Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod. I miss theological discussions charged with exegetical expertise immensely, but I also saw such discussions playing a central role in Wisconsin's Matthew 23 problem. You better be darn sure when you bind a conscience in Jesus' name. Churches in general have been sure at times when they should not have been simply due to the fact that they thought they were defending truth or Jesus' honor by answering a question they thought had been settled in the past only later to realize it wasn't quite settled properly or it wasn't quite the same question.