Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 245

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 245

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
L U T H E R A N R E F O R M A TI O N

everything that God has not clearly taught in the New Testament, for example, in matters pertaining to various
foods, beverages, attire, places, persons and various forms of conduct.”19 He lists other examples where both
Karlstadt and Rome attempt to force Christians to accept or reject a certain practice that is truly an adiaphoron.
Their error is the same:

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

Beyond the simple moderation of Christian freedom, the Augustana and Apology also see a positive function
for those things categorized as adiaphora. They argue that certain practices may be retained and observed for the
benefit of instructing the faithful and maintaining peace and order in the church. For instance:
For after all, all ceremonies should serve the purpose of teaching the people what they need to know
about Christ. (Augsburg Confession XXIV 3)22

They both destroy Christian freedom, and they are both anti-Christian. But the pope does it through
commandments, Dr. Karlstadt through prohibitions. The pope commands what is to be done, Dr.
Karlstadt what is not to be done. Thus through them Christian freedom is destroyed in two ways: on the
one hand, when one commands, constrains, and compels what is to be done, which is nevertheless not
commanded or required by God; on the other hand, when one forbids, prevents, and hinders one from
doing that which is neither prohibited nor forbidden by God. For my conscience is ensnared and misled
just as much when it must refrain from doing something, which it is not necessary to refrain from doing,
as when it must do something, which it is not necessary to do. When men must refrain from doing that
from which they need not refrain and are compelled to do what they need not do, Christian freedom
perishes in either case.20
Like his principle of Christian freedom in the Invocavit Sermons, it is imperative to understand that the
practice of adiaphora cuts both ways. Whether commanding that which is not commanded or prohibiting that
which is not prohibited, one is still requiring something that Scripture has not required and thereby establishing a
law that binds consciences. True Christian liberty is exercised in love, where the consciences of weaker Christians
are honored, matters that are free are left free, and a new law is not created by regarding as necessary that which
Scripture does not regard as necessary.
While neither the Invocavit Sermons nor Against the Heavenly Prophets are in the Lutheran Confessions
or cited authoritatively in them, Luther’s approach will shape how the Lutheran Confessions do talk about
adiaphora. Both the Augsburg Confession and the Apology rebuke those who set up the traditions of the church
as requirements. Where they are established as requirements for the purpose of pleasing God or earning salvation,
they are clearly rejected. That is not a reason to act carte blanche in such matters. On the contrary, certain
traditions may be retained, even where there is no scriptural command. As Apology XV describes this approach:
We teach that liberty in these matters should be exercised moderately, so that the inexperienced may
not take offense and, on account of an abuse of liberty, become more hostile to the true teaching of the
gospel. Nothing in the customary rites may be changed without good reason. Instead, in order to foster
harmony, those ancient customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without proving to be a great burden. In this very assembly we have sufficiently shown that, for the sake of love, we
will reluctantly observe adiaphora with others, even if such things may prove to be somewhat burdensome. We judge that the greatest possible public concord which can be maintained without offending
consciences ought to be preferred to all other interests. (Apology XV 51–52)21

245

For although the holy Fathers themselves had rites and traditions, they still did not maintain that these
things were useful or necessary for justification. They did not obscure the glory and work of Christ. Instead, they taught that we are justified by faith on account of Christ and not on account of these human
acts of worship. Moreover, they observed these human rites on account of their usefulness for the body,
so that people may know at what time they should assemble, so that they may have an example of how
all things in the churches might be done decently and in order, and finally, so that the common people
may receive some instruction. (For different seasons and various rites are valuable in admonishing the
common people.) (Apology XV 20)23
Ceremonies should be observed both so that people may learn the Scriptures and so that, admonished
by the Word, they might experience faith and fear and finally even pray. For these are the purposes of the
ceremonies. (Apology XXIV 3)24
Such practices are not irrelevant or unimportant, let alone should we be indifferent toward them. On the
contrary, we may even use them positively within the church to the benefit of the faithful, provided the way they
are communicated does not go beyond what Scripture says about them. Ultimately, for Luther, as for the Lutheran
Confessions, our approach to questions of adiaphora requires both theological faithfulness and pastoral sensitivity.
We must not treat as required those practices that are neither commanded nor prohibited, or we risk setting up a
new law that binds the consciences of the people. Yet we may use such free matters profitably within the church if
we speak about them rightly and instruct the faithful in them responsibly, and we may even decide to make use of
the same ceremonies together uniformly as a corporate body. This is the balance the Lutheran Reformation sought
to strike, and it is the balance we continue to seek.

