# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S342
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

340

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

Individual Christians, of course, must address such questions and
make such decisions, and are free—even obligated—to participate in the
partisan politics necessary to implement such measures. The underlying
assumption of the CTCR’s report, however, is that what the church can do
best—and what should be its priority—is to address the root causes of
racism within its own membership. Typically, therefore, such “indirect
and intentional” speaking is best and most effectively carried out at the
local level, through sermons, Bible classes, and congregational activities
intentionally focused on combatting the problem of racism in church and
society without directly advocating specific social or political means of deal-
ing with this problem. As individual Christians are moved to respond in
various ways to this issue, social change will be effected among those pre-
disposed to listen to the church’s message and to look to its example:

We in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod have before us a won-

dertul opportunity to commit ourselves to strive toward making racism a

thing of the past, and to demonstrate before a watching world how people

of all cultures and groups can become one in Christ, who has made of

many one body for the edification of all’

Similarly, a wide variety of programs and resources have been devel-
oped within the Synod (and in cooperation with other Lutheran churches)
addressing the problems of poverty, human suffering, settlement of immi-
grants and refugees, and “war and peace” issues. Such programs and
resources allow members of the Synod to focus intentionally on these
issues on the basis of Scriptural principles, while leaving necessary room
for individual Christians to form their own opinions about the wisdom of
specific governmental policies and to make decisions about personal
involvement in ecclesial and /or social efforts and activities in these areas.

Obviously, there is subjectivity involved in determining, when and
how to speak indirectly but intentionally to social issues. This will become
even more evident in the next section, as we discuss situations and issues
concerning which the Synod did, in fact, decide to take a partisan position
(“partisan” in the sense that it does, admittedly, side with some and not
with others in social and political debate). Again, that Christians equally
committed to the same principles may disagree about the most appropri-
ate means to employ in a given situation, well illustrates the inevitable com-
plexity and ambiguity of the Lutheran two-kingdom model itself. Indeed, if the
Scriptural validity and practical value of the two-kingdom model is to be
maintained, we must Jearn to view such “inconsistencies” and disagree-
ments not only as inevitable, but as a positive and healthy outgrowth of
Scripture’s teaching regarding the relationship between church and state.

™ Racism and the Church, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions of The Lutheran Church—-Missouni Synod, 1904, 58

31

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod continue to
develop ways and means to share the love of Jesus Christ in all parts of the
world and to bear witness to the reconciliation that is possible in Christ

That this was a controversial issue for the delegates to the 1986 con-
vention is reflected in the notation accompanying this resolution. Two
amendments were debated (and ultimately declined), one calling for the
deletion of the specific reference to “apartheid” and the other suggesting
the inclusion of a qualifying phrase indicating that the Synod does not
“countenance the use of any violence against those who support apartheid
in South Africa."

This resolution raises a number of questions pertinent to our discus-
sion. Was it necessary for the Synod to speak directly to this issue and not
only to its members, but for them? Was such speaking worth the risks
referred to earlier? There are no easy answers, and compelling arguments
could undoubtedly be adduced on various sides of this issue. Perhaps
more fruitful for our purposes, however, is to attempt to discern the
Synod’s reasons for deciding to employ such direct speech in this case.
These reasons appear to be linked closely to concerns about “the message”
that the Synod would be sending by adopting—or by not adopting—this
resolution. Obviously, the Scriptures do not address specifically the polit-
ical system called “apartheid.” Scripture does, however, speak clearly
regarding the sinfulness of racial discrimination and the “moral responsi-
bility” (cf. the final “Whereas” of Res. 7-08A) of Christians to speak and act
in behalf of the victims of such discrimination. In the case of racial dis-
crimination, furthermore, there is an obvious responsibility of government
itself to act justly and impartially. It is clear that the focus of Res. 7-08A is
not so much on apartheid as a “sin” but on the social consequences of the
racism perpetuated by this form of government. Thus the purpose of this
resolution is not to call the nation of South Africa to “repentance” but to
make clear the Synod’s concern for those victimized by an inherently
unjust system of government.

The foregoing discussion assumes, moreover (as does the resolution
itself), that in the case of apartheid it is simply impossible to separate
“political system” from “racial discrimination,” since this system itself is
inherently racist. The Synod undoubtedly recognized that its failure to
speak on this issue when specifically challenged to do so (and when other
churches sensitive to the risks were also speaking out on this issue) would
also send a clear message, whether accurate or not: The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod tolerates, does not care about, or perhaps even
advocates racial discrimination. Confronted with this set of circumstances,
those representing the Synod at this convention apparently felt that racism

** 4966 Proceedings, 212.

Such differences, when there is agreement in principle, actually serve to
clarify our grasp of what is truly essential to Christian fellowship and service
(cf. AC VID.

