The Problem With The LCMS And Why I Might Deconvert (I Will Still Be Lutheran)
Chapter 1: How an Episcopate Could Have Prevented the Seminex Crisis
Introduction
You have probably heard me say that the LCMS is the one true church, and I believed that for some time. But as I continue to study Lutheranism, the early church, and the Bible, I see that the LCMS fails on so many levels.
Right now, the LCMS is facing serious problems. First, the LCMS is not immune to theological drift—just look at where it was in the 1970s. Second, the LCMS is slowly losing its identity as it gets pulled into Evangelicalism, adopting worship styles and practices that have no place in historic Lutheranism. Third, the LCMS isn’t even true Lutheranism in its structure or practice. It has abandoned many of the things that made the early Lutheran Church distinct and faithful to the Reformation. And fourth, right now, liberalism is creeping back in, just as it did before the Seminex crisis.
If there had been a Lutheran episcopate—a structured, confessional leadership that provided real oversight—these problems could have been contained, and the LCMS wouldn’t be in the mess it is today. One of the best examples of how a weak synodical system fails is the Seminex controversy. If there had been an episcopal structure in place, it could have been prevented entirely.
What Was the Seminex Controversy?
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the LCMS was on the edge of a theological war. Many professors at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis had embraced higher criticism, a method of interpreting the Bible that questioned its historical accuracy, its authorship, and, in some cases, its divine inspiration. This wasn’t just a minor academic debate—it was a direct challenge to biblical inerrancy and the confessional foundations of Lutheranism.
By 1973, LCMS leadership, under President J.A.O. Preus, tried to bring the seminary back into doctrinal alignment. But instead of submitting to the Lutheran Confessions, most of the faculty and students walked out in protest and formed a new institution—Seminary in Exile (Seminex). This led to a massive split, with entire congregations leaving the LCMS and joining what eventually became the ELCA, a denomination that has since embraced theological liberalism, open communion, and cultural accommodation.
The effects of Seminex were devastating. It nearly tore the LCMS apart, and the wounds from that time still haven’t fully healed. Even though the LCMS technically won that battle, the fact that it even got to that point shows the weaknesses of a synodical system. The LCMS had to rely on convention votes and bureaucratic procedures to deal with heresy, rather than having clear ecclesiastical authority that could have shut it down before it escalated.
Why Did the Synodical Model Fail?
The LCMS operates under a congregational-synodical system, which means each congregation is self-governing, and the synod itself only has advisory authority. Even when theological problems arise, the synod has to go through slow, political processes to take action. The problem is that heresy doesn’t wait for convention votes. It spreads quickly, and by the time a synod reacts, it’s already too late.
This is why an episcopate structure would’ve destroyed Seminex before that crap started:
Immediate Doctrinal Oversight – If there had been bishops with real authority, the moment professors at Concordia Seminary started deviating from biblical inerrancy, they could have been removed immediately. Instead, the synod had to debate and hold votes while false teaching spread.
Stronger Pastoral Formation – In a synodical system, seminaries have too much academic independence, which allowed Seminex professors to promote false doctrine with little resistance. If bishops had overseen seminary education directly, they could have ensured that future pastors were taught sound doctrine instead of theological speculation.
Prevention of Schism – The LCMS had to go through a messy, public battle that resulted in permanent division. If there had been real ecclesiastical discipline, Seminex could have been dealt with internally and decisively, without leading to mass defection.
A Consistent Theological Identity – The LCMS has long struggled with wide doctrinal diversity, ranging from near-Evangelicalism to near-High Church Lutheranism. An episcopate would have provided a unified, confessional identity, preventing seminaries from becoming breeding grounds for liberalism.
The Cost of a Weak Church Structure
After Seminex, the LCMS was never the same. Yes, it reaffirmed biblical inerrancy and removed the worst offenders, but the synod still has no strong mechanism to prevent theological drift in the future. That’s why today we see:
LCMS churches adopting Evangelical-style worship, with screens, contemporary music, and a casual attitude toward the Sacraments.
Pastors experimenting with theology, sometimes pushing the boundaries of Lutheran doctrine without consequence.
A growing divide between confessional and progressive factions, just like what led to Seminex.
Without real ecclesiastical discipline, these trends will continue.
The LCMS may have survived the Seminex crisis, but it never fully recovered from it. The same structural weaknesses that allowed false teaching to spread in the 1960s and 70s are still present today. Even worse, new theological threats—Evangelicalism, pragmatism, and creeping liberalism—are making their way into the synod. Many assume that because the LCMS is more theologically conservative than other Lutheran bodies, it is immune to doctrinal drift. But history proves otherwise.
A church doesn’t fall apart overnight—it happens slowly, often unnoticed, until one day people wake up and realize that everything has changed. That’s exactly what happened leading up to Seminex, and it’s happening again right now. The lack of strong, confessional oversight is leading to a church that looks less and less Lutheran every year.
Why Other Episcopal Structures Have Failed and Why a Lutheran Episcopate Would Not
A common argument against a Lutheran episcopate is that most churches with bishops have fallen into theological liberalism. This objection is not without merit—Anglicanism, Old Catholicism, and even the Roman Catholic Church in some respects have seen theological drift despite having episcopal structures. However, the failure of these episcopates is not proof that episcopacy itself is flawed; rather, it shows what happens when church leadership is not bound to a fixed confession of faith.
To make this argument clear, we need to examine why various episcopal systems have failed and then demonstrate why a Confessionally bound Lutheran episcopate would succeed where others have not.
1. Anglicanism: The Collapse into Latitudinarianism
Anglicanism provides one of the clearest examples of how an episcopate without a binding Confession leads to theological chaos. The Church of England retained bishops after the Reformation, but unlike Lutheranism, it never adopted a strict confessional standard. Instead of an unchangeable doctrinal foundation like the Book of Concord, Anglicanism relied on the Thirty-Nine Articles, a document vague enough to allow broad theological diversity.
By the 18th century, Anglicanism had descended into Latitudinarianism, the belief that doctrine should be flexible and that the Church should accommodate a wide range of theological opinions. This meant that bishops, rather than preserving doctrine, became administrators of a church that tolerated both Protestant and Catholic influences, as well as outright heresies.
Because there was no clear theological boundary, Anglicanism fractured into multiple factions:
High Church Anglicans who leaned toward Catholicism, emphasizing liturgical ceremony and apostolic succession.
Evangelical Anglicans who leaned toward Reformed theology, emphasizing preaching and personal conversion.
Broad Church Anglicans who promoted theological pluralism, often downplaying core doctrines like the authority of Scripture or the necessity of the Sacraments.
By the 20th century, this lack of confessional clarity allowed for liberalism to spread unchecked. Today, many Anglican provinces openly deny:
The inerrancy of Scripture
The necessity of faith in Christ for salvation
The historic Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality
The Real Presence in the Eucharist
The failure of Anglicanism was not because it had bishops, but because its bishops were not bound to a doctrinal standard. They were free to reinterpret doctrine based on social trends rather than Scripture and tradition.
2. The Roman Catholic Church: Doctrinal Drift Through Centralization
The Roman Catholic episcopate suffers from the opposite problem of Anglicanism. Instead of doctrinal ambiguity, Rome developed a system in which the Pope, through the Magisterium, has the power to define new dogma—even if it contradicts Scripture and church history.
Examples include:
The Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950), neither of which have biblical or patristic support.
The doctrine of Papal Infallibility (1870), which gives the Pope unchecked authority over doctrine.
The increasing Marian devotion that at times borders on quasi-divine veneration.
This problem arises because Rome's episcopate is not bound to an unchangeable Confession. Instead, doctrine is developed over time, often in response to cultural or political pressures. Because the Pope has supreme authority, bishops cannot resist doctrinal innovation even if it contradicts the teachings of the early Church.
A Confessionally bound Lutheran episcopate would prevent this by ensuring that no bishop, synod, or church leader could introduce new doctrine. Instead of relying on a centralized figure like the Pope, a Lutheran episcopate would be bound to the unchangeable Word of God and the Book of Concord.
3. Old Catholicism: The Failure of Doctrinal Discipline
The Old Catholic Church, which broke from Rome in the 19th century over Papal Infallibility, originally sought to preserve historic Catholic doctrine without papal overreach. However, over time, it fell into the same theological liberalism as Anglicanism.
Because Old Catholic bishops were given too much freedom in interpretation, many Old Catholic churches today:
Deny biblical inerrancy
Permit same-sex blessings and ordination of women
Reject historic Christian morality
Have weak enforcement of doctrinal discipline
This is another example of an episcopate failing not because of its structure, but because it lacked a binding Confession. If bishops are free to decide doctrine apart from an unchangeable theological foundation, it is only a matter of time before they drift into heresy.
4. Why a Lutheran Episcopate Would Avoid These Pitfalls
A properly structured Lutheran episcopate would not fall into the errors of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, or Old Catholicism because it would be:
Bound to the Book of Concord – Lutheran bishops could not redefine doctrine based on personal opinion or social trends. Their authority would be strictly ministerial, not magisterial—meaning they could only teach what has already been confessed.
Guardians of Liturgy and Doctrine – Unlike Anglican bishops, Lutheran bishops would be responsible for maintaining liturgical and theological unity. Worship would remain sacramental, reverent, and Christ-centered, not individualistic or entertainment-driven.
Subject to Church Discipline – Unlike in Rome, a Lutheran bishop would not be above correction. If he strayed from the Confessions, he could be removed by a council of fellow bishops, preventing a single person from corrupting doctrine.
Defenders Against Doctrinal Drift – Unlike in Old Catholicism, where bishops tolerated heresy for the sake of “unity,” Lutheran bishops would be required to discipline pastors or professors who introduced false teaching.
This is how the Lutheran Reformers originally intended episcopacy to function. They never sought to abolish the office of bishop but to reform it, ensuring that bishops were faithful stewards of the Gospel. As the Augsburg Confession (Article XXVIII) states:
"Bishops are not to enforce human traditions, but only the Word of God. If they do not teach rightly, they should not be obeyed."
This principle ensures that the authority of the Church remains in the Word of God alone, not in the hands of individual bishops.
A Lutheran episcopate, properly structured, would restore the Church’s unity, theological integrity, and sacramental piety, all while remaining steadfast in Scripture and the Confessions.
How a Lutheran Episcopate Would Be Structured
If the Lutheran Church were to restore an episcopate, it would need to be structured in a way that stays faithful to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, while also avoiding the pitfalls of both Roman Catholic hierarchy and Anglican latitudinarianism (the tendency to allow a wide range of doctrinal views). The goal wouldn’t be to create a bureaucratic hierarchy, but rather a faithful system of pastoral oversight—one that ensures Lutheran doctrine is actually being taught, Lutheran worship is actually being practiced, and false teaching is stopped before it spreads.
Right now, LCMS leadership functions more like a denominational president and board of directors than true shepherds of the Church. Presidents get elected, serve terms, and leave. District officials have little to no real authority over congregations. This means that if a congregation drifts into Evangelicalism or liberalism, no one is holding them accountable. A properly structured episcopate would fix this by providing consistent, confessional oversight.
1. What Would a Lutheran Bishop Actually Do?
A Lutheran bishop wouldn’t be a prince-bishop ruling over his people like a feudal lord, nor would he function like a mini-pope who can invent new doctrines or override Scripture. Instead, his role would be pastoral, doctrinal, and liturgical, focused on guarding Lutheran teaching and worship from corruption.
