Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 277

2026 Convention Workbook
242 
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Preface 
 
The 2019 convention of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod (LCMS) passed Resolution 5-11, which asked the 
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to produce a study document addressing questions about 
unity in doctrine and uniformity and variety in practice. The short resolution may be quoted in its entirety:  
WHEREAS, Questions and concerns continue to arise in the Synod about the relationship between unity 
in doctrine and uniformity and variety in practice (Constitution Article III 7); and 
WHEREAS, Certain practices in the church are divinely mandated while other practices are in the realm 
of adiaphora (neither commanded nor forbidden by the Scriptures) but serve to edify the church (see 
Augsburg Confession VII; Formula of Concord Solid Declaration X); therefore be it 
Resolved, That the Synod direct the Commission on Theology and Church Relations to prepare a study 
document on the issue of the relationship between unity in doctrine and uniformity and variety in prac -
tice, together with a Bible study on this issue specifically designed for congregational use, discussion, and 
guidance. (2019 Proceedings, 155) 
From the perspective of the CTCR, a “study document” is a very narrowly defined category. The CTCR’s policy 
guidelines specify different types of study documents, including study guides of an existing report, Bible studies 
or more specific studies intended to stimulate discussion. It is in the vein of this last category that the CTCR has 
chosen to fulfill the resolution’s mandate for a study document and Bible study “designed for congregational use,
 
discussion, and guidance.” The Commission hopes that this document will foster discussion about the relationship 
between unity in doctrine and uniformity and variety in practice.  
The current (2023) version of LCMS Constitution Article III 7, which is cited in the resolution precipitating this 
study, describes one of the objectives of the Synod in this way: “Encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in 
church practice, but also to develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in 
harmony with our common profession of faith.” After its study of this constitutional article, the CTCR determined 
there could be no absolute or undisputed delineation of precisely which practices require uniformity and which 
practices allow for diversity in every case and under every circumstance. Nonetheless, the church has long wrestled 
with these tensions in her history and has found ways faithfully to resolve controversy over any number of disputed 
practices. For this reason the CTCR decided to submit a study document to the Synod intended to foster discus -
sion of these important matters historically, how Christians have sought to resolve their differences over them, and 
how these instances relate to our Synod theologically. 
2  
P REF  A CE  
 
 
The CTCR offers the present study document as a series of historical case studies involving six specific conflicts 
over church practice, all of which bear some relation to The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod or to the Lutheran 
Confessions themselves. The first two are drawn from the Early Church: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, which is 
cited as one of the reasons for forming the Synod, and the Quartodeciman Controversy, which concerned the date 
of Easter and is repeatedly cited in the Lutheran Confessions. The next two are drawn from the Reformation -era 
church: Martin Luther’s 1522 Invocavit Sermons, which provide guidance in Christian freedom and evangelical 
reform that will be taken up by the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, and the Adiaphoristic Controversy, 
which resulted in the drafting of Formula of Concord X. The final two are drawn from LCMS history itself: the 
1847 Constitution’s approach to uniformity in practice, giving rise to our current constitutional Article III 7, 
and the more recent adoption of lay lectors and women’s suffrage, which continue to receive attention and foster 
debate (including multiple overtures at the 2023 Synod convention). By putting forward these case studies, the 
Commission neither endorses the outcomes nor offers its opinion on the issues. It rather believes that these 
historical examples model how the church can discuss disagreements over matters of practice without threatening 
the unity it has doctrinally. 
Rather than producing an independent or accompanying Bible study, the Commission has embedded 
study questions at the end of each section that may be used to guide discussion in circuit pastors’ meetings,
 
congregational Bible classes and similar opportunities. The Commission commends this document and the cases it 
studies in the hopes that this will stimulate further conversation about how we might, like those before us, patiently 
and fraternally address areas of practice where we might disagree and, where possible, achieve greater agreement.  
3  
 
“Encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice, but also to develop an appreciation of a variety of 
responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith.” 
LCMS Handbook (2023), Constitution Article III 7 
 
Introduction 
 
The 2019 LCMS convention charged the CTCR with producing a study document addressing the relationship 
between “unity in doctrine” and “uniformity and variety in practice.” 1 This language comes from Article III 7 of 
the Synod’s Constitution, which states as one of its objectives that the Synod should “encourage congregations to 
strive for uniformity in church practice, but also … develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices 
and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith.” What exactly does this objective of the 
Synod mean for its members? First, it assumes unity in doctrine — a “common profession of faith” — which is 
the confessional basis for our fellowship as a denomination. Article II of the Constitution expressly identifies the 
canonical Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions as our church body’s basis for doctrine and practice.
 
Article VI requires unqualified acceptance of this confessional basis for membership in the Synod. The 
Constitution says later that all matters of doctrine and conscience shall be decided by the Word of God, which 
includes the doctrinal teachings of the Lutheran Confessions since they are in accord with Holy Scripture (Article 
VIII C). This much is unobjectionable for all members of the Synod. This unity of the true faith is the foundation 
of our fellowship, while disagreement on the doctrines taught by Holy Scripture threatens that fellowship.
 
