“Now I am a member of a Church body, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and this name for our denomination may be the only one with the word “synod” in it. We are saying we are walking together following the Lord, like the hymn stanza,
Like a mighty army moves the church of God; Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod; We are not divided; all one body we, One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
Many times, the realist in me cries out singing Onward Christian Soldiers: “Oh, really! Give me a break.” We are so divided. We certainly do not worship the same throughout each congregation of the LCMS, as there are congregations with praise bands and clapping hands to incense and liturgical chant. Oh, someone could point out that we have unity (in doctrine) but not uniformity (in practice), oneness not sameness, and many point out doctrine means more than practice. Doctrine means practice as in the military or playing a musical instrument. “Oh, I don’t have to stand at attention or play those notes.” Really?! I can know the doctrine of prayer and yet seldom or never pray. And we know across the whole gamut of Christendom, there is little unity or uniformity in doctrine and practice. The relationship between unity and uniformity is well worth exploring but that is not my goal today.
Seems to me that both sides need to own their mistakes in this relationship, sit down and put together an agreement that both sides can abide. If the AALC requests documentation on a Pastor that is supposedly "under" church discipline, a timely response should be given by the LCMS. This should be vice versa. That being said, a Pastor who has been released because of a discipline matter should state the reason for discipline.
I would hope that we would err on the side of grace, but by the same token, be as thorough in investigating the said disciplinary issue. Even though I am not in the AALC national office, I find this whole drama unsettling. I pray we can get this settled in the next 3-years and restore trust between the 2 Lutheran Church bodies.
This has been developing for a while, primarily because ALTS was marketed as the path of least resistance to ordination in the LCMS, thereby poaching men from CTS and CSL. That alternate route has been foreclosed, but do not underestimate the amount of irritation and bad will that caused.
"The Wisconsin Synod’s seminary is the same (largely irrelevant since WELS men are not welcome in LCMS pulpits, and vice versa). " - just to be clear Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary is accredited (I haven't watched the video yet - tense may have been past) for better or worse (I personally put no stock in accreditation)
The AALC is very small, about 50 congregations, unless you have one near you or members with relatives in the AALC, it's unlikely to impact your local parish in any meaningful way.
One AALC church we visited was communing Baptists and the pastor said he left the LCMS over closed communion. Perhaps this "practice as adiaphoran" could be problematic?
Likewise, Aletheia Outreach was conducting online communion. It eventually came to a head during COVID when the AALC ruled it out, but not without massive resistance from Chris Rosebrough. https://churches.taalc.org/regarding-online-communion
It's unclear whether Aletheia Outreach continues to hold online communion.
I think your comment could be misconstrued. The AALC has not ruled out online communion. The link you provided points out that no statement on online communion has been adopted at convention. They merely have a statement from their executive committee that asks that pastors refrain from doing it. Not particularly strong wording. And I believe that this was also prompted by LCMS pressure to do so.
"Massive resistance" seems an understatement. Rosbrough put out theological theses in defense of the practice, which he was doing, and which, as far as I know, he has never repudiated. Instead, he reiterated his defense of the practice on multiple occasions. There have been more than one allegation that he continued the practice of online communion more discreetly. Yes, unclear whether he continues to practice online communion, but he has also never confirmed that he has ceased despite multiple questions being raised to him.
Regardless of what comes of this, the LCMS should continue to understand where the AALC stands in terms of online communion, doctrine as it relates to creation and Genesis 1 (especially when their seminary president and chairman of their CTCR equivalent denies the creation account of Genesis 1), and these other issues raised.
Thanks, those are good points. My understanding was that the AALC had settled the issue based on Cooper's response, which was turned into a copyrighted book.
I did see that Rosebrough's paper defending remote consecration, etc., has been removed from that link, and it is not available on the Wayback Machine.
I would appreciate further explanation of your statement. I'm not one to like reference back to "procedure", but the statement does not appear accurate according to the AALC's own website, which Ad Crucem linked to, which states that the AALC has not approved at a General Convention any Statements on the Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper, but is current in the process that would lead up to that.
Then it presents its interim statement from the executive committee that simply says that online communion has not be authorized or approved, so they request that pastors refrain from that practice. It does not officially reject that.
Are you stating that a CDCR report is an "official" rejection of a practice and "officially" sets out the doctrine of the AALC? And that pastors who do not conform to a CDCR report (absent any further adoption at a General Convention) would be practicing contrary to the doctrine of the AALC?