Direct and Intentional Influence

In the previous section we discussed examples of issues concerning,
which the Synod, at various times, has considered it appropriate or even
necessary to speak intentionally (though indirectly) regarding specific
social issues, despite the ambiguity and risks involved in such speaking.
Obviously, even greater risks are involved when the church speaks not
only intentionally but also directly to the state—when the church aligns
itself publicly with a specific social or political position or strategy or when
it speaks directly to the state regarding matters that, properly speaking, are
the responsibility not of the church but of the state. Such risks notwith-
standing, the Synod has chosen to engage in this type of speaking on a lim-
ited number of occasions regarding issues that it deemed to be of critical
importance for the church’s life and work, its witness, or its own moral
responsibility (as church) to seek and promote the welfare of the state and
its citizens.

In the preceding discussion we made reference to the Synod’s various
resolutions on racism as an example of Benne’s second connection between
church and state. In 1986, however, the Synod adopted a resolution on
racial discrimination in which it expressly denounced a specific political
system and publicly declared its position as a church body concerning this
form of government. Res. 7-08A reads:

WHEREAS, Christ commands His disciples to love everyone (Mark

12:31, Matt. 5:44); and

WHEREAS, Racial discrimination occurs throughout the world; and

WHEREAS, This discrimination is particularly fostered by the system
of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa; and

WHEREAS, We abhor racial discrimination wherever it occurs; and

WHEREAS, Christians have a moral responsibility to advocate for vic-
tims of racial discrimination: therefore be it

Resolved, That all Lutheran Church—-Missouri Synod members be
encouraged to undertake a self-examination with respect to their attitude
toward all people; and be it further

Resolved, That congregations through worship, prayer, and Bible study
groups assist in sensitizing members to evils of racial discrimination so
that they may through the love of Christ respond to the needs of the
oppressed; and be it further

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod declare publicly
that it denounces apartheid as well as other forms of racial discrimination;

and be it finally

82

was indeed a “priority issue” requiring direct speech, and that it was more
prudent to speak than not to speak in this specific instance. It should be
noted, however, that the final “Resolved” of this resolution puts the focus
back on the church and its responsibility, through its members, to fight
racial discrimination by means of the Gospel: “Resolved, That The Luther-
an Church—Missouri Synod continue to develop ways and means to share
the love of Jesus Christ in all parts of the world and to bear witness to the
reconciliation that is possible in Chnist.”

Another interesting (and also problematic) aspect of speaking to
apartheid is that, strictly speaking, the “state” to which the Synod was
speaking in Res. 7-08A was not its own government. However, by speak-
ing publicly on this issue the Synod was also, in effect, communicating its
concerns to anyone who might be interested in listening (including other
concerned church bodies, businesses, and politicians).

A second example of “direct and intentional influence” brings us a bit
closer to home, as we consider the Synod’s response to the issue of child care.
The Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions view the family as the basic
social unit. Yet, as a social unit, family life will vary considerably from cul-
ture to culture and from generation to generation. Therefore, in spite of a pri-
ority concern for the family, the Synod nevertheless has exercised great care
with its speaking to specific family issues. For example, in 1989, when Con-
gress was debating the passage of various child care bills, the Synod’s Office
of Government Information (OGD worked together with the Schools Depart-
ment of the Board for Parish Services to draft basic guiding principles under-
lying the Synod’s concerns about federally funded child care. Of particular
concern was the effect of legislation on the Synod’s many schools and early
childhood education centers (a legitimate institutional concern). The princi-
ples were disseminated to members of congregations through synodical
publications as well as to district education staff.

The speaking to government that the Synod did on the basis of these
principles was careful and restrained, stressing the potential for adverse
effects on religious child care providers. The purpose of the Synod’s speak-
ing on these matters was not the advocacy of federal child care legislation,
but the enunciation of concerns about federal involvement in an area of signif-
icant ministry by synodical congregations. The “messenger” in this case
was not the church as “spiritual body of Christ” but the church as a “social
institution” —an institution with legitimate concerns about specific legisla-
tion that would have a real impact on it and other churches as institutions.
In effect, the Synod was advocating the so-called “Kurland rule,” a
Supreme Court decision that states that “if a policy furthers a legitimate
secular purpose it is a matter of legal indifference whether or not that pol-
icy employs religious institutions.”'*

** Berger and Neuhaus, 29.