# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S329
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

FE. Is There a Moral to This Story?

Having followed the long and complicated story of Christians and
government this far, the reader may well be asking, “So, what is the point?
What is to be learned?’ While it is always difficult to draw absolute con-
clusions from complex historical developments, it is nevertheless often
helpful to make some generalizations.

First of all, there is a persistent human tendency to blur the distinction
between church and state, a tendency that has also afflicted Christians
throughout the history of the church. At times this has resulted in a tyran-
ny of the state, at other times in a tyranny of the church. It is a danger that
must be diligently monitored by Christians. »

Second, Christianity points to a higher authority to which the state is
ultimately accountable and thus introduced checks and balances on the
state's age-old tendency toward de facto sovereignty. One positive aspect
of all the medieval conflict between the church and civil rulers—and its
enduring significance for Americans as heirs of western European civi-
lization—was that “the state was stripped of its age-old religious aura and
.-, its overriding claims on the loyalties of men were balanced and cur-
tailed by a rival authority." In other words, it was precisely in the
medieval crucible of conflict between civil and religious authorities that the
political freedoms we have come to take for granted were forged.

Third, the New Testament understanding of the messianic kingdom as
spiritual denies any civil government (even when run by Christians) the
sanction of Christ. Therefore, ironically, Christianity has been a seculariz-
ing force. Through the conflicts of the Middle Ages and the Reformation-
era religious wars, an understanding of the state emerged that did not
require the promotion of Christianity in order to promote the common
good. This idea came to expression in America, where free exercise of reli-
gion stands in deliberate tension with nonestablishment. Christians must
resist the temptation to resolve America’s church-state problems by
attempting to make the state “Christian.”

Fourth, while appreciating how secularization of the state has con-
tributed to religious freedom, we must not understand such freedom as

"~The message that God is on the throne created the fruitful tension basic ty Western
society, caused the Reformation of the church, guaranteed our own liberties in the Bill of
Rights, and holds back the tidal wave of social evils. This message comes from no other
source Uhan from the church. In our country’s third century it és our tim bo say it.” Oliver K.
Olson. “The Revolution and the Reformation,” in The Left Hand of God: Essays on Discipleship
and Patriotism, ed. Witham H. Lazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 30

* Brancis Oakley, The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Culturul Singularity
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), 114.

29

II. A Lutheran Two-Kingdom
Perspective

In this second section, we will examine briefly how Lutherans have
interpreted the relationship between church and state.“ We will also see
how the proper relationship between church and state has become a mat-
ter of controversy and debate among American Lutherans in this century.

A. Interpretive Models
of Church and State

The history of church and state may seem chaotic, particularly if one
includes the many details omitted here. Yet there also have been a number
of attempts to search for constants and generalizations—especially with
the rise of the social sciences in the 19th century. These generalizations and
constants are based upon interpretive models. While models cannot per-
fectly convey reality in its totality, their value lies in the way that they omit
elements of reality in order to enhance our understanding of reality—they
simplify what is in fact complex.”

Most scholars (whether they are secular social theorists or theologians)
use models, often without realizing it. They commonly make general state-
ments about particulars without being aware of the theoretical assump-
tions that permit them to move from the study of isolated “facts” to gener-

“ Note that the discussion is focused on the relationship between church and state and
nat the seperation—often understood as divorce—-between church and slate. See Ernest B
Koenker, “The Two Realms and ‘The Separabon of Church and State’ in American Socety.~
Concordia Theological Monthly 27, no. 1 January 1956): 1-12.

“H. Richard Niebuhr writes of the value of interpretive models in his study of the
“enduring problem” of Christ and culture: “Yet it is possible to discern some order in this
multiplicty, to stop the dialogue, as it were, at certain points: and to define typical partial
answers Lhat recur so often in different eras and societies that they seem to be less the prod-
uct of historical conditioning Uhan of the nature of the problem itself and the meaning of its
terms. In this way the course of the great conversation about Chnst and culture may be more
intelligently followed,and some of the fruits of the discussion may be garnered.” Christ and
Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951), 40.

31

something purely private. Nonestablishment serves free exercise. A gov-
emment that refuses the freedom to make one's religious case and present
one’s religious views in the public square is on the road to tyranny. The
American experiment depends quite explicitly, however uncomfortably,
on the free exercise of religion.

Finally, while there are currently many profound, seemingly
intractable, problems with the American system, the history of the church
has illustrated the general failure of religious war (of force) for resolving
the enduring problem of church and state. The religious liberty of rights,
responsibilities, and respect, to which America gave birth, is a public phi-
losophy grounded in persuasion and voluntary consent.*

In an age that many are now calling post-Christian, as well as post-
modern, it is not at all clear how the ongoing controversy over religion in
American public life will be resolved. What is clear, however, is that in
America the responsibility for resolving it belongs to each citizen, for in
America the government is, as Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “of the people,
by the people, for the people.”

“ «Covenantalism, or chartered pluralism, ts therefore a vision of religious liberty in
public life that, across the deep religious differences of a pluralistic suciety, guarantees and
sustains religious liberty for all by forging a substantive agreement, or freely chosen com-
pact, over three things that are the ‘Three Rs’ of religious liberty: nights, responsibilities, and
respect. The compact affirms: first, in terms of rights, that religious liberty, or freedom of
conscience, is a fundamental and inalienable right for peoples of all faiths and none; second,
in term of responsibilities, that religious liberty is a universal right joined toa universal duty
to respect that nght for others; and third, in terms of respect, that the first principles of reh-
gious hberty, combined with the lessons of two hundred years of constitugonal experience,
require and shape certain practical guidelines by which a robust yet civil discourse may be
sustained in a free society that would remain free.” Guinness, 250-51

30

alized conclusions. Very often, hotly debated general assertions in theolo-
gy or the social sciences derive from fundamentally different assumptions
about interpretive models. Careful study of those assumptions can help
immensely to clarify a hotly contested argument.

In 1951, H. Richard Niebuhr published Christ and Culture, in which he
provided five interpretive models by which we might better understand
the history of the Christian church and civil government. For Niebuhr,
these are the typical answers that Christians have given to the enduring
problem of Christ and culture: “Christ against Culture,” “The Christ of Cul-
ture,” “Christ abowe Culture,” “Christ and Culture itt Paradox,” and “Christ
the Transformer of Culture.” ,

Niebuhr’s first model, “Christ against Culture,” is an uncompromising
defense of Christ's authority for the Christian. Articulated early in the
church’s history, this model grows naturally from Scriptural teaching that
Christ is Lord of all. Its most vociferous advocate was Tertullian, who urged
Christians to shun political life: “As those in whom all ardor in the pursdit
of honor and glory is dead, we have no pressing inducement to take part in
your public meetings; nor is there aught more entirely foreign to us than
affairs of state.” Some Amish and Mennonite groups also demonstrate this
anticultural approach. While this model obviously reflects the Lordship of
Christ, it overemphasizes the purity of the Christian community and under-
emphasizes the honorable, God-designed functions of civil government.

Niebuhr's second model, “The Christ of Culture,” presents Jesus
Christ as the fulfillment of the hopes and aspirations of society. Gone is the
tension between Christ and culture; in its place are the “Christianized”
Processes of civilization itself. This model was appealing to many in the
early church who interpreted Christ in terms of Graeco-Roman culture. It
also appealed to Abelard during the Middle Ages and liberal Protestants in
the 19th century. The strength of this model is the God-designed role that
human culture plays in mediating Christian faith, primarily through lan-
guage. Its profound weakness is the loss of any tension (indeed, any real
distinction whatsoever) between society and the church.

The three remaining models lie between the two extremes represented
by the previous models. While each represents a different emphasis, they
all share the conviction that some tension must be maintained—that both
Christ and culture have legitimate, although different, claims upon the
Christian. The third model, “Christ above Culture,” synthesizes Christ and
culture so that while Christ “neither arises out of culture nor contributes
directly to it,” He is “the fulfillment of cultural aspirations and the restorer
of the institutions of true society.” This was the Christian Commonwealth

“Tertullian, Apology, wwii Quoted in Niebuhr, 4
“ Niebuhr, 42

32

327