LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 247

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

247

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

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

order to contradict Lutheran teachings, those practices should be rejected in the Synod.40 It adds: “To this belongs
the breaking of bread in the Lord’s Supper; the formula of distribution: ‘Christ says’; the taking of the consecrated bread and cup with the hands; the use of ordinary bread instead of the host except in an emergency; and
others.”41 These practices were developed in Reformed circles as objections to Lutheran doctrine, implying that the
Sacrament was not Christ’s body and blood. Yet the citation of these Reformed abuses was dropped in the adopted
version of the Constitution. These were serious theological problems, yet it was also understood that the Synod did
not share the beliefs behind these practices and so did not need to explicitly reject them in its Constitution.

practices related to the Lord’s Supper or corporate confession and absolution were not expressly prohibited because
Synod members did not practice them with the same intent or understanding.

A similar situation prevailed in the consideration of general confession and absolution. The Augsburg
Confession clearly declared the Lutheran retention of private confession. While Lutheran churches also continued
to practice corporate confession and absolution, the Reformed rejected the private version. In German Reformed
or Union congregations of the 19th century, corporate confession and absolution was deemed the sole acceptable practice. The proposed Constitution explicitly stipulated that Synod pastors should insist upon the practice
of private confession: “Where private confession is in use, it is to be kept according to Article 11 of the Augsburg
Confession. Where it is not in use, the pastor is to strive towards introducing it.”42 However, it also implied a rejection of general absolution, as practiced by the Reformed. This raised problems since orthodox Lutherans had long
practiced the corporate form and had not rejected it on theological grounds, nor claimed that Scripture prohibited
it. To that end, the approved Constitution qualified this stricture: “Yet in congregations where the total abolishing
of general confession and absolution is hindered by unsurmountable obstacles, general confession may be kept
along with private confession.”43
Unlike the case of using Reformed or Union worship resources, which was only to be done under protest,
here the pastor was given the right to continue using general absolution without any such conditions. Though the
Reformed had used general confession and absolution as a mutually exclusive alternative to private confession,
Lutherans did not see it that way. The Synod preferred private confession because the Lutheran Confessions urged
its retention. Yet Lutherans had long practiced general confession and absolution, believing it to be in accord with
Scripture. To reject something other Lutherans affirmed simply because another Christian body misinterpreted it
would have run afoul of the basic dictum cited by Luther himself in the Large Catechism: “Misuse does not destroy
the substance, but confirms its existence.”44
In each of these cases, the Missouri Synod took specific worship-related practices into consideration independently and came to different conclusions about different practices. In the first case, where doctrinally impure
worship resources were in use that might contradict the orthodox Lutheran faith, pastors were allowed to use them
under protest in order to instruct their congregations about potential errors. In the second, Reformed worship
The footnotes (Bemerkungen) to the proposed Constitution make clear the danger of adopting Reformed practices that may give the appearance of compromise — or, in fact,
actually compromise — the doctrines the church holds as constituting its unity simply under the pretense of Christian freedom: “Much less could it give in such matters and adopt
such new ceremonies which were connected with their new heresies and were so to speak a confession of such false doctrine in action, as e.g., the breaking of the bread in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which was supposed to depict the breaking of Christ’s body on the cross … in all of these things the Lutheran Church could [not] and cannot cede to
the Reformed and adopt their churchly forms and customs, partly, as said, in order to preserve Christian freedom, so that nothing is foisted upon it as essential and necessary what
God has left free (Gal. 5:1); partly to avoid all bad appearance, as if it was not in great and holy seriousness in stating the pure doctrine and refuting false doctrine, when it adopts
ceremonies of the false teachers just in that place where it should avoid them most strictly, namely where, e.g. in the Lord’s Supper, the false teaching enters the churchly act and use;
partly, in order not to give offense to its own children by such adoption.” Roland Ziegler, “A Translation of Parts of Die Verfassung der deutschen evangelisch-lutherischen Synode von
Missouri, Ohio und andern Staaten nebst einer Enleitung und erläuternden Bemerkgungen” (unpublished paper), 5–6.
40

41

CHIQ, 11.

42

CHIQ, 11.

43

CHIQ, 11.

44

Large Catechism V 59 (KW, 464).

