Adiphora and Worship

In the discussions among Lutherans concerning liturgical and hymn styles the word
adiaphora has been bandied around as if that should end the conversation. If we are to
continue this discussion in any meaningful way, we should use the word correctly, so that
our conclusions will stand on solid ground and others can build on it secure in their certainty
that the building will not collapse around their ears at the slightest pressure.

So we begin this discussion asking the pertinent question: What is adiaphora? Within the
history of the Lutheran church this term was used during a controversy brought about by a
compromise in liturgical rites between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics. The
Lutherans had been defeated by the forces of the emperor Charles V, who then imposed
what is called the Augsburg Interim. This document was to be used as a foundation for
Lutheran/Catholic relations until the religious Council, being held at Trent, could make final
declarations as to matters of doctrine and faith for all of western Christianity. It contained a
command that most of the Romanist ceremonies that had been removed during the years
of the Reformation should be put back into the life of the Church in Germany. The new
Saxon elector, Maurice, who had pledged his loyalty to Charles against his cousin John
Frederick for the price of the electorate of Saxony, knew that his subjects would not accept
the decidedly Romanist color of the document and called a religious colloquy of his
theologians to come up with a compromise document that the people of Saxony could live
with. This document was called the Leipzig Interim, named after the city where it was
completed. The response to the Leipzig Interim was not what Elector Maurice would have
liked and the document was rejected by the majority of the clergy in Saxony. As far as the
Lutherans were concerned it was still too Romanist as to its statements concerning
liturgical matters. Although Philip Melanchthon, the leader of the Lutherans, did not
compose the part of the Leipzig Interim which contained the liturgical compromises (this
was done by the political leaders of Saxony) and had openly rejected those statements on
the liturgy, he was held responsible for its contents and the blame for the resultant
Adiphoristic controversy was laid at his feet. The issue was given final conclusion in Article
X of the Formula of Concord of 1577 which states:

Concerning ceremonies and church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in
God’s Word, but are introduced into the Church with a good intention, for the sake of good
order and propriety, or otherwise to maintain Christian discipline, a dissension has likewise
arisen among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession: the one side holding that also
in time of persecution and in case of confession [when confession of faith is to be made],
even though the enemies of the Gospel do not come to an agreement with us in doctrine,
yet some ceremonies, abrogated [long since], which in themselves are adiaphora and
neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may, without violence to conscience, be
reestablished in compliance with the pressure and demand of the adversaries, and thus in
such [things which are of themselves] adiaphora, or matters of indifference, we may indeed
come to an agreement with them. But the other side contended that in time of persecution,
in case of confession, especially when it is the design of the adversaries, either through
force and compulsion, or in an insidious manner, to suppress the pure doctrine, and
gradually to introduce again into our churches their false doctrine, this, also in adiaphora,
can in no way be done, as has been said, without violence to conscience and prejudice to
the divine truth. (FC, SD, Art.X: Of Church Rites, 1-3)
 2

Some observations should made here about how the Lutheran confessors of the Formula
of Concord understood the use of the word adiaphora. First, that it pertains to ceremonies
and rites that are not commanded or forbidden in the Word of God. Second, that
ceremonies and church rites are a public expression of doctrine and when the public
expression of the true doctrine is at stake by means of how the rites are performed and
what rites are performed, it no longer remains a matter of adiaphora since Scripture is
authoritative for doctrine and life. Third, when there are authorities in the Church which
attempt, regardless of how well intentioned they are, to force rites and practices on the
Church of Christ which do not conform to His Word we must reject them as a matter of
confession. Fourth, even rites and ceremonies not commanded or forbidden in the Word of
God can become elevated to the level of confession when attacked by errorists and it may
at times be necessary to defend them as a witness to the truths they express. (This doesn’t
even take into consideration the exercise of Christian freedom in the face of legalism, which
is a subject for another paper.) When the truth of God’s Word is attacked by means of
attacking the rites and ceremonies of the Church then they are no longer adiaphora and
must be defended.