Questions for Discussion:

1. If matters of adiaphora may be beneficial for instruction, can they also be detrimental to faithful instruction? Discuss some possible examples of each in the church today.
2. How would you explain the difference between “requiring” adiaphora and “retaining” adiaphora?
3. How do you evaluate Luther’s willingness to (temporarily) permit communing in one kind out of love for
“the weak”? Does this violate the understanding that an adiaphoron is something Scripture does not teach
or require?

LW 40:127.

LW 40:128.

KW, 225–226.

KW, 230.

KW, 258.

KW, 68.

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

CASE STUDY 4

Adiaphoristic Controversy (16th Century)

of meats on Fridays and Saturdays or in Lent, and episcopal ordination.27 Many of these concessions came with
specific conditions (such as that bishops would not oppose the Gospel), but they also appeared to contradict arguments made earlier by Melanchthon and adopted by Lutherans in the confessions he had written.

When Lutherans think of adiaphora, it is most likely the article on “church practices” (Kirchengebräuche) in
Formula of Concord X that first comes to mind. This article helped conclude a long-running debate concerning
whether and to what degree Lutherans could change practices considered adiaphora in times of persecution or
when doing so might cause offense in the church. The controversy arose partly because of how German Lutherans
— in the wake of Luther’s death and political turmoil in the Holy Roman Empire — sought to apply their view
of adiaphora noted above in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. Those confessions were clear that human
traditions or ceremonies neither commanded nor prohibited by Scripture were not required for salvation. Neither
should they be foisted upon the church in a way that binds consciences, as Luther warned in his Invocavit
Sermons. However, the church is free to retain, adopt or dispense with such practices insofar as that is deemed
beneficial for the people. They may be considered beneficial for the purpose of instruction or for the maintenance
of peace and order in the church, or even (as noted earlier in the citation from Apology XV) for the sake of conciliation and broader church unity within the Holy Roman Empire. It was on this latter basis that certain German
Lutherans made concessions in the worship and governance of the church that others considered a compromise in
the doctrine the church had worked so hard to defend and a potential stumbling block for the laity.25

Opponents arose who accused Melanchthon of conceding too much in the Leipzig Interim. Matthias Flacius
Illyricus, in particular, led the church in arguing against the Interim. There were two very different concerns. One
was that the doctrines articulated in the Interim were ambiguous at best, if not contrary to the Lutheran confession
of faith. Melanchthon denied this accusation. The other had to do with reinstituting practices that the Lutheran
churches had already rejected because of their association with the Roman church and its teaching. The most
curious of these was the use of traditional vestments, such as the surplice, which might give the impression to the
unlearned that Lutherans were reverting to the old faith. According to Flacius, “Whoever puts on a surplice denies
Christ’s teaching.”28 Even where doctrine was not explicitly changed or where truly free practices were changed in
accordance with the Augsburg Confession, there was still a concern for the reasons why changes were being made,
namely, that the church was doing so under pressure from a civil government hostile to the Gospel, rather than
freely for the sake of peace, good order and instruction in the church. Even though some of these practices were
technically free, changing them due to societal pressures ran the risk of not giving faithful witness to the doctrines
that separated them from Rome. In this event, adiaphora ceased to be truly neutral things.

