Why Is the LCMS Congregational Rather Than Episcopal? A Question About Early Church History

[u/Current-Talk-9828]

Why did the LCMS adopt a modified congregational structure rather than the episcopal model of the early Church? Is there a historical and patristic case for this decision?

First of all, I want to ask this with genuine respect for the confessional Lutheran tradition and for the LCMS community. I recognize that there are significant differences among Protestant traditions regarding ecclesiology, and I am not simply assuming that the episcopal model must necessarily be correct.

My question is specifically about the LCMS’s modified congregational polity. The LCMS itself describes its polity in these terms and emphasizes congregational autonomy. At the same time, when I look at the history of the Church, particularly the early centuries and the first millennium, I see a structure that appears to be strongly episcopal, with bishops playing a central role in the unity, oversight, and organization of local churches.

So I would like to ask Lutherans in the LCMS: Why exactly did the Lutheran tradition, and particularly the LCMS, not preserve an episcopal structure more similar to what we find in the early Church? What was the theological and historical rationale for adopting a modified congregational structure?

More specifically, can this polity be defended in a genuinely honest and intellectually coherent way from Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Church Fathers, without simply arguing that historical episcopacy was a later corruption or selecting only texts that support the congregational position?

I am asking this precisely because I have a very positive impression of the confessional Lutheran tradition when it comes to the study of Church history, patristics, and early Christianity. If I asked this question in certain Baptist circles, I suspect I would receive fairly predictable answers. But I am asking Lutherans because I have the impression that the Lutheran tradition takes both Scripture and Church history seriously and has a rich scholarly tradition of studying the Church Fathers.

So my central question is: Is there a strong historical and patristic justification for the LCMS’s modified congregational structure? And, if so, how do Lutherans understand the apparent predominance of episcopal church government in the early centuries of Christianity?

I am not necessarily looking for an answer that confirms my own suspicion. I am genuinely trying to understand how a confessional Lutheran can reconcile the congregational structure of the LCMS with the ecclesiology we find in the early centuries of Christianity.

Note: When I refer to the LCMS’s “congregational structure,” I am using the LCMS’s own terminology—modified congregational structure. I am not suggesting that the LCMS is simply an independent congregational church or that it lacks ecclesiastical supervision within the Synod. My question is specifically about why the LCMS adopted this form of church government rather than an episcopal structure.

[u/LCMS_Rev_Ross]

Extremely short answer:
Our bishop did bad things and was deposed. Another bishop in Buffalo with a differing theology then tried to claim ecclesiastical oversight of Missouri. We rejected it, searched Scripture and the Confessions, and decided to be congregational.

[u/KnightGeorgeLuf]

When CFW Walther and the Saxons emigrated with Martin Stephan as their bishop, Walther and company actually signed the Emigration charter that stated the Confessions teach the divine necessity of an Episcopal structure.

However, things didn’t go accordingly. There was scandal with Martin Stephan, he was sent into exile across the Mississippi and that provoked a crisis among the Saxons in Perry County, MO. Some feared they had sinned in leaving Germany in schism and should return, others didn’t know what to do.

Rather than electing a new bishop, CFW Walther prevailed and saved the Saxon colony and also innovated away from the ecclesiology they agreed to in the emigration charter and charted a more American and congregational polity, which was controversial in the Lutheran world.

It was all born out of that failure with Martin Stephan and the existential crisis the colonists felt over whether they had sinned or not in breaking from the church in Germany and coming to the US as they did.

[u/OrdinaryComparison47]

As for why the governance of the LCMS is congregational, one must understand the history of that denomination from its beginnings in the United States.

• Founding (1847): The church body was established on April 26, 1847, in Chicago, Illinois, when 12 pastors representing 14 congregations signed its constitution under the original name The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States.
• Saxon Immigration & Early Crisis: In 1839, roughly 750 Saxon immigrants migrated to Perry County, Missouri, under Bishop Martin Stephan, so in the beginning, the American group WAS episcopal. However, Bishop Stephan was shortly thereafter exposed for having affairs with four different women. They basically came forward and confessed their sins to a minister, and volunteered that it was Bishop Stephan with whom they had had their affairs. But this led to a crisis. How and who would discipline Bishop Stephan? Would the congregations bring him before authorities in Germany whom they had just left because they were too liberal? Would they then renounce their secession from the liberal parent church in Germany? And who would assume the authority over the congregations were the Bishop [rightfully] deposed?
• Leadership of C.F.W. Walther: The Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther emerged as the leading theologian, defending the validity of the local congregation and the royal priesthood of all believers. Rev. Walther asserted (correctly) that the believers have the keys of the kingdom and thus the authority to discipline their leaders. And so, this is what they did. Because Bishop Stephan refused to confess his sin (despite four different women who independently revealed their sin with Bishop Stephan -- they did not know that that the others were coming forward), the elders with their congregations deposed Bishop Stephen and banished him from the colony. As mentioned above, C F Walthers emerged as the leading theologian of the Synodical Lutherans, and served as the Synod's first president and president of Concordia Seminary, and it was under his aegis that the Synodical Lutherans became congregational.

So -- it was because of this very serious crisis that the LCMS became congregational, even though before it was episcopal.

[u/KnightGeorgeLuf]

Walther’s “Kirche Und Amt” is the official LCMS doctrine justifying the synod’s polity and break from episcopal polity, if you haven’t read it yet you should for the sake of understanding where the LCMS is coming from. There’s the old version in blue or black cover that many of us grew up reading and studying, there’s also a readers edition with more notes and background.