While it is true that the immediate context of the Formula of Concord is no longer the issue
among Lutherans today, the central principles, when it comes to the definition of what is
adiaphora and what is not, is still binding on us as Lutherans. The theological adversary in
our particular context may no longer be the rites and ceremonies of Roman Catholicism,
but there is still an adversary. There is still one that takes a contrary position to Lutheran
doctrine and practice and also seeks to force its false position on the Lutheran Church
today. This is the subject of this paper as the author sees it. The theological contest has
expressed itself today as an issue surrounding what styles of worship and hymnody should
be allowed in Lutheran circles. But there is a more basic theological disagreement at work
here as we will see as we continue the discussion. On one side there is the argument that
worship styles are neutral and therefore should be free of all restrictions. Whatever a
particular congregation wishes to do and sing in their public worship should be left to them
without interference from synodical or district authorities. Add to this mix the LCMS church
polity of congregational autonomy and we have a volatile brew. The other side of the
argument declares that liturgical style is not neutral but rather a public expression of
doctrinal positions. Our quotation above shows us what the Lutheran Confessions think. It
is now a matter of whether we will put our doctrine and life under its authority. But let us
explore the issue more deeply.

When we speak about what is adiaphora we can all agree to the above definition: things
not commanded or forbidden in the Word of God. This can include things like: colors of the
liturgical seasons, pericope series, vestments, the use of bells, etc. We are free to use or
not use these kinds of things. But something can also be said for the argument that the
Church can express the usefulness of some rite or ceremony on the basis of its longevity.
The principle in play reminds us that whatever ceremony or rite is under discussion it must
not contradict clear statements of Scripture. But as a church body that has always seen
itself as a continuation of the Church catholic Lutherans must not be too hasty in jettisoning
ancient rites and traditions simply because they are old. It was the Zwinglians and
Calvinists who operated this way and we would do well to examine our attitudes in this
regard if we wish to remain Lutheran in our piety.

Does the freedom expressed in the word adiaphora mean that anything goes when it
comes to public worship? We must answer in the negative to this question. Scripture clearly
states that things must be done “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). The Formula states
 3

the same: “… when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good
order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not
genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference.” (Formula of Concord, SD, Art.X, 7) It was
one of the major problems of the congregation at Corinth that their public worship had
degenerated into chaos, signs which, by the way, are showing up in our own worship today,
spiritual symptoms caused by the same theological maladies.

Perhaps we should take the lessons provided by the Holy Spirit concerning our troubled
worship life a bit more seriously and not be so quick to impose our own personal
preferences on Christ’s Church. This author hopes that he can find agreement among his
readers that there is such a thing as inappropriate behavior in the worship service, that
there are some things we should never do in the house of God, that there are actions that
contradict our confession of the true God and true religion? How we come to an
understanding as to what is actually inappropriate in a Lutheran worship service is a very
important issue that we must address before we can get to a solution to this growing
problem. The conclusion here presented is that the exercise of Christian freedom is not a
license to act in a way that does not glorify or please God. The question that presents itself
is how do we know when our worship pleases God? We will attempt to answer that
question.

If the above principle is agreed upon that there are such things that are inappropriate
activity in a Lutheran worship service then we have at least narrowed the scope as to the
idea that the concept of adiaphora gives us complete freedom in our worship. In other
words, there are some things that we can’t or shouldn’t do in the worship service. The next
step in the discussion should have no problems either: Our worship must express the truth
of God’s Word (it is the Word that determines what is appropriate for public worship, not us,
collectively or individually). Decisions made on how we worship must come from the
standards of God’s Word. The same article of the Formula of Concord quoted earlier
echoes this idea: “… when under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are
proposed as are in principle contrary to God’s Word, these are not to be regarded as
adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited
by God.” (Formula of Concord, SD, Art. X, 4,5) An examination of the history of the form of
public worship used by the western Church shows us clearly that the liturgy was simply the
Word of God stated and acted in sequential form within the context of grace offered and
received as a gift of God. As we said above, the principle of adiaphora is not a license to
act in a way that does not publicly confess the truth of God’s Word or bring glory to God.
On the basis of this principle, the how in the discussion has only one consideration: does
the style of our public worship express the truths found in God’s Word and thereby glorify
Him? Our present conflicts on this issue are no doubt coming from those who have good
intentions for Christ’s Church, but unfortunately their good intentions are not conformed to
God’s truth. Good intentions will not turn bad theology into good theology, no matter what
good things we hope to accomplish by them. The definition of what is “good” must come
from conformity with God’s truth revealed in His Word. As a result, when we are choosing
how we will worship we will not get the forms and standards for the public worship of the
one true God from erroneous theological positions, the standards and methodologies of the
world, or from what pleases our sinful flesh. It is this author’s contention that most of the
opponents of “traditional” worship styles are not doing so because they are against God’s
Word, but rather because they are misled and misinformed. Their intentions of wishing to
grow the Church of Christ are laudable, but it is their methodology that is to be questioned.
Historically, theologically, and grammatically speaking they cannot use the principle of
adiaphora to support their actions. No matter how well-intentioned they are, they are still
 4

wrong. The solution is to conform to the Scriptures and the piety expressed by the Lutheran
Confessions.

