Many volumes have been written about, but not nearly enough study given to, the proposed Concordat of Agreement between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). The concordat, to be voted on by both churches in the summer of 1997 [TLC, April 7], would lead to establishment of full communion, including the recognition, reconciliation and interchangeability of each other's ordained ministers.

The concordat is a logical development from the Interim Sharing of the Eucharist agreement established in 1982 by the two churches. The deepening relationships between the two, which share so much in common, seems a natural outcome of our mutual concern for the unity of the church, for which Christ prayed and which the world needs.

A great assist in overcoming our historic separation is the liturgical usage of both churches. The Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran Book of Worship would seem to express not only a common liturgy, but much common theology, and therefore a sense of oneness in worship.

An Episcopalian's mind immediately is drawn to the several documents that have, over the years, guided and informed Anglican ecumenical endeavors and the conditions upon which greater unity can be realized. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886 and 1888 (pp. 876-878, BCP) offers the most familiar guidelines. It stresses the desire to fulfill the Savior's prayer that "we all may be one." It recognizes the mutuality of our baptism. It calls for the church to forego particular preferences of its own. It seeks not to absorb or merge, but to heal the wounds of the body, and to manifest charity to the world. In recounting the four notes of this sacred deposit (holy scripture, the Nicene Creed, two sacraments and the historic episcopate), it states with unequivocal clarity that these are principles of the undivided Catholic Church and that Christian unity can be restored only by returning to them; that we believe them to be the substantial deposit of Christian faith and order, committed by Christ and his Apostles to the church unto the end of the world; and that they therefore "are incapable of compromise or surrender."

One is drawn to the fourth note of the quadrilateral for a discussion of the historic episcopate. To many, if not most, Episcopalians, the historic episcopate subsumes the apostolic succession of bishops, and the three-fold order of bishops, priests and deacons. We are speaking not only of tactile succession, but a fellowship of the living and dead, common to Catholic Christianity and ontological in character. To declare the office is "for life" barely touches upon this understanding of holy orders.

In some papers on the subject, it seems that episcope is equated with apostolic succession and the historic episcopate. This also is inaccurate. Episcope, or "oversight," is practiced by most protestant churches without any reference to the historic episcopate or apostolic succession.

It seems that Lutherans understand bishops primarily as administrative officers, with considerable oversight and authority, as is the case with bishops of the United Methodist Church. In contrast, Anglican understanding places the bishop primarily as the sacramental person, responsible for the unity, continuity and faith of the church.

Our understanding of a three-fold order, in contrast to a single order using different ministerial terms for different functions, leads to the observation that in the Lutheran understanding a minister "is what he does." A catholic understanding would say that a minister "does what he is." It should be stated clearly that a negative judgment is not therefore rendered on the validity or efficacy of Lutheran sacraments by Lutheran ministers for Lutherans, but cleariy, Episcopalians have another tradition. Lutheran "evangelical purity" does not include the historic episcopate. For Episcopalians, "catholic fullness" does include it.

The Lutheran adherence and commitment to the Augsburg Confession provides a clear theological focus and a test for Lutheran orthodoxy, along with Luther's Small and Large Catechisms. It must be noted that these documents place justification at their center and other doctrines are explicated with that center in mind.

The purpose of the concordat "will be to permit the full interchangeability and reciprocity of all ELCA ministers as priests or presbyters, and all ELCA deacons as deacons in the Episcopal Church without any further ordination or reordination or supplemental ordination whatsoever." Section 4 states: "The Episcopal Church hereby recognizes now the full authenticity of the ordained ministries presently existing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America" ... "The three-fold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession will be the future pattern of the one ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament in both Churches."

In the meantime, existing ELCA clergy may be invited to function as priests within the Episcopal Church. Such permission is "subject always to canonical or constitutionally approved invitation." This provision would seem to allow discretionary observance on the part of the local bishop. However, in order to bring this to pass, the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and the Preface to the Ordinal (page 510 BCP) would have to be revised or set aside. Such a process requires the action of two successive General Conventions, and therefore could not be completed until Jan. 1, 2001. If the concordat is confirmed, Episcopalians must accept the anomaly that then will exist.

To complicate the matter further, the ELCA, at its 1997 Churchwide Assembly, must vote for or against a similar interchangeability of ministers with the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Reformed Church in America. This raises some problems of consistency. If Church A and Church B have a relationship with a particular requirement, and Church B has a relationship with Church C without such requirement, what then is the relationship of Church A with Church C? And how does Church B deal with the incongruity? Such perplexities might well be overlooked, appreciating the fact that logical consistency is hard to achieve in ecumenism.

We must note that many members of the ELCA maintain considerable reservations and sensitivities concerning the concordat because of the seeming implication that their ordination is deficient. Therefore the concordat may be up against considerable opposition at the Churchwide Assembly. The participation of Episcopal bishops in future ordinations of ELCA bishops, as the concordat requires, must be for a purpose. In other cases, our canons (Title III, Canon 11, Sec.5 (b)) allow that this is the bestowal of "the grace and authority of Holy Orders as this Church has received them" and "adding to that [previous] commission the grace and authority of Holy Orders." Is not this a graceful way of stating the purpose of participation of Episcopal bishops?

Provided both churches vote to accept the concordat, a joint commission will at a future date "announce the completion of the process by which they (the two churches) enjoy full communion with each other." The two "will share one ordained ministry in two churches that are in full communion, still autonomous in structure, yet interdependent in doctrine, mission and ministry." Such a relationship is quite distinct from merger or organizational or structural amalgamation.

In addition to practical benefits that accrue from the coming together of autonomous churches, nothing is of higher priority than the Pauline concept in Ephesians of unity in the body of Christ and our Lord's high priestly prayer to the Father "...that they may be one as we are one" (John 17:11). q

The Rt. Rev. Harry W. Shipps is the retired Bishop of Georgia. A member of the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations, he is now Assistant Bishop of Dallas.