Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 284

2026 Convention Workbook
249
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
WH  A T N O W?  
29 
 
 
 
 
(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 
Despite its many changes in phrasing and scope over the years, the article of the Synod Constitution precip-
itating 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, theolog-
ical 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. 
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 fellow -
ship 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 f or  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 dis -
honest 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:  
 
64 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”). 
65 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. 
WH  A T N O W?  
30 
 
 
 
 
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 oppor-
tunity 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) 
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 g reater  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.