LOGIA A JOURNAL OF LUTHERAN THEOLOGY HOLY TRINITY 2000 VOLUME IX. NUMBER 3 CONTENTS RRESPONDENCE -I Bach, Chronicles, and Church Music .,... if; John W. Kleinig ................................................................................................. ~.........................;~ ......................................... 7 <>:.> "J' The Sacrament of the Altar and Its Relationship to Justification :~:~:;:;s 'i" Scott R. Murray .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Luther's Theology of the Cross in Preaching and as Spiritual Warfare Perry Toso ...... ......................................... ..... ............. ................................................ ............ ..................... .................................... 17 Lutheran-Reformed Altar Fellowship and Augustana X Albert J. Collver III ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29 The Discipline ofChurch Law and the Doctrine ofChurch and Ministry Lowell C. Green .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Rast, Vehse, and Walther David P. Scaer ................................................................................................................................................................................ 47 REVIEWS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 REVIEW ESSAY: Through the Church the Song Goes On: Preparing a Lutheran Hymnal for the Twenty-first Century. Edited by Paul Grime, D. Richard Stuckwisch, and Jon D. Vieker. Review by John A. Frahm III Humanism: The Wreck of Western Culture. By John Carroll. Review by Bruce Wilmot Adams Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World. By Robert E. Webber. Review by Todd A. Peperkorn The Doctrine ofFaith unto Salvation: Based on Saint Paul's Letter to the Ephesians . .. By Fredrik Gabriel Hedberg. Translated by Rev. Erick E. Erickson. Review by Ralph Rokke Who Do You Say That I Am? Christology and the Church. Edited by Donald Armstrong. Review by Paul L. Maier The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Paul D. Wegner. Review by John D. Moe GIA FORUM .............................................................................................................................................................................. 61 Bach Evangelism • Luther's Chorale Settings on CD • Bach's Liturgical Piety Hymns and Hocus-Pocus' Oedipus for Lutherans • The Cipher of His Name Careless Baptism • Praise Songs and the Te Deurn • Protestantizing the Liturgy ALSO THIS ISSUE A Call for Manuscripts .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Inklings by Jim Wilson .................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Lutheran-Reformed Altar Fellowship and Augustana X ALBERT J. COLLVER III ------------------------------t------------------------------ HE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION on the Doctrine of Lutherans and Reformed in America and represents what they Justification (JDDJ) on October 31, 1999, between the call "an ecumenical proposal of historic importance." There is Lutheran World Federation and Rome has, for the mo no doubt that an event of"historic importance" took place when overshadowed prior ecumenical agreements between these four "Reformation" churches created "a doctrinal consen m",,..r:.J1''', and other church bodies. While it is true that the dis sus"4 based on a common understanding of the gospel and the on justification between the Lutheran church and Rome administration of the sacraments that bridged a division formed back to the beginning of the Reformation, any agreement more than four hundred years ago at Marburg.5 What is more consensus between these two bodies on justification would remarkable about the agreement is that it was achieved without appear to be very significant, perhaps as significant as the events compromising each church body's "traditional confessional and that caused the disagreement in the first place. Yet only a few ecclesiological character."6 It would be presumptuous to suggest years earlier the Lutherans and the Reformed came to doctrinal that there is no real consensus after the involved parties have consensus not only on justification but also on the Lord's signed a document declaring7 such consensus. But a critique of Supper. Quantitatively, it would appear that more was accom Forumula of Agreement may be made on the basis of this state plished between the Lutherans and the Reformed than between ment. The hermeneutics leading up to this agreement have Lutherans and Rome. The recognition that the Lutherans and already been examined,8 as has the document itself.9 This essay Rome came to an