Part of the problem plaguing the Christian Church today is the adoption of the premise,
borrowed from the business world, that the Church is our personal possession. The
business world, in an attempt to motivate their employees to better and improved
production rates, has posed the concept of intellectually “taking ownership” of the company,
of considering it their own company. When the company prospers the employee prospers,
and vice versa. Some parts of the Church have brought this idea into the congregation in
an attempt to make the members more active, especially when it comes to evangelism.
There is also a definite democratic aspect to this idea that is not shared by Scripture. There
is a truth that we should all become aware of, pastor and layman alike, that this is not our
church but Christ’s. He is the Lord and King of His kingdom and it is He who sets the
standards through the doctrine of His Word. If what we want to see in our public worship is
not in conformity with Christ’s Word then it must be rejected, no matter what good results
we think we will get from it. The ends do not justify the means in the Church anymore than
it does in the secular world. If we wish our public worship to please God we must hear what
He has to say about how we are to act and then to obey. Everything in the liturgy must be
tested by the Word. If it does not pass the test it must be rejected.

The conclusion is that we don’t have the “right” to worship any way we want, but our
worship must conform to the standards established by God’s Word. The purpose of our
worship is to glorify God and to be the dispensing point of the means whereby the salvation
of our souls happens. The criteria for adopting a particular style of worship is not to be
motivated by what will “pack ‘em in.” It is not a truth of the Christian Church that the
“customer,” that is, the layman, is always right. In other words, that the purpose of the
minister and the church is to give the layman what he wants. And continuing the analogy of
the business world, there is nothing to be “sold” in the worship service. Certainly it is not the
Gospel, as if the layman has the power to choose. This is Arminianism in a nutshell, with its
reliance on the ability for human’s to make their choice, make their decision for the Gospel.
The Lutheran Church has historically rejected this position so how has it come back in?
The answer is through the back door of the expediency of missions. Putting the worshipper
at the center of the worship service would put the wrong emphasis on the service, as if it is
there to please the “customer,” to keep him coming back for more.

Public worship is not about what the worshipper wants, but about what he needs, the one
thing needful. The public worship of the Christian Church is to be centered on the Word and
sacraments. The Church’s “mission statement” is about the exercise of the Office of the
Keys using Word and sacrament (Mt. 28). It is centered on the Office of the Public Ministry,
which exercises the Office of the Keys. When it comes to evangelism we proclaim the truth
and leave the growth to God. Paul expresses this same truth to the troubled congregation
at Corinth “I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.” (1 Cor.3:6) If the
world doesn’t want the means of grace, we don’t change the means in order to draw it into
the worship service. This is a mistake that many in the Church have fallen into in their
understanding of the purpose of public worship. If the style of worship chosen is done
simply on the basis of what will produce the most growth, the Christian is taking on the work
of God, which he has no authority to do, regardless of the intended blessed results.

It has been stated succinctly by others that public worship is for believers, not unbelievers,
and the reason is obvious to anyone who thinks about it: the unbeliever doesn’t worship the
true God and his worship, as a result, cannot please God. He must be brought to faith first
 5

by the Word of God. Not that this can’t happen in the public worship service. It’s just that
this is not the point of public worship. Public worship is about what God has done for us
through His Son Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and His gift of forgiveness. Any form
of worship that dilutes this principle is also not doing the unbeliever any favors since it is the
Word alone that brings about faith. It is an Arminian error that sees conversion as a process
where we convince people of the truths of God’s Word through reasoned argumentation so
that they can make their decision. The Pentecostals base their faith not on the objective
truths of the Word but rather on the exhibition of miraculous signs and emotional ecstasy.
The Lutheran Church has recently embraced both of these errors in the name of
evangelism and as a result it has changed its worship style. Can we stand for this much
longer or will we be swallowed up in the chaos of Reformed and enthusiast errors. As Paul
says, the ministry is not about words but power (1 Cor. 2:4). But the power resides in the
Word of truth. If we change the truth or dilute it there is no power, just words. And if there is
no power, there is no grace, and if there is no grace there is no forgiveness of sins. What
we have left is simply a social club, not a worship service that pleases God. So any form of
worship we use must reflect God’s truth. Therefore any form which does not reflect that
truth must be rejected no matter how popular it is, and no matter how old it is. Form follows
function in worship. If it is centered on false theological emphases and faddish styles it will
not be of spiritual benefit to the Church, no matter how effective it seems to be in the short-
term. It must centered on Christ crucified.