The controversy began after the League of Schmalkald, a defensive alliance of German Protestants who subscribed to the Augsburg Confession, fell to the forces of Charles V, the Roman Catholic emperor, in 1547. Prince
John Frederick of Electoral Saxony, nephew of Frederick the Wise (patron of the Reformation in Wittenberg and
Luther’s prince), lost some of his lands to Duke Moritz of Ducal Saxony. Even though he was raised Lutheran,
Moritz was favorable to Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire’s attempt to establish religious uniformity. In 1548,
Charles commissioned a set of church regulations called the Augsburg Interim, which would govern churches in
southern Germany until the recently convened Council of Trent could put permanent regulations in place. The
Augsburg Interim allowed Protestants to commune in both kinds and to have married priests but otherwise rolled
back many of the reforms already established in Lutheran churches, such as issues related to justification, Roman
papal and episcopal authority, the medieval sacraments, and the traditional practice of the mass, among many
other ceremonial matters.26
Faced with this prospect, Wittenberg theologian Philip Melanchthon began working with Moritz of Saxony to
develop a more acceptable set of regulations that he hoped would protect the Lutheran churches in Moritz’s territories. The elder statesman of the Reformation and author of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, Melanchthon
helped draft what became known as the Leipzig Interim — an alternative proposal that likewise conceded certain
practices to Rome. Leipzig insisted upon justification by faith (albeit in a more ambiguous form than the Augsburg
Confession or Apology), but also restored compulsory private confession and extreme unction, the Latin rite of
the medieval mass with its traditional ceremonies, the canonical hours and services for the dead, the prohibition

Studies of the Adiaphoristic Controversy and its relationship to Formula of Concord X include: Charles Arand, Robert Kolb and James Nestingen, The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 171–190; Friedrich Bente, Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965), 107–112; Robert Kolb, “Historical Background of the Formula of Concord,” in A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, ed. Robert D. Preus and Wilbert
H. Rosin (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978), 17–26; Kurt Marquart, “Article X, Formula of Concord: Confession and Ceremonies,” in Contemporary Look, 260–270; and
Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002), 68–160.

The controversy was eventually resolved due to political changes. In 1552, the Treaty of Passau brought
an end to the Schmalkaldic War between Protestants and Catholics. In 1555, the Peace of Augsburg granted
Lutheran princes the right to permit the Lutheran confession of faith in their territories, provided they not prohibit
Catholic churches. Neither the Augsburg Interim nor the Leipzig Interim remained in effect. Even Melanchthon
himself stood down, agreeing with Flacius that he had gone too far in making concessions to Rome in ceremonial
matters.29 Yet the controversy raised new questions regarding how Lutherans should treat adiaphora. Melanchthon
believed that, in accordance with the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, the church had freedom to change
practices that were adiaphora, whatever the reason, including pressure from civil government or in order to be at
peace with Rome. Flacius and others believed adiaphora ceased to be free if one changed them due to persecution
or if changing them caused scandal in the church. In his words, “Nothing is an adiaphoron when confession or
offense is involved.”30 When is an adiaphoron no longer an adiaphoron?
This is the question addressed by Formula of Concord X. It does so with at least two pivotal arguments.
First, it seeks to clearly define adiaphora. Ceremonies or other customs that are neither prescribed nor forbidden
in Scripture count as true adiaphora. They exist strictly for proper decorum or good order, but are not properly
speaking “divine worship,” that is, Word and Sacrament. The church is free to change these as it sees fit, provided
it not do so frivolously or in such a way that causes offense (SD X 1–10). Second, under threat of persecution, the
church is conscience-bound not to change adiaphora in such a way that it might imply a change in its confession
of the Gospel. “When the enemies of God’s Word want to suppress the pure teaching of the holy gospel, the entire
community of God, indeed, every Christian, especially servants of the Word as the leaders of the community of
God, are obligated according to God’s Word to confess true teaching and everything that pertains to the whole of

For the text of the Augsburg Interim, see Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 144–182.

For the text of the Leipzig Interim, see Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 183–196.

Oliver K. Olson, “Adiaphora, Mandata, Damnabilia,” Lutheran Forum (Spring 2010): 23.

Bente, Historical Introductions, 112.

Bente, Historical Introductions, 110.

2026 Convention Workbook