agreement not only on justification but also on will examine whether or not the statements on the Lord's Supper original sin at the Diet of Regensburg in 15411 further suggests found in a Formula of Agreement are congruent with Article X of that JDDJ is not quite as significant as its authors would have it the Augsburg Confession, which is the historic confession of the thought. Although Eck and Melanchthon could agree on Lutheran church on the Lord's Supper. Since a different under jUStlti(:atlon at Regensburg, they could not come to agreement on standing of the gospel manifests itself in the Lord's Supper, ulti Lord's Supper. They disputed for eight days on the Lord's mately this essay will test the claim, "there are no substantive until they stopped due to lack of agreement.2 Regensburg matters concerning justification that divide US."l0 In working that lack of agreement on the Lord's Supper does through this, tools may be developed to assist in the diagnosis of permit an agreement on justification to remain intact. What other ecumenical agreements. ultimately become of the most recent agreement between the HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THELUurrer;ans and Rome remains to be seen. Historically, it has been FORMULA OF AGREEMENT that what most separates the Lutherans from Rome is doctrine of justification. On the other hand, it has been Since the Formula of Agreement is the result of more than thirty what most separates the Lutherans from the Reformed is years of dialog between the Lutheran and Reformed church bod Lord's Supper. The difference between these two points is not ies, it may be helpful to provide a brief sketch of the document's great as first appears. What is common to both is the gospel. In historical background. While official discussions between repre rejection of "by faith alone," Rome denies the gospel. By sentatives of Reformed and Lutheran churches in America did the Lord's true body and blood given for you, the not begin until 1962, it would be remiss to ignore the develop Ke[!omlea deny the gospeL In order to see how the gospel is ulti ments in Germany preceding this discussion. In order to grasp mately at stake, it may be helpful to examine how the Lutherans completely what brought the Lutheran and Reformed together in and the Reformed came to agree on the Lord's Supper. Germany, one would have to review the events from the time of In 1997, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Reformation to World War II. Since space does not permit three Reformed bodies ratified the Formula of Agreement,3 such a treatment, only a few brief comments can be provided. declaring that they were in full communion. This agreement is Elert notes that the Lutherans have constantly complained the result of more than thirty years of discussion between the about the attempts to read Reformed doctrine into the public statements ofthe evangelical churchY Luther complained ofthis very problem when he wrote in 1532 to the citizens of Frankfurt on the Main concerning reports he had heard that the Lord's ALBBRT J. COLLVER III is a graduate student at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. He is also webmaster for LOGIA. Supper was taught there in the Zwinglian way, "yet under the 29 30 appearance and with such words as if it were one and the same thing with us and our same teaching."12 During this time the desire for union with the Lutherans was, no doubt, partially inspired by political motivations, since only the Roman Catholic The Arnoldshain Theses form the foun dation for all subsequent agreements between the Lutherans and Reformed. Church and the Church of the Augsburg Confession were legal ly recognized. Nevertheless, to ascribe merely political reasons to the desire for union would be unfair. It appears that Zwingli genuinely desired union with Luther, as did Bucer and later Calvin, but they could not understand why the Lord's Supper was so essential to the Lutherans. What appeared, from their point of view, to be minor differences of opinion kept what became known as the Reformed church bodies separated from the Lutherans. As Zwingli found out at Marburg, ninety-three percent agreement is no agreement at all. It is because the Lord's Supper is the gospel (and not merely a proclamation of the gospel, as the Reformed teach)l3 that disagreement in the Supper evidences disagreement in the doctrine of justification. Other events in Germany's history prompted the desire for union, such as the Prussian Union (1817), by which the govern ment imposed unity between the Lutherans and the Reformed without regard for differences in confession. Some