Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 249

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 249

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

249

WH A T N O W?

(adiaphora or not) is an attempt to stint conversation or prevent change. That is not — or ought not be — the
case. Rather, those processes established by the Synod are intended to provide for orderly discussion of contested
matters, undertaken in a way that respects the consciences of all members of the Synod — whether agreeing
with the existing position or dissenting from it (see especially 2023 Handbook, Bylaw 1.8). The purpose is not
bureaucratic officiousness or partisan politicking, but the facilitation of theological conversation like that of Acts
15, where members of the Synod discuss and debate matters of importance, yet bear “with one another in love,
eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (EPH. 4:2B–3).64

Having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members
one of another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his
own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come
out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace
to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day
of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you,
along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ
forgave you. (EPH. 4:25–32)

Despite its many changes in phrasing and scope over the years, the article of the Synod Constitution precipitating this study has retained a primary goal of encouraging uniformity in church practice. We see this in every
iteration of the Constitution. At the same time, it has also come to grant that a “variety of responsible customs
and practices” may be permissible, provided they do not injure the doctrine we share in common as the basis
for our fellowship nor sow seeds of division within that fellowship. When and where we find practices that raise
doubts about the faith we confess or cause offense, we can and should attempt to discuss those matters and seek
to persuade one another of the better practice.65 Where the Synod has no position (as defined by a doctrinal
statement or resolution), we are free to debate those matters publicly, whether in seminary publications, theological periodicals, district conventions, pastoral conferences, circuit meetings, even — with great care given to the
medium — in online forums. Where the Synod has a position, more discretion is necessary. The process for dissent
encourages potential dissenters not to air their disagreement publicly, but first to address the issue within the
fellowship of their peers. That usually involves private discussion among fellow clergy, and preferably conversation
with those who are “competent to judge” (ordinarily the called theological professors of the Synod, at a seminary
or otherwise, who can evaluate their arguments critically), before expressing that dissent to the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations and potentially submitting an overture to the Synod in convention. Again, this
process does not seek to inhibit, but facilitate productive, orderly conversation about doctrine and practice that the
members of the Synod hold as the basis for their unity.

Above all, we must trust one another, not assuming the worst, and seek to edify one another in word
and deed. Theological discussion is not a battle to be waged and won, but a humble, mutual submission to
God’s Word for the sake of our own faith, that of our neighbor’s faith, that of the whole church, indeed, that of
a lost world.
The cases examined in this document do not definitively establish the relationship between uniformity and
variety in our practices. They show, rather, how the church has always wrestled with this distinction. At times,
that has resulted in greater uniformity. This was obviously the case with the date of Easter or the rejection of
certain practices under persecution in the 16th century. At other times, greater diversity was permitted, such
as freedom from Jewish practices among Gentile believers in Acts 15 or the decision not to enshrine certain
prohibitions or requirements for worship in the original LCMS Constitution. What these case studies reveal
is that, with appropriate time and patience, conversation and study, greater understanding may be reached
regarding where uniformity is more desirable and where greater diversity may be appreciated. That is part of
what it means to be the Synod, to commit to a life together in doctrine and practice, and to work together to
better understand and share that common doctrine and, where appropriate, common practice.

The ultimate goal of such conversation and dissent, as with our agreement concerning doctrine and practice
in the first place, is “to conserve and promote the unity of the true faith” — the very first objective of the Synod.
Note that this does not state that my opinion is the true faith. That true faith is found in Scripture, and in the
Lutheran Confessions as accurate expositions of that pure Word of God. What makes our fellowship a true fellowship is not a synodical constitution, bylaw or resolution, but agreement regarding this “doctrine and all its articles”
(Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration X 31) that our shared submission to Scripture and the Confessions entails.
If we are going to truly engage and hope to persuade one another of the biblical faithfulness of a practice, then it
will require us to enter such conversation on the basis of virtues clearly taught by those Scriptures we confess. A
pastor must “not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover
of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined … hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” (TITUS 1:7B–9A).
Any leader in the church must “be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain … hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 TIM. 3:8–9). The entire priesthood of believers
must embody what St. Paul says to the church at Ephesus:
It is not merely coincidental that the Constitution appeals to both Acts 15 (as reason for establishing the Synod) and to Ephesians 4 (as basis for the first objective of the Synod,
namely, “to conserve and promote the unity of the true faith”).

For instance, C.F.W. Walther, again in his first presidential address, celebrated rather than lamented the fact that the church’s authority does not exist primarily in constitutional
force, but in scriptural agreement and the power of persuasion: “We have merely the power to advise one another … the power of the Word, and of convincing,” Moving Frontiers, 170.
65

2026 Convention Workbook