Workbook page: 246
PDF page: 281
Section: No public section attached
Source status: source checked / public
LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 281
2026 Convention Workbook 246 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS L U THER AN REFO RMA TI O N 17 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 eliminat ing practices that opponents forbid (SD X 11–25). 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. 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. 32 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 C onvention 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-pol- ity-and-policy/. 33 See footnote 57. 34 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. 35 KW, 640. L U THER AN REFO RMA TI O N 18 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. Questions for Discussion: 1. As you consider the changes that were proposed in the Leipzig Interim, discuss how “outside” circum- stances 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? 19 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 instruc - tion 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. 36 The text of this is found in “Our First Historical Constitution,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 16.1 (1943): 5. Hereafter, CHIQ. 37 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. THE MISSO URI S YN O D 20 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 unortho - dox 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 pro - testing 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 respon- sibility 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 some - thing 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 prac- tices 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 con- fession of the truth or condone or strengthen a heresy.” It suggested that, because the Reformed used ceremonies in 38 “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. . 39 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.