in the ecu menical movement regard the Prussian Union as an example that casts "glimmers of ecclesial geniality on an otherwise rather bleak Protestant landscape."14 In 1934, Karl Barth proposed the Barmen Declaration on the foundation of the Prussian Union to unite the Christian churches, Lutheran, Union, and Reformed, to stand up against the false Christianity of the Nazis.IS According to Barth, the Barmen declaration "does not have to do with matters of the Supper, but with matters of the first commandment."16 While Barmen may not have intended to form altar and pulpit fellowship between the Lutherans and Reformed, Sasse notes that it received such acclaim that "it was placed next to, yes even above the confessions of the Reform ation. The participants of the confessional synods were allowed to deviate from the Augustana."17 Crisis, confronting the church in the form ofNazi persecution, "forced Christians of all denominations out of their doctrinal co-existence;'18 resulting in the wartime confessing church, where Lutherans and Reformed shared the same table. The question that occupied German theologians for ten years, from 1947 to 1957, was this: could "wartime emergency fellowship be authorized as the norm for a new, official church fellowship?"19 The answer to this post-war question was the Arnoldshain Theses.2o The Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKiD) accepted the eight Arnoldshain Theses2I on July 25, 1958, thus beginning full altar and pulpit fellowship between the Lutheran, Union, and Reformed churches in Germany. Whereas the Barmen Declaration had been supposedly based on an emergency situ ation that required a confessing church, the Arnoldshain Theses were, in part, based on sociological factors, namely, on popula tion movements in Germany that erased the boundaries sepa rating the differing confessions.22 The population movements that presumably contributed to the Arnoldshain Theses initial ly were the result of World War 11 and later due to the ease of travel in the twentieth century. As a result of this increased mobility, "the awareness of belonging to a confessional tradition (Lutheran or Reformed) has weakened quite a bit among the faithful-and among many pastors."23 This is not a dominical agreement based on the Lord's word, but an anthropocentric agreement based on sociological factors. The Arnoldshain Theses form the foundation for all subse quent agreements between the Lutherans and Reformed, whether· in Europe or America. Only four years after the theses were ratified in Germany, discussions began between the Lutherans and Reformed in America. From 1962 to 1966, delegates from the North American Area of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches Holding the Presbyterian Order and the U.S.A National Committee of the Lutheran World Federation held dis- REPRISTINATION PRESS Because the Truth never changes. ------.:.----- An Explanation of the History of the Suffering and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1622) by Johann Gerhard translated by Rev. Elmer Hohle "So much for 'dead' orthodoxy. An Explanation of the History of the Suffering and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by Johann Gerhard, is possibly the best book on the passion of Christ and the best book on preaching I have read recently." Pastor Todd Peperkorn, LOGIA ISBN 1-891469-22-3 330 pages' hardcover' $20.00 Please include $1,s0 shipping per volume. Write to us for our catalog, or send e-mail to hunnius@aol.com 31 LUTHERAN-REFORMED ALTAR FELLOWSHIP AND AUGUSTANA X russions and presented papers. In 1966, the delegates issued a non binding report entitled Marburg Revisited, which reported: We have recognized in each other's teachings a common understanding of the Gospel and have concluded that the issues which divided the two major branches of the Reformation can no longer be regarded as constituting obstacles to mutual understanding and fellowship.24 Building on the foundation of Arnoldshain, Marburg Revisited picked up the phrase "He Himself gives"25 from thesis 4 and con cludes, "One thing we must insist on today is that there is only one proper Sacrament and that is Jesus Christ."26 This is to say that Jesus gives himself in the Supper, or that he is personally present. of the goals of this report was to avoid deadlock by steering of traditional Lutheran and Reformed language regarding Lord's Supper. What this meant was that the Lutherans would speaking of Christ's body and blood (what the report terms "realistic language") and the Reformed would avoid speaking of being local circumscribed at the right hand of God. In this way, the Christological questions that divided the Lutheran and Reformed for five-hundred years could be avoided. Recognizing that the discussion of Christological issues did not bring the Lutherans and Reformed closer together in the past, the authors of the report needed alternative ways to speak about the issues. One such move was to speak of the body of Christ as the church. Thus, St. Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians concerning unwor thy eating is redefined: "such unworthy eating takes place today in the failure to discern the body of Christ whenever we fail to act upon the truth that all who believe in and love the Lord Jesus Christ are essentially one in him by admitting to fellowship at his table fellow-members of the ecclesia of God." The Arnoldshain Thesis had taught how modern exegesis could reinterpret not only the verba Christi but also the apostolic teaching on the Lord's Supper. This lesson on reinterpreting texts was learned well by the authors of Marburg Revisited. In this case, Saint Paul's warning about discerning the Lord's body and blood is reinterpreted to a discerning not of Christ's body born of the Virgin Mary, crucified on the cross, and ascended into heaven, but a discerning of the mystical body of Christ, that is, the church. The focus of this rein terpretation places the emphasis upon man and his love for the fellow Christian rather than on the body and blood of Jesus. In this way, the discussion of manducatio impiorum is avoided, there by escaping deadlock. Not only is the historic deadlock avoided but also this new agreement implicitly heaps Saint Paul's con demnation of not discerning the Body of Christ on anyone who denies full altar and pulpit fellowship between Christians of differing confessions. Marburg Revisited was the first step built in America on the foundation of Arnoldshain; although there was a second meet ing in 1972-1974, no significant developments arose. Consequently, it is usually passed over, since the third major proposal, An Invitation to Action, does not even mention the sec ond meeting. Instead, it refers to the Leuenberg Agreement, which took place in Europe at approximately the same time as the second meeting in the States. While the Leuenberg Everybody just seemed to lose all patience with my sermon after we put an espresso cart in the narthexl ______________________________________________________________ 32 Agreement also rested on the Arnoldshain foundation, it attempted to go further by adopting the approach followed by Bucer at the Wittenberg Agreement of 1536.27 The Leuenberg Agreement's greatest contribution to Lutheran and Reformed dialog was the concentration on Augsburg Confession article VII and satis est: "It is enough for true unity to agree on the teach ing of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments."28 By interpreting AC VII as confessing justification as the least common denominator of agreement, full agreement in all mat ters and details ofdoctrine between church bodies was no longer necessary. The emphasis on AC VII and the satis est has remained a feature through all subsequent discussions between the Reformed and Lutherans. This approach is evident in An Invitation to Action, which recommended that "the churches recognize one another 'as churches in which the gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments are administered according to the ordinance of Christ'."29 As each document comes out, it carries with it the freight of the previous documents and adds more. In the case ofAn Invitation To Action, not only does it rest on the previous documents, but it also adds the World Council ofChurches' document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry for consideration,3° As a result, the scope of this document is broader than the previous docu ments. Other than the Leuenberg Agreement, all the previous documents focused almost exclusively on the Lord's Supper. An Invitation To Action includes joint statements on justification, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and ministry. Presumably, with each document the churches involved are coming closer to full fellowship. While none of the documents in the series outlined has seen a reason for the Reformed and Lutherans to remain separate, with An Invitation to Action the momentum was building for a fellowship agreement between the churches. Before any action could take place, three Lutheran bodies in America merged to create the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Because not all of the Lutheran bodies that merged into ELCA. adopted the previous "recommendations of An Invitation To Action and endorsed the establishment of full church fellowship among Reformed and Lutheran churches;'31 another meeting had to be held between the churches. The result of this meeting Teach Me Thy CWay, 0 Lord Essays in Honor of the Reverend Dr. GLEN ZWECK "'''''''''''''''''''''' CONTRIBUTORS DAVID ADAMS PETER N. BROOKS RONALD FEUERHAHN ROGER HUMANN ARTHUR JUST JOHN KLEINIG KURT MARQUART NORMAN NAGEL JONATHAN NAUMANN tROBERT PREUS REG QUIRK DEOMAR Roos DAVID SCAER ROGER WHITTALL THOMAS WINGER "'''''''''''''''''''''' ~.