Ontological questions. . .

While some of the differences within the Missouri Synod are often framed as nuanced practices within the framework of adiaphora, there is another way to view these.  The divergent views of how we do things are ultimately ontological -- born of very different views of who the Missouri Synod is and not simply how we might do things.

Take the business of seminaries and routes to ordination.  While no one in their right mind would presume that Scripture has put in place the system we have today, that system has been the way we as the Missouri Synod have done things pretty much from the beginning.  It is not simply about who trains our pastors but who certifies them for service to the Synod.  While it might seem that the near monopoly our seminaries have might be worth breaking up, the real question here is who certifies the graduates of other programs and other schools and attests to their fitness and training to serve as clergy?  In the ELCA this is not the role of the seminary at all but has been delegated to local candidacy committees on a Synod (meaning District in our terminology) level.  Each Synod has its own criteria and makes its own decisions about who will be ordained (except, of course, for the regular pattern of ordaining outside this as was done with women and LGBTQ+ even before the ELCA had acted to approve these).  In other words, this is reflective of the ELCA's self understanding as a confederation of largely autonomous geographical units and that these decide on a local level who is ordained reveals the depth of this independence.  Missouri, whether rightly or wrongly, is not made up of autonomous or even independent districts that constitute the national jurisdiction.  In Missouri, the Synod defines the Districts and not the other way around.  Districts are simply Synod in that particular place (okay, the non-geographical districts sort of break some of the rules here).  Missouri has reserved not to the Districts but to the Synod the role of training and certifying for ordination those who will serve us as pastors.  Missouri has done so through the Seminary.  Synod makes those decisions and not Districts or other non-synodical seminaries or training routes.  Again, whether you think this is good or not, this is not a choice that can be changed without also changing the self-understanding of who we are as the Missouri Synod.  

BTW here are two statements from the leaders of the LCMS seminaries on such alternate routes, especially those which completely bypass official channels.

Or look at the business of worship.  Some have insisted the congregation is perfectly free to decide which hymnals and liturgies and agendas (the other rites) it will use.  Some have even gone so far as to suggest that perhaps Districts can establish their own criteria for and publish their own "hymnals."  Again, this is not a simple question of what can be done but what should be done.  The Synod has said it makes these decisions on a larger scale than the congregation or the District and asks the congregations as condition of membership to use only doctrinally pure hymnals, liturgies, and agendas.  For lack of better way of putting it, to forego freedom in order to pursue more unity as a hallmark of their identity within the Synod.  In other words, we have united around a higher value than liberty and locale and we call that value unity of doctrine and practice.  To delegate that solely to the congregation would transform Missouri from a congregational church body into a congregationalist one -- sort of like the Southern Baptist Convention in which there is no real national church identity or structure but a cooperative association in which the congregation is fully independent to decide for itself such things as what will be believed and how it will be practiced.   As we have seen recently, it takes a lot to get disciplined in the SBC and there is great latitude practiced (even more than some would like!).  For the District to assume the role of Synod in sanctioning or publishing its own worship books or establishing its own worship practices is for such a District to take what the Synod has assigned to itself alone.  Again, it is for the sake of all that some restrict some of their liberty to abide not only by a common confession but also to practice that confession more closely in sync with their fellow congregations across the nation and not simply within a geographical portion of the land.  I am not arguing here that this is good or bad or right or wrong but only to suggest that a big change here is also a big change in the self-understanding of who we are together as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

Finally, if, indeed, we as a Synod decide that such changes in who we are and how we live and work together are the way to do, it has to happen on the level of how decisions are made by the Synod and not by individual congregations or even Districts deciding on their own.  Before you rush to conclusions here remember that I am simply talking about how some of these changes will result in a radically different idea of who the Synod is and not simply a change of a few practices.  So when we discuss these things, we need to be upfront in what we are discussing.  These changes are not about issues on the fringe but essential issues that will transform who we are and how we live and work together.  Another way of putting this is that these are constitutional and bylaw issues but the impact is the same.