# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S289
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
at every stage of its development, beginning with conception, is
human life that is created and valued by God and that deserves our
protection and care.
In its sixth whereas, the Wyoming District resolution criticizes
the CTCR for “refraining from the use of the word ‘person’ when
referring to the unborn, although the synod itself used the term to
describe the unborn in 1979, and reaffirmed its use in 1981.”
As is explained in a lengthy footnote (#4) on page 7 of CFHB,
the Commission itself has no objection to the use of the word “person” to refer to the unborn. It is well aware that the Synod itself has
used this language in official resolutions adopted in 1979 and 1981.
Already in its 1984 report Abortion in Perspective, however, the
Commission cautioned against relying too heavily on the language
of “personhood” in defending the value of all human life in the
public square because of the way this language is often used (and
understood) in the public square. Unfortunately, notes the Commission, in recent years the term “person” has been muddied by
political and philosophical distinctions and debates that often seek
to undermine the position that all human life is worthy of protection. Rather than being drawn into these futile debates, says the
Commission, it may be advisable to use language that is virtually
incapable of being misunderstood or qualified—e.g., language like
the term “human being.” As the Commission says in footnote 4
(quoting from its 1984 report):
Whatever we may say of personal qualities, human beings do not
come into existence part by part as do the artifacts we make. Human
beings come into existence and then gradually unfold what they already
are. It is human beings who are made in God’s image and valued by
God—and whose inherent dignity ought also to be valued by us.

Thus in this as in previous reports (which are strongly commended in the Wyoming District’s resolution), the Commission
consistently uses the term “human being” to refer to embryonic
human life. As it explains at length in Abortion in Perspective and
Christian Faith and Human Beginnings, it does this not to avoid
clarity but precisely “for the sake of clarity and to avoid unnecessary and futile disputes.”
In its fifth whereas, the Wyoming District resolution faults the
CTCR for suggesting “that we should not use the term ‘murder’
regarding the killing of those persons that have not been implanted
in their mother’s womb, even though the synod used that term repeatedly regarding the killing of the unborn.”
It should be noted first of all that synodical resolutions that use
the term “murder” with reference to the issue of abortion (e.g., 1979
Res. 3-02A; 2001 Res. 6-02A) consistently do so in the context of
citing or quoting the fifth commandment, “You shall not murder.”
The CTCR nowhere asserts or suggests that the fifth commandment
does not apply to the killing of human embryos or that it is inappropriate to cite this commandment in synodical resolutions that set
forth our church body’s official position on this issue. In footnote
68 on page 42 of its 2005 report, however, the CTCR states that
“the goal of this report”—with its deliberate “focus on Christian
participation in public debate concerning the use of embryos for
medical research and therapy” (4, fn. 1; emphasis added)—is to
“make use of an argument that will not immediately divide the
readers into those who already agree with us and those who just
knew we would not understand them. In this light,” says the Commission, “we advise against the use of the language of ‘murder’ in
regard to the discarding of pre-implantation human life.”
In the Commission’s view, arguments by Christians in the public square regarding highly sensitive issues such as stem cell research are not likely to be advanced in persuasive ways through
the use of terms like “murder.” The use of such terms in the public

289

square, in fact, may well result in our arguments not being heard or
being taken seriously at all. Furthermore—as was noted above and
will be discussed further below— arguments by Christians in the
public square regarding such issues are not likely to be effective if
they rely solely or exclusively on Bible passages like the fifth commandment, even though Christians themselves must remain cognizant of the normative authority of Scripture alone for the church’s
doctrine and life.

Concerns about Argumentation
Perhaps the most serious concerns expressed in the Wyoming
District’s resolution have to do with the argumentation used in the
CTCR’s report—particularly the “burden of proof” argumentation.
The final three whereases of the resolution set forth this concern in
very strong terms:
WHEREAS, The CTCR suggests a burden of proof argument to
protect the unborn, implying that, should new and more convincing
arguments be developed, then the synod could reject the position
that all life, from the moment of conception, should be befriended,
and is worthy of our help and compassion; and
WHEREAS, The burden of proof approach is a significant departure from the historic practice of the church, which is to clearly
proclaim God’s Word, in keeping with our Lord, who “taught as
one with authority, and not as the scribes and the Pharisees”; and
WHEREAS, The recent report by the CTCR although not blatantly contradicting the firmly established testimony of Scripture,
could be misconstrued as not speaking clearly enough to this issue;
therefore be it [“Resolved” as quoted above].
The Commission is puzzled and troubled by the suggestion that
the argumentation employed in its 2005 report implies that “the
synod could reject the position that all life, from the moment of
conception … is worthy of our help and compassion.” It also disagrees with the suggestion that its use of certain arguments based
on human reason is “a significant departure from the historic practice of the church” or is incompatible with the clear proclamation
of God’s Word.
Such conclusions, the Commission believes, stem from one
or more of a number of apparent misunderstandings, including a
misunderstanding of the stated focus and purpose of this report, a
misunderstanding of the role played by the “burden of proof” argumentation within the context of this specific purpose, and/or a
misunderstanding of the historic Lutheran approach to addressing
issues in the public square on the basis of the principles underlying
the Scriptural distinction between the two realms. It is the Commission’s hope that the following discussion will help to alleviate these
misunderstandings and the faulty conclusions stemming from them.
As was stated earlier, the Commission notes at the beginning
of its report that “our focus is on Christian participation in public debate concerning the use of embryos for medical research
and therapy” (fn. 1, page 4; emphasis added). From a historic Lutheran perspective, Christian participation in public debate regarding moral and social issues is by no means limited to proclaiming
“what the Bible says” about these issues. In fact, attempting to affect or effect public policy solely on the basis of “what the Bible
says” runs directly contrary to the historic Lutheran understanding
of the proper (and Biblical) distinction between the two kingdoms
and the two kinds of righteousness. As the CTCR says in its 1995
report Render Unto Caesar … and Unto God: A Lutheran View of
Church and State:
The two-kingdom distinction of Lutheran confessional theology requires that the basic principles of the church’s public message be carefully discerned. Is the message concerned with spiritual righteousness or

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 289

4/15/10 2:40 PM