# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S334
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

332

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

The Missouri Synod established a Board of Social Welfare in 1950 with
Henry Wind as the first executive secretary, although funds were not
appropriated until 1953. Its most significant early activity was service to
European refugees. Close working ties were established in this work with
the National Lutheran Council.

In 1965, the Missouri Synod’s “Mission Affirmations” described the
church’s mission to the whole man: “Wherever a Christian as God’s witness
encounters the man to whom God sends him, he meets someone whose
body, soul, and mind are related in one totality. Therefore Christians, indi-
vidually and corporately, prayerfully seek to serve the needs of the total
man.”"@ This emphasis on corporate as well as individual action was elab-
orated by the Board of Social Ministry for the Synod’s 1971 convention:

We support those programs in public and private sectors that seek to elim-
inate the causes of poverty and hunger; we support comprehensive med-
ical care for all; and we support all efforts to sensitize legal, social, finan-
Gial, and educational structures to provide justice and fairness for all. ... We
call on the church, as a corporate entity, to use in responsible ways those
channels that are open to it to influence other structures and institutions
such as government, business, and labor, to sensitize them to the task of
improving the quality of life at every level.

This “Blueprint for the 70s” demonstrated that the views on church and
state then developing among other Lutherans were present also in the
LCMS.

These views were significantly restrained during the synodical con-
flicts of the 1970s, and the “Social Ministry Blueprint for the Decade
Ahead,” which was presented to the 1986 Missouri Synod convention,
more clearly articulated traditional Lutheran teaching. The 1986 Blueprint
called for careful distinctions between Law and Gospel—decrying their
confusion in both the Social Gospel and Liberation Theology. It also spoke
primarily of Christians working through the political process and warned
that “units of the Christian community ... do not often attain consensus on
public policy issues,” so that “no unit of the Christian community can
speak for all its members on these matters.” The focus was on Christians
acting “individually and collectively ... with other like-minded citizens—
Christian and non-Christian—to accomplish the changes in social regula-
tion and policy to which they are committed." There was still, however,

** 1965 Res. 1-O1E (1965 Proceedings, 81)

1971 Res. 9-07 (1971 Proceedings, 192)

10 cocsal Ministry Blueprint for the Decade Ahead, Convention Edition: Wichita 1989
(November, 1984; revised November, 1985, January, 1988, and December, 1988: LCMS Board
for Social Ministry Services), 13 (emphasis added). Cf. 1986 Workbook, 345-46 and 1986 Res.
7-02A (1986 Proceedings. 209).

49

order, an advocate for the needy and distressed, a pioneer in developing
and improving services through which care is offered and human dignity
is enhanced, and a supportive voice for the establishment and maintenance
of good order, justice and concord.” The role of the church includes
“informing persons about, advocating for and speaking publicly on issues
and proposals related to social justice and human rights.” Furthermore, the
statement declared, “Advocacy on behalf of justice is an integral part of our
churches’ mission.”7

By the 1980s, with this mandate, LCUSA’s Office of Government
Affairs was actively lobbying on a wide-ranging list of social concerns.
Leaders of the Missouri Synod became concerned by what they perceived
to be an increasingly partisan approach to Christian social concern. As a
result, early in the 1980s, the Missouri Synod withdrew funding and sup-
port from OGA—although remaining a member of LCUSA itself until it
was dissolved in 1988.

The Missouri Synod’s 1983 convention requested a study by its Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) on the relationship
between church and state, giving special attention to “who speaks for the
church,” “when,” and “on what basis.”" Also in 1983, synodical execu-
tives (Samuel Nafzger, H. James Boldt, and John Schuelke) prepared a
“catechism” on proposed tuition tax credit legislation:

There are times when the Scriptures speak so clearly and directly to a
particular issue that it is possible and may even be necessary for the church

to take a corporate stance on it. This is the case with respect to such prob-

lems as abortion and euthanasia. In some cases it may only be possible for

the church to speak to the morality of a given issue without coming out in

favor of or opposition to legislation in this area, ¢.g. homosexuality or

divorce. In still other cases, sensitive questions may arise for public debate
concerning which God’s Word provides even less specific guidance. Even
here, however, these issues may have important implications for the
church as an institution, or may have a potential for depriving individuals

of religious rights or liberties. In these cases it may be helpful for the

Synod, while recognizing that Lutheran Christians equally committed to

following God's will as revealed in Holy Scripture may come to different

conclusions, to keep its members informed and offer guidance to them as
they determine their own positions.”

Clearly, the “catechism” was articulating a considerably more restrained
approach to social action by the church than that of LCUSA. The emphasis

© -seaterent of Affirmation,” 11.A.3; Ill, prologue; “Public Policy Recommendations,”
VO.

° 1983 Res. 3-06A (1983 Proceedings, 155-56).

“" Tuition Tax Credits and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” Board for Pansh
Services, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Information Bulletin #32283.

