Is The Missouri Synod Divided? A Pastoral Appeal

Over 13 years ago, I left the Church of the Lutheran Brethren as an ordained pastor. The CLBA was my childhood denomination; it was the church where I became a Christian and where I was held in Christ for over three decades. For that, I will always be grateful to the CLBA.

This raises the question, though: why did I leave the CLBA?

In short, I left the CLBA for two very specific reasons:

1) I wanted to be part of a denomination that had a greater emphasis on the Sacraments in accordance with the whole Book of Concord.

2) I wanted to be part of a denomination with old liturgical Lutheran roots.

In other words, while I was grateful to the CLBA for subscribing to the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, I wanted to be in a synod that subscribed to the whole Book of Concord. Furthermore, while I appreciated the CLBA for its Lutheran theological tradition, I could no longer support its evangelical practices. I wanted old liturgical Lutheranism with a robust sacramental emphasis in the church’s practices.

Enter the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

The LCMS fit the criteria:

1) The LCMS accepts without reservation the Book of Concord. (LCMS Constitution, II:2)

2) The LCMS holds to the exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda and hymnbooks in the church. (LCMS Constitution, VI:4)

And so, long story short, I colloquized through the Montana District, becoming a first-generation LCMS Lutheran - with the Book of Concord in one hand and the Lutheran Service Book in the other.

Fast forward, several months later, after my first call, I began to realize that the LCMS seemed divided.

To be honest, I did not notice this in the Montana District, at least with the pastoral gatherings I attended. The Montana pastors who mentored me into the LCMS consistently referenced the Book of Concord and joyfully taught me Matins, Vespers, and the treasure of the Divine Service.

Back to the divide, though. What did I notice?

I noticed throughout the LCMS Synod a loose grip on the Book of Concord and a quiet disparagement of our Lutheran Service Book. To make matters worse, those who looked more like my previous denomination — that is, more evangelical in practice — would often tout that they were third- and fourth-generation LCMS Lutherans, implying that I, with the Book of Concord and Lutheran Service Book, was the odd man out.

Fast forward to 2026.

We now hear it publicly stated that there is division in the LCMS. We hear that the LCMS has an identity crisis. In other words, that which was unspoken over a decade ago seems to be openly stated: “The Synod is divided.”

But this raises another question: where is the divide?

According to certain third- and fourth-generation social media voices, the LCMS is fragmented in worship and practice. We are also told that the divide is in the realm of pastoral formation techniques and over barrier breakers and distinction keepers.

Is this true, though?

No, I do not think it is.

I do not think the LCMS is primarily divided between organ and guitar, chanting and speaking, rural churches and suburban churches, converts and cradle Lutherans.  The division is not mainly over pastoral formation and evangelism techniques. Those may be visible fault lines, but they are not the foundation of the division.

And so, where is the deeper divide?

The divide is over whether the Book of Concord remains a paper subscription and the Lutheran Service Book remains an optional worship preference, or whether our confession and our church’s liturgical treasury together shape the actual life of our churches: our preaching, worship, teaching, pastoral care, and mission.  

To be even more direct, the division in the LCMS is not caused by those who hold tightly to the Book of Concord and gladly receive the Lutheran Service Book as our church’s liturgical treasury. The division comes when the Book of Concord is held loosely, and the Lutheran Service Book is treated as optional, outdated, or even embarrassing.

Mark this: no church-fracturing divide would exist if the Book of Concord were held in one hand and our historical Lutheran liturgy in the other.  Instead, the divide is created when lip service is given to the Book of Concord and eyes are rolled at the Lutheran Service Book, while actual parish life is shaped by something else.

So, what is the solution?  

First, we need to ask why the Book of Concord is sometimes formally subscribed to but functionally ignored. We need to ask why the Lutheran Service Book is sometimes treated as a burden rather than a gift. We need to ask why some LCMS congregations increasingly look, sound, and function like generic American Evangelical churches while still claiming the name Lutheran. We need to ask whether our preaching, worship, catechesis, pastoral care, and mission are being shaped by our confession, or by something else.

Secondly, and it must be stated soberly, if a pastor, congregation, or church worker takes a long, hard look at the Book of Concord and the Lutheran Service Book and concludes, “This is not really what I believe; this is not really what I want; this is not really what I intend to practice,” then integrity requires honesty. And that honesty may require repentance and renewed faithfulness to the Book of Concord and the Lutheran liturgy.

And finally, in some cases, integrity may require admitting that one’s theology and practice no longer align with the Synod’s confession and constitution. If that is the case, then perhaps the honorable thing is not to remain while resisting, dismissing, or reshaping the Missouri Synod into something else. Perhaps the honorable thing is to leave.

I do not say that lightly.

I left the church of my childhood because I could no longer, in good conscience, support where my confession had led me in relation to its practice. This was painful. But it was honest — it was the way of integrity.

And that is the kind of honesty we need in the LCMS.

If we believe the Book of Concord, then let us confess it. If we receive the Lutheran Service Book as our church’s liturgical treasury, then let us use it, teach it, and rejoice in it. If we do not, then let us at least have the integrity to say so plainly.

The Missouri Synod does not need lip service to the Book of Concord while parish life is shaped by American Evangelicalism. She does not need pastors and congregations rolling their eyes at the Lutheran Service Book while waving the banner of adiaphora — claiming that worship practice is merely a matter of personal preference or contextual style.

So, is the Missouri Synod divided?

Yes, I believe she is. But the divide is not caused by those who hold tightly to the Book of Concord and gladly receive the Lutheran Service Book. The divide is caused when those gifts are held loosely, quietly dismissed, or functionally replaced, while still claiming the name Missouri.

It is time to talk about that openly.