# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S251
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

292 PARISH EDUCATION

wise the duty of the Church to train men for the fulfillment of their
citizenship duties, which include the duty of Christians to enter
the service of government and fulfill their office in the fear of God,

The Church brings its influence to bear upon civil Sovernment
for the most part indirectly through its program of Christian edu.
cation. It is desirable that governmental positions be occupied by
Christians or by men of sterling quality who are sympathetic to.
ward religion and the Church. Unless such people are voted into
office, the Church may be deprived of its rights and even have to
submit to persecution. Non-Christian officials do not know that they
have their power from God and that they will be held accountable
to God for any abuse of that power. Much less do they know that
the Church is a divine institution and that it is their duty to insure
conditions that are favorable for the healthy expansion of the
Church. Our task as Christian citizens is to elect men to office who
are aware of their responsibility to God and appreciate the dignity
of the Church.

The Church

God, the Supreme Ruler over all, rules through the spiritual
power of the Church and through the civil power of the State. And
the purpose of these institutions is that His will should be done:
in the Church through the proclamation of the Word, and in the
State through the lawful exercise of authority, to preserve order.
It is the duty of the Church, not of the State, to preach the Gospel,
. The Church should not expect the State to propagate the Gospel;
in fact, it should oppose any movement that would aim to make
the State responsible for the propagation of the Gospel. Any effort
in this direction by the State would be an invasion of the rights of
the Church and a mixing of the two realms. But the State, through

the exericse of its power, should create and maintain conditions .

that are favorable for the propagation of the Gospel and the ex-
pansion of the Church. .

The Church should be conscious of its rights and guard them
with a jealous watchfulness. Anything that inhibits the activity of
the Church, or in any way makes the proclamation of the Gospel
difficult, is a violation of the rights of the Church and should not be
submitted to passively. Sometimes the Church must contend for
its own rights and for ‘the rights of parents, which are identified
with the rights of the Church in so far as the parents may be
members of the Church. When attempts were being made in Oregon
and Michigan in the early 1920’s to legislate all private and paro-
chial schools out of existence and compel all parents to send their
children to the public school, our Church .went into action. Lu-
therans and Catholics co-operated and used their influence to de-
feat the unfair legislation. In standing up in defense of its rights,

PARISH EDUCATION 293

the Church is acting as God’s agent and representative, whose will
it is that His Gospel should have free course in the world and
not be opposed and suppressed by the power of the sword or the
plotting of wicked men.

Religion and the Public Schools

The American Council on Education correctly says that the
secularization of our schools has not been so complete as certain
statements would lead us to believe. Bible reading and other prac-
tices have been common since the first public schools were estab-
lished; hence these practices may not be construed as a growing
tendency to flout the First Amendment and weaken the wall of
separation between the Church and State. In spite of this, mem-
bers of the Supreme Court apparently think that absolute separa-
tion of Church and State is a goal set up by the framers of the
Constitution and that the time has come to reach that goal. Their
intention, with respect to the schools, seems to be to outlaw any
practice, with respect to the schools, that is religious in nature. In

‘the language of the Court, our schools are secular schools.

Our Church simply must. repudiate the reasoning which says
the State is responsible for the child’s general education, the home

and the Church for his religious education. In principle, our -

Church cannot approve of a general education from which religion
is absent, for an education without religion is incomplete. It is
unreasonable for the State to take over education and then bar
the Church from the schools on the supposition that the Church
by giving religious instruction in an unrelated context can fulfill
its mission. The Church has a commission from God to educate,
and the State has an interest in education. Unless the Church is
given an opportunity to fulfill in part its commission in the context
of the school, it is greatly hampered in the performance of its duty
toward children who can attend only the public school. This is
not to advocate the imposition of so-called sectarian religious in-
struction upon our public schools. It does advocate that the
Church be given an opportunity to bring religious instruction to its
children in connection with the daily school program. ;

Our definition of religious freedom in America should include
the right of parents to give their children the kind of education they
wish their children to have. This means that the churches, as the
representatives of the parents, should be permitted to bring their
faith to the children in the classroom. Because religion is an es-
sential part of education, the child should receive religious in-
struction as part of his schooling. The practical plan would be for
the school to set aside one or two hours per week for religious
instruction. The classes would be entirely under the supervision of
the various churches, and whatever expenses would be incurred: