Page 2
The August 1999 Churchwide Assembly adopted CCM with the understanding that the Tucson Resolution was part of the text and a revision accepted by both churches, but after the Assembly ELCA Secretary Lowell Almen overrode the Assembly, as The Episcopal Church reports:
“The Tucson resolution was not voted on by the Churchwide Assembly and thus the national secretary of the ELCA [Lowell Almen] has clarified that it is not part of the amendment to paragraph three of CCM and that the EC is not being asked to vote on it.”[5]
The ELCA bishops thought they were really doing something! But Lowell Almen sold them out. Gone was gospel-freedom to be flexible about structure.[6] The Episcopal sacramental episcopate was now a constitutional requirement. The ELCA has been hooked and hoodwinked.[7]
[5] “Questions Addressed on CCM,” p. 20. This document is no longer available at the website of The Episcopal Church. Read it here.
[6] See Gerhard Forde: “If it is held … that the matter can be looked upon as an adiaphoron then we have seriously to ask whether this does not put us in statu confessionis. Something which is a matter of freedom is being imposed as a necessity. What ministers have to witness to is precisely the freedom of the gospel” (A Response to the Concordat of Agreement, pp.1-2). Read it here.
[7] The Episcopal House of Bishops adopted the Mind of the House Resolution (April 2000), which states that Episcopalians accept current ELCA ministries because of “the voted intention of that church to enter the ministry of the historic episcopate (CCM para. 18). According to catholic tradition of which The Episcopal Church is a part, the order of the historic episcopate properly includes within itself all three of these orders” (emphasis added). Read it here.
The Episcopal Church understands that CCM binds the ELCA to adopt the threefold ministry: “[H]aving agreed that the threefold ministry of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in historic succession will be the future pattern of the one ordained ministry shared corporately within the two churches in full communion…” (emphasis added). Read it here.
After CCM was adopted the ELCA produced two unofficial documents: Questions and Answers on ‘Called to Common Mission’” (2000), and Frequently Asked Questions About ‘Called to Common Mission’” (2001) which are such massive distortions that it would take pages to identify their errors. Two examples:
1. Does CCM expect the ELCA to adopt the threefold pattern of ministry?
ELCA: “It is not true that the ELCA has accepted a three-tiered system of ministry. In “Called to Common Mission,” paragraphs 14 and 15 clearly affirm the ELCA’s continuing pattern of ordained ministry” (Frequently Asked Questions about CCM; The quote is from the 8th question, although the questions are not numbered. Read it here.)
EC: “[H]aving agreed that the threefold ministry of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in historic succession will be the future pattern of the one ordained ministry shared corporately within the two churches in full communion…” (Episcopal Resolution AO41 to adopt CCM (emphasis added). Read it here).
2. What is the historic episcopate required by CCM?
ELCA: “The historic episcopate is the orderly transmission of the office of bishop or overseer, with its roots in the time of the early church” (Questions and Answers on Called to Common Mission; the 15th question. Read it here.)
EC: “The Episcopal Church’s recognition of the full authenticity of the ministers ordained in the ELCA or its predecessor bodies (CCM para 15) is made in view of the voted intention of that church to enter the ministry of the historic episcopate (para 18). According to catholic tradition of which The Episcopal Church is a part, the order of the historic episcopate properly includes within itself all three of these orders [Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons]” (Episcopal Bishops’ Mind of the House Resolution, #3; Read it here.).
The final resolution of what happens between Lutherans and Episcopalians is governed by the Anglican commitment to Roman Catholic Holy Orders. See notes 1 and 2 above.