Despite twenty years of offi cially sanctioned joint eucharistic gatherings by Lutherans and Episcopalians, little of a practical nature has been written to aid those charged with liturgical planning to understand the historical background and theological implications of their work, in addition to the practical mechanics involved. Guidelines for celebration issued in the last two years by ecclesial authorities in the United States and Canada have clarifi ed ambiguities found in earlier editions, but local parish clergy have not been provided with a clear rationale for service patterns suggested to them by national ecumenical authorities. The purpose of this article is to explore and evaluate the theological importance of well planned joint services, the different modes commonly employed in parish celebrations in recent years, various historical considerations, as well as the practice of eucharistic concelebration favored by some Anglicans. It is hoped that these refl ections will aid liturgical planners in the development of liturgies which express our unity in Christ while respecting the integrity of our respective traditions.
To a great degree the mission of the Christian church is well served by our highly visible acts of common worship. Thus, one must ask, “Is the visible witness provided the best possible?” Is unity in faith and baptism really being expressed, or are we tied to patterns of worship which send a fl awed message? Who presides, where we stand, what we wear, are all powerful images fi lled with signifi cance which have an effect on the worshiper.
The choreographing of joint eucharistic celebrations produces a set of new and unique challenges for those charged with leading worship. Speaking as an Episcopal priest who has participated in forty or more joint eucharistic celebrations involving several different Lutheran congregations as well as one who has been an observer of numerous services jointly conducted at conferences and workshops, I question the common working assumption that the mere physical presence of two or more ministers from different denominations standing together at the same altar is suffi cient to convey the desired image of unity. Surely a common altar is for the church to signify to itself and to the world a spirit of unity, commonality, mutuality and oneness, rather than hierarchy and division. Indeed, the authentic eucharistic image should be one of service rather than dominance or pre-eminence. Established norms and patterns of worship suitable for a parish context, or used solely within a denominational tradition, may prove less than ideal when applied in an ecumenical setting. It is vital to see the participating churches, represented through and by their clergy, as equal partners engaged in a common act. The eucharist is thus a focal point of unity, not only theologically, but also visually. No act so powerfully signifi es and expresses the total unity of the church as all baptized Christians gathering around the common table of the Lord.
In 1982 the Episcopal Church and the precursor bodies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America entered into an agreement known as Interim Eucharistic Sharing, which allowed for common eucharistic celebrations with proper ecclesiastical approval. The underlying assumption was that these common gatherings would pave the way for full communion which would happen later. Unlike the present situation where a minister from one tradition can with permission fully execute the duties of a pastor from the other tradition, the 1982 agreement explicitly required the presence of clergy from each tradition at the altar for any joint eucharistic celebration. Normally the host presided at the eucharist, using the rite of his or her own tradition, while the guest preached. This pattern continues to be followed in many communities and is indeed the liturgical arrangement recommended in Guidelines for Common Worship issued by Lutheran and Anglican sources in Canada.
On the other hand, following the offi cial inauguration of Called to Common Mission in the United States, a revised set of worship guidelines issued in 2001 clearly reversed the earlier pattern. Now the host pastor is the normative preacher while the guest presides at the eucharist, using the host’s tradition. The text suggests that only when the guest feels uneasy about using the host’s liturgy should the pattern be changed. This new model refl ects more accurately the ancient practice of the church, and in the opinion of this writer is also preferable both theologically and symbolically. Curiously, this signifi cant change was commended for use without a detailed rationale being provided, but rather only a brief synopsis of conference reports.
In the evolution of common eucharistic worship, the most interesting liturgical consideration perhaps revolved initially around concelebration. Many Anglicans embraced wholeheartedly this ancient practice of the church, following its revival as a part of the Roman Catholic liturgical movement. Indeed, it might be argued that Anglican interest in concelebration predates Vatican II, going back to the seminal work of Dom Gregory Dix which emphasized both the collegial and universal aspects of eucharistic worship. While never employing the word concelebration per se, the rubrics of both the current American and Canadian prayer books certainly seem to allow for, if not encourage, the practice of multiple clergy gathering together around the same altar in eucharistic celebration. A statement authored by the Episcopal Diocesan Ecumenical Offi cers in 1982 and endorsed by the House of Bishops regarding Episcopal- Lutheran liturgies explicitly said, “The chief celebrant should say the eucharistic prayer in its entirety. The joint celebrant/s should indicate their participation by standing at the altar together with the principal celebrant and by extending their right hand during the Words of Institution and/or joining in the Words of Institution in an undertone.” Clearly many Episcopalians understood this as an endorsement of concelebration.