-.-.-.~..-.~..-~.-~.-Reserve Your Copy Today! All LoGIA readers are given the opportunity to order a copy of the upcoming Festschrift, Teach Me Thy Way, 0 Lord: Essays in Honor of the Reverend Dr. Glen Zweck. Simply fill out this order form and enclose it in an envelope along with your check. All pre-orders will guarantee your Festschrift's prompt delivery once the volume is released on Dr. Zweck's 65th birthday, September 23, 2000. Reserve your copy today! Ir--------------------------------------------------------------, I I : Please reserve copy/copies of Teach Me Thy Way, 0 Lord at $24.00 each for : a total of $ Make checks payable to The Zweck Fund. I I I I: Name ______________________________________________ I I : Address __________________________________~ I I I I : City State Zip _______~~_ I I : Mail to: The Zweck Festschrift • clo Memorial Lutheran Church : I 5800 Westheimer Road • Houston, Texas 77057 IL J 1 33 LUTHERAN-REFORMED ALTAR FELLOWSHIP AND AUGUSTANA X .. e s n l, r, :> . .. il ;> I, was the document A Common Calling, which is the immediate predecessor to A Formula ofAgreement. AUGUSTANAX Thus far, this article has briefly recounted the documents pre ceding A Formula ofAgreement. While this has not been simply a historical review, it may seem far afield from the stated goal of examining this Reformed-Lutheran agreement with AC x. Quite simply, until the the appearance of A Common Calling, AC x was conspicuously absent from the discussion. This can be partially explained by the desire to avoid sixteenth-century formulations as stated in the document An Invitation to Action. According to An Invitation to Action, changes in scientific and philosophical outlooks from one period of history to another also present problems of "translating" traditional doctrines. The truth of God's rev elation in Jesus Christ is changeless, but the human lan guage which gives it doctrinal expression undergoes con stant modification.32 In other words, "static" doctrinal formulations were acceptable in the sixteenth century but today "these debates seem esoteric and purely scholastic."33 Since there is no doctrinal reason for the RefOrmed and Lutherans not to have fellowship, the formula tions of the sixteenth century, rather than being divisive, must be "seen as complementary, mutually enriching our common life and necessary for the church's total witness to the presence of God in the Lord's Supper."34 As a result of this view, AC x of the Augsburg Confession must be marginalized, reinterpreted, and ultimately omitted. When A Common Calling does deal with AC x, it is not in an affirming sense, but rather in an attempt to explain the con demnation against those who teach otherwise. Positive state ments are easier to explain or ignore than negative statements, especially when they are condemnations. Since the Reformed did not use condemnations against the Lutherans,35 the con demnation in AC x is especially offensive to those trying to forge an agreement. More important, the condemnation of AC x can no longer apply to the Reformed (if it ever did); otherwise agree ment would be impossible as long as the Augsburg Confession is still used. A Common Callings solution is to confirm that the condemnation did apply to a particular person or group of peo ple in the sixteenth century, but no longer applies to the current Reformed church. "The condemnation in CA 10 may have excluded Zwingli but did not address the nuanced position of Calvin and of many early Calvinist confessions, as the Formula of Concord VII, assumed."36 A Common Calling posits a reading of AC x that freezes a moment in time and suggests that using other documents from a later time to interpret AC x is hermeneutically untenable. Since the author of the Augsburg Confession had not yet encountered Calvin, he could not have been condemning a Calvinist view of the Lord's Supper. Once the sixteenth-century formulations are eliminated as acceptable ways of describing reality today, all that remains is to remove the condemnations. The lack of reference to AC x before A Common Calling and the mental gymnastics used to explain