Middeldinge: Christian Freedom and Obligation

The Rev. John Henry Koopman is the associate pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Mankato, MN.

It seems like folks typically prefer the Greek term Adiaphora and rarely use the German term Mitteldinge, although the German Formula of Concord uses both terms to introduce Article Ten: “so man Adiaphora oder Mitteldinge nennt.” As I am not much of a linguist nerd, I will have to leave the task of distinguishing between these terms to another individual who is perhaps further on the spectrum than I am. Regardless, I have grown tired of the term Adiaphora, at least insofar as it is often used by those advocating for the adoption of non-Lutheran practices in the Divine Service while still claiming Lutheran orthodoxy and orthopraxy, because “Adiaphora, bro!” As such, in order to differentiate myself from the above silliness, I’m going to use the term Mitteldinge instead. (As a bonus, Mittelding is way more fun to say than adiaphora.)

I’m not particularly original (as a dead orthodox Lutheran I try my best to avoid originality, since that always results in heterodoxy), and I’m only using this term because I read it in the writings of a (literally) dead orthodox Lutheran. In President Friedrich Wyneken’s 1860 synodical address and report, he has this gem of a paragraph:

“With respect to the order for worship, as a whole, it appears to be as defective as it was previously. Now we obviously know—granted that only orthodox agendas are in use among us—this is not an essential ingredient, but it is still lamentable that such a motley jumble continues to predominate among us. Even though the liturgy itself is something neither commanded nor forbidden [ein Mittelding], the doctrine of Christian freedom—thanks be to God—is in practice everywhere. And this freedom remains well preserved in all congregations. So the congregations should all the more so consent to a uniform liturgy, in order to allow the unity in Spirit to be expressed externally. The tenacity with which the worst bad taste is frequently clung to in this matter is astonishing. May God improve the situation.”

Wyneken makes an important connection between Mitteldinge and Christian freedom by way of two assertions. Firstly, he asserts that the liturgy is a Mittelding, which agrees with the definition in FC: Epitome X: “ceremonies or Church rites that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but have been introduced into the Church for the sake of good order and fitting use.”  There are, of course, some parts of the Divine Service which are commanded by God’s Word, such as the reading and preaching of Scripture, closed communion, women not reading the lections, etc. These things are therefore not matters of indifference, but by and large, the various specifics of the liturgy are Mitteldinge.

Secondly, Wyneken asserts that Christian freedom is preserved everywhere and is practiced everywhere. We understand what this means according to FC: SD X: “As soon as Christian freedom is weakened and human traditions are forced on the Church with coercion, as though it were wrong and a sin to omit them, the way is already prepared for idolatry. In this way, human traditions are multiplied and regarded as a divine worship, not only equal to God’s ordinances, but even placed above them.” Thus, Christian freedom in the liturgy is broken when the specifics of the liturgy are forced upon congregations as though the specifics of the liturgy are a matter of sin or righteousness. So long as the specifics are not coerced as though they were divine commands, freedom remains.

But the importance of Christian freedom is not so much that the Christian is free to do whatever he desires to do, but that he willingly becomes a servant to others. We see this from Luther’s wonderful 1520 treatise, The Freedom of a Christian, where he writes: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” Thus, among us Lutherans, we maintain Christian freedom with regard to the Mitteldinge, and no Christians are condemned to hell because they observe fewer or more ceremonies in their congregation. Nevertheless, Christian freedom also means that we must be dutiful servants to others, and we must not insist on our own way.

Among the churches of the Augsburg Confession, this means that each of our congregations maintains these principles of freedom. Therefore, each congregation must subordinate itself to the will of the whole assembly of congregations. This is why Wyneken concludes, based on his two assertions, that “the congregations should all the more so consent to a uniform liturgy, in order to allow the unity of the Spirit to be expressed externally.” In accordance with Christian freedom, each congregation must willingly consent to worship according to the agreed-upon standards.

We do not belong to a papacy which rules over our congregations and dictates for us what we must and must not do. Rather, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is an entirely voluntary arrangement of congregations that exists for mutual support and the furtherance of true doctrine. We join together freely, and according to that freedom, we joyfully submit to the decisions of our entire synod. If the synod were to err doctrinally, we retain the freedom to walk faithfully and are thus free to leave the synod without the threat of damnation. In fact, if the synod were to err, we would be compelled and duty-bound to disobey the decision of the synod and remain faithful to the Lord’s Word.

However, when the synod is not erring, when the congregations of our entire assembly have freely resolved to walk a certain way, Christian freedom compels us to subordinate our own personal preferences for the sake of unity. Those who refuse to consent to a uniform liturgy for the sake of unity are therefore breaking the law of love, insisting on their own way, and destroying Christian freedom. For the sake of unity, for the sake of love, and for the sake of freedom, let us gladly and joyfully consent to liturgical uniformity. 

Our synod has published a handful of hymnals and agendas by which we may be liturgically united. These resources contain a wide array of hymns and liturgies (perhaps too wide of an array, in my opinion, but I’m willing to consent to the use of these hymns and liturgies for the sake of unity) and give the congregations of our synod ample resources to live out their liturgical life in ways that are both unique to the individual congregation and uniform across our thousands of parishes. Frankly, I am not looking for some broad and ambiguous “ordo” which everyone is free to define according to their own preferences. Let us simply use the hymnal published by our publishing house and keep it simple.

We Lutherans have always struggled to walk the straight and narrow road between the ditch of legalism on one side and antinomianism on the other. Legalism is a soul-destroying and damnable heresy that looks for salvation in one’s own works. But antinomianism is an even worse sin that delights in evil and is merely a cover for wickedness. The faithful road we must tread is framed by Christian freedom and a humble heart that subordinates itself for the sake of the whole. So when it comes to the Mitteldinge in our parishes, let us not each go our own way, but let us consent to uniformity in Mitteldinge so that our unity in the Spirit may be expressed externally.