I understand the dates and perhaps for some reason the AALC hasn't updated its page providing the statement from the Executive Committee. But if they haven't adopted the CDCR report at the General Convention, is it reflective of official doctrine and practice that AALC congregations are bound to? Hence my question of whether pastors who do not conform to a CDCR report (absent further adoption at a General Convention) be practicing contrary to the doctrine of the AALC? Again, not wanting to be "muh procedure" about it, but would like clarity on what can accurately be said about the AALC and how it approaches pastors' practices (at least on paper since we have seen that there is a gap between the LCMS on paper and in practice).
Thank you for the response, Rev. Fenn. The document doesn't state specifically the AALC's practice. I compared it to the LCMS' CTCR document of the same title from 1983, and it clearly says the LCMS practices close (or closed) communion. I don't see anything like that in the AALC document, nor on the AALC website. Is close (closed) communion the official practice of the AALC?
Looks like there may be another disparity between doctrine and practice. What is the true belief? What is stated in a document, or what happens in practice in the congregation?
Because we live in a sinful world, it is a sad truth that all Christians cannot be united in fellowship. Because of significant doctrinal errors, I cannot commune with family members who are Roman Catholic. But it's even more tragic that conservative Lutherans are so split that they cannot have fellowship. As an AALC member, it has given me great joy to commune with my LCMS family members at a grandchild's baptism or confirmation. We all hold the same faith and the same confession. Yet we show a face to the world of disunity and pettiness. No wonder Lutherans have so little effect on the culture. And since when did the LCMS get so picky about pastors? I know several LCMS pastors who participate in interfaith services. I know of many who practice open communion--my sister attends one of those churches. I know a number of pastors who openly support liberal causes. Not far from me is an LCMS pastor whose wife and children regularly post pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ posts on social media. So let's not pretend that the Missouri Synod really cares about a couple of pastors whom the AALC has investigated and found acceptable. That's just pretense.
Are you offering up the names of these erring pastors so that those men may be rebuked and corrected? If you give me the names and the supporting evidence I'll email their DP so that he can deal with it. Perhaps contrary to your experience with the LCMS, we do actually care about doctrine and practice, and it's a shame that pastors in my ministerium are behaving in this way.
No, of course not. It's not my place to do that. I'm not even a member of the LCMS anymore. My late father was an LCMS pastor for decades, so I take no pleasure in saying any of this.
Appreciated this read, even where I would push back. The point that fellowship is recognized by institutions rather than created by them is the right governing premise, and you are correct that it deserves to be more central in how the AALC speaks going forward. Two gentle pushbacks, though. The actual LCMS complaint in the Workbook and overture is largely procedural — consultation, signature, willingness to sign — so a procedural reply is not as off-target as the piece suggests. And the "senior partner" framing, taken as neutral background, is itself part of what is being disputed. Confessional fellowship does not have senior and junior partners. The tension you note between doctrine-alone framing and operating-agreement defense is worth more theological work than either side has yet done — agreed. Prayers for both bodies in this difficult season.
I should have added that the video was a strategic failure. It was intended to shape the opinion of the laity if the overture ever reached the Convention floor. However, it was presented as aggressive procedural posturing to the very initiating action of the LCMS. Given the solid majority of the LCMS laity that now holds that doctrine and praxis are two ends of the same rope, it was unwise to pitch it as "you have to catch us out on doctrine, not practice".
Equal status in confession is a given, but the nature of power and reality on the ground means there is always a point at which deference is wise. This is the mistake the missionals made in constantly goading the Synod over alternate routes to ordination; the universities in constantly irritating it with Liberal ideological cravings, etc.
Whether the AALC, SELK, etc., like it or not, the LCMS is still the big dog that barks and bites. Don't put your fingers through the fence after annoying it.
Perhaps TAALC should consider breaking fellowship with the LCMS considering the aberrant practices publicly visible throughout the synod, including blatant open communion, ignoring of AC XIV, etc.
Fellowship in doctrine alone and not in practice as practice is adiaphora: doesn’t that open the proverbial whole can of worms?