Here’s what a faithful Lutheran bishop would be responsible for:
Protecting Doctrine – A bishop would ensure that every pastor in his diocese preaches in line with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. If a pastor started teaching false doctrine (whether that’s denying the Sacraments, allowing open communion, embracing Evangelicalism, or worse), the bishop could step in immediately rather than waiting for years of synodical politics to sort it out.
Ordaining New Pastors – Right now, LCMS ordinations are largely bureaucratic—if you graduate seminary and get a call, you’re in. A bishop would personally examine each candidate to ensure they are theologically sound and liturgically faithful, so that unqualified men don’t end up in the pulpit.
Maintaining Liturgical Unity – Many LCMS churches today do whatever they want in worship. Some look Lutheran, but others resemble Baptist or Evangelical services. A bishop would enforce the use of the historic Lutheran liturgy, ensuring that Lutheran worship actually looks and sounds like Lutheran worship.
Restoring Private Confession & Absolution – One of the biggest losses in modern Lutheranism is private confession. It’s in the Small Catechism. It was practiced by Luther and the Reformers. But today, it’s ignored in most churches. A bishop would bring it back by training pastors to offer it and encouraging the faithful to use it.
Supervising Seminaries – A bishop would have direct oversight of seminaries, ensuring that professors remain faithful to the Lutheran Confessions. This would prevent another Seminex-style crisis, where heresy spreads unchecked in academic circles before the Church can react.
Exercising Church Discipline – This is one of the biggest areas where the LCMS is weak. Right now, heresy and doctrinal drift are often tolerated because the synod lacks an effective discipline process. A bishop would have the authority to remove false teachers and correct errors before they become major problems.
In short, a bishop’s role would be to guard, teach, and preserve Lutheran doctrine and practice—not to add to it, change it, or introduce novelties.
2. How Would a Lutheran Episcopate Be Structured?
Rather than a centralized hierarchy (like the Roman Catholic Church), a Lutheran episcopate would function as a federation of regional bishops, each responsible for a specific area. This is how early Lutheranism operated in territories like Saxony and Scandinavia.
Each diocese (or district) would have a bishop responsible for all congregations within a specific geographical area.
Bishops would be elected by clergy and laity within the diocese, ensuring that they are confessionally faithful and not just political appointees.
A National Council of Bishops would meet regularly to ensure unity in doctrine and practice across the church.
A Presiding Bishop (Primus Inter Pares, “First Among Equals”) would lead the council, but without papal-style authority—his role would be to coordinate, not to rule.
Decisions would be bound to the Lutheran Confessions—no bishop could introduce new doctrines, only preserve the ones we already confess.
This structure would prevent individual congregations from drifting into either Evangelicalism or liberalism, while also ensuring consistency in doctrine and worship throughout the Lutheran Church.
3. Why Would This Be Better Than the Current System?
Right now, the LCMS doesn’t really have a way to enforce doctrine. Sure, it has doctrinal statements. It has conventions. It has a synod president. But at the local level, churches can do whatever they want, and by the time false doctrine is identified, it’s often too late.
A Lutheran episcopate would:
Stop theological drift before it spreads – Instead of waiting for heresy to get bad enough for a synodical vote, a bishop could take immediate action.
Ensure that all Lutheran churches remain liturgically faithful – No more Evangelical-style praise bands, contemporary worship, or watered-down services.
Restore lost practices like private confession and reverent Eucharistic devotion – A bishop would teach and encourage these things instead of letting them fade away.
Provide stable leadership instead of short-term elected presidents – Instead of changing leadership every few years, bishops would provide long-term continuity in doctrine and practice.
This is not about making Lutheranism more Catholic—it’s about making Lutheranism more Lutheran. The early Lutherans kept bishops where possible. They only rejected the office where it was being misused to impose false doctrine. If structured properly, a Lutheran episcopate wouldn’t be a power grab—it would be a way to protect the Church from the constant theological and liturgical drift we see today.
The Episcopate Is Apostolic: The Teaching of the Apostolic and Church Fathers
One of the most common objections to the idea of a Lutheran episcopate is that it is supposedly "too Catholic" or that Lutheranism, as a Protestant tradition, should reject any hierarchical form of church governance. But the reality is that the episcopate is not a Roman Catholic innovation—it is an apostolic institution. The early Lutherans understood this, and the structure of the Church before the Reformation proves it. The idea that bishops were some later development, imposed by Rome, is simply ahistorical.
To see why an episcopate is essential to the Church’s structure, we need to go back to the earliest sources—the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers, those who lived within the first few centuries after the apostles. Their writings confirm what should already be obvious from Scripture itself: the Church was led by bishops from the beginning.
The Witness of the Apostolic Fathers
One of the most reliable sources we have on the structure of the early Church is St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–107 A.D.). Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle and served as bishop of Antioch, one of the most important cities of the early Christian world. On his way to martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters to various Christian communities. In these letters, he makes it crystal clear that the Church was governed by bishops, assisted by presbyters (priests) and deacons.
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes:
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop." (Smyrnaeans 8:1)
He also warns against those who try to separate themselves from the authority of the bishop:
"Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church." (Smyrnaeans 8:2)
This passage alone destroys the idea that bishops were some later, medieval invention. The episcopate was already fully established by the early second century, just a few decades after the death of the apostles. And this isn’t the opinion of a random theologian—it comes from a direct disciple of John.
Ignatius repeats this theme in multiple letters. In his Letter to the Ephesians, he writes:
"It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality; as some call the bishop 'bishop' but do all things apart from him. Such men do not seem to me to have a good conscience, for they do not assemble lawfully as commanded." (Ephesians 5:1)
Again, we see the same pattern: to be part of the true Church, one must be under the authority of a bishop. Those who separate themselves from this structure are rejecting the order established by the apostles.
The Continuity of the Episcopate in the Church Fathers
The structure of bishop, presbyter, and deacon did not disappear after the apostolic age—it continued unbroken throughout the early Church. Another crucial witness is St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 A.D.), a bishop who wrote extensively against heresies.
In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus defends the faith by appealing to the unbroken succession of bishops:
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles, and their successors down to our time." (Against Heresies 3.3.1)
Irenaeus' argument is simple: true doctrine is preserved through apostolic succession—through the bishops who were appointed by the apostles and their successors. This is not a Catholic argument; this is the plain historical fact of how the early Church functioned.
Another significant witness is Tertullian (c. 155–240 A.D.), who—despite later falling into error—affirmed the necessity of episcopal succession:
"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning, in such a manner that their first bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men." (The Prescription Against Heretics 32)
Once again, we see the same pattern: a Church without an episcopate is a Church that has lost its apostolic foundation.
What About the Lutheran Reformers?
Many people assume that Luther and the Reformers rejected bishops entirely. But this is false. The early Lutheran Reformers actually wanted to retain the historic episcopate, and it was only because of political circumstances that Lutheran churches ended up with a different structure.
In the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, written by Philip Melanchthon and included in the Book of Concord, the Reformers affirm the biblical and historical legitimacy of bishops:
"The Gospel requires that we should believe that we are freely justified on account of Christ, and not on account of our works, and that we should not introduce into the Church a custom that is contrary to this faith. But it is our greatest wish to maintain the government of the Church and the ranks in the Church, even though they were established by human authority." (Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 63)
Melanchthon is clear: the Lutheran Reformers were not opposed to bishops in principle. They objected to the abuses of the papacy, but they recognized that an episcopal structure was not only permissible but desirable—as long as it was not tied to Rome’s false claims of universal authority.
What Happens When the Episcopate Is Abandoned?
The problem with the LCMS’s synodical structure is that it has no historical precedent in the early Church. The idea of a denomination governed by conventions, votes, and bureaucratic committees is entirely foreign to both the New Testament and the early Church.
When the episcopate is abandoned, several things happen:
Doctrinal Drift Becomes Uncontrollable – Without bishops overseeing doctrine, seminaries and pastors can teach whatever they want for years before the synod even notices. This is exactly what happened in the Seminex crisis, and it is happening again as progressive theology slowly works its way back into the LCMS.
Liturgical Chaos Ensues – Without bishops ensuring proper worship, congregations start doing whatever they want. Some keep the liturgy, others bring in rock bands and PowerPoint presentations. Some take the Sacraments seriously, others treat them as optional. This is exactly what we see in the LCMS today.
Church Discipline Becomes Weak and Ineffective – In an episcopal structure, heretical pastors are removed swiftly. In a synodical structure, it takes years of debate, voting, and political maneuvering to deal with false teachers. This is why false doctrine has taken root in so many places.
Oh Gosh we aren’t even done lets examine what else the LCMS is failing today.
1. The LCMS Is Falling Into Evangelicalism
One of the most obvious problems is the slow but steady Evangelicalization of LCMS congregations. Walk into many LCMS churches today, and you’ll find:
Giant TV screens replacing stained glass and hymnals
Contemporary worship music replacing chant and organ
Casual, "seeker-friendly" services that feel more like an entertainment event than the Divine Service
Sermons that sound like generic Evangelical self-help talks rather than Lutheran Law-Gospel preaching
The giant projector screens in Redeemer Lutheran Church in Peoria, IL are a perfect example of how the LCMS is drifting into Evangelical-style worship. These screens don’t belong in a historic Lutheran sanctuary, and their presence signals a shift away from liturgical and sacramental worship toward a more performance-driven experience.
Instead of drawing people’s focus to the altar, the pulpit, and the crucifix, these screens become the main visual attraction. Worship turns into a presentation rather than a sacred act centered on Christ’s presence. Rather than singing from a hymnal and following the liturgy, people stare at a screen, watching slides, sermon points, or song lyrics—just like they would in a non-denominational megachurch. This kind of media-heavy approach to worship is completely foreign to Lutheran tradition.
There are a few major problems with screens in a church like this:
They Distract from the Sacred – Lutheran sanctuaries are meant to reflect God’s presence through beauty and reverence, not feel like a conference hall with big digital displays. Instead of looking at the altar or the crucifix, people are staring at screens.
They Encourage Passive Worship – In historic Lutheranism, the congregation actively participates in the Divine Service—chanting, singing, confessing, receiving the Sacrament. But when worship is screen-driven, people become spectators instead of engaged participants.
They Push Worship Toward Entertainment – Screens don’t just display text. They set the tone of the service—and that tone is almost always Evangelical, casual, and performance-based. It’s no coincidence that the churches with screens tend to have contemporary music, watered-down sermons, and an informal approach to worship.
The placement of these screens says it all. They dominate the sanctuary, towering over the altar and pulpit. But in a truly Lutheran church, the most prominent visual elements should be the crucifix, the altar, and the pulpit—because Christ crucified is the center of worship. Instead, these screens become the focal point, drawing attention away from the holy things of God and replacing them with modern technology that serves no real purpose in a confessional Lutheran service.
The rest of the sanctuary design at Redeemer Lutheran Church also reveals the Evangelical drift. If you didn’t know better, you might mistake this for a non-denominational church instead of a Lutheran one.
The space is minimalist and sterile, completely missing the rich visual theology that Lutheran churches have historically embraced. There’s no stained glass, no crucifix, no icons of Christ or the saints—just a plain cross on the wall, a common feature in Evangelical-style sanctuaries. While the altar is there, it feels small and secondary, pushed back instead of being the centerpiece of the service.
