Called to Common Mission: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Bayberrylane (talk | contribs) weasel word tag due to "some say" overload without any citations for these statements |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{weasel}} |
|||
'''Called to Common Mission''' is an agreement between [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America|The Episcopal Church]] and the [[Evangelical Lutheran Church in America]] (ELCA), establishing full communion between them. Under the agreement, they recognize the validity of each other's [[baptism]]s and [[ordination]]s. The agreement provided that the ELCA would accept the [[historic episcopate]], something which became controversial in the ELCA. In response to concerns about the meaning of CCM, bishops in the ELCA drafted [http://www.elca.org/synods/bishopstucson.html Tucson Resolution], which presented the official ELCA position. |
'''Called to Common Mission''' is an agreement between [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America|The Episcopal Church]] and the [[Evangelical Lutheran Church in America]] (ELCA), establishing full communion between them. Under the agreement, they recognize the validity of each other's [[baptism]]s and [[ordination]]s. The agreement provided that the ELCA would accept the [[historic episcopate]], something which became controversial in the ELCA. In response to concerns about the meaning of CCM, bishops in the ELCA drafted [http://www.elca.org/synods/bishopstucson.html Tucson Resolution], which presented the official ELCA position. |
||
Revision as of 00:27, 16 July 2007
 | This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. |
Called to Common Mission is an agreement between The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), establishing full communion between them. Under the agreement, they recognize the validity of each other's baptisms and ordinations. The agreement provided that the ELCA would accept the historic episcopate, something which became controversial in the ELCA. In response to concerns about the meaning of CCM, bishops in the ELCA drafted Tucson Resolution, which presented the official ELCA position.
Some within the ELCA argued that requiring historic episcopate would contradict the traditional Lutheran doctrine that the church exists wherever the Word is preached and Sacraments are practiced. Others objected on the grounds that adopting the Episcopalian priesthood and hierarchical structure was contrary to the Lutheran concept of the Priesthood of all believers, which holds that all Christians stand on equal footing before God. They argued that the Old Covenant required a priest to mediate between God and humanity, but that New Covenant explicitly abolishes the need for priestly role by making every Christian a priest with direct access to God's grace. Still others objected because of the implied directive that Lay presidency would be abolished. This was a particularly issue for rural congregations that periodically "called" a congregation member to conduct communion services in the absence of ordained clergy.
In response, the 2001 ELCA Churchwide Assembly adopted a bylaw permitting ordination of pastors to be performed by another pastor with permission of the local synodical bishop in "unusual circumstances". Some argued that this violated the agreement. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church expressed his disappointment at the Assembly's decision.
Some have tried to characterize the ELCA opposition to CCM as simply a disagreement between conservatives and liberals, but that description fails to address the "high church" and "low church" views that complicated the issue.
Some in the Episcopal Church like those in the Evangelical Lutheran Church had problems with the agreement. Many Episcopalians don't recognize the Apostolic Succession that was introduced into the ELCA. This is one of the many issues in the Episcopal Church making a greater divide between liberals and conservatives.
See also: