LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 246

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

246

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

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

religion freely and publicly.”31 In these cases, the church is to consider itself in a state of confession32 and should not
compromise on adiaphora by accepting practices that opponents (religious or secular) require, or by eliminating
practices that opponents forbid (SD X 11–25).

variety in practice, on the other hand, are and must remain questions of prudence, religious and political context,
corporate decision-making in the church, and, especially, brotherly love.

Of course, Formula of Concord X did not — and could not possibly — identify exactly when the Gospel is
being suppressed or how the church is to determine that. Nor did it address the question of the proper relationship
between church and state, which lies behind the Adiaphoristic Controversy and has been a perennial Lutheran
concern. The church in every age and under very different circumstances must wrestle with adiaphora. It cannot
simply point to an adiaphoron and say the church is always free to do what it wishes with its practices. Formula of
Concord X clearly says there are other considerations beyond whether Scripture commands or forbids something.
Likewise, the church must use theological discernment, patience with and concern for the weak, even charity
toward those who think differently, when it comes to evaluating whether a particular ceremony or other practice
may be changed or not, whether the context or change of a ceremony rises to the level of a state of confession, or
whether decisions on such matters constitute a compromise in doctrine. It is also worth saying that the appeal to
adiaphora in the 16th century (namely, to adopt more traditional, liturgical ceremonies) is effectively the obverse
of the discussion in the Missouri Synod in recent decades, when we have often debated it in terms of adopting less
traditional liturgical practices.33 One should exercise care when drawing direct correlations between such historical
matters.

Questions for Discussion:
1. As you consider the changes that were proposed in the Leipzig Interim, discuss how “outside” circumstances can affect decisions about church doctrine and practice.
2. What are the most effective ways to maintain a clear understanding of what is or is not a matter that
demands unity?
3. The Formula of Concord condemns allowing practices that “give the appearance” or “impression” that the
Lutheran confession and Roman Catholic views were not “completely different.” How would that standard
be applied today in relation to Roman Catholic or non-Lutheran forms of evangelical Christianity?

The purpose of this case study is not to exposit the Formula of Concord, nor to draw such correlations.34
It is rather to show how Lutherans of another time and place wrestled with disagreements over practice that caused
division within their churches. In the terms of our LCMS Constitution, 16th century Lutherans believed they
already had unity in doctrine. They did not require uniformity in practice, yet they were conscious that certain
forms of variety in practice could raise questions about the unity in doctrine they shared. Uniformity in practice
(or restrictions on certain forms of variety in practice) when the Gospel is under attack is not only desirable but
may even be necessary. Determining when this is the case requires wisdom, sensitivity and discernment. It also
requires us to exercise love, by not availing ourselves of certain adiaphora that may cause conflict or give the
impression of compromise on doctrine to the weak, but also by showing patience and charity to those who do
avail themselves of certain adiaphora in cases where we might not. It is with these broader churchly concerns in
mind that the Formula cites the dictum from Irenaeus already noted above in the discussion of the Quartodeciman
Controversy: “For this reason the churches are not to condemn one another because of differences in ceremonies
when in Christian freedom one has fewer or more than the other, as long as these churches are otherwise united
in teaching and in all the articles of the faith as well as in the proper use of the holy sacraments. As it is said,
‘Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei’ (dissimilarity in fasting shall not destroy the unity of faith)”
(Formula of Concord SD X 31).35 That is to say, unity in doctrine is and must always be paramount. It precedes,
informs and should be used to understand, direct and, at times, require certain church practices. Uniformity and
31

KW, 637.

For a definition and discussion of the term “state of confession” (in statu confessionis) in the Lutheran tradition, see opinions rendered by the CTCR in 1971 (1971 Convention
Workbook, 32) and 2005 (2007 Convention, Workbook 398-399). The 2005 opinion is available on the CTCR’s website at https://resources.lcms.org/reading-study/ctcr-library-lcms-polity-and-policy/.

32

33

See footnote 57.

There is ample ink spilled on that confessional issue over the centuries, and the Commission commends many of those studies to the Synod for its study and consideration.
See the references in footnote 24.

34

35

KW, 640.

17

18
T H E M I S S O U R I S YN O D

The Missouri Synod

CASE STUDY 5

Formation of the Synod (1847)
Like its ancestors in the Lutheran Reformation, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has since its formation
wrestled with how to approach adiaphora in a way that is both theologically responsible and pastorally sensitive. At
its very first convention, in fact, the Synod had to deal with debates over controversial worship practices, whether
they should be permitted and how those practices impacted the unity in doctrine its members shared. The current
(2023) constitutional Article III 7 (originally IV 10) concerning uniformity in ceremonies was included to address
how the young church body might bring about a uniformity in practice that reflected its unity in doctrine. It also
proposed numerous constitutional measures specifying practices that contradicted or raised questions about the
doctrine it confessed. The Missouri Synod did not deny the implications of these worship practices for the unity
in doctrine it shared or for the impression they gave to the surrounding culture or to other church bodies or
congregations who might consider joining the Synod. Nonetheless, the Synod also acknowledged that a degree of
discretion or prudence should be exercised so as not to damage the unity in doctrine it shared over a matter that is
not categorically prohibited or required by Scripture. To that end, we can identify two distinct, yet complementary
approaches to dealing with questions of adiaphora: 1) to permit certain practices temporarily until proper instruction could be given; and 2) to permit (or not explicitly forbid) certain practices despite the fact that they might be
understood wrongly under particular conditions.
In the first place, there were ceremonies that, while theologically problematic, may be permitted temporarily
until congregations are rightly instructed. This was immediately a concern for the first convention when it dealt
with the constitutional article on uniformity. The proposed version of the Constitution first specified that one
objective of the Synod was “to strive after the greatest possible uniformity in ceremonies.”36 This caused objection
from those who feared the church body would enforce or oppose certain rites legalistically. The 1847 convention
proceedings record the following response from the Synod: “It only deems such uniformity wholesome, especially
under the conditions in which our church finds itself here — the Synod also does not want any kind of coercion
in introducing a ceremony, but everything should be placed into the liberty of the respective congregations, after
preceding and thorough instruction of the consciences.”37 Before enforcing or removing a ceremony against the
wishes of the people, it urged those charged with the care of that congregation to instruct the people in the reasons
for using one practice over another.