51

some ambiguity as to how “church” is here defined or understood
(whether it denoted the sum of individual Christians or corporate struc-
tures), particularly in one general objective adopted by the Board for Social
Ministry Services: “Follow the prophetic role in pleading the cause to alle-
viate human need with justice and mercy.” This is explained by a more
specific objective, yet without providing clarity concerning the identity of
the “church”: “Promote advocacy that will encourage and support legisla-
tive and administrative changes that will provide for preservation of life
and resources and care for the poor.”*

The gradual agreement on social welfare in the mid-20th century
among the leadership of American Lutheran churches led to frequent con-
tacts and cooperation among Lutheran church bodies. A major factor in
this cooperation was the problem of interface with the new governmental
welfare agencies that arose in the 1930s. In Chicago, on Nov. 17, 1936, new
ground was broken in inter-Lutheran cooperation when the Lutheran
Church Charities Committee was formed, representing six synods, includ-
ing the Missouri Synod. The technical term used in the Missouri Synod for
such a joint effort is “cooperation in externals.” Yet those supporting the
emerging view of social ministry were quick to point out that “the welfare
ministry itself was by no means an external matter to the Christian faith
and the life of the church; it was an essential sign of the presence of divine
grace and the necessary fruit that grew from the root of faith."

After the mergers of 1960 and 1962, which had created the American
Lutheran Church (ALC) and the Lutheran Church in America (LCA)
respectively, a new organization of Lutheran cooperation to replace the
National Lutheran Council became operational in 1967. This time the Mis-
souri Synod, already cooperating with the National Lutheran Council in
Lutheran World Relief, Lutheran Service Commission, and Lutheran
Immigration Service, was a member. The new agency was called the
Lutheran Council in the United States of America (LCUSA) and was char-
tered with two main purposes: theological discussion and cooperation in
specified areas of Christian service. All participating bodies were required
to take part in the theological discussion, but each could choose whether
or not to participate in other areas of activity. One of those areas of coop-
erative work was the Office of Government Affairs in Washington, D.C.

In 1979, LCUSA adopted a statement on “The Nature of the Church
and Its Relationship with Government,” in which the role of the church in
direct social action, long promoted by the LCA and also accepted by many
in the ALC and LCMS, became the policy of LCUSA. The statement
declared that “God also calls the church to be a creative critic of the social

Social Mimistry Blueprint for the Decade Ahend, 14-15.
 Lueking, 65.

50

was not on developing some sort of common statement in areas where
Christians may disagree, but on informing and guiding those Christians
“as they determine their own positions.” The “catechism” articulated the
more traditional Lutheran view.

During 1984, the Missouri Synod’s Board of Directors studied and dis-
cussed establishing an alternative “presence” in Washington. In 1985, they
authorized a government information services project to assist the Presi-
dent and other synodical leaders in acquiring timely information and pro-
viding liaison on government issues and activities involving the Synod. In
1986, a church-state conference was held in Washington, D.C., to discuss
the establishment of a full-time Office of Government Information (OGI).
The Board of Directors placed OGI in the President's office in 1987.

Already in 1978 the Missouri Synod’s Board of Directors had resolved
that, for synodical entities, speech directed at government was the responsi-
bility of the synodical President. In 1980, this policy had been amended to
say that, in general, relations and contacts with legislative and executive
branches of government also should be established through the office of the
President. In 1986, this Board of Directors’ policy was amended again to
incorporate the establishment of OGI as a part of the Missouri Synod Presi-
dent's office. All official position statements on governmental matters by any
board, commission, department, or administrative unit would now be pre-
pared in consultation with OGI for action by the President. This made OGI
an advisor to those with responsibilities for ministry in the Missouri
Synod—not a “lobby” or the “voice” of the Missouri Synod. OGI was to
gather information, communicate it to decision-makers in the Synod (includ-
ing the Christian citizens in its congregations), and advise those, particular-
ly the President, who must make decisions about what words and actions
are appropriate. Occasionally, when the President deemed it appropriate,
OGI would communicate those words and actions also to civil authorities."

"1 The President of the Synod shall be responsible for communicaung the official
position of the Synod to all branches of the federal government. He may do this directly or
through the Office of Government Information of the Synod, or through another synodical
staff person as he deems approprate. It shall be the general policy of all departments and
administrative units of the Synod that relations with federal legislative and executive
branches of the government be established in cooperation with the OGI ... Conunuation of
such contact may then occur with the knowledge and approval of the office of the President.

2. All offiaal position statements by any board, commission, department or adminis-
trative unit to the federal legislative, executive or judicial branches of government shall be
approved by the President of Synod or his designated representative and reported to the
Board of Directors. If any emerging issue goes beyond established policy of the Synod, the
synodical President shall be consulted and his approval requested. The Office of Govern-
ment information will assist in the development of such statements by reviewing pertinent
legislation and regulation and by providing information and counsel. All such statements
shall be in harmony with policies of the Synod adopted in convention as well as the Luther-
an theology of the two kingdoms. (Policy Statement—Board of Directors: F-8, “Relations
with Governmental Units”)

52