Workbook page: 247
PDF page: 282
Section: No public section attached
Source status: source checked / public
LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 282
2026 Convention Workbook 247 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS THE MISSO URI S YN O D 21 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 conse- crated 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. 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 accept- able 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 rejec- tion 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 inde- pendently 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 40 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 cele- bration 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. 41 CHIQ, 11. 42 CHIQ, 11. 43 CHIQ, 11. 44 Large Catechism V 59 (KW, 464). THE MISSO URI S YN O D 22 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. 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 immedi - ately 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 ceremo- nial 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. 45 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. 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 “read- ing” (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. THE MISSO URI S YN O D 23 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 dis - senting 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 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 re ading 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 On this, see sections 1.6–1.8 in the LCMS Handbook. 48 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). 49 CTCR, Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod, 1985) 50 1969 Proceedings, 88. 51 CTCR, Women in the Church, 42. THE MISSO URI S YN O D 24 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 Two things should be noted. First, the CTCR report states that there is no specific scriptural directive govern- ing 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 prohi- bition 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 acknowl - edge 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 po int, 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. 52 CTCR, Women in the Church, 45. 53 1989 Proceedings, 118.