The fact that initial guidelines were issued independently by each participating body and thus refl ected the particular liturgical practices and ecclesiologies of individual churches, is clearly evident when one compares the 1982 Episcopal declaration with a statement written by one of the primary Lutheran negotiators, William G. Rusch, who declared that during the Great Thanksgiving ministers from both traditions are to be present at the altar; however, there should be “only one presiding minister. Only this person should recite the eucharistic prayer. Concelebration by word or gesture is precluded.” This point was further elucidated in the offi cial commentary published by the Lutheran Church in America, which argued that concelebration was not only theologically unacceptable for Lutherans but symbolically confusing.
Subsequent guidelines published jointly by Lutherans and Anglicans in both the United States and Canada–including those issued after the recent initiation of full communion– expressly disallow concelebration as an option. While some popular Anglican liturgical manuals continue to speak of concelebration, this ritual seems to have declined in common practice in recent years, and some respected liturgists in fact question its value, arguing instead for a strong visible presidency as a unifying symbol. Certainly the fairly common practice at joint eucharists for the two or more clergy present to parcel out pieces of the eucharist–e.g., “You do the opening, absolution, and fi nal blessing; I’ll do the prayer of consecration”–is clearly to be avoided. At a joint eucharist–or any eucharist–the cause of unity is not served by poor liturgical practices.
What then of other clergy besides the presider who are present at the altar? Are we back to our original starting point where at a joint eucharist one minister presides and others take only a secondary role? Not quite. Undoubtedly many Anglican clergy will want to continue gathering with their fellow presbyters, and especially with their bishop, in the manner described in the prayer book rubrics. The circumstances envisioned in the prayer book are quite different from times when Lutheran and Episcopal parish churches come together for eucharist. In the latter case, it would seem quite appropriate to follow the ancient example of eucharistic hospitality, described by Eusebius, where in the second century Anicetus of Rome welcomed Polycarp of Smyrna. Despite an inability of these two bishops to reach an agreement upon the method of calculating the date of Easter, Anicetus, as a gesture of respect, offered Polycarp an opportunity to preside at the city’s principal eucharist.
It is easy to dismiss this particular occurrence as a somewhat unfortunate aberration, as Colin Buchanan has done, but other contemporary liturgists, both Lutheran and Episcopal, such as Gordon Lathrop and Paul Bradshaw, have found in this ancient act a precedent which speaks to our present situation. It was, they argue, not uncommon for those in positions of leadership in this period to extend to honored guests and sojourners the opportunity to pronounce the blessing, in the Jewish context, over the weekly ritual meal, or for Christian presbyters to preside at the eucharist. Indeed, Lathrop has argued that this ancient form of eucharistic hospitality was itself an act of “concelebration.” In the case of Anicetus and Polycarp, the two men shared oversight (episcope) of the assembly. Polycarp did so by saying the Great Thanksgiving; Anicetus did so by yielding his presidency to Polycarp. Anicetus never gave up his normal pastoral relationship with the assembly, but invited a fellow bishop to share in that relationship. According to this perspective, concelebration is also the yielding of one president to another so that episcope of the assembly is shared in the eucharist.
The term itself “eucharistic hospitality” has much about it that is commendable. One thinks of occasions in which Jesus himself acted as “host” at a meal: the feeding of the multitude, the post-resurrection breakfast on the beach, the Last Supper. Our Lord was always concerned to serve the needs of his “guests.” When one church community is invited to join another for the Great Meal it is only natural for the “host” to be primarily concerned with recognizing and serving the honored “guest.” The ancient practice of eucharistic hospitality thus bears witness to what is a common feature of many societies. Turning specifi cally to the question at hand, this means, for example, that when a Lutheran church extends an invitation to an Episcopal parish to join in a common celebration of the eucharist, as a mark of respect for the guest, the Lutheran pastor would invite the ordained representative of the Episcopal community to preside over the common eucharistic meal, yielding his or her usual position to the guest. Furthermore, the host would not absent her or himself and disappear to some secluded sedilia to be a passive observer, but would remain present, indeed active and attentive, serving the needs of the guest.
