Adiaphora Often Reveal Troubles that Aren't Adiaphora

Sometimes things that are neither commanded nor forbidden (mitteldinge) upon further examination in conversing with pastors or even parishioners will reveal theological issues that are not adiaphora.   The practice or ceremony which is Scripturally neither commanded nor forbidden can become a symptom or a leading indicator of subterranean theological troubles and inaccuracies.   However, one can only have some certainty about this through conversation.  It can't just be assumed.  But this tells us something important.  No matter how Platonistic or Nestorian someone's thinking is between doctrine and practice, reality doesn't function that way.  Earlier Lutherans knew this.  Just look at the conflicts between Calvinists and Lutherans during and before the Prussian Union (see the work of Bodo Nischan).

The vestments a pastor wears or doesn't wear are in an of themselves "middle things" (mitteldinge), that aren't commanded in the New Testament, though the Lutheran Confessions certainly commend the use of vestments which are expressive of reverence and the continuity of the church and the liturgy through the ages (AC XXIV).  Now one pastor might wear a cassock and surplice and another an alb with no real theological difference between them.  Another might wear an alb and stole, while his neighbor wears alb, stole and chasuble with no real theological difference between them.  At other times the choice may be reflective of a theological difference.  You don't know until you ask.   In the parish this can be the case as well - when one choice is objected to or not, one should converse about the reasons and certainly always pursue catechesis.

This is certainly not just the case with vestments.  To chant or not to chant, to make the sign of the cross or not, to bow or genuflect, to kneel or stand, to print out the service or simply directly use the hymnal, to use a sermon manuscript or to memorize the sermon or preach loosely from an outline, to wear a clerical collar, and so forth are areas that might be similarly considered.   Other things would not be so much in the same category (such as plastic throw away communion cups, who reads the Scripture lessons, altar fellowship, grape juice in the sacrament, etc).   Still, even in these other situations, as one peers into the situation from the outside, one should ask the question as to whether these things are patiently endured for the sake of catechesis, discipline, and shepherding in the economy of pastoral changes in the parish, or whether the pastor has given up and wants to coast into retirement without any stress.   Of course there are cases also where despite much teaching and patience stubbornness to improvements in practice in the parish the practice remains statically where it was.   Still, what was begun under one pastor might move under the next.  That is the economy of the ministerium within the history of a parish.

Adiaphora do not exist within a vacuum.  The Formula of Concord recognizes this as well.   And for confessional Lutherans, especially grinding for pastors are other pastors who love to quote Formula of Concord X on adiaphora while ignoring the definition and practice of liturgy in Augsburg and Apology XXIV.   "Liturgy" is not adiaphora in the Book of Concord.  Certain "ceremonies" are adiaphora.   But worship and the administration of the means of grace can never be "indifferent."