# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S162
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

162

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

never so orderly and well written as by Moses.”185 Some practical implications
of such conclusions follow. Freed from the curse of the law by Christ’s fulfillment of it (Gal. 3:13), the Christian need not fearfully attempt to suppress his
or her knowledge of the law; indeed, enlightened and sanctified by the Holy
Spirit, the Christian recognizes the law to be “holy and righteous and good”
(Rom. 7:12) and so can delight in it (Rom. 7:22). Further, acknowledging the
divine inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture, the Christian can there
find the law much more clearly and plainly revealed than it might otherwise
be to reason and conscience alone. As a result, the Christian’s high regard for
the law, and clearer understanding of its demands, uniquely motivates as well
as equips him or her to make especially beneficial contributions to the public
discussion of public life and the public good—even if doing so without explicit
reference to what might be dismissed as “private” religious beliefs.186
Within the left-hand kingdom, and for the sake of its being well ordered,
there is yet another respect in which Christian witness which appeals explicitly to Scripture or to specifically Christian doctrines might have unintended
but potentially detrimental effects—not only for the maintenance of the
left-hand realm itself, but also for the populating of God’s right-hand realm.
Put simply, appeals to biblical law, for the sake of temporal concerns, risk
reinforcing the popular perception of Christianity’s being no different from
other religions, that is, consisting essentially of certain rules, regulations, or
commandments which must be followed to gain divine favor. To the extent
that the unregenerate’s encounters with Christianity consist of Christians
proclaiming only the law, they might understandably (and not incorrectly)
conclude that the law proclaimed by Christians differs little from the law
proclaimed in other religions or philosophies. They might therefore conclude,
again understandably (though here erroneously), that Christianity itself
differs little from other religions or philosophies. Thus, they may comfort
themselves with the belief that, all religions being essentially the same, and
all religions being defined essentially by that civil righteousness attainable by
good works, Christianity is just as true (or false) as any other religion, and so
need not be given any further investigation or consideration.
An awareness of the manner in which the proclamation of law, in and for
the sake of the left-hand kingdom, might also have implications which touch
on the concerns of the right-hand kingdom now allows some more specific
focus on the manner in which God’s natural revelation of himself and his

185

Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, AE 40:98.

186
For the manner in which this might be done with respect to the controversial issue of abortion, see, e.g., Peter Kreeft, The Unaborted Socrates (Downers Grove: InverVarsity Press, 1983),
and Korey D. Maas, “Natural Science, Natural Rights, and Natural Law: Abortion in Historical
Perspective,” in Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal, ed. Robert C. Baker (St. Louis: Concordia,
2011), 221–234. With respect to the similarly contentious issue of same-sex marriage, see, e.g.,
Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of
Law and Public Policy 34 (2010), 245–287, and their expanded argument in What is Marriage? Man
and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter, 2012).

law might serve not only the interests of the left-hand realm, but might also
beneficially serve the right-hand realm’s primary concern—the proclamation
of the gospel.
Recalling that the vast majority of non-Christians in the United States are
not in fact atheists, or even agnostics, but instead do recognize the existence
of God, it is not surprising that “God-talk” is frequently heard even in public
discussion of those concerns related to the left-hand realm. It has been pointed
out, for example, that no American president has failed to make reference to
God in his inaugural address.187 Such invocations of God are part and parcel of
what is often described as America’s “civil religion.” And while it was suggested above that there may be good reasons for Christians, when addressing
strictly temporal concerns, to avoid appeals specifically to Scripture, uniquely
Christian doctrines, or even religion in general, the fact that such appeals are
often made provides certain opportunities for Christian witness.
Although civil religion, very much like the natural religion it echoes, consciously intends, for the sake of civil harmony, to blunt the many distinctive,
contradictory, and thus potentially contentious doctrines of any and all individual faiths,188 it does for this very reason tend to promote civil harmony. To the
extent that a peaceful and harmonious civil society allows for the preaching
of the gospel, this may be deemed a good in itself. Further, though, because
it implicitly assumes a natural knowledge of God, and therefore speaks in
religious terms even for the sake of temporal concerns, civil religion might be
recognized as serving the interests of the church because it “creates a space in
the public square for religious discourse.”189 The religious discourse of civil
religion itself is, to be sure, not without major deficiencies, and even serious
challenges to specifically Christian witness. Most obviously, the “anonymous
God” of civil religion is decidedly not the revealed God who became incarnate, suffered, and died that he might redeem sinful human beings.190 For
this reason, Christians will want especially to be aware of the fact that even
well-intentioned evangelistic references to God, if made without sufficient
specificity, can be easily misunderstood. [See A "Regular" Prayer? on the
following page.]
187
Charles P. Arand, “Strategies for God-Talk in a Pluralistic Society,” in Witness and Worship
in Pluralistic America, ed. John F. Johnson (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary, 2003), 14. Further,
despite occasional objections, Americans will find mention of God, e.g., on their currency, in the
Pledge of Allegiance, and in solemn courtroom oaths.
188
See , e.g., David L. Adams, “The Challenges of American Civil Religion for the Church,” in
Witness and Worship in Pluralistic America, ed. John F. Johnson (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary,
2003), 21–22, for a brief survey of the origins and intent of the concept of civil religion.
189
David L. Adams, “Afterword: Quo Vadis?” in The Anonymous God: The Church Confronts
Civil Religion in American Society, ed. David L. Adams and Ken Schurb (St. Louis: Concordia,
2004), 259.
190
Further, civil religion’s insistence on reference only to a generic or “anonymous” god promotes the false impression that all religions in fact recognize and worship the same god; similarly, its inherent emphasis on civil righteousness tends to promote the false assumption that
such righteousness is sufficient to establish a right relationship with God.

