# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S339
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

science of its own people regarding public issues.”"© The church’s influ-
ence remains indirect; it does not seek a public role for itself. Nor does it
presume to speak for its members. But, it does presume to speak to its
members on the basis of its religious and moral traditions.

Because the institutional church has authority with its own members,
grounded in their desire to hear and learn God’s Word, it can even chal-
lenge its members to address unpleasant social problems that they might
prefer to evade. But in doing this, the church does not seek to bind the con-
sciences of its members so much as to sensitize them. For the church is ever
conscious of the potential for polarization whenever social issues arise, and
the church’s goal is never to endanger the flock (through political polar-
ization) but to nurture it carefully with lovingly persuasive speech. As
with the first connection, the church relies primarily on the power of the
Holy Spirit and the Gospel for motivation to deal with social issues (faith
active in love).

It is absolutely necessary for the church to “do its homework” on the
problems to be addressed. Broad-based consultations with church mem-
bers who have expertise in the areas of concern are essential. The church
also should refrain from presuming to dictate specific means by which cer-
tain goals are to be achieved, since selecting thé means is often the most
difficult and controversial political task.

Benne’s third possible connection is direct and intentional influence.
“Direct” here means that the church speaks publicly in addition to the indi-
tect efforts through its members. There may be some social issues about
which the Scriptures speak so explicitly and clearly that the institutional
church deems it necessary to speak directly on the basis of God’s Word.
But there are great risks, as we have seen, in such direct speaking. Often
this speaking is not appreciated, let alone heeded, by those outside the
church. Moreover, it always carries the risk of politicizing the church. And
so, from a practical standpoint and from the standpoint of the Gospel,
direct speaking should be done infrequently, only on the basis of clear and
unambiguous teachings of Scripture, where the church’s most fundamental
concerns are at stake.

The fourth possible connection between the church and politics, for
Benne, is highly controversial and risky—it is direct and intentional
action. The church no longer relies on persuasion, as all three of the previ-
ous connections do. The church now directly acts to change policy or
reshape society. It commits funds and applies political leverage—perhaps
even lending its support to particular candidates. Direct action by the
church is dangerous. It runs all the risks associated with “religious estab-
lishment” that have so dogged the church since the days of Emperor Con-

C. For Example

General principles often become more clear and meaningful when
applied to specific, concrete issues and situations. However, the practical
implementation of the principles discussed above will require the church
{or some representative of the church) to make a decision about the
“means” of influence or action that are most appropriate in a given situa-
tion. Therefore, the following section is organized according to the four
“means” outlined by Benne by which the church may “connect with” and
thus influence the state (see “The Means” in fig. 1). As we consider various
examples of the LCMS’s application and implementation of these means,
we also will have opportunity to discuss how principles related to “the
message” and “the messenger’ are pertinent to these applications.

Three points must be emphasized at the outset:

« First, our purpose in this section is illustrative, not evaluative. Our
goal is to show how the Missouri Synod has sought and is seeking
to apply (consciously or unconsciously) the Lutheran two-kingdom
perspective to specific church-state issues.

Second, there is a practical consideration that applies in all of the fot-
lowing illustrations, namely, the need for prudent sensitivity to the
politicization of the church. There are no moral absolutes in a
Lutheran two-kingdom perspective that cah be addressed without
sensitivity to particular circumstances and potential consequences.
In each and every instance of social concern, Christians must discern
the speaking that will best preserve the church's unity in the Gospel.
This will require diligent study of God’s Word, along with the exer-
cise of God-given common sense, prudence, and self-restraint.

Finally, Benne’s four “connections” must not be viewed as precise-
ly defined and narrowly circumscribed “categories” into which
each form of ecclesial speaking or acting can be definitively placed.
Thus, the question of where a particular example may best “fit” in
this model is also open to fraternal debate. Furthermore, the use of
one “means” by the church in speaking to a certain issue ought not
be viewed as excluding the use of one or more of the other “means”
in speaking to the very same issue. In fact, it may be helpful to con-
ceptualize Benne’s four “connections” in pyramidal fashion (see
fig. 2). In this way, it is clearer that there is a progressive relation-
ship between the connections. One cannot effectively speak direct-
ly to the state unless one has already spoken effectively (and per-
suasively) to one’s own members. It is also clear that each step up
the pyramid increases the risk of politicizing the church, because it

stantine. Direct political action by the institutional church involves the
exercise of civil power and that power has always had a corrupting influ-
ence on the church:
Generally speaking, when direct action is called for it is much better for the
church to let that be carried on by laity in their worldly roles or by volun-
tary associations that are distinct from the church. Bonhoeffer had an accu-
rate intuition when he insisted that the assassination plot on Hitler in
which he was involved—what a form of direct action!—be carried out by
a loose association of Christians, not the church itself.

Confessional Lutherans will find it very difficult to maintain their confes-
sional subscription and engage the institutional church in direct political
action.

Many believe that much of the so-called “advocacy” by church-body
Washington offices is really direct political action. It certainly is controver-
sial and has deeply divided the church bodies involved. Often, it has led
to the withholding of badly needed funds for other essential tasks of those
churches. Advocacy is usually more than persuasion (mere “speaking
out,” as in connection three above). Advocacy is usually a “working” of the
machinery in our democratic political system. As such, it flirts with impo-
sition and violation of conscience. Furthermore, this advocacy is not infre-
quent (as in Benne’s third connection) but regular and on a long list of con-
cerns—so regular, in fact, that it tends to desensitize recipients to the
church’s voice and jeopardizes principled participation from the “bottom
up.”

This does not mean that congregations or church-wide assemblies can-
not take a position on social issues, but only that such speaking has its lim-
itations. It is limited primarily to those who have already agreed to speak
and hear God’s truth in love. It is also limited by the threat of polarization,
since all public speaking on social issues in a democracy is partisan (that
is, associated with one of the “parties” in the debate).

Christians will never be of one mind on exactly how to implement
their faith in good works—nor must they be, since the true unity of the
church does not lie in such agreement. Yet neither can such agreement
among believers be treated as irrelevant, and therefore ignored, since what
is at issue is precisely those good works that God has commanded us to do.
The “mutual conversation and consolation of brethren” spoken of in the
Lutheran Confessions (SA IV) will contribute to Christian life in the world
as well as to the strengthening of our faith in Christ.

A Lutheran Two-Kingdom Perspective

The brokering of honest, probing dialog regarding social concerns
based on principled participation, principled persuasion, and social
influence from the “bottom up.”

THE MESSAGE

Principles
Differentiate Law /Gospel and two-kingdom concerns

Distinguish between convicting of sin and restraining sin
Priority

Not all concems are equally important
Prudence

Beware of politicizing the church

THE MESSENGER
“Church” as Spiritual Body of Christ
Located by Word and Sacrament
“Church” as Social Institution
Incorporated entities

“Church” as Christians Generally
Individual Christians pursuing their vocations

THE MEANS
Indirect and Unintentional Influence

Lets the Word speak for itself
Indirect and Intentional Influence

Teaching resources aimed at own membership
Direct and Intentional Influence

Infrequent, based on clear and fundamental Scriptures
Direct and Intentional Action

Always flirts with the establishment of religion

337