# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S341
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

Resotved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod urge its mem-
bers to repent of any attitude or practice of racism as individuals and con-
gregations; and be it further

Resotved, That the Synod repudiate all racism and urge its members to
celebrate God’s love in Christ and their forgiveness and acceptance as
God's children by loving and serving all their fellow humans as they have
been loved and served, without any exception of persons, and to work
toward social justice in their neighborhoods and workplaces and all areas
of society. ...'7
The speaking that takes place in this resolution is “intentional” in that

the church here deliberately and specifically brings Scriptural truths and
principles to bear upon a contemporary issue that is not only of ecclesial
but also of social and political concern (and controversy). It is “indirect” in
that the Synod’s repudiation of racism is directed primarily to its own
members (not to the state) and in that its call “to work toward social justice
in their neighborhoods and workplaces and all areas of society” stops short
of advocating any specific political agenda or strategy for achieving “racial
justice” in the secular realm.

Similarly, the Synod has adopted a significant number of resolutions
addressing the problems of poverty and world hunger.” In 1986 Res. 7-01A,
for example, it was “Resolved, that The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
in convention urge its congregations to seize every available opportunity to
minister to total human need through intentional social ministry activity.”'”
As with its resolutions on racism, the Synod here intentionally urges “inten-
tional” action in response to problems of human need, but its urging is
directed expressly to “its congregations” (not to politicians or political enti-
ties) and does not advocate any specific social or political program.

In order to underscore the conscious and deliberate nature of the
“indirect” aspect of this means of influencing the state, it might be helpful to
consider several examples of issues concerning which the Synod expressly
declined to take a specific public position even when unged by some in the
Synod to do so. In 1981, for example, the Synod adopted Res. 8-10, “To Dectine
to Support Documentation for Undocumented Aliens.” This resotution reads:

WHEREAS, On the one hand, Christ has commanded us to love our

WHEREAS, On the other hand, to support documentation for undocu-
mented aliens involves political decisions for which the church has neither
adequate knowledge nor divine mandate on which to make a judgment;
therefore be it

*° 1992 Proceedings, 113-14.

** Examples include 1967 Res. 9-15; 1969 Res. 9-11, 9-20; 1981 Res. 6-02, 8-12; 1963 Res.
1-07; and 1986 Res. 7-O01A, 7-10A, 7-12A.

1986 Procerdings, 209.

tional level (cf. the final “Resolved” concerning individual and congrega-
tional “sponsorship” of refugees).

In 1983, a number of overtures were submitted to the synodical con-
vention regarding the issue of nuclear arms and “the nuclear freeze.” One
read:

Resolved, That the LCMS declare that arms escalation and muciear pro-
liferation are against the best interest of the United States and the world,
since they threaten to diminish, rather than enhance, the prospects for
national and global security and peace; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge our government to invite the Soviet Union and
other nations to join us in a freeze on the development of any new nuclear
weapons systems and an the production of any additional warheads or

Other overtures expressly urged the Synod not to take a partisan position
on this issue, but rather to encourage its members to acquaint themselves
thoroughly both with the theological principles undertying the Lutheran
two-kingdom model and with the relevant political issues, and to exercise
their own moral judgment in responding to this matter. The Synod’s
response to these overtures came in Res. 3-06:

Resolved, That we acknowledge the cause of all human contention and
war to be man’s sinful nature, and that we therefore intensify our efforts to
call all people to repentance and to prociaim reconciliation in Christ as the
only means of achieving true and lasting peace with fellow human Beings;
and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod urge its congregations and members

a. to study what the Scriptures and the Confessions have to say about
world peace and the respective responsibilities of the state and its citizens,
giving special attention to Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms and the
nature of just wars (AC XVI, XXVIIL, Ap. XVD;

b. to carry out their duty as Christian citizens by becoming knowledge-
able about issues such as the arms race, the nature and the results of the
use of nuclear weapons, and the state of world affairs and by working
within the framework of responsible participation within the political
Process to effect those policies which enhance the prospects for world
peace;

¢. to support the efforts of our duly elected and appointed governmen-
tal authorities to carry out their constitutional and God-given responsibil-
ity to provide for the safety and welfare of the citizens of our country;

d. to pray, both as individual Christians and in our congregations, that
God in His mercy spare humankind from the horrors of nuclear war and
guide the rulers of the nations to lead us in the way of world peace; and be
it further

*S Ow. 1-43 (1983 Workbook, 39: cf. Ova. 1-44 through 1-47).

