# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S248
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

286 PARISH EDUCATION

Security Act which made it necessary for the Board for Parish
Education to prepare statements concerning the official Position
of the Lutheran male teacher in our Church. These statements
were needed by our synodical officials to clarify to the Govern.
ment the status of the teacher. Our synodical officials ang the
Board for Parish Education have gone on record in stating the
following:

1. That Lutheran teachers are officially defined by our Church
as “ministers of religion,” “ministers of religious education,” “min.
isters of the Gospel,” and “servants of the Word.”

2. That they are called upon or may be called upon to Perform
or to help perform sacerdotal and other pastoral functions,

3. That while they are not commonly called, installed, or or.
dained as pastors, they are formally called, installed, and conse.
crated for life as “ministers of religion” and devote themselves
primarily to teaching and altogether to the spiritual service of the
Church.

4. That the main obligation of these men. is to conduct and
teach Lutheran elementary, secondary, and higher schools and that
in the local church they commonly instruct also the confirmed
youth and adults and, in general, assist the pastor in ministering to
the congregation.

5. That, although these men are popularly known as “teachers,”
they are in reality members of the clergy.

The Church, the State, and Education

The Board for Parish Education presented to the 1947 conven-
tion an “Opinion” entitled “Religious Education in State-Supported
Schools.” Synod commended the Board for its research in this field
and directed the Board “to continue its studies and report its
findings at the next convention.” Recognizing the importance of
the subject and its many ramifications, the Board has appointed a
Committee on Church-State Relations to make some of the studies
so that we shall be able to give our people the necessary guidance.

Since the presentation of the “Opinion” three years ago debate
on the teaching of religion in the public schools has grown in in-
tensity. Two recent Supreme Court decisions (Everson and Mc-
Collum), in particular the McCollum (released-time instruction)
case, have occasioned a great deal of controversy and the writing
of books and scores of magazine articles.

Apart from these Court decisions, educators no less than
clergymen have long been alarmed over the spread of the secular
spirit and the decline of religious influence among the American
people. Secularism is the point of view that for all practical pur-

PARISH EDUCATION 287

God does not exist. Secularism excludes God from human
life, from business and politics; it relativizes the standards of the
Moral Law and thus opens the floodgates of crime and immorality.

In view of this growing secularism, which threatens our Chris-
tian civilization, even liberal churchmen are urging that religion
be given some consideration in the course of study of the public
schools. Some conservative Protestants are asking that they be
permitted to teach religion in connection with the daily public
school. program. Roman Catholics criticize the public school be-
cause of the exclusion of God from its program. On the other hand,
some citizens are crying for the exclusion of all religious elements
from the public school.

A growing number of parents have come to realize that some-
thing fundamental is lacking in the schooling of their children.
While some religious parents do not favor any religion in the pub-
lic school, not even Bible reading or released-time classes, because
they think such practices involve a mixing of Church and State, a
large percentage of American parents wish their children to re-
ceive religious instruction as a part of their schooling. We have,
however, this situation: The children of religious parents may
not receive religious education in connection with the daily public
school program; the children of godless parents, however, are
receiving at public expense the kind of education their parents
want them to have. While Christian parents should be willing to
pay the expense involved in founding and maintaining Christian
schools, the State should give some consideration to the children
who do not have the opportunity to attend such schools.

As Christians and as citizens we are vitally interested in the
public school. We are concerned for the children of our own
Church who are enrolled in the public school, lest the schooling they

tensive and scholarly studies ought to be made. The following
paragraphs represent the thinking of the Board and suggest the
areas in which such studies are imperative.

Parents’ Rights
Much has been written about the rights both of the State and
the Church to educate. Much has also been written about parental
Tesponsibility, but little about parental rights. So little has been
said and written on the subject that parents are scarcely conscious
of their rights and therefore exert only a negligible influence in
determining the education which their children shall receive, Yet