The 1847 convention addressed the same concern in its article related to the use of unorthodox worship
resources. The proposed Constitution included a stipulation that the Synod require “the exclusive use of doctrinally
pure church books and schoolbooks (Agenda, hymnals, readers, etc.)” (Article II 4). However, the final version
allowed that this may not be possible in every case. Where it is not, the pastor may retain the other materials
“under open protest,” yet should still publicly speak against them and seek to introduce appropriate resources.38
The Constitution did not outright refuse a pastor membership in the Synod in this case. Membership depended
upon agreement in doctrine, as defined by unconditional subscription to our confessional basis of Scripture
and the Lutheran Confessions. That said, if the use of unorthodox worship resources risks communicating false
doctrine to the faithful in the pew, then it is the responsibility of the Synod to address it. Rather than requiring the
pastor in question to cause a disturbance in his congregation by replacing the former hymnals with new ones, for
instance, it offers another option: He can join the Synod under the express requirement that he use the unorthodox hymnal in “open protest.” Furthermore, he was to (this time in the language of the uniformity of ceremonies)
“strive” to introduce an orthodox Lutheran hymnal. Doctrinally pure worship materials were not forced upon the
congregation. The pastor was allowed time to persuade them evangelically to accept an orthodox hymnal, yet he
was required as a condition of his membership in the Synod to make a clear confession of his orthodoxy by protesting these older (presumably Union or Reformed) resources. The Synod’s ultimate decision in this matter was
consistent with how it responded to the question about enforcing ceremonies against consciences: Even though a
ceremony may raise concerns or depart from what other Synod congregations are doing, the pastor’s first responsibility is to instruct the congregation under his care before making a change that could potentially cause great
controversy. Instruction — not coercion — is the means to uniformity.
Second, the 1847 convention also identified worship practices that could potentially communicate something false under certain circumstances. However, since such practices were not prohibited by Scripture or the
Confessions, neither did the Synod prohibit them. One such instance had to do with Reformed-influenced practices associated with the Lord’s Supper, such as the actual breaking of the bread (fractio panis); another was the
use of the corporate form of general confession and absolution. It is important to take into account the context for
this young church body. Alongside the Saxon immigrants of Perry County and the congregations of the Saginaw
Valley (under the influence of men sent by Wilhem Löhe), there was the influence of Pastor Wilhelm Sihler, first
president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. He led several congregations out of the Ohio Synod and
into the Missouri Synod at its founding. Sihler expressed opposition to the Ohio Synod’s use of Calvinist language
in the Lord’s Supper and its practice of confession and absolution, as well its permissiveness toward clergy serving
Reformed or Union congregations.39
This is likely why the proposed 1847 Constitution specifically cited ceremonies that “might weaken the confession of the truth or condone or strengthen a heresy.” It suggested that, because the Reformed used ceremonies in

“If it is impossible in some congregations to replace immediately the unorthodox hymnals and the like with orthodox ones, then the pastor of such a congregation can become a
member of Synod only if he promises to use the unorthodox hymnal only under open protest and to strive in all seriousness for the introduction of an orthodox hymnal” (CHIQ: 3).
This likely had in view pastors serving congregations that had inherited Union or Reformed worship resources — a common concern in the early 1800s, when confessional Lutheran
resources were scarce. Nevertheless, the use of orthodox hymnals is an example of how thin the line separating doctrine and practice can be. On the worship concerns behind this
constitutional article, see Jon D. Vieker, “The Fathers’ Faith, the Children’s Song: Missouri Lutheranism Encounters American Evangelicalism in Its Hymnals, Hymn Writers, and
Hymns, 1889–1912” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Concordia Seminary, 2014), 48–50. .
38

36

The text of this is found in “Our First Historical Constitution,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 16.1 (1943): 5. Hereafter, CHIQ.

1847 Proceedings, 7, cited in Aug. R. Suelflow, “The Congregation-Synod Relations of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in Historical Perspective, 1847–1872: A Report to the
Synodical Survey Commission, Report 1A,” 4.

37

19

2026 Convention Workbook

Gerhard H. Bode Jr., “The Missouri Synod and the Historical Question of Unionism and Syncretism,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 78, no. 3–4 (2014): 39–58, this point at
48–50.

39

20