This only reinforces the shift away from Sacramental worship toward a sermon-focused, Evangelical model.
This is the kind of church design that changes theology. When a church looks, feels, and functions like an Evangelical space, it eventually starts thinking and believing like one too. It’s no surprise that churches with screens like this are the ones where you’ll also find:
Praise bands replacing the organ and chanting
Casual, seeker-friendly services instead of reverent liturgy
Sermons that sound like Evangelical self-help talks instead of proper Law-Gospel preaching
A downplaying of the Sacraments—especially the frequency and reverence of the Lord’s Supper
This is why the LCMS must reclaim its historic identity. A Lutheran church should not look, feel, or function like an Evangelical church—because Lutheran worship is fundamentally different from Evangelical worship. Lutheranism is liturgical, Sacramental, and Christ-centered, not entertainment-driven.
If a church needs screens to keep people engaged, something has already gone wrong. The Divine Service doesn’t need technological gimmicks—it needs to be faithful to the liturgy and the Sacraments. The presence of these screens isn’t just an architectural choice—it’s a sign of a much deeper theological problem.
In some cases, you wouldn’t even know you were in a Lutheran church. The Sacrament of the Altar, which should be the center of worship, is treated as a secondary feature, or worse, something that happens only once a month. The historic liturgy, which was handed down from the early church and preserved in the Lutheran Reformation, is replaced by “praise bands” and feel-good emotionalism.
This shift isn’t an accident. It’s a direct result of the LCMS’s weak ecclesiastical structure. Since the synod has no real authority over individual congregations, pastors can do whatever they want. There is no bishop to say, “This is not Lutheran.” No one is holding these churches accountable.
If the LCMS had an episcopate—one with real confessional authority—this problem would not exist. Bishops would ensure that worship is rooted in Lutheran theology, not borrowed from Evangelicalism. Every congregation would follow the Divine Service, not a watered-down, consumer-friendly version of Christianity.
The LCMS isn’t dying because it’s “too traditional.” It’s struggling because it’s losing its identity. And when a church loses its identity, it either fades into irrelevance or becomes something entirely different from what it was meant to be.
2. The LCMS Is Not Even True Lutheranism Anymore
Most people assume that the LCMS is the strongest confessional Lutheran body in the world. And compared to groups like the ELCA, it is. But being less liberal than the ELCA doesn’t mean the LCMS is truly Lutheran.
The LCMS has abandoned key aspects of historic Lutheranism, including:
The Episcopate – Early Lutherans retained bishops. The LCMS replaced them with a bureaucratic president and conventions, treating the church like a democracy rather than a spiritual kingdom.
Liturgical Uniformity – In the 16th century, Lutheran churches followed a common order of worship. Today, LCMS congregations do whatever they want, with no consistency.
Church Discipline – Historically, Lutheran bishops ensured doctrinal purity by removing heretical pastors. In the LCMS, bad theology can spread for years before anything is done—if anything is done at all.
The LCMS claims to be a confessional church, but in reality, it functions more like a decentralized Protestant denomination than the historic Lutheran Church. If someone from the 16th century stepped into a modern LCMS church, they would barely recognize it as Lutheran.
3. The LCMS Is Falling Back Into Liberalism
Some might say, “We fought off Seminex. We won. The LCMS is conservative now.” But anyone who has studied church history knows that liberalism never dies—it just regroups and comes back later. And that’s exactly what’s happening now.
There are several warning signs that the LCMS is beginning to drift leftward again:
The Large Catechism Controversy – In 2023, the LCMS published a new edition of Luther’s Large Catechism that included essays from LCMS pastors and theologians. Some of these essays contained troubling theological language and positions that seemed to open the door to a softening stance on race, gender, and sexuality.
One essay used the language of Critical Race Theory, which has no place in a confessional Lutheran document.
Another essay appeared to take a less strict stance on LGBTQ issues, which raised concerns about whether the LCMS was beginning to follow the ELCA’s trajectory.
While LCMS leadership later clarified its position, the fact that such essays were included in the first place shows that theological drift is happening again—just as it did before Seminex.
Some LCMS pastors and theologians are questioning biblical inerrancy—again. The same ideas that led to Seminex are resurfacing, just in a more subtle way.
Cultural pressure is causing some LCMS churches to soften their stance on moral issues. Topics like marriage, sexuality, and gender roles are being treated as gray areas rather than biblical absolutes.
There is growing resistance to closed communion and doctrinal boundaries. Many LCMS churches are moving toward a “everyone is welcome” approach, even when visitors do not confess Lutheran doctrine.
The same arguments used by the ELCA to justify their theological decline are starting to appear in some LCMS circles. It won’t happen overnight, but unless the LCMS makes serious changes, the next Seminex will come.
Chapter 2: St. John LCMS in Cypress, Texas—A Church That Fails to Represent True Lutheranism
Introduction
Many assume that because the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) is more theologically conservative than other Lutheran bodies, it faithfully represents historic, confessional Lutheranism. However, in practice, many LCMS congregations have abandoned the liturgical and sacramental heritage of Lutheranism, replacing it with a worship style and church environment that is nearly indistinguishable from mainstream Evangelicalism.
St. John LCMS in Cypress, Texas, is a clear example of this problem. While it claims to be a confessional Lutheran congregation, its architecture, worship style, and overall atmosphere reflect Evangelical influences rather than Lutheran tradition. This church, like many others in the LCMS, has embraced a contemporary, performance-based model of worship that lacks the depth, reverence, and sacramental focus of true Lutheranism.
This chapter will examine how St. John LCMS fails to uphold historic Lutheran worship, theology, and identity—and why this trend must be corrected if Lutheranism is to survive as a distinct confessional tradition.
Here are some Pictures of this church:
1. The Architecture Reflects Evangelical, Not Lutheran, Priorities
Church architecture is not just decoration—it is an expression of theology. Lutheran church buildings were historically designed to reflect Christ’s presence in Word and Sacrament, drawing worshipers toward the altar and the crucifix as the focal points of divine worship.
St. John LCMS, however, follows a modern Evangelical approach to church architecture rather than traditional Lutheran design.
The Exterior Lacks Confessional Lutheran Identity
The building’s A-frame design is common in many churches, but it lacks the strong, explicit Lutheran identity that traditional Lutheran churches once had.
No prominent crucifix or Lutheran imagery is visible from the outside. Traditional Lutheran churches display a crucifix, a Luther Rose, or biblical artwork to immediately communicate their confessional identity. This church’s glass-heavy modern design makes it look more like a conference center than a house of divine worship.
The Interior Is Designed for Performance, Not the Divine Service
The altar is small and secondary rather than being the central focus of the sanctuary. In historic Lutheran churches, the altar is elevated, ornate, and clearly the center of worship, signifying the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Here, the altar is pushed to the back, overshadowed by an open stage design that resembles an Evangelical worship center.
Screens and projectors dominate the sanctuary, turning worship into a visual presentation rather than a liturgical experience. In contrast, traditional Lutheran churches use stained glass, icons, and sacred artwork to teach theology and draw people into reverent contemplation.
A stage replaces the traditional chancel, making it feel more like a concert venue than a place for sacramental worship.
No ornate altar rail—traditional Lutheran churches have altar rails for kneeling communion, reinforcing the doctrine of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist. The absence of one suggests a more casual approach to the Sacrament.
True Lutheran churches are designed to convey the presence of Christ in the Sacrament and the majesty of divine worship. St. John LCMS, however, reflects the architecture of a contemporary Evangelical megachurch, not a historic Lutheran parish.
2. The Worship Style Is Evangelical, Not Lutheran
Worship at St. John LCMS does not reflect the historic liturgy of the Lutheran Church. Instead, it has adopted a casual, emotionally-driven style that is foreign to Lutheran theology.
Music That Reflects Evangelical Praise Culture
Modern praise-band music replaces traditional Lutheran hymnody. Lutheran worship has always prioritized deep, theological hymnody, such as the hymns of Martin Luther, Paul Gerhardt, and other great Lutheran composers.
Contemporary worship music focuses on personal emotion rather than corporate confession. The Divine Service is about Christ and His gifts, not personal spiritual experiences driven by repetitive, vague lyrics.
A Worship Atmosphere That Lacks Lutheran Structure and Reverence
The historic liturgy is abandoned or significantly modified. Instead of following the Divine Service, worship becomes a free-flowing, unstructured event that mimics Evangelical “seeker-friendly” services.
No chanting of the liturgy—Lutheran services historically include chanting of the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Preface, and the Words of Institution. This is absent in contemporary LCMS churches like St. John, which prioritize casual accessibility over historic Lutheran practice.
A focus on stage performance rather than Christ-centered liturgical action—traditional Lutheran worship places the pastor at the altar, leading corporate confession and absolution. Here, the emphasis is on worship leaders, musicians, and personal engagement rather than the means of grace.
The Divine Service should be reverent, structured, and sacramental. St. John LCMS replaces this with Evangelical performance-driven worship, which does not properly reflect Lutheran theology.
3. The Absence of a Crucifix and the Theological Implications
One of the most telling signs of Evangelical influence in this church is the absence of a crucifix. Instead, St. John LCMS has a plain wooden cross—a common feature in Reformed and Evangelical churches but not in historic Lutheranism.
Why the Crucifix Matters in Lutheran Worship
Lutherans have always retained the crucifix. Martin Luther himself rejected iconoclasm, arguing that the crucifix clearly proclaims Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23).
A plain cross is theologically ambiguous. It can be found in any Christian church, but a crucifix specifically confesses the atonement and Christ’s bodily sacrifice for sin.
Historic Lutheran churches always displayed a large crucifix above or near the altar, reinforcing the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.
The absence of a crucifix suggests an unspoken shift toward Reformed theology, which tends to downplay Christ’s bodily presence in both the Eucharist and sacred imagery.
While St. John LCMS does display a cross, it lacks the full Lutheran confession of Christ’s presence and atoning work that a crucifix would proclaim. This is another way in which the church’s identity leans more toward generic Protestantism than confessional Lutheranism.
4. The Loss of Confessional Lutheran Identity
Beyond worship and architecture, St. John LCMS fails to uphold a clear confessional Lutheran identity.
No visible emphasis on the Book of Concord or Lutheran doctrine – A true Lutheran church should be boldly and unapologetically confessional. The Augsburg Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Small Catechism should be central in teaching and practice.
No strong catechesis in Lutheran distinctives – There is little indication that this church actively teaches Lutheran distinctives, such as baptismal regeneration, the real presence in the Eucharist, private confession, and the distinction between Law and Gospel.
A general blending with Evangelical culture – This church looks, feels, and operates like an Evangelical congregation rather than a historic Lutheran parish.
Why Lutheran Churches Should Look Like Catholic Churches
When people walk into a Lutheran church, they should immediately know they are in a place of reverence, holiness, and divine presence. The architecture, the artwork, the layout—all of it should point to Christ, His Sacraments, and His Church. But today, too many Lutheran churches look like Evangelical gathering spaces, multipurpose rooms, or even corporate conference halls rather than places of sacred worship.
This is why Lutheran churches need to return to the historic model of church architecture, which, for centuries, has looked more like a traditional Catholic church than a modern Protestant one. That’s not because we are Roman Catholic, but because the historic Christian tradition—before the Reformation, before the medieval corruptions of Rome—has always built churches with a deep sense of sacred beauty.
