LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 242

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

242

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
P R E F A CE

Preface
The 2019 convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) passed Resolution 5-11, which asked the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to produce a study document addressing questions about
unity in doctrine and uniformity and variety in practice. The short resolution may be quoted in its entirety:
WHEREAS, Questions and concerns continue to arise in the Synod about the relationship between unity
in doctrine and uniformity and variety in practice (Constitution Article III 7); and
WHEREAS, Certain practices in the church are divinely mandated while other practices are in the realm
of adiaphora (neither commanded nor forbidden by the Scriptures) but serve to edify the church (see
Augsburg Confession VII; Formula of Concord Solid Declaration X); therefore be it

The CTCR offers the present study document as a series of historical case studies involving six specific conflicts
over church practice, all of which bear some relation to The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod or to the Lutheran
Confessions themselves. The first two are drawn from the Early Church: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, which is
cited as one of the reasons for forming the Synod, and the Quartodeciman Controversy, which concerned the date
of Easter and is repeatedly cited in the Lutheran Confessions. The next two are drawn from the Reformation-era
church: Martin Luther’s 1522 Invocavit Sermons, which provide guidance in Christian freedom and evangelical
reform that will be taken up by the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, and the Adiaphoristic Controversy,
which resulted in the drafting of Formula of Concord X. The final two are drawn from LCMS history itself: the
1847 Constitution’s approach to uniformity in practice, giving rise to our current constitutional Article III 7,
and the more recent adoption of lay lectors and women’s suffrage, which continue to receive attention and foster
debate (including multiple overtures at the 2023 Synod convention). By putting forward these case studies, the
Commission neither endorses the outcomes nor offers its opinion on the issues. It rather believes that these
historical examples model how the church can discuss disagreements over matters of practice without threatening
the unity it has doctrinally.
Rather than producing an independent or accompanying Bible study, the Commission has embedded
study questions at the end of each section that may be used to guide discussion in circuit pastors’ meetings,
congregational Bible classes and similar opportunities. The Commission commends this document and the cases it
studies in the hopes that this will stimulate further conversation about how we might, like those before us, patiently
and fraternally address areas of practice where we might disagree and, where possible, achieve greater agreement.

Resolved, That the Synod direct the Commission on Theology and Church Relations to prepare a study
document on the issue of the relationship between unity in doctrine and uniformity and variety in practice, together with a Bible study on this issue specifically designed for congregational use, discussion, and
guidance. (2019 Proceedings, 155)
From the perspective of the CTCR, a “study document” is a very narrowly defined category. The CTCR’s policy
guidelines specify different types of study documents, including study guides of an existing report, Bible studies
or more specific studies intended to stimulate discussion. It is in the vein of this last category that the CTCR has
chosen to fulfill the resolution’s mandate for a study document and Bible study “designed for congregational use,
discussion, and guidance.” The Commission hopes that this document will foster discussion about the relationship
between unity in doctrine and uniformity and variety in practice.
The current (2023) version of LCMS Constitution Article III 7, which is cited in the resolution precipitating this
study, describes one of the objectives of the Synod in this way: “Encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in
church practice, but also to develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in
harmony with our common profession of faith.” After its study of this constitutional article, the CTCR determined
there could be no absolute or undisputed delineation of precisely which practices require uniformity and which
practices allow for diversity in every case and under every circumstance. Nonetheless, the church has long wrestled
with these tensions in her history and has found ways faithfully to resolve controversy over any number of disputed
practices. For this reason the CTCR decided to submit a study document to the Synod intended to foster discussion of these important matters historically, how Christians have sought to resolve their differences over them, and
how these instances relate to our Synod theologically.
1

2
INTR O D UCTI O N

“Encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice, but also to develop an appreciation of a variety of
responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith.”
LCMS Handbook (2023), Constitution Article III 7

Introduction
The 2019 LCMS convention charged the CTCR with producing a study document addressing the relationship
between “unity in doctrine” and “uniformity and variety in practice.”1 This language comes from Article III 7 of
the Synod’s Constitution, which states as one of its objectives that the Synod should “encourage congregations to
strive for uniformity in church practice, but also … develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices
and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith.” What exactly does this objective of the
Synod mean for its members? First, it assumes unity in doctrine — a “common profession of faith” — which is
the confessional basis for our fellowship as a denomination. Article II of the Constitution expressly identifies the
canonical Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions as our church body’s basis for doctrine and practice.
Article VI requires unqualified acceptance of this confessional basis for membership in the Synod. The
Constitution says later that all matters of doctrine and conscience shall be decided by the Word of God, which
includes the doctrinal teachings of the Lutheran Confessions since they are in accord with Holy Scripture (Article
VIII C). This much is unobjectionable for all members of the Synod. This unity of the true faith is the foundation
of our fellowship, while disagreement on the doctrines taught by Holy Scripture threatens that fellowship.
The other two terms raised by Article III 7 of the Constitution and by 2019 Resolution 5-11 are more
complicated. The Constitution asserts that we should “strive for uniformity in church practice.” By church practice,
it has in mind primarily — though not exclusively — matters of worship. That is why the original form in the 1847
LCMS Constitution (as we will discuss later) had it as “ceremonies” instead of “church practice.”2 Thus, the Synod’s
congregations should seek uniformity in worship practices. At the same time, the present (2023) Constitution also
urges us to “develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with
our common profession of faith.” This would suggest that, while we seek uniformity in worship practices, we not
only accept, but even appreciate various worship practices, provided they are used responsibly and that they are in
harmony with the unity of doctrine we share.
It goes without saying that this raises many thorny issues among us. How can uniformity be desirable, yet
variety be appreciated? Should we seek uniformity in any and all practices, or is uniformity in some practices more
desirable than in others? What makes for a responsible use of practices and customs, and, conversely, what makes
for their irresponsible use? How do we determine which practices demand uniformity and which practices should
be appreciated in their diversity? The Synod has been and remains divided over the answers to these questions.