50

51

A "Regular" Prayer?
The pastor of a historic urban parish, Ray was
an active and visible figure in its ethnically, culturally, and religiously diverse neighborhood.
The prominence of his congregation, as well his
own respected involvement with various neighborhood initiatives, often induced community
leaders to request that Ray offer a word of prayer
at civic events. It was thus no surprise when a local
alderman approached him to inquire about a brief
prayer between the Fourth of July parade and the
speeches that would follow. What did surprise,
however, after Ray had again accepted the offer, was
the follow-up request. “Oh,” said the alderman, “and
could you just make it a regular prayer this time?”
“I’m not sure I know what you mean, Henry. A regular prayer?”
“Yeah, you know, without all the fancy Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, or the cross and death stuff. Just a
regular prayer, you know, to God.”
“Oh, I see. But, Henry, since the true God is triune—
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—I think it’s important
that people understand that. And that they understand that the only reason we can stand before him
in prayer, confident that he’ll hear us favorably, is
because the Son of God died on a cross to forgive
the sin which separates us from him. These things
aren’t peripheral, Henry; they’re just part of ‘regular’
prayer for Christians like myself.”
“Sure, Reverend, I suppose you’d know better than I
would. But you know not everyone around here is a
Christian. And I just hate to think that a celebration
meant to unite us all might make some people feel
left out. You know these are good folks; maybe not
all Christians, sure, but generally religious in their
way. I just think a regular prayer—that just mentions

God, like in the Declaration of Independence—
would go over a bit better, be a bit more friendly,
you know?”
“Because, you mean, we really all believe in the
same God? We just think differently about him and
have different names for him?”
“Well, yes, now that you put it that way. Didn’t I say
you’d know better than I would about this sort of
thing? That’s exactly what I mean; glad you understand!”
“I do understand, Henry, but I’m afraid I don’t agree.
We might all use the same word, ‘God,’ but we don’t
all believe in the same God. As you mentioned, I
believe that the only true God is triune: Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. But some of our friends here in the
neighborhood don’t believe in that God; they might
believe Jesus existed, for example, but they deny
that he’s God. Actually, Henry, isn’t that why you
wanted just a ‘regular’ prayer, because you realize
that we don’t really all believe in the same God?”
“Well, now that you put it that way, I suppose you’re
right again. I guess this is a little more complicated
than I thought. I’m going to have to think on it some.
In the meantime, though, what do I tell the folks
putting together the program?”
“Good question, Henry; you’ve raised some questions for me, as well. Tell you what, though, maybe
it’s best that we just skip the prayer this time. I’ll be
there, of course, just like always. But maybe it’s best
if I’m there just as a fellow citizen, and as pastor of
St. John’s, rather than something like pastor of the
neighborhood, much less the city or nation.”
“Fair enough, Reverend,” Henry concluded. “You’d
know best,” he said one last time before ambling off.

Nonetheless,
Even though the god-talk of civil religion does not take a form
that we can accept, it does provide an opportunity for us to
engage others and teach the truth about the gospel of Jesus
Christ, much like the altar to the unknown god on the Areopagus in Athens created an opportunity for the apostle Paul to
witness to Christ. Thus, while we cannot accept American civil
religion as a substitute for orthodox Christian teaching, and we
always must be wary of the challenges that it presents, we ought

52

2016 Convention Workbook

not to dismiss it as a wholly undesirable thing with no merit
whatsoever.191
Because this is the case, “[i]t is for us to take advantage of the opportunity
civil religion presents by proclaiming the full and authentic Gospel of Jesus
Christ. When we fail to do so, that failure is ours; it is not the failure of civil
religion.”192
One opportunity presented by civil religion, of which the Christian might
“take advantage,” derives from a central focus of civil religion itself. Concerned as it is with the maintenance of social harmony, civil religion—like
the natural religion out of which it grew—is fundamentally a religion of law.
As such, its primary focus is of course different from, and even antithetical
to, Christianity’s central focus on the gospel. Nevertheless, as even the ambiguous “God-talk” of civil religion makes evident, it presupposes, at least
implicitly, and in common with Christianity, that the law is ultimately grounded in and derived from a divine being. The tacit admission of this fact by
those who are accepting of the broad contours of civil religion thus opens the
way for Christians to highlight and to press the potentially overlooked implications of such an admission. One point to be highlighted, for example, is that,
since it is agreed that even the positive laws enacted by human legislators rest
ultimately on fundamental moral principles that are divine in origin (even if
known naturally, by reason, rather than by means of the special revelation of a
particular religion), then immoral or unlawful behavior is an offense not only
to the temporal authorities, but to and against God himself.
Thus arises the pointed question of whether one has behaved, or even can
behave, in perfect accord even with those moral laws known and accepted
by means of natural reason. The answer, concisely formulated by C.S. Lewis
(1898–1963), is that “[t]hey know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two
facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe
we live in.”193 By way of analogy, and on the basis of this foundation, it might
then be further pointed out that, if some such offenses are punishable even by
civil authority, then it is certainly a fair assumption that those who disobey
the law established by divine authority are likewise deserving of punishment
by the author and executor of that law. To the extent that this (admittedly
truncated and greatly simplified) train of logic is recognized as valid, and the
individual’s standing before God as a law-breaker—a law-breaker with “no
excuse” (Rom. 2:1)—is therefore understood, he or she might be more readily
receptive of the proclamation of the uniquely Christian good news that, on
account of Christ’s suffering the punishment of the law in man’s stead, God
himself has canceled “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal
demands” (Col. 2:14).
191

Adams, “The Challenges of American Civil Religion for the Church,” 27.

192

Adams, “Afterword: Quo Vadis?” 260.

193

Lewis, Mere Christianity, 8.

53