Regarding my comment, I recently wrote this article for our congregation’s blog, https://concordiaandkoinonia.wordpress.com/2026/05/20/a-synod-and-an-odometer/
And here is the salient quote:
“Now I am a member of a Church body, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and this name for our denomination may be the only one with the word “synod” in it. We are saying we are walking together following the Lord, like the hymn stanza,
Like a mighty army moves the church of God; Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod; We are not divided; all one body we, One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
Many times, the realist in me cries out singing Onward Christian Soldiers: “Oh, really! Give me a break.” We are so divided. We certainly do not worship the same throughout each congregation of the LCMS, as there are congregations with praise bands and clapping hands to incense and liturgical chant. Oh, someone could point out that we have unity (in doctrine) but not uniformity (in practice), oneness not sameness, and many point out doctrine means more than practice. Doctrine means practice as in the military or playing a musical instrument. “Oh, I don’t have to stand at attention or play those notes.” Really?! I can know the doctrine of prayer and yet seldom or never pray. And we know across the whole gamut of Christendom, there is little unity or uniformity in doctrine and practice. The relationship between unity and uniformity is well worth exploring but that is not my goal today.
Seems to me that both sides need to own their mistakes in this relationship, sit down and put together an agreement that both sides can abide. If the AALC requests documentation on a Pastor that is supposedly "under" church discipline, a timely response should be given by the LCMS. This should be vice versa. That being said, a Pastor who has been released because of a discipline matter should state the reason for discipline.
I would hope that we would err on the side of grace, but by the same token, be as thorough in investigating the said disciplinary issue. Even though I am not in the AALC national office, I find this whole drama unsettling. I pray we can get this settled in the next 3-years and restore trust between the 2 Lutheran Church bodies.
This has been developing for a while, primarily because ALTS was marketed as the path of least resistance to ordination in the LCMS, thereby poaching men from CTS and CSL. That alternate route has been foreclosed, but do not underestimate the amount of irritation and bad will that caused.
"The Wisconsin Synod’s seminary is the same (largely irrelevant since WELS men are not welcome in LCMS pulpits, and vice versa). " - just to be clear Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary is accredited (I haven't watched the video yet - tense may have been past) for better or worse (I personally put no stock in accreditation)
Whew, I am happy I am off X. This looks like drama fest. I am curious how this would affect myself in my my small church.
The AALC is very small, about 50 congregations, unless you have one near you or members with relatives in the AALC, it's unlikely to impact your local parish in any meaningful way.
One AALC church we visited was communing Baptists and the pastor said he left the LCMS over closed communion. Perhaps this "practice as adiaphoran" could be problematic?
Likewise, Aletheia Outreach was conducting online communion. It eventually came to a head during COVID when the AALC ruled it out, but not without massive resistance from Chris Rosebrough. https://churches.taalc.org/regarding-online-communion
It's unclear whether Aletheia Outreach continues to hold online communion.
I think your comment could be misconstrued. The AALC has not ruled out online communion. The link you provided points out that no statement on online communion has been adopted at convention. They merely have a statement from their executive committee that asks that pastors refrain from doing it. Not particularly strong wording. And I believe that this was also prompted by LCMS pressure to do so.
"Massive resistance" seems an understatement. Rosbrough put out theological theses in defense of the practice, which he was doing, and which, as far as I know, he has never repudiated. Instead, he reiterated his defense of the practice on multiple occasions. There have been more than one allegation that he continued the practice of online communion more discreetly. Yes, unclear whether he continues to practice online communion, but he has also never confirmed that he has ceased despite multiple questions being raised to him.
Regardless of what comes of this, the LCMS should continue to understand where the AALC stands in terms of online communion, doctrine as it relates to creation and Genesis 1 (especially when their seminary president and chairman of their CTCR equivalent denies the creation account of Genesis 1), and these other issues raised.
Thanks, those are good points. My understanding was that the AALC had settled the issue based on Cooper's response, which was turned into a copyrighted book.
I did see that Rosebrough's paper defending remote consecration, etc., has been removed from that link, and it is not available on the Wayback Machine.
I'll do some follow-up. Much appreciated.
Both online communion and open Communion are officially rejected by the AALC.
Read the CDCR of the AALC's position statement.
https://cpmfiles1.com/taalc.org/cdcr-report-the-theology-and-practice-of-the-lords-supper.pdf
Doesn't the AALC practice Responsible Communion? I recall a statement about this, and can't find it now, which declared it as neither open nor closed.
No. The AALCs position is the one in the document I linked.
I would appreciate further explanation of your statement. I'm not one to like reference back to "procedure", but the statement does not appear accurate according to the AALC's own website, which Ad Crucem linked to, which states that the AALC has not approved at a General Convention any Statements on the Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper, but is current in the process that would lead up to that.
Then it presents its interim statement from the executive committee that simply says that online communion has not be authorized or approved, so they request that pastors refrain from that practice. It does not officially reject that.
Are you stating that a CDCR report is an "official" rejection of a practice and "officially" sets out the doctrine of the AALC? And that pastors who do not conform to a CDCR report (absent any further adoption at a General Convention) would be practicing contrary to the doctrine of the AALC?
FYSA:
* Exec Comm Document is dated May 8, 2021.
* CDCR Doc is dated May 12, 2025.
Latter should supersede all prior statements and documents to reflect the official doctrine and practice that all AALC congregations are bound to.
I understand the dates and perhaps for some reason the AALC hasn't updated its page providing the statement from the Executive Committee. But if they haven't adopted the CDCR report at the General Convention, is it reflective of official doctrine and practice that AALC congregations are bound to? Hence my question of whether pastors who do not conform to a CDCR report (absent further adoption at a General Convention) be practicing contrary to the doctrine of the AALC? Again, not wanting to be "muh procedure" about it, but would like clarity on what can accurately be said about the AALC and how it approaches pastors' practices (at least on paper since we have seen that there is a gap between the LCMS on paper and in practice).
Thank you for the response, Rev. Fenn. The document doesn't state specifically the AALC's practice. I compared it to the LCMS' CTCR document of the same title from 1983, and it clearly says the LCMS practices close (or closed) communion. I don't see anything like that in the AALC document, nor on the AALC website. Is close (closed) communion the official practice of the AALC?
Looks like there may be another disparity between doctrine and practice. What is the true belief? What is stated in a document, or what happens in practice in the congregation?
Thanks for the link. Is Aletheia in compliance?
Because we live in a sinful world, it is a sad truth that all Christians cannot be united in fellowship. Because of significant doctrinal errors, I cannot commune with family members who are Roman Catholic. But it's even more tragic that conservative Lutherans are so split that they cannot have fellowship. As an AALC member, it has given me great joy to commune with my LCMS family members at a grandchild's baptism or confirmation. We all hold the same faith and the same confession. Yet we show a face to the world of disunity and pettiness. No wonder Lutherans have so little effect on the culture. And since when did the LCMS get so picky about pastors? I know several LCMS pastors who participate in interfaith services. I know of many who practice open communion--my sister attends one of those churches. I know a number of pastors who openly support liberal causes. Not far from me is an LCMS pastor whose wife and children regularly post pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ posts on social media. So let's not pretend that the Missouri Synod really cares about a couple of pastors whom the AALC has investigated and found acceptable. That's just pretense.
Are you offering up the names of these erring pastors so that those men may be rebuked and corrected? If you give me the names and the supporting evidence I'll email their DP so that he can deal with it. Perhaps contrary to your experience with the LCMS, we do actually care about doctrine and practice, and it's a shame that pastors in my ministerium are behaving in this way.
No, of course not. It's not my place to do that. I'm not even a member of the LCMS anymore. My late father was an LCMS pastor for decades, so I take no pleasure in saying any of this.
Appreciated this read, even where I would push back. The point that fellowship is recognized by institutions rather than created by them is the right governing premise, and you are correct that it deserves to be more central in how the AALC speaks going forward. Two gentle pushbacks, though. The actual LCMS complaint in the Workbook and overture is largely procedural — consultation, signature, willingness to sign — so a procedural reply is not as off-target as the piece suggests. And the "senior partner" framing, taken as neutral background, is itself part of what is being disputed. Confessional fellowship does not have senior and junior partners. The tension you note between doctrine-alone framing and operating-agreement defense is worth more theological work than either side has yet done — agreed. Prayers for both bodies in this difficult season.
Thanks, pastor.
I should have added that the video was a strategic failure. It was intended to shape the opinion of the laity if the overture ever reached the Convention floor. However, it was presented as aggressive procedural posturing to the very initiating action of the LCMS. Given the solid majority of the LCMS laity that now holds that doctrine and praxis are two ends of the same rope, it was unwise to pitch it as "you have to catch us out on doctrine, not practice".
Equal status in confession is a given, but the nature of power and reality on the ground means there is always a point at which deference is wise. This is the mistake the missionals made in constantly goading the Synod over alternate routes to ordination; the universities in constantly irritating it with Liberal ideological cravings, etc.
Whether the AALC, SELK, etc., like it or not, the LCMS is still the big dog that barks and bites. Don't put your fingers through the fence after annoying it.
Why is Rosebrough still considered relevant? A subversive.
Perhaps TAALC should consider breaking fellowship with the LCMS considering the aberrant practices publicly visible throughout the synod, including blatant open communion, ignoring of AC XIV, etc.