[Mr. Lucky]

Except with regard to the role of women in the church polity, the difference between the Missouri and Wisconsin synods don't have much to do with “tradition”. The Missouri Synod allows women to vote as members of a congregation; the Wisconsin Synod does not. Neither allows women clergy.

For what it's worth, a Missouri Synod congregation adhering to a traditional form of the Divine Service (essentially the English translation of Luther's Mass) is far more traditional in its worship than a Wisconsin Synod congregation following a contemporary form of liturgy.

[muawiyah]

Detail question here: Luther's services were counseled by German norms, but isn't the Wisconsin crowd a mite more Scandinavian? Their "contemporary" or even their "traditional" would necessarily be different, right?

Like Germans aren't Swedes. Swedes aren't Germans. To the trained eye vast differences are obvious ~ kinda' anyway!

[muawiyah]

Or, maybe vice versa what with that deal with the former Finnish Lutheran synod.

[The Iceman Cometh]

Neither allows women clergy

Not so sure about this. I attended a Missouri Synod church in Myrtle Beach, SC and had a visiting female pastor preside over service at one point.

[Charles Henrickson]

a Missouri Synod congregation adhering to a traditional form of the Divine Service . . . is far more traditional in its worship than a Wisconsin Synod congregation following a contemporary form of liturgy.

This is true. Both synods have their problems with goofy pastors and congregations that do "contemporary worship." And, on the other hand, you can also find many pastors and congregations in both synods that do the liturgy well, sing solid hymns, celebrate the Sacrament often, and have good, Christ-centered preaching. Nowadays you have to check out things on a congregation-by-congregation basis.