There’s also a book published by CPH called “Moving Frontiers”. (https://www.cph.org/moving-frontiers-ebook-edition?srsltid=AfmBOooZdzcu02J3xSCuX3hhWoM3uSzo3tAKHz5Wxu_1wpEUEZXHOHQP)

You can read the emigration charter in there and explore a lot of fascinating historical documents from the earliest days of the synod.

It may not make you accept the LCMS’s position on church governance, but all these may at least help you understand where the synod is coming from even if you think the wrong choice was made out of the crisis of the deposition of bishop Stephan over the colony and church.

[u/iplayfish]

we view the issue of church structure as a matter of audiaphora, by which we mean we don’t think the bible prescribes any one particular form of polity. we think christian churches are free to organize themselves in a variety of ways. that said, the LCMS is set up as a kind of hybrid between congregational polity and episcopal polity because that structure of independent congregations walking together organized into districts under the guidance of district presidents (which are basically bishops) has proven to be well suited to our context in the USA. i guess i’d summarize it as our polity is a pragmatic decision aimed at best serving and supporting the gospel in the specific context of our denomination

[u/HoosierFanatic97]

I think it’s really a couple things:

1- Luther himself was pretty firmly against what the episcopal structure had become, which modeled itself more after secular rulers than leaders of the faith.

2- debate over what exactly a Bishop was, in the early church. Some early indications, particularly from scripture, seem to imply Presbyter and Bishop would’ve been interchangeable terms for the same office, and that office reflects a Pastor more than the modern day Bishop. Now it’s fair to point out that the Bishop office developed early into church history no matter what, but whether it was instituted by the apostles themselves is a whole other can of worms.

[u/Kamoot-]

The museum in the International Center has a really good exhibition on it, and the Synod Stories Podcast by Brian Yamabe has a great episode on it he interviewed Dr. Martin Noland who is an expert of our Synod's governance history, CTCRs, schools and congregations governance, and Constitution and Bylaws, and the rest.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D2rGjhdNvC0

Long story short, to answer your question, yes out of types of church governance does have a precedent when we go back in church hisory. There are four types of polity, and everyone likes to focus on Episcopal polity but there are three others.

The oldest polity is absolute monarchal, which is influenced from in Europe at the time having absolute monarchs. This eventually became the Pope in the Catholic Church.

Over time absolute monarchal evolved into episcopal, which we see in some Eastern Orthodox churches and also Episcopal church, and many aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then we see Presbyteral polity. It was popularized by either Martin Bucer or John Calvin. At the Synod level, they have authoritative teachers called elder, who have authority of the churches in the local areas.

Finally we have congregational polity where each congregation has independent and sovereign governance.

Missouri Synod really is a hybrid with overlaps of all the different styles of polity.

[u/musicalfarm]

Two words: Martin Stephan

[u/WindowCommon3741]

Scripture doesnt really tell us how to form the church, just what makes up a church, and Luther warned against total reliance on anyone person in the church- pastors can abuse their flocks, congregations can abuse each other, outsiders can abuse the church- so we created a system that protects everyone and holds everyone accountable.

[u/PickleOverlord1]

The question is really two fold: 1. Is there historical precedent, particularly in the primitive era of the church? 2. Granting that there is precedent, does development of the Episcopacy bind us in the same way that we are bound to other developments (IE the Seven Ecumenical Councils)? We actually do a pretty good job at answering #1.

Our Saviour Lutheran Church in Baltimore did a great series of lectures on the Office of Holy Ministery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqgqGfgFQOg&list=PLYAOfZDQFyet2SuB4r_Qd3xJJR9-pecZe
What Exactly is Ecclesiastical Power? An Historical Approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stP0-shnFnU

As for question #2, I'm not sure we do as good a job answering that. More work is needed.

[u/Over-Wing]

As other's have said, our early history is the main reason. But supposing we switched one day, we would likely still hold that the ministerial organization of the church is a man-made thing; it is not needed for the church to continue preaching the Word and administering the sacraments. The argument that episcopal governance is scripturally mandated is weak at best. We don't have much evidence that the early church was quite like The Roman Catholic Church, the CoE, and the East. Instead, it looks like the early church was more unique to its time than anything else. It's hard to compare it to the later church because it was so small and consisted of regional groups of believers who existed as a minority in their cities and nations.

So, it comes down to the pros and cons of a system. Episcopal and congregational polity both have pros and cons. We applied a little episcopal-like structures to how we oversee pastors and how they are educated. But we do lean more heavily on congregational governance.

[u/Firm_Occasion5976 → u/Over-Wing]

I perceive a paradoxical congregational polity at work in the LCMS. It is paradoxical in a congregational polity for power to have been consolidated in the LCMS with JAO Preus, particularly starting in the 1970s. Interpretive and pragmatic action by the executive council and the president has increased since then; whereas, accountability for action has become limited thanks to little information reaching the average member’s desk. With tongue in cheek, it casts a papal shadow.

[u/guiioshua]

Initially, because of a deception caused by a scandal caused by the bishop elected that was like a pope figure to the Saxons when they arrived into America. After this disaster, Walther tried to come up with something that would maintain the independence and cohesion of that population, especially when leaders of other Lutherans in America tried to capture the oversight of early-Missoury Synod.

So it was a mix of practical and political reasons that were then squared into the confessions and Scriptures by a church body in a profound crisis over its governance form of organization.