LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 244

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

244

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
E A R L Y C H U R CH

Before the Council of Nicaea, some observed Easter at one time, others at another time, but this
difference did no harm to faith. Afterward, the arrangement was adopted by which our Easter falls at
a different time from the Jewish Passover. However, the apostles had commanded that the churches
observe the Passover with their fellow Christians who had been converted from Judaism. Thus, after the
Council of Nicaea, certain nations clung tenaciously to this custom of observing the Jewish time. But
the words of this decree show that the apostles did not wish to impose an ordinance on the churches.
For they urge that no one should be troubled even though fellow Christians do not observe Easter at
the correctly calculated time. The text of the decree is preserved in Epiphanius: “Do not calculate, but
celebrate it whenever your brethren of the circumcision do; celebrate it with them at the same time, and
even though they have erred, do not let this trouble you.” Epiphanius writes that these words are taken
from an apostolic decree about Easter. From this the prudent reader can easily judge that the apostles
wanted to remove from the people foolish opinions concerning the necessity of observing a set time,
since they forbid them from being troubled even though a mistake is made in the calculations. (Apology
VII/VIII 42)11

E A R L Y C H U R CH

Questions for Discussion:
1. How is it that different church customs can actually “emphasize the unanimity of our faith”?
2. What are some contemporary examples of ceremonies or customs that should not disrupt unity of faith?
3. When may a different church custom destroy or undermine unity of faith and doctrine?
4. What are some customs/ceremonies that do undermine our unity of faith?

Where there is agreement in doctrine, says the Augsburg Confession, exact similarity in rites need not be
required. This rule of Irenaeus is referenced again in the Formula of Concord. Article X of both the Epitome and
the Solid Declaration directly quote Irenaeus — “dissimilarity in fasting is not to disrupt unity in faith” — when
arguing that churches should not condemn one another on the basis of legitimately free ceremonies, provided there
is unity in their teaching of the faith and in their use of the Sacraments (Epitome X 7; Solid Declaration X 31).12
Lutherans in the present may be tempted to dismiss the Quartodeciman Controversy as unnecessary
quibbling. To the minds of the participants in the Early Church, however, it was not. Quartodecimans could
appeal to precedent or tradition, since the Jewish calendar had long been observed by Christians and the earliest
practice of Easter was connected directly to the Passover. Both sides could also appeal to theology, since how
one celebrated Easter had implications for how the feast was regarded. The Quartodecimans believed Easter
reflected the crucifixion of Christ as Paschal Lamb on the Passover itself, while the Roman church believed Easter
best embodied the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday, the Lord’s Day. These were not insignificant conflicts in the
Early Church, and they lasted for centuries. Yet the resolution to that controversy, and in particular the words of
Irenaeus so frequently cited in the Lutheran Confessions, provide a helpful example of how to approach conflicts
over matters of adiaphora. We do not brush them aside but must take seriously the claims of those who disagree
with this or that practice — claims not only of what Scripture says, but also tradition and precedent, as well as the
theological implications of the practices we observe. It is not always easy to determine where the line is between
truly free ceremonies and ceremonies that are inextricably bound up with our confession of the faith, yet those
conversations need to take place. However, where there is agreement in the doctrines we confess, we should take
great care not to let disagreement in matters of ceremony adversely impact the confession of the faith we share
together. “Dissimilarity in fasting is not to disrupt unity in faith.”

11

KW, 182.

12

KW, 640.

9

10
L U T H E R A N R E F O R M A TI O N

Lutheran Reformation

CASE STUDY 3

Luther’s Invocavit Sermons (1522)
Moving forward to the time of the Lutheran Reformation, Martin Luther and his fellow reformers were presented with many challenges concerning specific church practices that were neither commanded nor prohibited by
Scripture. While the Roman church sought to retain humanly instituted traditions and require them as necessary
for salvation, other reformers rejected many of these practices simply because Rome retained them. Where these
practices were at odds with Scripture, Luther himself insisted that they be changed. He addressed many of these,
especially those related to the Lord’s Supper, in his 1520 Babylonian Captivity of the Church. He criticized, and
urged the rejection of, communing under one kind (withholding of the cup) and the canon of the mass (which
presented each consecration of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins). By the time of his 1523
Latin Mass (Formula Missae), those errors were removed. However, on many other practices that Scripture did
not directly command or prohibit, Luther was willing to preach and teach patiently rather than enforce a change
against the will of the people, for fear that it would create a new threat to the consciences of those who did not understand the reasons for the change. He addresses this directly in a series of eight sermons preached in March 1522
— immediately after his return from seclusion in the Wartburg Castle — known as the Invocavit Sermons (named
after the Latin term for the first Sunday in Lent).13
Between May 1521 and March 1522, Luther was sequestered in the Wartburg Castle for his protection following his courageous stand at the Diet of Worms in April 1521. In the meantime, others in Wittenberg and
elsewhere began to take up his mantle and press for change in the church. In Wittenberg alone, several figures were
involved. Luther’s brother in the Augustinian cloister, Gabriel Zwilling, urged their chapter to stop celebrating the
mass. Philip Melanchthon supported his students in communing with both kinds. However, it was another fellow
professor at Wittenberg, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (or Carlstadt), who caused the most commotion.
On Christmas Day 1521, he observed the first public Communion service in both kinds, with no vestments and
with the Words of Institution spoken in German. He would contribute to the adoption of a new worship service,
or church order, in January 1522, against the wishes of both Melanchthon and the prince of Electoral Saxony,
Frederick the Wise. He also began to speak and write against the presence of images in the church, claiming they
violated the First Commandment’s prohibition of idols. Luther finally decided to return to Wittenberg and address
how to undertake his proposed reforms in a way that would be theologically faithful and pastorally sensitive. This
became the theme of the Invocavit Sermons.

