# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S291
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
avenues of research not yield results.” On the contrary, the Commission argues that “destruction of human life cannot be justified
by pointing to promising outcomes for other humans” (45). At the
same time, the Commission recognizes that it is not speaking in this
document only to Christians who share its presuppositions—based
on God’s Word alone—about the value of all human life. Even
those who view embryonic stem cell research as an area of “moral
uncertainty” must acknowledge that such research is “by no means
the final hope for helping those who are suffering” (45).
We urge scientists, policy makers, potential embryo donors, and
politicians to examine with more care whether the best course in the
face of moral uncertainty is to press full steam ahead with morally problematic research. This question should trouble not only Christians but
also anyone who tries to think clearly about human life. The practical
course at the current time should be to shift resources away from this
morally troublesome research to other promising lines of research [e.g.,
recent research into obtaining stem cells from skin cells for therapeutic
use] in the pursuit of healing for suffering humans. (45)

Of course, the Commission’s report also has as one of its purposes to help Christians (both within and outside the LCMS) who
have questions about the range or relevance of specific Bible passages that speak of God’s care for human life (see, e.g., the section
“The Relevance of Specific Bible Passages” on pages 31–34). Because the primary focus of the Commission’s report is on “Christian participation in public debate” regarding these issues, it is not
intended to be a thorough biblical analysis of beginning-of-life
issues. In the very first footnote of its 2005 report (page 4), the
Commission points to its previous reports on Christians and Procreative Choices (1996) and What Child Is This? Marriage, Family
and Human Cloning (2002) as providing further discussion of the
Biblical principles that are assumed—but not reiterated in detail—
in its 2005 report. In footnote 2 (page 5), the CTCR refers to previous reports on Christian Care at Life’s End (1993), Guidelines for
Crucial Issues in Christian Citizenship (1968), Report on Capital
Punishment (1976), and Render Unto Caesar… and Unto God: A
Lutheran View of Church and State (1995) that also set forth basic
scriptural principles that are relevant to this issue.
The discussion of Scripture passages in the 2005 report is focused specifically on those texts that are most often used by Christians to defend the value of human life in its earliest forms (e.g.,
Jer. 1:5; Psalm 139: 13–16; Job 10:8–12). The Commission explic-

291

itly acknowledges here—as it did in its 1984 report on Abortion
in Perspective—that these passages “do not directly speak about
every fertilized egg.” Its goal, however, is not to “cast doubt” on
these passages or their relevance to this issue, but to “show how to
extend the range of reference” and to “let Scripture guide us into
more general insights into God’s care for human life” (32–33).
It bears repeating that the Commission’s conclusion in this regard is unambiguous: “God’s Word makes plain that God cares for
human lives from beginning to end” (42). “Human embryos,” says
the Commission, “beginning with conception, are set on a course
of human development that leads continuously to an unfolding
of a unique human life” (47). “Scripture offers no guidelines for
exempting certain lives from God’s interest and care” (34). The
CTCR acknowledges that this truth may not be patently “obvious”
to everyone. It will certainly not be obvious to those who do not
accept the Word of God as authoritative. And it may not even be
obvious to all Christians—hence the need for arguments that show
more clearly how the Word of God speaks to this issue, and that
can respond to the easy dismissal of these passages and their relevance to the sanctity of all human life by those who argue in favor
of embryonic stem cell research.
In closing, the Commission expresses its gratitude to the Wyoming District for taking the time to read and study the Commission’s report and to share its thoughts and concerns regarding this
extremely important and sensitive issue. It is the Commission’s
hope and prayer that this response will be helpful in clarifying the
nature and purpose of this report and its multi-faceted approach
to defending the value of every single human life as God’s creation from the earliest moment of its existence and the need to
care for and protect human life at every stage of its development.
The Commission is convinced that this report is one that should be
commended for use by pastors and congregations of our Synod for
engaging this issue in the public square.
Adopted Unanimously by the CTCR
December 4, 2007

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 291

4/15/10 2:40 PM