Lutheranism is not a rejection of the Church’s history and tradition—it is a restoration of the Gospel within the historic Church. And if that’s true, then our church buildings should reflect the depth, beauty, and reverence of that tradition.
Modern Lutheran Churches Have Lost Their Sense of the Sacred
Too many LCMS churches today have lost their sense of sacred architecture. Instead of looking like churches, they look like:
Evangelical-style auditoriums with projector screens and massive open spaces.
Bare, minimalist halls with white walls, no artwork, and no visual theology.
Multipurpose rooms where the sanctuary is just another part of the church building, used for different functions throughout the week.
When a church looks secular, casual, or performance-driven, it teaches people that worship is something casual. Architecture is theology—a building designed for entertainment-based worship will eventually lead to entertainment-driven theology.
This is why so many modern Lutheran churches have weak, shallow worship. They have abandoned the visual, sensory, and architectural elements that reinforce the theology of Christ’s real presence in Word and Sacrament. When a church looks more like a conference center than a place of worship, people begin to treat it that way.
Traditional Church Architecture Teaches Theology Without Words
When you step into a historic Lutheran church—or even a Catholic one—you immediately feel the difference. The high ceilings, the stained glass, the altar, the crucifix, the candles, the icons—all of these things visually proclaim the presence of Christ.
Traditional Lutheran churches understood this. They followed the same basic architectural principles as the early Church and the medieval Church, because those designs were developed to reflect the transcendence of God and the centrality of Christ.
The High Altar and the Eastward Focus
The altar is meant to be the center of worship, not the preacher, not the music, not a projector screen.
Early Lutheran churches kept the high altar because they understood that Christ is truly present in the Sacrament of the Altar.
Traditionally, churches were built facing east, symbolizing the rising of the sun and the return of Christ.
The Crucifix and Sacred Imagery
The crucifix is a central feature of historic Lutheran churches, reminding worshipers that Christ’s sacrifice is the focus of worship.
Sacred imagery—stained glass, paintings of biblical scenes, statues of Christ—teaches theology visually, reinforcing the truths of the faith.
A Sense of Sacred Space
The nave and sanctuary are designed to lead people toward reverence.
The space is designed to silence distractions, create awe, and draw attention to the presence of Christ in Word and Sacrament.
Instead of feeling like an auditorium, it feels like you are stepping into God’s presence.
Lutheran Churches Used to Look Like This
One of the biggest misconceptions people have is that Lutherans never built churches like this—but that’s just false.
Early Lutheran churches, especially in Germany and Scandinavia, retained Catholic-style architecture, high altars, vestments, incense, and sacred imagery. The only thing they removed was false doctrine, not sacred beauty.
Look at historic Lutheran cathedrals in Europe:
St. Mary’s Church in Wittenberg (Luther’s own church) has a high altar, a massive crucifix, and beautiful sacred art.
Uppsala Cathedral in Sweden, originally Catholic, was retained by the Lutherans after the Reformation and remains a visually stunning, deeply reverent place of worship.
Historic Lutheran churches in Germany and Scandinavia look almost identical to traditional Catholic cathedrals—because they preserved what was good and true in Christian worship.
The idea that Lutheran churches should be plain, stripped-down, and minimalistic is a modern, American invention. It has nothing to do with historic Lutheranism.
But Won’t This Look "Too Catholic"?
Some people will argue that building Lutheran churches in this way will make them look "too Catholic." But this objection completely misunderstands history.
The early Church—long before the rise of the papacy, indulgences, or medieval Catholic corruption—built churches this way. The Orthodox Church still builds churches this way. This kind of architecture is not Roman Catholic—it is Christian.
Martin Luther himself never intended to get rid of sacred art, traditional church buildings, or a sense of reverence in worship. In fact, Luther once said:
"I have myself heard people say that the pictures, statues, and ornaments in the churches are idolatry and should be burned. But I do not agree. It would be unchristian to abolish all of this." (Luther’s Works, Vol. 40)
Luther understood that sacred beauty teaches theology. It draws people into a deeper reverence for Christ and His gifts. If a church looks bare, empty, and secular, it fails to communicate the holiness of what happens in worship.
Building Churches That Reflect Lutheran Theology
If we are serious about restoring true Lutheranism, then we need to build churches that reflect the fullness of our theology. That means:
No more sterile, Evangelical-looking buildings with white walls and no artwork.
No more projector screens dominating the sanctuary.
No more multipurpose spaces where the sanctuary doubles as a conference hall.
No more churches that look like they belong to any random Protestant denomination.
Instead, we should build churches that:
Have high altars and a clear sacramental focus.
Use stained glass, crucifixes, and sacred imagery to teach theology visually.
Have architecture that lifts people’s eyes upward toward God, not toward a stage or a screen.
Feel like places of sacred reverence, not casual community centers.
For example, here are some pictures that are from catholic churches that accurately represent what a Lutheran church should look like.
The first and second images emphasize the high ceilings, sacred symmetry, and centrality of the altar, reinforcing how traditional church architecture draws worshipers into the presence of God.
The third image, with its ornate altar, candles, and sacred paintings, highlights the importance of visual theology—something historic Lutheranism embraced but many LCMS churches have abandoned.
Conclusion: A Church That Fails to Represent Lutheranism
St. John LCMS is not a church that accurately represents historic, confessional Lutheranism. While it retains some Lutheran theological positions, its architecture, worship style, and overall atmosphere are shaped more by Evangelical trends than by Lutheran tradition.
This is part of a larger crisis in the LCMS—one that cannot be fixed unless Lutheranism recovers its identity. Without strong episcopal oversight to ensure doctrinal and liturgical consistency, more LCMS congregations will continue abandoning the richness of Lutheran tradition in favor of modern, market-driven Evangelicalism.
The only way to ensure that Lutheranism remains truly Lutheran is to restore a confessional Lutheran episcopate that will guard doctrine, preserve liturgy, and maintain the historic faith of the Church.
Chapter 3: What Is True Lutheranism?
Introduction
When most people think of Lutheranism today, they picture a generic Protestant church with hymnals, some liturgy, and a once-a-month communion service. Many LCMS congregations feel almost identical to Baptist or Evangelical churches, except they still recite the Apostles’ Creed and occasionally mention baptismal regeneration. But this modern version of Lutheranism is nothing like what the Reformers practiced.
The early Lutherans were not low-church Protestants. They were deeply liturgical, sacramental, and reverent in worship. They retained the Mass, incense, vestments, chanting, crucifixes, and sacred art. Lutheranism was never meant to be a stripped-down, plain, Protestant movement—it was a catholic (universal) faith, purged of papal errors but still deeply rooted in the worship of the historic Church.
If Lutheranism is to survive, it must return to what it was meant to be. The LCMS—and other confessional Lutheran bodies—must recover true Lutheranism, not the watered-down version that has taken hold in America.
1. Lutheran Preaching Must Be Theological, Not Sentimental
One of the biggest problems in modern Lutheran churches—especially in the LCMS—is the slow but steady drift away from theological preaching. Sermons today have become shallow, repetitive, and generic, filled with vague statements about God’s love rather than serious engagement with Scripture and doctrine. Many pastors seem afraid to preach with real theological depth, choosing instead to focus on emotionally uplifting messages that sound more like something from an Evangelical megachurch than historic Lutheranism.
This is a betrayal of the Lutheran tradition of bold, doctrinally rich preaching. The Reformers understood that preaching isn’t just about making people feel good—it’s about teaching theology, rightly dividing Law and Gospel, and equipping the congregation with a deep understanding of the faith. A Lutheran sermon isn’t supposed to be a self-help talk, a motivational speech, or a generic Christian pep talk. It is supposed to be a proclamation of the Word of God in all its depth, power, and richness.
But today, that depth is missing from many LCMS pulpits. Too many sermons boil down to nothing more than surface-level affirmations:
"Jesus loves you." (Yes, but how? What does that mean in light of justification, atonement, and sanctification?)
"God is good." (Yes, but what does that tell us about His attributes—His omnipotence, omniscience, and providence?)
"We should trust in God." (Yes, but what does that trust look like in a world of sin, suffering, and theological confusion?)
These are all true statements, but they aren’t enough. They don’t teach anyone how to think theologically. They don’t explain why Lutheran doctrine is different from Evangelicalism, Catholicism, or Reformed theology. They don’t equip people to defend their faith, understand Scripture deeply, or engage with the Confessions.
The tragedy is that Lutheranism has one of the richest theological traditions in all of Christianity, yet most LCMS sermons sound indistinguishable from what you’d hear at a generic Protestant church down the street. Where are the sermons that teach the proper distinction between Law and Gospel? Where are the sermons that explain justification, election, Christology, the sacraments, or the bondage of the will? Where are the sermons that engage with the Church Fathers, the Lutheran Confessions, and the depths of biblical theology?
Preaching in the Time of the Reformation: A Model for Today
The Lutheran Reformers didn’t preach shallow, sentimental messages—they preached serious theology. Their sermons were not just about Jesus’ love in a generic sense; they were about how His atonement actually works, how His righteousness is imputed to us, and how the sacraments deliver real grace. Luther’s sermons were often highly doctrinal, filled with references to Scripture, theology, and the early Church Fathers.
Compare that to today, where many LCMS pastors refuse to even mention the sacraments in their sermons. They speak of faith in vague terms, without explaining what faith actually clings to. They say "Jesus saves" but never go into the mechanics of justification. The average LCMS sermon today is more about feelings than doctrine, which is why so many Lutherans have drifted toward Evangelical or Reformed theology without even realizing it.
If pastors actually preached the way Luther, Chemnitz, or Walther preached, their congregations would be able to:
Understand and articulate the doctrine of justification by faith alone—not just say "Jesus died for me," but explain how Christ’s righteousness is imputed to sinners.
Defend the real presence in the Lord’s Supper—not just say "Communion is important," but explain why Christ’s body and blood are truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.
Grasp the proper distinction between Law and Gospel—not just hear "God forgives you," but understand how the Law first condemns, then the Gospel rescues.
Reject false teachings—not just be told "God loves everyone," but understand how that love works within the framework of sin, grace, and divine election.
The Danger of Watered-Down Preaching
When Lutheran preaching becomes shallow and generic, it has real consequences:
People Leave for Evangelical Churches. If Lutheran pastors aren’t teaching Lutheran theology, then why should people stay in a Lutheran church? If the sermon they hear on Sunday sounds no different than what’s preached at the local non-denominational church, why would they bother remaining Lutheran? This is exactly why so many LCMS members slowly drift into Evangelicalism without realizing they’ve abandoned Lutheran doctrine.
People Become Theologically Illiterate. A church that doesn’t teach theology produces weak, confused Christians. Many Lutherans today cannot explain their own beliefs because they’ve never actually been taught their own theology from the pulpit. If pastors don’t explain the difference between Lutheran and Reformed views of justification, the sacraments, and the Church, then members will assume that all Protestant churches basically believe the same thing—which is completely false.
False Doctrine Creeps In. When churches stop teaching doctrine, people naturally fill in the gaps with whatever theology they’ve absorbed from books, YouTube, and pop-Christian culture. This is how we’ve ended up with Evangelical-style altar calls in Lutheran churches, Baptistic views of baptism, and a creeping acceptance of Reformed views on the sacraments. The reason these errors take hold is because pastors aren’t correcting them in the pulpit.