The other two terms raised by Article III 7 of the Constitution and by 2019 Resolution 5-11 are more 
complicated. The Constitution asserts that we should “strive for uniformity in church practice.” By church practice, 
it has in mind primarily — though not exclusively — matters  of worship. That is why the original form in the 1847 
LCMS Constitution (as we will discuss later) had it as “ceremonies” instead of “church practice.”2 Thus, the Synod’s 
congregations should seek uniformity in worship practices. At the same time, the present (2023) Constitution also 
urges us to “develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with 
our common profession of faith.” This would suggest that, while we seek uniformity in worship practices, we not 
only accept, but even 
appreciate various worship practices, provided they are used responsibly and that they are in 
harmony with the unity of doctrine we share. 
It goes without saying that this raises many thorny issues among us. How can uniformity be desirable, yet 
variety be appreciated? Should we seek uniformity in any and all practices, or is uniformity in some practices more 
desirable than in others? What makes for a responsible use of practices and customs, and, conversely, what makes 
for their irresponsible use? How do we determine which practices demand uniformity and which practices should 
be appreciated in their diversity? The Synod has been and remains divided over the answers to these questions.
 
 
1 2019 Resolution 5-11 (Convention Proceedings, 155). 
2 It should be noted that the concept of church “practice” is much larger than simply ceremonies. The 1917 revision of the Constitution expanded the article to include three related 
categories: “The endeavor to bring about the largest possible uniformity in church-practice (kirchlicher Praxis), church-customs (Kirchengebräuchen), and, in general, in congre-
gational affairs (Gemeindewesen ).” It is hard to know exactly what these three categories related to. Kirchengebräuche is the term used in Formula of Concord X, where it pertains 
mostly (but not necessarily exclusively) to church ceremonies. 
4  
INTR  O D UCTI  O N 
 
 
Yet it must also be said that the LCMS has long dealt with this tension — as did 16th-century Lutheranism 
and as has the church of all ages. The term Lutherans have customarily used to describe this tension is adiaphora, 
a Greek word meaning “things indifferent.”3 The term adiaphora (singular adiaphoron) is not used in Scripture but 
arises from ancient Greek philosophers in relation to actions they considered neither good nor bad, but neutral. 4 
Christian theologians later used it to describe works or practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden by 
Scripture and are thus in the realm of Christian freedom. This, of course, does not mean we should be indifferent 
toward all matters that are adiaphora. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lutherans of the past were willing 
to protest, even to suffer death or imprisonment, for a rightful use of practices deemed adiaphora. Our practices, 
even those not specifically mandated by God, reflect the faith that we profess in common. Moreover, when adi -
aphora are either required or forbidden (by church or state), we must resist that coercion (as the discussion of 
Formula of Concord later in this document will make clear). 
Lutheran churches since the time of the Reformation have maintained that our unity in the faith does not 
consist in man-made practices, but in our common confession of doctrine (Augsburg Confession VIII and XIII). 
That does not mean that “anything goes” outside of our unity in doctrine. On the contrary, Lutherans have wrestled 
with the delicate balance between, on the one hand, Christian freedom in matters of adiaphora and, on the other, 
exhibiting the unity we share by the way we practice our faith corporately.
5 For this tension, there is no easy 
solution, nor does this document aim to provide one. On the contrary, the Commission believes greater discussion 
and mutual understanding might be fostered through a close study of how Christians have maintained their doc -
trinal integrity despite disagreements over church practice and how they have resolved those differences without 
damage done to their doctrinal unity or to their fellowship. We have intentionally chosen examples from three very 
different periods in the church’s life — the Early Church, the Reformation-era church and the Missouri Synod — 
and from across a wide spectrum of debated issues, mostly dealing with worship customs, to show how Christians 
of good faith have navigated these differences.
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 The Greek term adiaphora is not found in the New Testament. Its opposite, ta diapheronta (“things that matter”), is found in Romans 2:18 and Philippians 1:10. The closest cognate  
to be found is diapherei (“to be different”) in Galatians 2:6 and 4:1. On the terminology, usage and related concepts for adiaphora in the New Testame nt, see James Jaquette, Discern-
ing What Counts: The Function of Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), especially 97–154. 
4 The term adiaphora entered theological discussion not necessarily through biblical interpretation, but philosophical usage. Ancient Cynic and Stoic philosophers used the term to 
describe their differing views on the external customs and affairs of Greek culture. Cicero translated it as indifferentia , and medieval theologians applied these indifferentia to works 
of supererogation, which were beyond that required of Christians. Lutherans, with their emphasis upon the original biblical languages — as well as classical authors — brought  this 
term into the theological discussion in its original Greek form. See Bernard Verkamp, The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554 (Athens, OH: Ohio 
University Press, 1977), 1–60. 
5 A common way of framing the relationship between our worship practices and the faith we confess is the dictum lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer [is] the law of belief ”). 
This saying, first articulated by Prosper of Aquitaine in the fifth century, is often cited as a reason for insisting upon specific forms of the liturgy as a way of reflecting or confessing 
our Lutheran theology. For good reason, confessional Lutheranism has never wholeheartedly adopted this phrase, as it could imply (and did for much of the church’s history) that 
the way we worship determines what we believe. On the contrary, Lutherans believe the doctrines we confess should shape the way we worship. However, a correct understanding of 
adiaphora (as the Formula of Concord puts it) or human traditions (as the Augsburg Confession frames it) means that there may be worship practices that do not correlate exactly 
with a specific theological teaching of Lutheranism and so may actually be free. In these matters, Christians have the latitude to choose which practices suit their local custom, piety 
or other particular needs. As will be discussed more fully later, per our agreement to practice in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the Synod in convention, we may also 
agree to use or not use specific practices — in worship or otherwise — even though those practices are, properly speaking, free and neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture. 
6 As noted in the preface, the Commission is not advocating for the solutions that Christians of the past have reached in these disagreements over church practice. The Commission 
sets these case studies before the Synod as examples of how those Christians have dealt with disagreements in practice that they did not consider necessarily church-dividing and 
thus sought to — and ultimately did — find agreement in those matters.