Following ancient tradition, it would seem most appropriate for the guest to celebrate according to his or her own tradition and God-given charisms. In earliest times, there was no fi xed prayer of thanksgiving, so every celebrant had out of necessity to preside as inspired. Today that is no longer the situation, and one can argue that the guest would do honor to the host by using the rite of that person’s church.
Some interesting perspectives on this particular question might be gained from the liturgical practices of the Uniate churches. For example, if a Greek Catholic priest invited a visiting Byzantine rite priest to celebrate, the liturgy of the “host” church, and not the rite of the celebrant, would be used for the sake of the gathered community, who otherwise might fi nd participation diffi cult. Obviously when a congregation is evenly split in numbers, as is often the case in joint Lutheran-Episcopal eucharists, this observation would have no bearing. However, a visiting minister from the other denomination who is invited to preside at a normal parish eucharist should clearly conduct the liturgy in a manner familiar to the congregation.
Two additional caveats are also worth noting. Certainly to be avoided are the mixing of rites and the use of vesture not in keeping with one’s own tradition. For the most part the latter is a non-issue today, but the former is pertinent. At a joint eucharist there is perhaps an inherent tendency to try to make everyone happy by piecing together portions of The Book of Common Prayer and The Lutheran Book of Worship. Such action undercuts the integrity of both traditions and more likely than not results in an atrocious mish-mash unfamiliar to all.
Let us return briefly to the role of the “host” in a eucharist at which the “guest” is invited to preside. Although the host freely yields the usual role of presidency at the meal, the cause of unity is not served if he or she does not clearly approve of what the guest does. Thus it is imperative that the host be seen as actively involved in the celebration. How might this be accomplished? One possible route is for the host to act in the traditional role of deacon for the celebration. While this suggestion might initially mean more to those of the Anglican tradition, the underlying image of service–diakonia–is universal. A competent presider oversees and brings to fruition the spiritual offering of the gathered assembly. His or her leadership is rooted in mutuality and reciprocity more than dominance. A good host is concerned to serve the guest, and a pastor or priest who yields presidency to another should be prepared to serve the guest at the altar. Traditionally this role may include the reading of the Gospel, the proclamation of the Word, and the leading of the community’s prayers, but above all the preparation of the holy table for the eucharistic feast. During the Great Thanksgiving the deacon/host remains at the right hand of the celebrant, ever attentive to his or her guest’s needs. The deacon assists with the breaking of the consecrated bread and the distribution of the elements. Although not necessarily a diaconal function, it would be a powerful symbol for the deacon/host to communicate the presider/guest. The service concludes with the celebrant blessing the assembly and the deacon giving his or her own distinctive fi nal benediction to the whole proceedings, “Go in peace...serve the Lord.”
Two final considerations remain. Who should preach? The scriptural admonition paraphrased in the third century Didascalia which observes that a congregation will always give ear to a stranger is insightful and probably true. If that “stranger” is also to preside at the eucharist, it might be best, however, for the host to preach for the sake of balance. One person– guest or host–appearing to run the show does not serve the cause of unity. Also, what we have been most concerned with in these refl ections are joint eucharists in which two congregations have come together to worship. Thus for approximately half of the assembled worshipers, the preacher will in any case be someone other than their own minister. Finally, it must be observed that out of necessity this article has dealt almost exclusively with the role and function of ordained clergy. The eucharist, however, is always a gathering of the whole church. Thus in our acts of common worship equal attention and care must be paid to the roles played by lay ministers and the whole congregation.
What is today before the Lutheran and Anglican churches in North America is a great opportunity to heal one of the divisions in Christ’s Body and enhance the visible unity of the church for the sake of the Gospel. Those Episcopalians and Lutherans who have already experienced the koinonia of commonly celebrated eucharists will rejoice in the fullness of fellowship defi nitively declared in our mutual declarations of understanding. For others these declarations defi ne a relationship that they will only gradually grow into. The implications of this new relationship are certainly far more than liturgical, extending to all areas of our common calling and mission in service of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the future, members of both churches will increasingly fi nd themselves joining in acts of common mission as well as common worship. Whatever mutual partnerships in mission may evolve in the years to come, worship will remain the praxis of our common life in Christ. Gathered around a common altar, Episcopalians and Lutherans engaged in proclaiming the Gospel and binding up the wounds of a hurting world, will themselves find solace as they are nourished through both Word and Sacrament.