Luther preached these eight sermons upon his return from the Wartburg, addressing specific worship
practices that were being reformed, yet causing controversy in the process. First, Luther lays out some basic
considerations to prevent hasty, ill-conceived changes that might adversely affect the consciences of the faithful.
He argues that those attempting to reform Wittenberg have a right faith, that is, a correct understanding of the
Gospel. What they lack, however, are 1) love for their fellow Christians, whose consciences are being burdened
by these premature reforms, and 2) the patience necessary to instruct those Christians adequately before changes
are made.14 Luther separates these possible reforms into categories of “must” and “free”: The former refers to
those things that Scripture necessitates, while the latter refers to those things that it does not.15 Where Scripture
necessitates a change, the church “must” do so. Where Scripture does not, the church has freedom, but it may not
turn a “free” matter into a “must.” Undergirding this is Luther’s principle of evangelical liberty: In matters where
Scripture has not spoken, there is freedom to practice something or not, yet one must not exercise this freedom at
the expense of the neighbor. “If we use our liberty unnecessarily, and deliberately cause offense to our neighbor,
we drive away the very one who in time would come to our faith.”16 The Christian must oppose those who demand
something Scripture does not demand, but must also refrain from expressing his liberty in a way that harms the
neighbor who does not understand this principle of Christian freedom yet. Rather than forcing reform in a matter
that is free when the weak may not be ready for the change, it is better to preach and teach so that they might be
prepared to receive it. “Therefore no new practices should be introduced, unless the gospel has first been thoroughly preached and understood.”17
Luther then turns to specific practices that reflect different categories of adiaphora. In the first place, there
are adiaphora that some seek to prohibit, such as images of the saints or the practice of private confession before
receiving the Sacrament. While Scripture does not mandate these, those who prohibit them go beyond what
Scripture says and treat as forbidden what is not forbidden. Luther is no fan of images, but he allows for them for
the sake of the weaker brother. He steadfastly refuses to give up private confession, however, preferring to teach
it rightly so others might receive it freely rather than under compulsion. In the second place, Luther addresses
adiaphora that some seek to encourage (or even enforce) without providing sufficient theological rationale or
despite objections to them. Eating meat on Fridays or in Lent and holding the host in one’s hands when receiving
the Lord’s Supper belong to this category. Luther does not consider either practice inherently objectionable, but he
fears that urging them despite reservations may harm the consciences of those who are not ready for the changes.
Finally, Luther speaks of practices that are not adiaphora and should be implemented, but not until the people are
adequately instructed. Receiving the Lord’s Supper under both kinds is an example of this category. The Gospels
clearly institute reception of both kinds, but even here Luther wants to wait until consciences are instructed and
embrace the change before they receive it.18 In each case, patient instruction is paramount. The preaching and
teaching task of the ministry should precede and lead to changes of practice in the life of the church.
Luther will underscore these principles of Christian freedom and evangelical reform in relation to adiaphora
a few years later in his 1525 Against the Heavenly Prophets. There he says, “There is to be freedom of choice in
14

LW 51:71.

15

LW 51:74.

16

LW 51:87.

17

LW 51:90.

Luther finally came to the conclusion that sufficient instruction had been given by September 1523, and he subsequently urged the reception of both kinds in his December 1523
Formula Missae. See Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining The Reformation, 1521-1532, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1990) 124-125, and
Luther’s comments in LW 53:34–35.

18

These sermons may be found in Luther’s Works, American Edition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut T. Lehmann and Christopher Boyd Brown, 75 vols. (Philadelphia and St. Louis:
Fortress Press and Concordia Publishing House, 1955–2025), 51:67–100. Hereafter abbreviated LW.

13

11

2026 Convention Workbook

12