it, demonstrate that AC x does not playa significant role in the Lutheran and Reformed dialog. It seems difficult to understand how such an approach to AC x does not compromise the "traditional confessional and ecclesiological character" of the Lutheran church. CONCLUSION This article has not addressed at great length A Formula of Agreement or AC x. A Formula of Agreement does not make a significant contribution beyond what has already been dis cussed in the preceding documents. It is the culmination of over thirty years of dialog, and consequently it is nothing more than an affirmation of what previously had been said. In A Formula of Agreement, the section dealing with the Lord's Supper consists chiefly of quotations from the previous docu ments. As for AC x, its absence says more about the ecumenical agreement between the ELCA and the Reformed than would an examination of the article itself. This brings us back to the question, Are there any substantive disagreements in the gospel between the Reformed bodies and the ELCA? Considering that there is a ratified agreement between the Reformed bodies and the ELCA, no substantive disagreement concerning the gospel exists. The better question to ask is whether or not the ELCA has remained faithful to the teaching of the historic Lutheran Church regarding justification and the Lord's Supper. Although the ELCA imagines that it has kept the Lutheran confession of justification and the Lord's Supper, its agreements with the Reformed indicate that some where during the dialog there was a compromise. As Herman Sasse wrote, A doctrine such as that of the Lutheran Church regarding the Sacrament of the Altar has to be borne witness to. If it is no longer attested but only presented as an historical antiquity, even though it be presented with great care and correctness, it dies}7 As a result of the ecumenical agreement between the ELCA and the Reformed, the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper has died in the largest "Lutheran" church in America. In the construction ofthe ecumenical tower ofBabel with the Barmen Declaration as the foundation and the Formula ofAgreement as the spire reaching to the heavens, the ELCA desires to build even higher so as to have a unified church on earth built with the hands of men. The problem with devising clever formula tions to avoid the problems and divisions of the sixteenth cen tury is that they almost never resemble the words of the Lord. Jesus did not promise to be present in the Supper or to give himself; he promised to give his body and blood to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins. This is the Gospel! AC VII con fesses that AC IV and AC x go together-because they both go to the forgiveness of sins. It is enough for unity in the church when men do not devise ways to stop the Lord from giving his gifts any way that he sees fit-in the water, the body and blood, and the word. These agree in one. liliiii 34 LOGIA NOTES 1. A recent article recognizing this fact is Paul T. McCain's "Regensburg Redivivus?" Concordia Theological Quarterly 63, no. 4 (1999): 305-309. 2. E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence ofthe Body and Blood ofOur Lord Jesus Christ: the Doctrine of the English Church, with a Vindication of the Reception by the Wicked and ofthe Adoration ofOur Lord Jesus Christ Truly Present (Oxford: J. Parker, 1869), 64. 3. A Formula of Agreement [Web page], ELCA, 1997 [cited August 5, 1999]. Available from http://www.elca.orglealformula.htmL 4 A Formula ofAgreement, "Preface." 5. These church bodies see the Marburg Colloquy, September 30-0ctober 3,1529, as the point marking the division between their church es. While Marburg is a very important moment, it did not mark the begin ning of the division between Luther and Zwingli. Rather, it was the result ofprevious disagreement on the Lord's Supper. 6. A Formula ofAgreement, "Mutual Affirmation and Admonition." 7. It does cause one to wonder if this is an "imputed" consensus-that is a consensus that declares such and creates it or if it is a "sanative" con sensus-that is a consensus that is made over time by moving toward the theological lowest common denominator. 8. The systematic department of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, wrote a reaction to A Common Calling, which provides the basis for the Formula ofAgreement. See "Basic Understanding ofand Reaction to A Common Calling: the ELCA-Reformed Conversations;' Concordia Journal 20 (1994): 292-314. 