Restoring Theological Preaching in Lutheran Churches
The solution is simple but requires courage: pastors need to stop preaching like generic Protestants and start preaching like Lutherans. That means:
Expositing the Scriptures deeply and theologically. Sermons should teach not just what the Bible says, but how Lutheran theology understands it in light of the Confessions.
Preaching doctrine unapologetically. Pastors should boldly teach justification, election, Christology, the sacraments, and the nature of the Church—not assume that people already know these things.
Engaging with the Lutheran Confessions. Sermons should reference the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord. These documents define what it means to be Lutheran—yet they are almost never quoted from the pulpit anymore.
Not being afraid to challenge false ideas. If people in the congregation are holding to Evangelical or Reformed theology, the pastor should lovingly correct them. If there are misunderstandings about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or the role of works, the pastor should explain these issues clearly instead of avoiding them.
Preaching both Law and Gospel distinctly. The Law should not be softened into mere life advice, and the Gospel should not be reduced to a generic "God loves you." The proper distinction between Law and Gospel is the heart of Lutheran preaching, and it must be restored.
2. The Lutheran Church Must Preach the Law—Not Just Read It
One of the most glaring failures of modern LCMS preaching is the near-total neglect of the Law. Yes, the Old Testament is still read in the Divine Service, but that’s about as far as it goes. The pastor gets up, preaches a sermon almost exclusively on the Gospel reading, and completely ignores or glosses over the Old Testament text—except maybe to use it as a vague illustration or a historical reference. The Law is barely mentioned, and when it is, it’s often softened beyond recognition.
This isn’t just a small oversight—it’s a massive theological failure. It’s not a creeping problem; it’s an open embrace of Antinomianism—the heresy that rejects the necessity of preaching the Law. Many LCMS churches have functionally adopted this heresy, whether knowingly or not. It’s become standard practice in the Synod to act as if the Law is just background noise, something that’s there but doesn’t need to be preached with force or applied to the congregation.
The result? Entire generations of Lutherans have never actually heard the full force of God’s Law preached from the pulpit. Many in the LCMS have no real understanding of sin beyond vague ideas of imperfection. The Law is read, but never preached in a way that convicts sinners and drives them to repentance. Instead, sermons focus on comfort, encouragement, and reassurance, as if everyone in the pews is already a faithful, obedient Christian who just needs to be reminded that Jesus loves them.
This is not Lutheranism. This is a betrayal of the entire purpose of preaching.
Luther Fought Against This Same Heresy
The idea that the Law no longer needs to be preached is nothing new. During the Reformation, Luther had to battle the Antinomians, who claimed that since Christians are justified by faith alone, the preaching of the Law was unnecessary. One of the most famous of these Antinomians was Johann Agricola, a former student of Luther who argued that preachers should only preach the Gospel because the Law no longer applied to Christians.
Luther absolutely rejected this nonsense. He wrote forcefully against Agricola and insisted that the Law must still be preached in its full severity, even to Christians. In his Antinomian Disputations, Luther made it clear that the Law is not just for the unbeliever, but also for the believer, because our sinful nature still clings to us. He warned that if preachers abandon the Law, they will produce people who think they have no need for repentance.
Luther understood that the Gospel only makes sense when it follows the preaching of the Law. If the Law is not preached, then the Gospel is reduced to cheap grace—a meaningless, feel-good message about God's love that never actually leads anyone to repentance.
And yet, this is exactly what has happened in many LCMS churches today. The Law is treated as something optional, as if mentioning sin too directly might scare people away. Instead of preaching the Law to crush the sinner, many LCMS pastors avoid it or soften it, making their sermons sound more like generic Evangelical pep talks than true Lutheran preaching.
What Happens When the Law Is Neglected?
The effects of this Antinomianism are obvious:
People no longer understand what sin actually is. When the Law isn’t preached, people stop recognizing sin in their own lives. Everything becomes a vague struggle rather than outright rebellion against God. People see themselves as "broken" or "imperfect," but never as condemned sinners who deserve God's wrath. This is why so many modern Lutherans think of sin as nothing more than personal shortcomings rather than outright violations of God's Law.
The Gospel is reduced to emotional reassurance. Without the Law, the Gospel is no longer the glorious announcement that Christ has saved sinners from God’s wrath—it’s just a vague reminder that God loves you no matter what. People no longer hear that they are under God’s judgment and need to be rescued; they only hear that God accepts them just as they are. The Gospel is de-fanged, stripped of its power, and turned into nothing more than a comforting sentiment.
Repentance becomes meaningless. If people never hear the Law with full force, they never truly understand the weight of their sin. And if they don’t understand the weight of their sin, then they have no reason to actually repent. Instead of being called to deep, heartfelt repentance, they are simply encouraged to "try harder" or "grow in their faith." But true repentance is not self-improvement—it is the complete recognition of one's total sinfulness and helplessness before God. If the Law is not preached, true repentance disappears, and all that remains is a shallow, moralistic Christianity that makes people feel religious without ever calling them to repentance.
False teaching and moral decay increase. A church that does not preach the Law will soon find itself filled with sin and false doctrine. Why? Because no one is ever rebuked. No one is ever called to repentance. No one is ever told that their sinful beliefs and behaviors will lead them to hell if they do not turn away from them. The moment the Law is removed, the Church becomes weak, lazy, and morally compromised. This is why so many LCMS churches today tolerate false teaching, weak preaching, and theological drift—because the pastors are too afraid to actually confront people with the truth.
How LCMS Preaching Can Recover from This Antinomian Disaster
The only way to fix this catastrophe is for pastors to start preaching the Law again, with full force and without apology. That means:
Actually preaching from the Old Testament, not just reading it. The Old Testament isn't just background history—it contains God’s Law, His judgment, and His warnings against sin. If a church only preaches from the Gospels and Epistles, it is neglecting a huge part of God’s Word.
Preaching the Law in its full severity—not just as "guidelines" for Christian living, but as the absolute, holy standard of God that condemns all sinners. The Law should not be softened, reinterpreted, or turned into mere "life advice." It should be preached as it is: God's righteous judgment that drives people to despair so that they may flee to Christ.
Calling people to actual, serious repentance. No more vague encouragement to "do better." No more soft language about "brokenness." Preachers need to boldly call people to repent of their sins, naming those sins directly and warning of God’s judgment if they do not repent.
Distinguishing Law and Gospel properly. The Law must be preached in all its terror, and the Gospel must be preached in all its sweetness. The two should never be mixed, and the Gospel must never be given before the Law has done its work. If a congregation never trembles under the weight of the Law, they will never truly appreciate the depths of Christ’s mercy in the Gospel.
3. The Lutheran Church Has Always Been Liturgical
The idea that Lutheran worship should be casual, contemporary, or minimalist is a modern invention. True Lutheranism has always been liturgical.
The Lutheran Reformation did not abolish the Mass. It reformed it, removing the false idea of sacrifice but keeping the beauty, structure, and reverence of historic Christian worship.
Incense, chanting, vestments, and sacred art were never rejected—they were retained in Lutheran churches for centuries.
The Augsburg Confession (Article XXIV) explicitly says that “we do not abolish the Mass but keep it with greater devotion.”
Luther himself kept the historic liturgy and encouraged pastors to maintain reverent, Christ-centered worship.
Compare this to many LCMS churches today, where you see:
Projectors and TV screens instead of altars and crucifixes
Casual, chatty sermons instead of reverent proclamation of the Word
Self-composed prayers and modern praise bands instead of the ancient liturgy
This is not Lutheranism. This is Evangelicalism with Lutheran branding. True Lutheranism looks, feels, and sounds like the historic Church—not like a megachurch trying to attract an audience.
4. The Lutheran Church Has Always Used Incense
Many modern Lutherans wrongly assume that incense is "too Catholic." But incense was part of Christian worship long before Rome abused it, and early Lutheran churches never abandoned it.
Incense was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 30:7, Malachi 1:11).
It was used in the temple and synagogue worship, which Jesus participated in.
Revelation 8:3-4 describes incense as a symbol of the prayers of the saints.
Lutheran churches continued using incense for centuries, especially in Germany and Scandinavia.
Incense is a visual and sensory reminder that worship is not just about intellectual belief—it’s about body and soul being engaged in reverent devotion to God. It reminds us that worship is not entertainment but something sacred and set apart from the world.
3. The Lutheran Church Has Always Had the Mass
The idea that Lutherans don’t have a Mass is another modern misconception. The early Lutherans used the word Mass freely, as did the Augsburg Confession and the Lutheran Reformers.
Augsburg Confession XXIV: “Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence.”
Luther’s German Mass (1526) was not a rejection of liturgical worship but a reform of it.
The Mass was central to Lutheran worship for centuries, with the Sacrament of the Altar offered every Sunday.
Compare this to many LCMS churches today:
Communion is offered only once a month—or even less.
Some pastors treat the Sacrament as optional rather than the heart of Christian worship.
The language of the "Lutheran Mass" has disappeared, replaced with “Divine Service” to distance it from historic liturgical tradition.
This is not how true Lutheranism was meant to function. The Lord’s Supper is not an extra feature—it is the center of Christian worship. Without it, the church service is incomplete.
5. The Lutheran Church Has Always Used Vestments
If you look at portraits of Lutheran pastors from the 16th–19th centuries, you’ll notice something: they are always wearing vestments. The idea that Lutheran pastors should wear a business suit instead of chasubles, albs, and stoles is a modern, American invention.
Luther himself wore full vestments when leading the Mass.
The early Lutheran church retained chasubles, surplices, and clerical collars for centuries.
The only thing Lutherans rejected was the Roman Catholic teaching that vestments held supernatural power—but they never stopped using them.
Modern LCMS churches that reject vestments in favor of street clothes are abandoning Lutheran heritage. The pastor is not supposed to blend in with the congregation—he is standing in the place of Christ, proclaiming the Word and administering the Sacrament. Vestments remind the congregation that the focus is not on the man, but on Christ.
6. The Lutheran Church Has Always Used Sacred Art
Lutherans are not iconoclasts. The early Lutheran churches were filled with paintings, statues, stained glass, and religious imagery.
Luther himself defended the use of sacred art, saying it was beneficial for teaching and devotion.
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (XXI) explicitly says, “We do not abolish images, but only the abuse of images.”
Traditional Lutheran churches had altars, crucifixes, and images of Christ and the saints—not empty white walls like modern Reformed churches.
Yet today, many LCMS congregations have:
Bare, empty walls with no crucifix or altar artwork
No stained glass, statues, or paintings
Minimalistic sanctuaries that look more like conference halls than places of worship
This is not historic Lutheranism. A true Lutheran church should look like a sacred space, not a multipurpose room for casual gatherings.
7. The Lutheran Church Has Always Practiced Private Confession and Absolution
One of the most significant things missing from modern LCMS churches is private confession and absolution. The idea that Lutherans should only confess their sins during a general corporate confession on Sunday is completely foreign to historic Lutheranism. Private confession was a normal and expected part of Lutheran piety for centuries.
Luther himself regularly went to private confession and strongly encouraged others to do the same.
The Small Catechism explicitly teaches private confession and absolution as a practice that should continue.
The Augsburg Confession (Article XI) upholds private absolution, rejecting only the Catholic requirement that people list every sin in detail.
The Lutheran Reformers never intended for private confession to disappear. They simply rejected the abuses of forced confession while keeping the practice itself.