1

2019 Resolution 5-11 (Convention Proceedings, 155).

It should be noted that the concept of church “practice” is much larger than simply ceremonies. The 1917 revision of the Constitution expanded the article to include three related
categories: “The endeavor to bring about the largest possible uniformity in church-practice (kirchlicher Praxis), church-customs (Kirchengebräuchen), and, in general, in congregational affairs (Gemeindewesen).” It is hard to know exactly what these three categories related to. Kirchengebräuche is the term used in Formula of Concord X, where it pertains
mostly (but not necessarily exclusively) to church ceremonies.
2

3

2026 Convention Workbook

Yet it must also be said that the LCMS has long dealt with this tension — as did 16th-century Lutheranism
and as has the church of all ages. The term Lutherans have customarily used to describe this tension is adiaphora,
a Greek word meaning “things indifferent.”3 The term adiaphora (singular adiaphoron) is not used in Scripture but
arises from ancient Greek philosophers in relation to actions they considered neither good nor bad, but neutral.4
Christian theologians later used it to describe works or practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden by
Scripture and are thus in the realm of Christian freedom. This, of course, does not mean we should be indifferent
toward all matters that are adiaphora. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lutherans of the past were willing
to protest, even to suffer death or imprisonment, for a rightful use of practices deemed adiaphora. Our practices,
even those not specifically mandated by God, reflect the faith that we profess in common. Moreover, when adiaphora are either required or forbidden (by church or state), we must resist that coercion (as the discussion of
Formula of Concord later in this document will make clear).
Lutheran churches since the time of the Reformation have maintained that our unity in the faith does not
consist in man-made practices, but in our common confession of doctrine (Augsburg Confession VIII and XIII).
That does not mean that “anything goes” outside of our unity in doctrine. On the contrary, Lutherans have wrestled
with the delicate balance between, on the one hand, Christian freedom in matters of adiaphora and, on the other,
exhibiting the unity we share by the way we practice our faith corporately.5 For this tension, there is no easy
solution, nor does this document aim to provide one. On the contrary, the Commission believes greater discussion
and mutual understanding might be fostered through a close study of how Christians have maintained their doctrinal integrity despite disagreements over church practice and how they have resolved those differences without
damage done to their doctrinal unity or to their fellowship. We have intentionally chosen examples from three very
different periods in the church’s life — the Early Church, the Reformation-era church and the Missouri Synod —
and from across a wide spectrum of debated issues, mostly dealing with worship customs, to show how Christians
of good faith have navigated these differences.6

The Greek term adiaphora is not found in the New Testament. Its opposite, ta diapheronta (“things that matter”), is found in Romans 2:18 and Philippians 1:10. The closest cognate
to be found is diapherei (“to be different”) in Galatians 2:6 and 4:1. On the terminology, usage and related concepts for adiaphora in the New Testament, see James Jaquette, Discerning What Counts: The Function of Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), especially 97–154.
3

The term adiaphora entered theological discussion not necessarily through biblical interpretation, but philosophical usage. Ancient Cynic and Stoic philosophers used the term to
describe their differing views on the external customs and affairs of Greek culture. Cicero translated it as indifferentia, and medieval theologians applied these indifferentia to works
of supererogation, which were beyond that required of Christians. Lutherans, with their emphasis upon the original biblical languages — as well as classical authors — brought this
term into the theological discussion in its original Greek form. See Bernard Verkamp, The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554 (Athens, OH: Ohio
University Press, 1977), 1–60.
4

A common way of framing the relationship between our worship practices and the faith we confess is the dictum lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer [is] the law of belief ”).
This saying, first articulated by Prosper of Aquitaine in the fifth century, is often cited as a reason for insisting upon specific forms of the liturgy as a way of reflecting or confessing
our Lutheran theology. For good reason, confessional Lutheranism has never wholeheartedly adopted this phrase, as it could imply (and did for much of the church’s history) that
the way we worship determines what we believe. On the contrary, Lutherans believe the doctrines we confess should shape the way we worship. However, a correct understanding of
adiaphora (as the Formula of Concord puts it) or human traditions (as the Augsburg Confession frames it) means that there may be worship practices that do not correlate exactly
with a specific theological teaching of Lutheranism and so may actually be free. In these matters, Christians have the latitude to choose which practices suit their local custom, piety
or other particular needs. As will be discussed more fully later, per our agreement to practice in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the Synod in convention, we may also
agree to use or not use specific practices — in worship or otherwise — even though those practices are, properly speaking, free and neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture.
5

As noted in the preface, the Commission is not advocating for the solutions that Christians of the past have reached in these disagreements over church practice. The Commission
sets these case studies before the Synod as examples of how those Christians have dealt with disagreements in practice that they did not consider necessarily church-dividing and
thus sought to — and ultimately did — find agreement in those matters.
6

4