9. The systematic department of Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne, IN, wrote a theological assessment of the Formula ofAgreement. See "A Formula of Agreement-A Theological Assessment," Concordia Theological Quarterly 62, no. 2 (1998): 107-124 10. A Formula ofAgreement, "A Fundamental Doctrinal Consensus." 11. Werner Elert, Morphologie des Luthertums (Monchen: Beck, 1952), 265. "Sie war aber immerhin ehrlicher als die Versuche, die reformierte Abendmalllsiehre in de offentlichen Erklarungen der evangelischen Kirche hineinzuinterpretieren, tiber die man auf lutherischer Seite von Luthers Brief an die Frankfurter an bestiindig zu klagen hatte." 12. WA, 303: 558, 8-10: "doch unter dem Schein und mit solchen Worten, als solt es gar gleich und ein ding sein mit unser und unser gle ichen Lere." This letter has been translated by Jon D. Vieker, "An Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main, 1533, by Martin Luther;' Concordia Journal 16, no. 4 (1990): 333-351. 13. Hermann Sasse, "A Lutheran Contribution to the Present Discussions on the Lord's Supper;' Concordia Theological Monthly (1959): 38. 14. Keith F. Nicle, "Real Presence-Really! The Eucharist in the Lutheran-Reformed Dialogue;' Reformed Liturgy and Music 29, no. 3 (1995): 179· 15. For the text ofBarmen, see John H. Leith, ed., Creeds ofthe Churches, Jrd ed. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1982),517-522. 16. Hermann Sasse, Union and Confession, trans. Matthew C. Harrison, ed. Ronald R. Feuerhahn, Matthew C. Harrison, and Paul T. McCain (St. Louis: Office of the President, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, 1997), 29. 17. Ibid., 32. 18. Eugene M. Skibbe, "Discussion of Intercommunion in German Protestantism;' Lutheran Quarterly 11 (1959): 91. 20. William G. Rusch and Daniel F. Martensen, eds., The Leuenberg Agreement and Lutheran-Reformed Relationships (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989). Lienhard, a contributor in the volume just cited, notes how the Barmen Declaration provided the foundation for the Arnoldshain Theses, which provided the foundation for the Leuenberg Agreement of 1973. The authors of A Common Calling, which is the foundational docu ment for A Formula ofAgreement, cite the Leuenberg Agreement as foun dational to their work. Thus there is an unbroken chain from Barmen to the current Lutheran-Refurmed ecumenical agreement in America. 21. "Das Abendmalllsgesprach der EKD;' Evangelische Theologie 18 (1958): 425- 427; English translation with comment Paul M. Bretscher, "The Arnoldshain Theses on the Lord's Supper;' Concordia Theological Monthly (1959): 83-91. 22. "Faith and Order-Arnoldshain Theses," Lutheran World 7 (1960-1961): 57. "Its aim is to bring closer together the Protestant churches of different confessions, whose boundaries have been erased to a great extent by the population movements in Germany:' 23. Rusch, 15. Emphasis is in the original text. 24. Paul C. Empie and James 1. McCord, eds., MarbuTg Revisited (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), Preface. 25. "Das Abendmahlsgespriich der EKD;' Evangelische Theologie 18 (1958): 426: "er selbst. .. gibt." 26. Empie and McCord, 52. 27. Rusch, 18-19. 28. "Et ad veram unitatem ecclesiae satis est consentire de doctrina evangelii et de administratione sacramentorum." 29. Keith F. Nickle and Timothy F. Lull, eds. A Common Calling (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), 10. Note that the document A Common Calling cites the Invitation To Action. 30. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry: Faith and Order Paper no. 111 (Geneva: World Council ofChurches, 1982). James E. Andrews and Joseph A. Burgess, eds., An Invitation To Action: The Lutheran-Reformed Dialogue Series 3, 1981-1983 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 2. 31. Nickle and Lull, 11. 32. Andrews and Burgess, 21. 33. Nickle and Lull, 40-41. 34· Ibid., 45. 35. Ibid., 39. While this statement may be true of the Reformed con fessional documents, condemnations against the Lutheran confession of the Lord's Supper were a common feature of Reformed dogmatic writ ings. Luther notes in the "Disputation Concerning the Humanity and Divinity of Christ" (WA 392: 92-121) that Schwenkfeld accuses the Lutherans of teaching that Christ is a creature, that is, ofArianism. Pieper only reluctantly reports that the Reformed have called Lutheran Christology "Eutychianism" (Pieper, 2: 119) and "impious monstrosity" (Pieper, 2: 166) only to name a few. References are from Franz August Otto Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951). 36. Nickle and Lull, 39. 37. Sasse, Union and Confession, 16. check out our website www.logia.org then check out this one -new for Luther Academy www.lutheracademy.com