Yet today, most LCMS churches do not offer private confession at all. Many pastors never mention it or even discourage it, claiming that it is "too Catholic."
This is a tragic loss. Private confession is a direct, personal application of the Gospel, where the pastor speaks Christ’s absolution to an individual. It is one of the greatest gifts of Lutheranism, yet it has been almost completely abandoned.
A restored Lutheran episcopate would ensure that private confession and absolution were taught and practiced once again, giving the faithful access to the comfort and assurance they need.
8. The Lutheran Church Has Always Taught Reverence for the Lord’s Supper
True Lutheranism has always treated the Sacrament of the Altar with the highest reverence. This means:
Closed Communion – Only those who confess the true presence of Christ’s Body and Blood and are in full doctrinal agreement should receive the Sacrament.
Kneeling at the Altar Rail – Early Lutherans knelt to receive the Lord’s Supper as a sign of reverence and humility before Christ.
The Elevation of the Host and Chalice – Luther himself encouraged elevating the consecrated elements during the Words of Institution as a way of pointing to Christ’s true presence.
Communion on the Tongue – While not required, many early Lutheran churches gave the Sacrament on the tongue, just as it had been done for centuries before.
The Use of a Chalice Instead of Individual Cups – The common chalice is the historic and biblical way to receive Christ’s blood. Individual cups were introduced much later as a modern innovation.
But today, many LCMS churches treat the Sacrament casually:
Open Communion is creeping in, with some churches ignoring proper doctrinal examination.
People receive Communion in their hands while standing, often with little reverence.
The Words of Institution are rushed, with no elevation, no chanting, and no sense of the sacred.
Individual plastic cups are used, looking more like a coffee station than the Holy Eucharist.
This is not historic Lutheranism. If the early Reformers saw what passes for Communion in many LCMS churches today, they would be horrified.
A Lutheran episcopate would restore proper reverence to the Sacrament, ensuring that the Lord’s Supper is received with awe, faith, and proper preparation.
9. The Lutheran Church Has Always Had a Rich Tradition of Fasting and Feasts
Fasting is almost completely forgotten in modern Lutheranism. Yet for centuries, Lutherans regularly fasted in preparation for the Lord’s Supper and observed the traditional seasons of fasting and feasting.
Lutherans traditionally observed Advent as a season of preparation and fasting, not as a Christmas party.
Lent was strictly observed, with fasting and repentance leading up to Easter.
Ember Days and Rogation Days were part of the Lutheran calendar, preserving ancient Christian fasting traditions.
Meatless Fridays were observed by some Lutherans as an act of devotion.
Luther himself never rejected fasting. He simply opposed forcing it as a requirement for salvation. The idea that Lutherans don’t fast is a modern invention.
Along with fasting, the Lutheran Church also had a rich tradition of feast days and saints’ commemorations. While we do not pray to saints, historic Lutheranism honored the great saints of the faith—St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Mary, St. Peter, St. Paul, and many others. The Lutheran calendar was full of feast days and holy observances.
Today, most LCMS churches completely ignore the church calendar beyond Christmas and Easter. True Lutheranism embraces the rhythms of the Christian year, marking time with fasts and feasts as the Church has always done.
A restored Lutheran episcopate would bring back a full liturgical calendar, ensuring that Lutheranism recovers its historic devotional life.
10. The Lutheran Church Has Always Had Monastic Vocations and Religious Orders
Many people assume that Lutheranism completely abolished monasteries and religious orders. This is false.
Luther never rejected monastic life as such—he only rejected the idea that it was superior to the Christian life of ordinary believers.
The Augsburg Confession (Article XXVII) states that monasticism was good and useful when practiced properly.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, some Lutheran churches maintained deaconesses, religious orders, and houses of prayer.
Lutheran deaconess orders flourished in the 19th and early 20th centuries, providing vital care for the sick and poor.
Yet today, most LCMS churches do not even consider the possibility of religious vocations. There are no monasteries, no deaconess orders, no dedicated houses of prayer or retreat.
If the Lutheran Church had confessionally faithful religious orders, they could:
Provide a life of prayer and service for those called to it.
Train and equip laypeople in deep theological study and devotion.
Recover the forgotten Lutheran tradition of a life fully dedicated to God.
A Lutheran episcopate would encourage the revival of faithful, confessional Lutheran religious orders, offering a path for those who desire a life of prayer and service.
11. The Lutheran Church Has Always Emphasized Sacred Architecture
One of the most visible signs of the decline of true Lutheranism is the architecture of modern churches. Many LCMS churches today look indistinguishable from Evangelical megachurches—bland buildings with white walls, auditorium-style seating, and a stage instead of an altar. This is not how Lutheran churches were meant to look.
Historic Lutheran Architecture: A Reflection of Heavenly Worship
Early Lutheran churches were built with high altars, vaulted ceilings, and stained glass to remind worshipers that they were entering a sacred space—not just a meeting hall.
Altars were elevated, facing east, symbolizing Christ’s return and the church’s unity in worship throughout the ages.
Crucifixes were central, not just as decorations but as focal points for prayer and devotion.
Pulpits were often elevated, showing the prominence of the Word of God in the life of the Church.
Baptismal fonts were prominent, reminding all who entered that they had been baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection.
Compare this to many LCMS churches today:
Flat stages replace high altars—some churches don’t even have an altar at all.
Screens and projectors dominate the sanctuary, turning worship into a performance.
No sense of the sacred—people talk loudly, drink coffee, and treat the space casually.
The pulpit is gone, replaced by a music stand or a wireless microphone.
Sacred architecture matters. It teaches theology without words. A church that looks like a multipurpose room trains people to treat worship casually. A church that looks like a house of God trains people to approach God with reverence.
A restored Lutheran episcopate would ensure that Lutheran churches are designed and built in a way that reflects the majesty of Christ and the liturgical heritage of the Lutheran Church.
12. The Lutheran Church Has Always Had a Strong Public Presence
Lutheranism was never meant to be a private, hidden religion. It was a public faith, influencing society, culture, and politics. In the past, Lutheran churches were at the center of their communities—not just spiritually, but in education, charity, and public life.
How Historic Lutheranism Engaged with the World
Lutheran Schools and Universities – Nearly every major Lutheran church in history established schools, seminaries, and universities to train both pastors and laypeople in the faith.
Public Preaching and Evangelism – Lutheranism was not a quiet, insular faith—it sent missionaries, preached boldly, and engaged with the culture.
Strong Political Engagement – Lutheran leaders shaped laws, influenced kings, and defended Christian morality in the public square.
Charitable Institutions – Historic Lutheranism emphasized hospitals, orphanages, and care for the poor, demonstrating Christ’s love through works of mercy.
But today, the LCMS has retreated from the public sphere:
Lutheran schools are closing at an alarming rate.
Most LCMS churches do little or no public outreach beyond their own congregation.
There is no strong Lutheran voice in politics or public morality—Evangelicals and Catholics dominate the conversation, while Lutherans stay silent.
A true Lutheran episcopate would restore Lutheranism to its rightful place in society—not as a church that hides, but as a bold and public defender of Christ and His Word.
13. The Lutheran Church Has Always Valued Latin, Greek, and Hebrew
One of the greatest intellectual strengths of historic Lutheranism was its emphasis on classical Christian education, especially in the biblical languages. Luther himself was a Hebrew scholar who insisted that pastors know Greek and Latin fluently. Early Lutheran pastors were among the most educated clergy in the world.
The Role of Classical Education in Lutheranism
Lutheran pastors were required to learn Latin, Greek, and Hebrew so they could study the Scriptures in their original languages.
Lutheran schools emphasized philosophy, rhetoric, and classical literature, training Christians to think deeply and engage with culture.
Catechisms were often taught in Latin, helping students understand theology with precision.
Hymns and liturgy contained Latin phrases, connecting Lutheran worship to the historic Church.
But today, most LCMS pastors:
Do not know Greek or Hebrew beyond a basic seminary requirement.
Have little exposure to the Latin of the Lutheran Confessions and early church fathers.
Are trained more in leadership strategies than deep theological study.
A Lutheran episcopate would restore the rigorous intellectual tradition of historic Lutheranism, ensuring that pastors are deeply trained in the languages, history, and theology of the Church.
14. The Lutheran Church Has Always Had Strong Church Discipline
One of the biggest failures of modern Lutheranism is the lack of church discipline. In historic Lutheran churches, false teachers, heretics, and unrepentant sinners were excommunicated or disciplined swiftly. Today, pastors can teach heresy for years before anyone does anything about it.
How Historic Lutheranism Handled Discipline
Bishops had the authority to remove pastors who taught false doctrine.
Congregants who openly lived in sin were called to repentance and, if necessary, excommunicated.
Public heretics were confronted directly—Luther had no problem calling out false teachers by name.
But today in the LCMS:
There is no clear process for removing unfaithful pastors—it takes years of debate.
Many pastors openly teach false doctrine and nothing happens.
Discipline depends on synodical votes, making it slow and ineffective.
A restored Lutheran episcopate would ensure that doctrinal discipline is swift and effective, preventing false teaching from spreading.
A crucial part of being Lutheran is confessing the historic creeds of the Church. These aren’t just old statements of faith—we say them every Sunday because they unite us with Christians throughout history. The Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, and the Athanasian Creed aren’t optional traditions or theological relics; they define what it means to be part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
But here’s the problem: in many modern LCMS congregations, the Nicene Creed has been tweaked in ways that seem small but actually change its meaning. Some of these changes come from good intentions—trying to make things clearer or avoid confusion—but in reality, they weaken our connection to the historic Church and introduce unnecessary theological issues.
Two of the biggest issues are:
The phrase "conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary", which, the way it's worded, could lead people to misunderstand the Incarnation.
The removal of the word "catholic" from the Creed, which subtly distances us from the Church’s historic identity.
These changes might not seem like a big deal at first glance, but they are. If Lutheranism is serious about remaining faithful to its confessions, then we have to get the Nicene Creed right.
15. The Lutheran Church Has Always Upheld the Historic Nicene Creed
If you look at the LCMS version of the Nicene Creed, you’ll see that it says Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary." That wording seems harmless, but if you break it down, it actually creates an unintentional theological problem.
The phrase makes it sound like Mary had some kind of active role in Christ’s conception, as if she and the Holy Spirit worked together to bring about the Incarnation. Of course, that’s not what Scripture teaches. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was conceived entirely by the power of the Holy Spirit—Mary was the chosen vessel, but she had no part in the act of conception itself.
A better and more theologically precise wording would be:
"Conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary."
This small change actually makes a huge difference:
It keeps the focus on the miraculous work of God. Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit alone—no human action was involved.
It makes a clear distinction between conception and birth. Jesus was conceived by the Spirit but born of Mary—two separate events that should not be blurred together.
It avoids any unintended confusion about how the Incarnation actually happened.
This isn’t about nitpicking language—it’s about confessing the truth accurately. If we don’t get the wording of something as fundamental as the Nicene Creed right, then how can we expect to teach people about the deeper doctrines of the faith?
Another modern change to the Nicene Creed is the removal of the word "catholic." If you visit many LCMS churches, you’ll hear them say:
"I believe in one holy, Christian, and apostolic Church."
Instead of:
"I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."
At some point, Lutherans in America decided that "catholic" sounded too much like Roman Catholicism and swapped it out for "Christian." But this is completely unnecessary—and actually causes more problems than it solves.