And the same must be said about our hymnody. It must also conform to God’s Word in
both content and style since both communicate theological ideas. The theological ideas
that the hymn communicates is of paramount importance. Each hymn comes from the mind
of a particular believer who wishes to communicate their understanding of a spiritual truth.
Thus the words of hymns are not theologically neutral. They have theological meaning and
intent. As Christians and Lutherans it is our duty to examine each hymn we use in public
worship to determine whether it speaks God’s truth or man’s truth. This is the criteria we
are to use in making this choice, not whether the melody is easily sung, or whether the
hymn is popular with God’s people. This demands that we study the theological orientation
of the hymnist and closely study the words of the hymn to make sure that it is not
communicating a theological error. God cannot be praised with demonic lies and God’s
people cannot be served by error.

Hymns that concentrate especially on emotional responses both in wording and style must
be rejected. We include: 1. Hymns that emphasize rhythm or body-based music over
spiritual truth as a means to produce a “spiritual” effect. The physiological effect of repeated
rhythmic patterns on the body is obvious to anyone who examines their own responses to
music with a good strong beat. The problem here is that the beat takes over the mind and
body to such a degree that the words, for the most part, become irrelevant. The listener of
this type of music experiences a disconnect of the mind because of the way the brain
processes sound. Ask any teenager about what the song they like so much is saying and
most of them won’t be able to tell you. To them it’s all about how the music makes their
body feel. That is what is attracting them to the song, not so much the ideas that are being
communicated. If the point of public worship is about communicating theological ideas (and
this may be part of our confusion on the issue) then any form of music which reduces the
ideas being communicated to almost zero significance because of its effect on the human
body, must be given a good deal of scrutiny as to whether it is appropriate for the public
worship of the one true God. There may be the argument made that in private this kind of
music may be listened to without problems, but the same difficulty still remains even in a
private setting: the meaning of the words is ignored in favor of the sonic characteristics of
 6

the music. This is one of the arguments against so-called Christian rock. What happens to
the spiritual truths (and most of these are suspect anyway since this type of music is done
mainly by Arminian and Pentecostal lay Christians with a very tenuous grip on theological
truths) being expressed in the musical context of loud, beat-driven rock music. Paul’s
argument against the emphasis of the standards of the fleshly worldview might be taken
into account here as well.

2. Trance music. This type of hymn is evidenced by the repeating of the same phrase over
and over again. It has been made akin to prayer but there is a deeper spiritual problem
here. It is the practice of eastern mystical traditions to use what is called a mantra, a word-
sound that is repeated over and over again by the practitioner in order to produce a trance-
like state. In the eastern tradition they think they are making contact with the divinity within.
This physiological state, which has been scientifically studied and authenticated as
producing a very real change in perception, has been interpreted by the eastern mystical
tradition as a method for touching God. For a Christian, unaware because of their own
ignorance and the deception of the devil, this can become a very strong deception and
delusion since it is so personal. The comment is often made that the one who has the
experience knows that it is real because they’ve experienced it. But there is a problem in
this kind of thinking. It becomes a matter of circular reasoning where there is no objective
criticism allowed to evaluate the experience. And usually when the Scriptural truths are
brought into the mix concerning our inability to experience God outside of the means of
grace it is usually the truth that is rejected in favor of the experience. The truth concerning
these kinds of experiences is that just because it is real does not mean it is true. The Bible
tells us that the devil can masquerade as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). The only way we
can tell whether the angel comes from God or not is whether what the angel speaks
expresses God’s truth as revealed in His Word. That is the only way we can be sure
whether we are dealing the devil or God. The experience itself is not capable of giving us
this kind of information. That is why we use the Word of God to judge all of our ideas and
actions. This is what it means to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. It is He who
judges all aspects of our lives, including our emotional life. Otherwise we make the
experience equal to God and then we have broken the first Commandment. It is the only
objective standard of God’s revealed Word that we can use to make sure we are dealing
with His truth. The only way we can experience God in this life with any certainty is through
the operation of the Office of the Keys. Making conclusions about religious truth outside of
this method puts us in danger of being deceived by the devil and damned.