These approaches reflect a pastoral sensitivity to congregational dynamics and the discretion needed to bring
about change. It was well within the scope of the Constitution to require that these practices be changed immediately as a condition of membership. Yet it was also acknowledged that this might cause greater harm by bringing
about a change without adequate instruction or with the force of law that would bind consciences. Instead, the
Synod trusted its faculty and clergy to instruct those under their care about the dangers, then allow pastors latitude
in addressing them congregationally. While this may produce a degree of variety in worship that some found less
“desirable” or “wholesome,” it was necessary so as not to confuse the church’s scriptural confession with ceremonial matters that were important — even theologically important — yet not expressly mandated or forbidden in
Scripture.

Questions for Discussion:
1. How did the early LCMS understand what made uniformity in ceremonies desirable? What dangers
did it seek to avoid by not forcing congregations to adopt ceremonies under coercion?
2. What sorts of practices raised concerns for the early Missouri Synod? Are some of those practices still
with us, and, if so, what are they?
3. Are there contemporary examples of forces that seek to compel us to treat an indifferent matter
(an adiaphoron) as something we are required to accept or adopt?
4. How should an ecclesiastical supervisor address a circumstance in which a pastor insists on a specific
practice that is neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture?

CASE STUDY 6

Lay Lectors (1989)
Another example of how Missouri Synod Lutherans have attempted to resolve the relationship between uniformity
and variety in practice can be found in its approach to the lay reading of lessons in public worship.45 While there
is no single passage of Scripture that stipulates who may — or who may not — read the biblical lessons in public
worship, it is clear from the New Testament that public reading was part of first-century worship. For instance,
St. Paul urges the young pastor Timothy to “devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to
teaching” (1 TIM. 4:13).46 Throughout the history of Christianity, a member of the clergy (often called a “deacon” or
“lector,” yet still either ordained or usually on the path to ordination) would ordinarily read those lessons. Within
the Missouri Synod, this “public reading of Scripture” was customarily reserved for the pastor. In any event, there
was no expressly stated position of the Synod on the matter.
2023 Overture 4-09, “To Rejoice in Proclamation of God’s Word by His Called and Ordained Servants,” was referred to the CTCR by the 2023 Synod convention. In its response to
the submitting congregation, the Commission suggested that it would seek to address the overture’s concerns regarding the liturgical reading of lessons in this report.
45

46
The Greek term for reading here, anaginosko (ἀναγινώσκω), can mean either “public reading” or simply “reading.” Likewise, translators interpolate the phrase “of Scripture,” which
is not in the original Greek. Prior to the RSV (1952), English translations simply had “to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.” Luther’s German translation also has only “reading” (Lesen). What Paul means by the phrase, however, may be something more specific. Luther understood this as a public reading, for instance, in LW 28:329.

21

22

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

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

In this connection, it is important to highlight how the Synod arrives at its doctrinal positions and how it
regards them. The confessional basis for membership in the Synod — for individual rostered church workers
and congregations alike — is Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Book of Concord. However, in times of internal
controversy or external opposition, the Synod may wish to express its collective position through the adoption
of doctrinal statements or resolutions, which must be in harmony with Scripture and the Confessions. When a
doctrinal statement or resolution is adopted, the members of the Synod are required to honor and uphold those
statements and resolutions until or unless they are rescinded. At the same time, the right of brotherly dissent from
the doctrinal position of the Synod is also granted to all members, who argee (by virtue of their membership in
the Synod) to follow the guidance of the bylaws in doing so. That includes engaging in conversation within their
fellowship of peers (defined as “those who are competent to evaluate the issue critically”), expression of that dissenting position to the CTCR, and finally submission of an overture to the Synod in convention. This process is not
intended to stymie dissent, but to conduct it orderly and productively. This means respecting the conscience of the
dissenter, as well as both the consciences of others who affirm the position of the Synod and the collective will of
the Synod expressed in convention.47

the Scriptures is most properly the function of the pastoral office and should therefore not ordinarily
be delegated to a lay person, woman or man. Pastors and congregations should therefore exercise great
care in making decisions permitting the lay reading of the Scriptures or any other activity in the formal
liturgical services which might be perceived as an assumption of the pastoral role or a disregard for the
Scriptural principles concerning the service of women in the church (e.g., 1 COR. 11:3–16; 14:33B–35).52