The word "catholic" doesn’t mean "Roman Catholic" in this context. It comes from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), which simply means "universal." When we say "catholic," we are not pledging allegiance to the Pope—we are confessing that the Church is one body of believers throughout all times and places.
The Lutheran Reformers had no problem using the word "catholic." In fact, they defended it. The Augsburg Confession (Article VII) explicitly states that Lutherans belong to the one, holy, catholic Church, meaning the true, universal Church of all believers. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession repeatedly uses "catholic" to describe the Church, because that’s the word the Christian Church has always used.
When Lutherans remove "catholic" from the Creed, they unintentionally distance themselves from the historic Church and reinforce the false idea that Lutheranism is just another Protestant denomination rather than the faithful continuation of the true Church.
Let’s be honest: replacing "catholic" with "Christian" was a reaction to American Protestant culture, not a theological necessity. It was done to avoid confusion with Roman Catholicism, but in the process, it actually made Lutheranism look more sectarian. It sends the message that we are a separate group, disconnected from the rest of the Church throughout history. That’s the opposite of what the Lutheran Reformers intended.
Restoring the word "catholic" to the Nicene Creed would:
Reaffirm our connection to the historic Christian Church rather than isolating Lutheranism as "just another denomination."
Preserve the language that the Church has always used instead of inventing unnecessary alternatives.
Help Lutherans reclaim their identity as part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church—not just a Protestant sect.
There is no good reason for Lutherans to be afraid of the word catholic. If we truly believe we belong to the one, universal Church, then we should say it boldly when we confess the Creed.
Some people might say, "Isn’t this just arguing over words? Does it really matter if we change a few things in the Creed?" But this isn’t just about wording—it’s about confessing the faith correctly.
The Lutheran Reformers fought for doctrinal precision, making sure that every word in the Confessions was faithful to Scripture. They didn’t rewrite the creeds to fit their time; they upheld them as the standard of orthodox Christianity. If we start casually altering the language of the Creed because it "sounds better" or is "easier to understand," then where do we draw the line?
This is how theological drift starts—first with small changes, then with bigger ones. If we aren’t careful, we’ll wake up one day and realize that we’ve lost the very identity that made Lutheranism distinct in the first place.
That’s why restoring the correct wording of the Nicene Creed is so important. It’s about staying faithful to the faith that was handed down to us. It’s about making sure that every word we confess actually reflects what we believe.
And ultimately, it’s about keeping Lutheranism truly Lutheran—not an Americanized, Protestantized version of it, but the same bold, liturgical, sacramental faith that the Reformers defended.
16. The Lutheran Church Has Always Emphasized Theological Precision
One of the most important things that set Lutheranism apart during the Reformation was its commitment to doctrinal clarity. The Lutheran Reformers weren’t interested in vague theology or feel-good platitudes. They believed that every word of the Christian faith mattered, and they fought to ensure that what the Church confessed was clear, scriptural, and accurate.
That commitment to precision wasn’t just about academic debates—it was about the truth of the Gospel itself. A church that gets sloppy with its theology eventually loses its identity. And if the words we use to confess our faith aren’t carefully chosen, they can easily be twisted or misunderstood. This is why Luther and the Reformers took so much time writing the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, and the Book of Concord—they knew that bad theology starts with bad wording.
Fast forward to today, and it’s clear that this commitment to precision has been slowly fading in many Lutheran churches. Instead of ensuring that every word we confess reflects what we actually believe, we’ve allowed small but significant changes to creep in—sometimes to make things more accessible, sometimes to avoid controversy, and sometimes just out of carelessness. But the problem with this is that compromises in language lead to compromises in doctrine.
One example of this is how some churches have changed the words of the Nicene Creed, as we discussed earlier. When we adjust language to avoid confusion, we often end up creating more confusion. Removing the word “catholic” may have been an attempt to distance Lutheranism from Roman Catholicism, but in doing so, it also removed the historic connection Lutherans have to the universal Church. Changing "conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary" might have seemed like a minor phrasing adjustment, but it introduced an unclear statement about the Incarnation.
And it’s not just the Creed—this same theological sloppiness has crept into preaching, hymnody, liturgy, and catechesis. Many pastors no longer carefully distinguish Law and Gospel in their sermons, leading to confusion about whether Christianity is about grace or moral improvement. Modern hymns often replace the rich, doctrinally precise language of traditional Lutheran hymnody with vague emotional phrases that could just as easily be sung in an Evangelical church. Even in catechesis, there’s been a shift away from deep theological teaching toward a more watered-down, user-friendly approach.
This is not what true Lutheranism looks like. Lutheran theology is not vague. It is not weak. It is not afraid to use precise words to say exactly what it means. And if Lutheranism is going to survive as something distinct from generic American Protestantism, it needs to reclaim its commitment to doctrinal clarity.
One of the ways to do this is by ensuring that Lutheran churches return to using the historic, carefully-worded language of the Church in creeds, prayers, and liturgy. But even more than that, pastors must once again be trained to teach theology with the same level of precision that the Reformers demanded. That means bringing back serious theological education—not just teaching seminarians how to run a church, but training them to be true theologians who can handle doctrine with accuracy and care.
Another crucial piece of this is restoring strong church oversight. In the early church, bishops were responsible for ensuring that pastors taught correct doctrine, and even during the early Lutheran era, there was a strong system of episcopal oversight to prevent false teaching from creeping in. Today, however, Lutheran synods often operate more like loose collections of congregations, where pastors can get away with teaching all sorts of questionable theology for years before anyone steps in. This lack of theological accountability has led to major issues, including the Seminex crisis of the 1970s, when the LCMS was nearly overrun by liberal theology before finally taking action. If there had been a stronger system of church discipline in place, that entire controversy could have been avoided.
Lutheranism needs a strong, confessional episcopate that can ensure that churches remain faithful to the Scriptures and the Confessions. This isn’t about creating a new hierarchy or giving bishops absolute power—it’s about protecting the doctrinal purity of the Church. A restored episcopate would mean that pastors are held accountable for what they teach, ensuring that Lutheran churches remain Lutheran instead of drifting into either Evangelicalism on one side or liberal Protestantism on the other.
At the end of the day, theological precision isn’t just for theologians. It matters for every Christian because the way we speak about God shapes how we understand Him. If we change our words, we eventually change our beliefs. That’s why the Reformers fought so hard to be clear about what they believed, and that’s why Lutheranism must fight to recover that same clarity today. A church that isn’t careful with its doctrine is a church that won’t stay Lutheran for long.
Chapter 4: Why Confessional Lutherans Need to Unite
Introduction
Confessional Lutheranism in America is divided, and it shouldn't be. The LCMS, WELS, AALC, and other confessional Lutheran groups all claim to hold to the Book of Concord, yet they remain separate, often over historical disputes, practical differences, and lingering mistrust rather than actual doctrinal disagreements.
This division weakens us. It makes Lutheranism look fragmented and inconsistent. Instead of standing as a strong, unified confession in a world that desperately needs the pure Gospel, we exist as a collection of competing synods, often more focused on past grievances than on working together for the future.
The truth is, there’s no good reason why confessional Lutherans in America shouldn’t be united under one church body. Theologically, we already agree on the core doctrines that define Lutheranism. The only real question is: How do we overcome the barriers that have kept us apart for so long? And more importantly, how do we build something that will last—something that won’t fall into Evangelicalism on one side or theological liberalism on the other?
If confessional Lutheranism is going to survive in the United States, we need to stop being divided and start acting like the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church that we confess in the Creed. That means merging the LCMS, WELS, AALC, and other confessional Lutheran bodies into a single, unified church—one that stands firm in the Lutheran Confessions and doesn’t cave to the pressures of modern Protestantism.
1. Why Are We Still Divided?
If you ask the average Lutheran why the LCMS and WELS aren’t in fellowship, you’ll likely get a vague answer about church fellowship policies, historical disagreements, or concerns over doctrine drift. But let’s be honest—the real reason these divisions persist is institutional inertia.
Most of the divisions among confessional Lutherans aren’t about doctrine. They’re about:
Historical conflicts that should have been resolved decades ago
Differences in how each synod handles church fellowship
Disagreements over structure and governance
None of these are good enough reasons to stay divided. If we all believe that the Lutheran Confessions correctly explain Scripture, then we already have everything we need for unity. The only thing standing in the way is the unwillingness of leadership to actually do the work of unification.
2. The LCMS-WELS Split: A Division That Shouldn’t Exist
One of the clearest examples of an unnecessary division is the LCMS-WELS split in 1961. This was not a split over core doctrinal issues. It was a split over how to apply the doctrine of church fellowship.
The LCMS, at the time, had been engaging in discussions with the American Lutheran Church (ALC), which WELS saw as a compromise. WELS believed that any association with heterodox churches risked unionism (blurring doctrinal distinctions in the name of external unity). When the LCMS leadership refused to break off dialogue with the ALC immediately, WELS declared that Missouri was drifting and broke fellowship.
Now, looking back, the LCMS was right to be cautious about the ALC (which later merged into the ELCA). But was the LCMS really becoming unionistic? No. The LCMS was still a strongly confessional church, and WELS could have worked through its concerns without completely cutting ties.
The result? Two synods that believe virtually the same thing are now permanently separate, simply because their leaders in the 1960s couldn’t come to an agreement on how to handle fellowship with other Lutherans. That’s not theological division—that’s historical baggage.
And yet, here we are, decades later, still pretending like this division is justified.
3. What Would a Unified Confessional Lutheran Church Look Like?
Imagine if, instead of three or four competing synods, we had one united confessional Lutheran church in America. No more confusion about which synod believes what. No more unnecessary divisions over minor policy differences. Just one strong, confessional Lutheran body that upholds the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions.
This unified church would:
Provide a consistent Lutheran witness instead of a fractured one.
Train pastors under a single confessional standard, rather than having multiple seminaries with slightly different approaches.
Have the numbers to plant more churches, send out more missionaries, and stand firm against both liberalism and Evangelicalism.
The LCMS, WELS, and AALC are all relatively small compared to other Protestant bodies. But together, we would form a serious confessional Lutheran presence in America, capable of both preserving the faith and spreading it to a culture that desperately needs it.
The practical benefits of unification are clear:
Doctrinal consistency – No more confusion over minor differences between synods.
Stronger theological education – A single, unified seminary system.
More effective mission work – Instead of separate mission efforts, a single church body could send out pastors, missionaries, and church planters under one banner.
Better pastoral oversight – A restored Lutheran episcopate would ensure that pastors are held accountable to Lutheran doctrine and practice.
4. The Role of a Lutheran Episcopate in Unification
One of the biggest reasons Lutheranism stays divided is because there’s no clear structure for resolving disputes. Instead of having bishops who enforce doctrinal consistency, we have synod presidents who serve short terms and have limited authority. This makes it easy for minor disagreements to turn into major splits that last for generations.
A unified confessional Lutheran church needs a structure that:
Ensures doctrinal purity without unnecessary bureaucratic delays.
Prevents theological drift by holding pastors and congregations accountable.
Provides a way to resolve disputes without breaking fellowship.
That’s why we need to restore the Lutheran episcopate—not in the Roman Catholic sense of absolute authority, but in the historic Lutheran sense of bishops as guardians of doctrine and unity. Instead of relying on synodical conventions to debate every issue, bishops could act swiftly and decisively to maintain confessional integrity.