3. The way a hymn is harmonized also fits into our discussion since harmony also can be
intentionally used to elicit emotion for its own sake. Beautiful harmonies that support the
melody are not being rejected here but rather the situation where the emotional response is
the be all and end all of the hymn and harmony is used simply as a method of
manipulation. For many within the Reformed confession this is the sole purpose of their
worship services. They are only interested in the emotional response because it is their
understanding that the emotions are the indicators that the Holy Spirit is present in the act
of worship. If there is no emotion there is no certainty of the presence of the Holy Spirit. The
Lutheran point of view is quite different. We believe that the Word of God is powerful and
effective and produces the effect it intends whether we “feel” anything or not. The baby we
baptize has been brought to faith regardless of whether there are cries or coos. It is God’s
Word which brings about the result of faith and forgiveness of sins. It doesn’t matter that we
cannot taste blood or flesh when we eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper. God’s Word has
put it there and it tells us He is there giving us this blessing for the forgiveness of our sins.
The Word of God declares it so and we believe it even though we aren’t aware of its results
 7

by means of our senses. The error here is one that is based on the Reformed rejection of
the power of the Word and the operation of the Holy Spirit through it. For the Reformed the
Holy Spirit needs and uses no instrument. They expect Him to work without means and so
they are dependent on what they consider the evidence of the Spirit’s actions for their
certainty that He has been present. A hymnody that depends on the evidences of emotions
will serve its own purpose by creating hymns that will elicit these very emotions. But the
error still remains that they reject the power of the Word of God to bring about its intended
blessings. Since they do not believe that the Scriptures are a point of contact with the
power of God they must develop other ways of bringing this effect about. The question thus
presents itself to those of us who wish to borrow the hymnody of the Reformed to use in
Lutheran worship services: If we use or copy their hymnody are we not also adopting their
theological errors as well?

But with that said we must see that emotion itself is not the problem, since emotion is a gift
of God. But the simple presence of an emotional response is not to be equated with
authentic religion. Since emotion can be manipulated so easily there can be no certainty
that the experience is coming as a result of the operation of the Holy Spirit. In addition we
must understand that, because we are still sinners, the holy and perfect God cannot be
experienced except through of the veil of the Word and Sacraments. Any experiencing of
the divine outside of the operation of Word and sacrament is a pagan idea that must be
resisted and rejected. Emotion is a product of the stimulation of the human body and/or
mind by certain sights, sounds and/or words. When we move into the realm of words we
move into the arena of theology and are bound by the truth revealed in God’s Word. If a
hymn expresses a theological error it must be rejected no matter how good it makes us
feel. The question presents itself as to how we could find anything “good” in an error. This
moves into the realm of Satan, who wishes to steal the peace and joy we have in Christ
and substitute his lies, which may for a time seem beneficial but will in the end produce
destruction. When we are choosing hymns to be used in public worship the intent of words
and sounds are to be taken into consideration when judging whether they are God-pleasing
or not. They are not “good” in and of themselves but must be understood as to their
connection to ideas and intent, and in this case theological ideas. Hymns are not
theologically neutral. A quick examination of our Lutheran hymnals will show us the Biblical
text the hymn is based on, the author, and where and when it was published. The history
of hymnody is also a study of theology in practice. Each hymn writer has his or her own
theological point of view, some we can agree on, and some we can’t. If the hymn contains
false doctrine we must reject it to protect ourselves from theological damage and spiritual
harm. We must not judge a hymn as being good by how it makes us feel, but rather on the
basis of what it says theologically. Hymns that express false theology (we speak especially,
but not solely, about non-Lutheran hymns) must be scrutinized thoroughly and if they are
found to be containing theological error they must be rejected.

Lutheranism is a specific theological point of view, therefore our worship in all its facets
must reflect our particular theological point of view, in this case centered around the Gospel
and sacraments, rather than Law motivated good works, emotions, and lying signs and
wonders. An important point to keep in mind is that denominations worship the way they do
because of their theological point of view. Theology produces worship style, not the other
way around. If the theological emphases and standards do not conform to God’s Word, the
resultant worship style will be at odds with God’s Word as well. The result will be that God
is not glorified and the worship will be in vain. Using the principle of adiaphora to cover bad
choices in public worship will not benefit the people of God. The questions we should ask
ourselves when making decisions about worship are the following: 1. Is the Gospel and the
 8

means of grace the center of the worship service? 2. Does the style of the worship center
on the worshipper or the God who is being worshipped? 3. Is the style of liturgy and
hymnody centered on personal experience or the means of grace? As Lutherans we will
take our answers to these questions seriously, not be swayed by non-Lutheran or secular
methodologies that would seem to have a short-term benefit but will result in the loss of our
Lutheran identity and theology, and as result, the certainty of our salvation.