7”

Resotved, That the members of the Synod be reminded of their duty to
show Christian compassion to undocumented aliens and not to exploit
them but to help them seek legal documentation; and be it further

Resotved, That the overture to st’. sort documentation for undocument-
ed aliens be respectfully declined.‘

Note, first of all, that the Synod did not say that Scripture has no appli-
cation whatsoever to this issue. On the contrary, the first “Whereas”
reflects a clear recognition that certain passages of Scripture may indeed
be brought to bear upon this issue, and the very wording of this resolution
indicates that the concerns addressed here were sympathetically received
by the convention. Ultimately, however, it is apparent that the decision not
to take a specific public position was made on the basis of principles relat-
ed to both “the message” and “the messenger.” First, reasoned the Synod,
while Scripture speaks clearly regarding the need to show love to one’s
neighbor, it contains no unambiguous principle (no “divine mandate”) on
governmental policy regarding “documentation for undocumented
aliens.” Second, this lack of a clear Scriptural principle also impacts the
priority of this issue for the church and the need for prudence in address-
ing it. The Synod argued that taking a position on this particular issue
would be inappropriate because in this case the messenger (the Synod
itself) was ill-equipped to do so, since it lacked the knowledge and exper-
tise necessary for such speaking. To take such a position, said the Synod,
would necessarily involve “political decisions for which the church has
neither adequate knowledge nor divine mandate on which to make a judg-
ment.” The Synod may also have felt that this particular issue (as impor-
tant as it may have been) did not impact critically enough upon the life of
the church (either as the spiritual body of Christ or as a social institution)
to justify the risks associated with taking a public position.

In view of the above, it is equally important to note that at this same
convention the Synod strongly supported (as it had done in previous
years) efforts “To Intensify Resettlement of Refugees.”'"' Although the
“action” focus of this resolution was to develop and support “programs of
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service,” the Synod also resolved to
“commend the governments of the United States and Canada and call
upon them to continue their involvement in the resettlement of many
refugees from around the world.” This resolution begins to involve
Benne’s third connection, direct and intentional speech by the church to the
state. However, the way in which this issue is addressed indicates that the
convention’s primary concern was not so much to “influence” govern-
mental policy in a specific way or to take a specific “position” as to express
support for refugee resettlement in general—primarily at the congrega-

“1081 Proceedings, 206
Res, 8-01 (1981 Proceedings, 203)

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in principle
oppose the adoption of conscience-binding pronouncements which are not
based on the clear teachings of Holy Scripture; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Synod request the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations and its Social Concerns Committee to carry out a basic
Study of the various aspects of the relationship between church and state,
giving special attention to issues such as “who speaks for the church,”
“when,” and “on what basis.”!*

The second “Resolved” reflects the Synod’s decision to speak to its
own congregations and members regarding the issue, not directly to the
government. The third “Resolved” confirms the deliberate nature of this
“indirect” speaking and the Synod’s reluctance to bind the consciences of
its members by attempting to speak for them instead of to them regarding
an issue conceming which Christians equally committed to God's Word
may in good conscience disagree. The final “Resolved” illustrates the
Synod’s awareness of the need for further careful study and discussion of
the principles underlying the position taken in this resolution—the most
concrete result of which has been the preparation of this very report.

There are many more examples of synodical conventions bringing
“indirect and intentional influence” to bear on social and political con-
cerns. However, this means of influencing the state is not limited to con-
vention resolutions, nor are such resolutions necessarily the most effective
form of such influence. Various documents, statements, and resources
have been developed by synodical entities regarding each of the issues dis-
cussed above, and these resources may well be more effective means of
“speaking to” and influencing members of synodical congregations than
convention resolutions (though in many cases the latter have undoubted-
ly given rise to the former).

in 1994, for example, the CTCR adopted and distributed a report on
Racism and the Church that addresses such topics as “Racism and the Neces-
sity of a Christian Response,” a “Biblical Perspective on Racism,” and prin-
ciples for “Combatting Racism in the Church.” As with synodical resolu-
tions addressing this topic, the CTCR’s report is based on the
presupposition that racism involves fundamental principles to which the
Scriptures speak clearly, but that society’s response to racism involves any
number of political complexities that require the church to be careful in its
speaking. This report speaks, therefore, primarily to individuals within the
Synod itself, and it does so on the basis of biblical and confessional
resources without specifically addressing the question of what specific
governmental policies and regulations are best suited to dealing with
racism as a social malady.

"1983 Proceedings, 155-56.

339