I have been asked to say a few words about how the Episcopal Church feels about the proposed bylaw change permitting Ordination Under Unusual Circumstances in the Evangelical Church in America which would permit pastors to continue to ordain other pastors rather than a bishop invariably presiding at such ordinations. Of course, for you these are not "unusual circumstances" because the Lutheran Church has allowed what we call "presbyteral ordinations" from your very beginning.

This was the case for a variety of reasons, one of which was that bishops -- in Germany and elsewhere -- opposed Reformation teaching and would not ordain persons holding Lutheran ideas. Ordination by pastors was an historical necessity which later became the norm, even though ordination by bishops was included in the Lutheran Confessions (Article 14 of the Apology) as "the ecclesiastical and canonical polity" which it is "our deep desire to maintain."

The Episcopal Church has retained this polity for what we believe to be sound historical and ecumenical reasons. It is the way the Church in her earliest centuries ordained and it is the way the majority of Christian churches in the world ordain today. With our entering into full communion by the means mandated in "Called To Common Mission," it was our understanding that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America desired to regain this historical sign of unity alongside other Lutheran bodies in Europe, Latin America and Africa. It was, we thought, one of the gifts we could offer in response to the many we have received, and continue to receive, from you!

Our concerns about this bylaw change are these: First of all, it seems to us dangerous ecumenically to start changing the terms of full communion agreements once they have been voted and implementation begun. Ecumenical partners across the board begin wondering if these agreements are trustworthy or not! Neither of us are congregational churches and we make certain policy -- particularly ecumenical policy -- as national and international churches. Such policies may not be embraced by every single person in the pews, but they are solemn commitments made by the church's official decision making bodies and, as such, they are to be honored.

Secondly, we are concerned that such a bylaw change will create two categories of clergy in the ELCA. Those ordained by bishops after last January's inaugural service will be transferable for service in the Episcopal Church, those ordained by pastors will not be. We wanted very much to avoid such a situation. Full communion for us (as for you) means, at least in part, the transferability of clergy from one church to another, and the clear intention of that is "all" rostered clergy in good standing.

But, I guess most important to us is that this action seems to deny the role of bishop as a focus of unity. Part of the role of a bishop is to connect the various congregations of synod together for common mission, to connect the various synods into a national church, to connect the ELCA with other members of the Lutheran World Federation, and indeed to connect Lutherans with her ecumenical partners in the service of the gospel. Certainly there are other ways in which those connections are made, but historically bishops have served in this way -- in your church and ours.

Surely part of the rationale for having a bishop of your church invariably approve the ordination of a pastor is to show that pastor is ordained for the whole church and not just for a specific congregation. Laying on of hands by the bishop at such ordinations makes that visible to the worshipping community. I will say that, in my thirteen years as Bishop of the Diocese of Iowa, my pastoral and oversight responsibilities for clergy often began at their ordinations and the bond between priests and deacons and their ordaining bishops is a deep one, serving as a kind of culmination of their relationship (and that of the diocese or synod) all the way through their formation process.

But the definitive reasons for us who continue the historic ministry of bishops is that ordaining clergy has been the "ecclesiastical and canonical polity" of the Christian church from her earliest days and, overall, continues to assist in guarding the faith, unity, and discipline of the whole Church. Most of the Christian world has found this to be the case down though the centuries. And so we believe that, "while our two churches will come to share in the historic institution of the episcopate in the church…each remains free to explore its particular interpretation of the ministry of bishops in evangelical and historic succession" (CCM, paragraph 13) as we live into full communion together.

How will the Episcopal Church respond should you pass the proposed bylaw? There will be deep concern in many quarters, I think. While many will want the full communion relationship to continue unabated, there will be others who will suggest that the relationship be re-defined as less than "full" communion, perhaps even a return to some kind of "interim eucharistic sharing agreement." Only our General Convention, made up of lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons has the final say on something like this. Like you, I will have to wait until August of 2003 to find out. But we do thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns.

C. Christopher Epting, Bishop
Deputy for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations
August 2001