McCain: Jacob, perhaps you can review my responses to the previous comments if you truly don’t seen any “significance” in the EKD decision. And the only reason I removed the remark about Wendenbourg is so as not to distract from the main point of the article. The concern is very much valid and I believe WordAlone needs seriously to consider why/how this person’s continuing involvement in the WordAlone movement as a ‘theological advisor’ is ultimately helpful.

According to a speech given by Bishop W. Huber of Berlin, the presiding bishop of the EKD, on the occasion of the beginning of the Luther Decade last September in Wittenberg, Luther is received as a proclaimer of freedom: freedom from sin by faith, freedom for service in love. That’s certainly a central aspect of Luther’s proclamation and work and quite a vast topic for study, reflection, and practice. And given the modern predilection for everything related to freedom and liberty, this is certain a good way to generate some fruitful discussions with the wider community outside the church.

This topic leads Huber to speak about the importance of God’s word, the bible, and education (Melanchthon’s importance for the reform of the German (and European) universities is duly noted) for Luther. Yet the other means of grace that were also very dear to Luther (and Christ), baptism and communion, are not mentioned, as they would be too controversial within the EKD, as the most recent discussion on the Augsburg Confession shows.

This also then leads to silence about Luther as a penetrating teacher of the doctrine of Christ, which, as we know, would also have been quite controversial in the EKD and its blend of Reformed, Union, and Lutheran thinking. Yet this doctrine of Christ would be important, rewarding, and helpful for a fresh reconsideration and rediscovery not just in and by itself, but also for the reflection on what it means that God became man, that he deals with man through man in particular (vocations) and through creation in general (means of grace); that the human body matters to God from beginning to end. This too would have been helpful in Germany where more than 100,000 abortions are conducted every year; but understandably, this too would have been controversial, across the confessions.

Huber also speaks about the “priesthood of all believers,” and the elimination of spiritual differences between Christians based on one’s vocation that goes with it, which is certainly a worthy and important point to make when reflecting on Luther’s importance for us today. However, the ordained ministry, about which Luther also had good and important things to say, is not mentioned. A doctrine and appreciation of the “means” (see preceding paragr.) is not to be found in Huber’s presentation; focus is on the ends (freedom from / for; immediate access to God). Here the Augsburg Confession, its arts. five and fourteen spelling out and confessing this aspect of Luther’s rediscovery of God’s word, would also pose some challenges for the EKD today.

Then, finally reflecting on the ecumenical meaning of Luther’s reformation, he states: “The churches emerging from the reformation see themselves in continuity with the early church. Foundational for them all are, along with Holy Scripture, the confessions of the early church.” That’s right: the confessions of the early church is what the reformation churches have in common (and these they, of course, also have in common with the Roman Church). Not to over-interpret this brief statement, but clearly, he didn’t mention, e.g., Luther’s Small Catechism, that bible for the laity; he didn’t mention the highly irenic and highly ecumenical Augsburg Confession which even Calvin boasted to have signed, albeit in its altered version.

In summary, Luther – yes, Augsburg Confession – no. That seems to be the “official” EKD stance in this matter. Of course, as seen, the Luther that is loudly affirmed is not the whole Luther who wholly affirmed the Augsburg Confession which was among the first confessional summaries of his rediscoveries from God’s word.

In other words, the refusal to adopt the AC by the EKD can hide behind many a legal argument; but at the end of the day, “it’s the theology, stupid!” How you can be Lutheran and in fellowship with those who want to have Luther but not the Augsburg Confession continues to mystify me.

That said, and the criticisms made, for those who read German Huber’s speech is still a pretty good overview of Luther’s work and relevance for today in church and society. I wish we had something similar in this country from someone in a similar office today (quoting that good old 19th century stuff is good, but…) to lay out for us again the importance of Luther and his work for the church as a whole (maybe it exists and is just not known to me). Simply turning his momentous work into a call to be more active in missions can’t be the whole story, can it?

McCain response: Pastor Tibbetts, you are correct, EKD is not a member of the LWF. However, what difference does this *actually* make? It seems those who wish to take some small comfort in this fact are missing the larger picture of what the EKD is in the mind of the people of Germany: it is “church” to them, and they self-identify now not as Lutherans, but as “Protestants” or “Evangelicals.” The EKD web site itself surely does not help draw such fine distinctions. The fact that it is called “Kirche” speaks volumes. Further, as one reviews the EKD’s own self-description it difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to come away from the EKD’s web site with the impression that is is “merely” an organization, and not church. The way it describes its relationship to the ELCA, for example, is quite revealing as well. All in all, I believe that that what we have here are differences without meaningful distinctions, when it comes to what the EKD actually is and how it functions and is viewed by the vast majority of persons in Germany and elsewhere. Attempt to brush off the seriousness of their action to remove the AC as a foundational confession for the EKD with the assertion that “It’s never claimed to be a Lutheran Church” are, frankly, facile at best, and in the mouths of others, Pastor Tibbetts, not you of course, quite disingenuous and highly misleading.

I agree with you, Rev. McCain, about people in the US who think the EKD is Lutheran. That’s absurd — by its own definition, it’s Lutheran, Union, and Reformed. But I would hesitate to criticize Professor Wendebourg too harshly. The votum cites, for example, the fact that, although the member churches might have agreement on CA VII, CA continues, and article X on the Lord’s Supper would remain an issue that divides. The issue at debate was not whether to “become” — again or in the first place — a Lutheran church. The issue was whether, being what the EKD is, it could claim to be a Church of the Augsburg Confession. I would argue, they rightly – honestly – answered “no.”

McCain: Thank you Jacob, but I’m not sure I can agree with you. While the nuances of what the EKD is, and is not, may well be part of constituting documents or the finer nuances of what the EKD is and is not, in the popular mind, I believe these are differences without meaningful distinctions. It is interesting to note that the EKD’s web site lists the Augsburg Confession under the “Faith” link on its web site. Will they now be removing the AC from their “Faith” page, and would they also not be advised to remove Luther’s Small Catechism, in which there is a glaringly clear confession of the Supper?. See: http://www.ekd.de/english/augsburg_confession.html What I will say is that it is very helpful finally for the EKD to assert in a formal manner that it is NOT a church of the Augsburg Confession. When then has the most serious consequences, or should, for those churches that have declared themselves to be in full communion with the EKD, and still claim the AC as a normative doctrinal confession, for example, the ELCA, here in the United States.

As Thomas Wipf, the Swiss Reformed representative of the “Community of Protestant Churches in Europe” that is behind / a result of the Leuenberg Concord also pointed out in his opinion on the proposal now rejected: Reformed churches are more interested in “confessing” than in “confessions,” esp. historic ones.

This approach might not be new on the Reformed side; most recently, as correctly referenced by Wipf, it was reasserted by Karl Barth in the 1930s during the German “church struggle.” Bonhoeffer practically sided with Barth against Sasse in this question.

Now, taking all this into consideration, this raises a question for the Lutheran territorial churches in the EKD: are we really in agreement with the Reformed, as this was formulated over 30 years ago in the Leuenberg Concord? One can’t even agree with them, or with some of their representatives, on what a confession is, it being much more “fluid” on the Reformed than on the Lutheran side. Maybe, then, the consensus formulated back in the 1970s is, today, no longer existent? Maybe one has, on the Lutheran side, become equally fluid in this confessing business and developed with the Reformed, but away from the Unaltered Augsburg Confession?

It’s almost like making the Joint Declaration on Justification the basis for a union with Rome. Let’s say the Catholics went along with it, which they probably never will, imagine the surprise on the Lutheran side when the Catholics, when asked to adopt the Augsburg Confession, say no. But I thought we were in agreement on “the gospel”???

Now, I think, in order to have fellowship between churches, it is not absolutely necessary that they have the same confessional writings in their constitutions etc. The main point is not: do you adopt the Augsburg Confession but do you confess the teachings confessed therein? Back in the 19th century, Missouri Lutherans, who had adopted the entire Book of Concord, did not have a problem with confessional Lutherans from Scandinavia who had not “officially” adopted the Formula of Concord, but they confessed the teachings presented therein.

This is why Lutherans can claim fellowship over time and place with Christians who’ve never even heard of the Augsburg Confession and the other “Lutheran” statements of faith (in part, because they lived before the 16th century), because the issue has never been: you MUST have these and these statements, but: you must confess the gospel in all its articles. If you do that in a way that agrees with what we have recognized and confessed the biblical truth to be, take our hand of fellowship. And if that’s truly the case, then we can adopt their statements of faith, and they can adopt ours, which is the honest second step to take.

And this is precisely what is not happening in the EKD, which in my view just makes the theological differences that continue to exist between the member churches visible. And these difference seem to be more than mere school differences, even if that’s always claimed. Can leaders of Lutheran territorial churches in Germany still come to terms with this reality, or have they fallen into a coma in the EKD as the comfy “sleeping car” towards the national union church, which might just have become, as predicted by observers already in the 1940s, the “grave” for the majority of Lutheran churches in Germany (the Independent Ev. Luth. Church there (SELK) being an exception)?

Cf. the perceptive Sasse quote on p. 94 of this fine essay by sainted Dr. Marquart in which he also points to the ambiguous ecclesiological nature of the EKD between church and mere church federation.