The problem with "satis est"

Everyone is agreed upon what the Latin satis est means.  There is no confusion there.  It is enough.  But from there on out we seem not to know what to do with that statement.  "And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments" (Et ad venam unitatem ecclesiae satis est consentire de doctrina evangelica et administratione sacramentorum). So reads one of the most important sentences in the Augsburg Confession. Coming between a definition of the "one holy Church" and the rejection of the Romanist teaching that human traditions, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, must everywhere be alike, this is a key statement of the Augustana on the nature of the Church's unity.  We all know and are pretty much agreed on what satis est means even though we cannot seem to come to any unanimity on what "the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments" means.  But the latter is for another post.  This one is about the simple phrase it is enough.

AC VII confesses that the church is located or found where the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered (Est autem ecclesia congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium
recte docetur et recte administrantur sacramenta).  We all know the simple and yet profound truth of this assertion.  Of course, there is a dispute about what rightly preached and rightly administered means.  We are still trying to figure that out in a way that everyone can affirm.  Even within Missouri there seems to be division over what these words mean as they are unpacked in practice.  But we dare not get to far ahead of the words "it is enough" or, it is sufficient.  For the point here is not to discourage a higher level of unity and uniformity in words and practices (church usages) but to admit that it need not be required to go beyond the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments, the twin markers that locate the true Church.  I would suggest that we have misstated these words in such a way that it is too often seen as interfering or domineering to suggest that more unity and uniformity could or should be the goal.  That is what we find in the original constitution of the Missouri Synod at least until 1979 when it was changed (and as to what that means might be answered down the road).

It is wearisome to have people insist that less is more, that the minimal satisfaction of what must be required for the unity of the Church is all that anyone needs to strive for or be satisfied with.  That is simply not the case.  The original constitution of the Missouri Synod called for a higher standard, namely, to strive for the highest possible uniformity and unity of doctrine and church practice (a word that has evolved in meaning but at least means rites and ceremonies).  This took concrete shape in the requirement that members of the Synod exclusively use doctrinally pure agendas and hymnbooks and catechisms and was further expounded by the early intention of the Synod to form a publishing house to produce exactly those doctrinally pure agendas, hymnbooks, and catechisms.  The aim for a higher degree of unity and uniformity does not mitigate against Augustana VII but accurately understands the difference between what must be required for basic unity and what should be fostered for the well-being of the Church.  It is high time that we admit that satis est does not mean the most that can or should be the aim of the churches in their walk together.  There is nothing wrong or unseemly or against Augustana VII to strive for more, to expect more, and to call each other to account for the more that is a profound benefit to the Church.

It is frustrating that we as a Synod seem hesitant to say this and felt the need to try to incorporate responsible variety as an equivalent aim or goal in 1979.  Of course, the context of 1979 was not evangelical, seeker style, casual, non-liturgical worship services but the conflict just begun with a cooperative hymnal effort rejected and the Synod pursuing its own book.  Responsible variety then meant more the LBW/TLH/WS 1969, etc., mix of books and rites than it ever foresaw or expected the kind of thing typical among some folks today.  So, while the Synod modified the constitution to include responsible variety, it did not retract the goal of a higher level of unity and uniformity which was for the good of the Church, for the benefit of the congregations and their ministers, and for the benefit of the people in those congregations.  It may be enough to have a minimal standard for the sake of unity but that does not and has never meant no more needed to be the aim or the striving for of those within and those seeking to be in fellowship with the LCMS.  Satis est was never a mere matter of how little you can get by with but where you begin -- with where you end up being far and away nearer unity and uniformity in the fullest sense of those terms.