As the practice of laity reading the biblical lessons liturgically became more frequent in our denomination,
it also became more controversial, and therefore a need to address it arose.48 Most controversial was the use of
women for the practice. In its 1985 report, Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice,
the CTCR sought to address this directly.49 Earlier Synod resolutions had taken the position that the New
Testament statements forbidding women from teaching or exercising authority, and instead instructing them
to keep silent in the church, meant “women ought not to hold the pastoral office or serve in any other capacity
involving the distinctive functions of this office” (1969 Res. 2-17).50 Women in the Church sought to explain
this further by detailing four “distinctive functions of the pastoral office” that women should not exercise. They
included: “preaching in the services of the congregation, leading the formal public services of worship, the public
administration of the sacraments, [and] the public administration of the office of the keys.”51 While the report
admitted that Scripture did not provide a comprehensive listing of such “distinctive functions,” it proposed those
four as essential to avoid confusion with the Office of the Public Ministry. However, it did not specify the public
reading of lessons as one of those functions.
Later, however, the report does address the question of whether it is appropriate for women to participate
in this reading of the lessons. Its response addressed the broader issue of laypeople reading the lessons — male
or female:
All Christians have access to the Scriptures. They do not require the church as an institution or
another person to read and interpret them on their behalf. The reading of the Scriptures belongs to the
priesthood of all believers, men and women. Moreover, there is no ceremonial law in the New Testament
regarding the reading of Scripture in the context of public worship. Nor is there explicit apostolic
prohibition of such reading by women. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the CTCR that the reading of
47

Two things should be noted. First, the CTCR report states that there is no specific scriptural directive governing the reading of lessons in public worship, let alone forbidding women — or the laity in general — from doing
so. Second, at the same time, the CTCR also urged against the practice. It said that the public reading of Scripture
in worship was “most properly the function of the pastoral office” and thus should not “ordinarily” be given to
the laity — again, “woman or man.” To do so might give the impression of “an assumption of the pastoral role.”
In essence, where there is neither scriptural command nor prohibition, the church must not make a command or
prohibition as if it were biblically required. Nonetheless, the church may urge against, or even choose to restrict,
a given practice should it stand to create confusion or cause dissension. In keeping with what the Lutheran
Confessions often do, this reiterates St. Paul’s argument that “God is not a God of confusion” (1 COR. 14:33) and “all
things should be done decently and in order” (1 COR. 14:40).
A different opinion on the issue would emerge at the 1989 Synod convention. When a convention resolution
addressed the question of women reading the Scriptures in worship, it cited the first point of the CTCR report
approvingly. In fact, it directly quoted the following from the report: “There is no ceremonial law in the New
Testament regarding the reading of Scripture in the context of public worship. Nor is there explicit apostolic prohibition of such reading by women. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the CTCR that the reading of the Scriptures is
most properly the function of the pastoral office and should therefore not ordinarily be delegated to a lay person,
woman or man.” Yet it came to the exact opposite implication. Whereas the CTCR had urged against the practice,
1989 Resolution 3-14 argued that, because it is permissible, then it is an entirely free matter left to the discretion of
congregations. Thus, congregations may permit the lay reading of Scripture, “recognizing decisions in this regard
lie in the arena of Christian judgment.”53
Should laypersons read the Scriptures in public worship? The Missouri Synod never directly answered that
question, and it did not answer that question because (it argued) there was no clear statement in Scripture either
commanding or forbidding it. The CTCR urged against it, though acknowledged it was an adiaphoron. The Synod
in convention — which determines the doctrinal position of our church body — also considered it a matter of
Christian freedom yet offered no direction on whether it should or should not be done. It is important to acknowledge that the Synod did not say the lay reading of public lessons in the church is necessary and therefore should
be practiced. That is because the Synod did not believe Scripture addressed that point, either. If it had made that
point, then it would have stated positively what Scripture does not state positively and thus become a matter of
doctrinal division that threatened our unity in the faith.

On this, see sections 1.6–1.8 in the LCMS Handbook.

Whatever the actual practice in congregations, there were only four overtures related to lay readers — men or women — submitted to the six conventions from 1977 to 1989 (one
in 1977, one in 1986, two in 1989).

48

49

CTCR, Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1985)

50

1969 Proceedings, 88.

52

CTCR, Women in the Church, 45.

51

CTCR, Women in the Church, 42.

53

1989 Proceedings, 118.

23

24

2026 Convention Workbook