5. Overcoming the Barriers to Unity
Yes, unification will take work. It won’t happen overnight. But the barriers to unity are not insurmountable.
Church fellowship differences can be resolved with clear agreements on how to apply confessional Lutheran principles.
Past divisions can be addressed through theological dialogue—not endless, bureaucratic discussions, but real conversations that lead to action.
A unified church structure, centered on confessional bishops, can ensure that disputes don’t lead to unnecessary divisions in the future.
The longer we stay divided, the harder unification becomes. It’s time to start taking real steps toward bringing confessional Lutherans back together.
Step 1: Theological Dialogue and Doctrinal Agreement
The first step toward unity must be a formal theological dialogue between the leadership of the LCMS, WELS, and AALC. These discussions must be serious, focused, and aimed at achieving real reconciliation—not just another round of bureaucratic meetings that go nowhere.
What Needs to Be Discussed?
Church Fellowship Practices – The biggest practical issue dividing the LCMS and WELS is their approach to church fellowship. WELS has historically taken a stricter stance, insisting that any cooperation in ministry or joint prayer requires complete doctrinal agreement. The LCMS has been more open to theological discussions with other church bodies, leading to WELS’s concerns about unionism.
The goal should not be to ignore these concerns, but to agree on how church fellowship should be practiced within a unified body.
The early Lutheran Reformers did not treat church fellowship as an excuse for endless division, and neither should we.
Liturgical Uniformity – While all confessional Lutheran synods claim to hold to the historic Lutheran liturgy, in practice, there are major differences in how worship is conducted across LCMS, WELS, and AALC congregations.
Some LCMS churches look identical to Evangelical megachurches, while others follow the full Lutheran liturgical tradition.
WELS congregations tend to be more uniform in worship, but even they have differences in liturgical style and frequency of Communion.
A unified church must establish a consistent liturgical standard, ensuring that all congregations adhere to the historic Lutheran Divine Service, including weekly Communion, chanting, vestments, and reverent liturgical structure.
Seminary Education and Pastoral Formation – Right now, each synod trains its pastors separately, leading to different emphases in theological education.
A unified church should establish a single, confessional seminary system that ensures all pastors are trained in the same doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral traditions.
This would prevent inconsistencies in Lutheran pastoral practice and ensure doctrinal purity across all congregations.
Church Governance – One of the reasons confessional Lutheranism is so fractured is because each synod governs itself independently.
The LCMS has a presidential system, where the synod president is elected but has limited authority.
WELS follows a more congregational model, with less centralized oversight.
The AALC follows a modified episcopal model, though its small size makes it difficult to function as a full church hierarchy.
A unified church must adopt a governance system that allows for strong doctrinal oversight while also preserving the role of local congregations.
This leads directly to the next step: the restoration of a true Lutheran episcopate.
Step 2: Restoring the Lutheran Episcopate
One of the biggest problems in modern Lutheranism is that there is no strong, central authority to ensure doctrinal consistency and unity. Instead, confessional Lutheranism operates like a loose network of independent congregations, which has led to inconsistencies in doctrine, worship, and practice.
A restored Lutheran episcopate would provide the structure needed to:
Ensure doctrinal purity – Bishops would be responsible for maintaining the integrity of Lutheran doctrine across all congregations.
Restore liturgical consistency – Every congregation would follow the historic Lutheran Divine Service, rather than allowing each church to do whatever it wants.
Provide pastoral oversight – Pastors would be trained, ordained, and disciplined under a unified authority, preventing theological drift and ensuring faithfulness to the Confessions.
Unify the Lutheran Church under one structure, rather than a collection of competing synods.
This would not be a return to Roman Catholic hierarchy, but rather a return to the historic Lutheran practice of bishops as guardians of doctrine and worship.
Under this system, a Lutheran Archdiocese for the United States could be established, with regional bishops providing oversight while remaining accountable to the Confessions.
Step 3: Merging into a Single Church Body
Once theological dialogue has taken place and a unified structure has been agreed upon, the next step is the formal merging of the LCMS, WELS, and AALC into a single confessional Lutheran church. This would require:
A transitional period in which synods align their policies, liturgies, and governance structures.
The establishment of a unified synod or archdiocese that maintains strong theological oversight.
A clear plan for congregations to transition into the new structure.
It would not be easy, and there would certainly be resistance from those who prefer the status quo. But the alternative is continued division, inconsistency, and a weakening of confessional Lutheranism in America.
7. The Dangers of Remaining Divided
If confessional Lutherans do not work toward unity, the consequences will be serious.
The continued decline of Lutheran identity – As long as each synod operates independently, Lutheranism will continue to drift further into either Evangelicalism or irrelevance.
Increased theological inconsistency – Without unity, individual congregations will continue to vary wildly in doctrine and practice, making it difficult for laypeople to know what Lutheranism actually stands for.
A weaker witness to the world – Right now, confessional Lutheranism in America is a divided and confusing mess. A unified church would present a clear, bold, and unmistakable witness to the truth of the Gospel.
Loss of influence and credibility – As smaller Lutheran synods shrink, their ability to train pastors, plant churches, and engage in meaningful theological work will diminish. A united church would ensure a strong, lasting presence for confessional Lutheranism in America.
The longer we stay divided, the harder it will be to ever restore the strength and unity of confessional Lutheranism.
Conclusion: Why I Am Not Leaving Lutheranism, But Likely Leaving the LCMS
I am not leaving Lutheranism—not now, not ever. The more I study Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the Lutheran Confessions, the more convinced I am that Lutheranism, when practiced as it was meant to be, is the fullest expression of Christianity. It holds to justification by faith alone, teaches that God delivers His grace through the Sacraments, maintains a proper distinction between Law and Gospel, and preserves the catholic (universal) tradition of the Church while rejecting the errors of Rome.
But here’s the problem: the LCMS is not the fullest expression of Lutheranism. It has become inconsistent, fragmented, and compromised. The LCMS is being pulled in different directions—some congregations holding firmly to the liturgy and the Confessions, while others embrace Evangelical worship, watered-down sermons, and a casual attitude toward doctrine. It lacks the strong, unified leadership needed to preserve confessional Lutheranism, and because of that, it is slowly becoming something less than what it was meant to be.
Lutheranism, in its purest form, is not a half-measure Protestantism, borrowing from Evangelicalism while clinging to a few traditional elements. It is not a mix of Reformed and Roman Catholic ideas, trying to appeal to modern sensibilities. True Lutheranism is bold, liturgical, and deeply rooted in the historic Church. It retains the Mass (properly reformed), the centrality of the Sacraments, the rich traditions of Christian worship, and the rigorous theological depth that characterized the early Lutheran Reformers. But in the LCMS, that identity is slowly eroding.
The Evangelicalization of LCMS congregations is a symptom of this deeper problem. Too many LCMS churches look, sound, and function more like non-denominational Evangelical churches than historic Lutheran ones. Walk into many LCMS churches today, and you’ll find:
Projector screens dominating the sanctuary, replacing hymnals and liturgical focus.
Contemporary worship bands playing praise music instead of chant and organ.
Sermons that sound like feel-good Evangelical self-help talks rather than deep theological preaching.
The Sacrament of the Altar treated as an occasional feature instead of the center of worship.
Pastors dressing casually, abandoning vestments, and treating the service like an informal gathering.
This is not what Lutheran worship was ever meant to be. This is not what the Reformers fought for. This is not the Lutheranism of the Augsburg Confession, the Book of Concord, or the early Lutheran Church. And yet, the LCMS allows this to happen with little to no discipline or oversight. There is no strong ecclesiastical authority ensuring that all LCMS congregations adhere to the Confessions.
The LCMS Lacks the Strong Leadership Needed to Preserve Lutheranism
The fundamental problem is that the LCMS has no real mechanism to enforce confessional fidelity across all its congregations. Because of its congregational-synodical structure, individual churches and pastors have too much freedom to stray from Lutheran tradition. Some pastors are faithful to the liturgy and the Confessions, but many are not. And there is no strong episcopal authority to correct them.
Historically, the Lutheran Reformers retained the office of bishop where possible. They understood that strong church leadership was necessary to maintain doctrinal integrity. But the LCMS rejected the episcopate in favor of a bureaucratic, democratic synodical system—one where doctrine is maintained by convention votes rather than by clear ecclesiastical oversight. This system has failed to keep the LCMS unified in doctrine and practice.
Luther himself warned against compromising on the truth for the sake of institutional unity. He famously declared at the Diet of Worms in 1521:
"I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."
Luther refused to compromise the truth for the sake of keeping peace with Rome. Likewise, we cannot compromise Lutheran doctrine for the sake of keeping peace within the LCMS. If the synod refuses to correct its errors, then those who desire true Lutheranism may have no choice but to leave.
The LCMS Is No Longer the Best Representation of Confessional Lutheranism
At one time, I believed the LCMS was the strongest confessional Lutheran church body. But over time, it has become clear that the LCMS is not even fully Lutheran in practice anymore. While it still maintains many confessional positions on paper, in practice, it allows:
Dramatic variations in worship styles that undermine Lutheran identity.
A weak stance on church discipline, allowing pastors to push the boundaries of Lutheran doctrine with little consequence.
Theological drift, as seen in the Large Catechism controversy and increasing tolerance for progressive ideologies.
The gradual loss of strong, historic Lutheran education and catechesis.
The LCMS still contains many faithful congregations and pastors, but as a synod, it lacks the structure to ensure that all churches remain truly Lutheran. If it continues down this path, it will eventually become indistinguishable from generic conservative Protestantism with a Lutheran label.
Lutheranism is meant to be something distinct—not just another brand of Protestant Christianity. It is the faith of the Apostles, purified through the Reformation, preserving the historic Church’s liturgical and doctrinal identity. But the LCMS has allowed its Lutheran identity to be watered down, turning many of its congregations into Evangelical-lite churches that lack the depth, reverence, and sacramental focus of historic Lutheranism.
Where Do I Go from Here?
I still believe in Lutheran theology. I still hold to the Book of Concord. I still believe that Lutheranism, when done correctly, is the fullest expression of the Christian faith. But I can no longer pretend that the LCMS, as a whole, fully embodies that faith.
Does that mean I will immediately leave? Not necessarily. But it does mean I will no longer assume that the LCMS is the only place to find true Lutheranism. If another Lutheran body emerges that is more faithful to the Confessions, more consistent in its doctrine and practice, and more serious about maintaining true Lutheran identity, I would seriously consider it.
The LCMS is at a crossroads. It can either:
Reclaim its confessional roots—restoring strong liturgical worship, enforcing doctrinal discipline, and rejecting Evangelical influences.
Continue down its current path, allowing its churches to become more and more like generic Protestant congregations until it is Lutheran in name only.
If the LCMS chooses the first path, I will gladly stay and fight for a confessional Lutheran revival. But if it continues down the second, then I will have no choice but to seek a church body that actually lives out what Lutheranism is meant to be.
At the end of the day, my loyalty is to Lutheranism—not to the LCMS. If the LCMS refuses to be what it was meant to be, then I cannot stay out of mere sentimentality. I will remain Lutheran. But I may not remain LCMS.
Writer:
I thought this would never end 💀
How did you manage to write more than 4000 words? Substack tries to tell me there's a word limit. I'm wondering whether it's just for the email your subscribers get sent with your post in it.