# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S393
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 393

moral truth concerning pre-implantation human life. Meanwhile,
because God has entrusted His church with the clear message of
reconciliation centered in Jesus Christ through whom God has rec-
onciled us to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19), we dare not let societal dis-
agreement on a moral and political question cause us to lose our
focus on the Gospel-centered mission of the church.

The Lutheran church has rightly distinguished three uses of
God’s Law.® The first use concerns God’s left hand rule or kingdom
and is designed to produce civil righteousness. But civil righteous-
ness does not justify us before God; civil righteousness is not the
church’s primary concern. In so far as matters of social morality and
political practice involve civil righteousness, social morality and
politics are not to become the chief focus of the church’s work.”

The second use of the Law involves God’s condemnation of hu-
manity’s age-old rebellion against Him. St. Paul writes, “For there
is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by
his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:22b—25). The church fo-
cuses on this “theological” use of the Law, because we recognize
that God’s universal wrath against sin is His “alien” work designed
to point us to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

In the current debates about IVF and stem cell research, the
church recognizes how God calls all of our lives into question, re-
gardless of whether our pursuit of civil righteousness leads us to
support or to oppose morally troubling IVF practices and medical
research. In “O God of Earth and Altar” G. K. Chesterton prays,
“Tie in a living tether The prince and priest and thrall; Bind all our
lives together; Smite us and save us all.”’! We understand that God
must smite us all with His Law, so that we all may be saved in Christ.

In its treatment of the third use of the Law, Article VI of the For-
mula of Concord discusses both God’s critique of our lives and
God’s guidance for our lives as those who have been reborn through
Holy Baptism. God’s critique applies to Christians because

.. even if they are reborn and “renewed in the spirit of their minds” [Eph.

4:23], this rebirth and renewal is not perfect in this world. Instead, it has

only begun. Believers are engaged with the spirit of their minds in con-

tinual battle against the flesh, that is, against the perverted nature and
character which clings to us until death and which because of the old
creature is still lodged in the human understanding, will, and all human

powers. (FC Ep VI, 4).

God’s guidance applies because Christians “have been re-
deemed by the Son of God so that they may practice the law day
and night (Ps. 119[:1])” and “it is necessary for the law of God con-
stantly to light their way” (FC Ep VI, 2, 4).

In this report we conclude that biblically disciplined reasoning
concerning pre-implantation human life compels us to respect and
protect these lives as we continue to address the current state of hu-
man knowledge and insight. In the next section we examine impli-
cations of this conclusion for practical decision-making.

Implications for Practical Decision-Making
Embryonic Stem Cell Research

We urge the research community to renounce the troubling ba-
sis upon which researchers push us to go forward with the killing
of embryos. The usual argument offered in the political debates has
two main premises:

1. We do not have a clear understanding of the moral significance
of pre-implantation human life.

2. But we believe that embryonic stem cell research holds great
promise for alleviating human suffering.

This argument concludes that until we actually know that destroy-
ing embryos is immoral, we should proceed with this promising re-
search.

In contrast we argue that destruction of human life cannot be jus-
tified by pointing to promising outcomes for other humans. This is

especially the case because embryonic stem cell research is by no
means the final hope for helping those who are suffering.

We urge scientists, policy makers, potential embryo donors, and
politicians to examine with more care whether the best course in the
face of moral uncertainty is to press full steam ahead with morally
problematic research. This question should trouble not only Chris-
tians but also anyone who tries to think clearly about human life.
The practical course at the current time should be to shift resources
away from this morally troublesome research to other promising
lines of research in the pursuit of healing for suffering humans.”

Decisions Concerning In Vitro Fertilization

We began this report with questions concerning the moral use
of in vitro fertilization.”? Protection of pre-implantation life is a high
priority both for couples seeking to become pregnant through IVF
and for clinicians working in IVF clinics. IVF aims at bringing
about healthy embryos and at nurturing those embryos in the womb.
Practical problems arise with regard to two practices:

1. Decisions are made not to transfer to the woman’s reproductive sys-
tem certain embryos that are thought not to be viable. These deci-
sions usually include a practice of letting “nonviable” embryos
expire.

2. Decisions are made not to transfer certain embryos when a couple
has produced more embryos than required for their family plans.
The result is that we are presented today with hundreds of thousands
of embryos frozen in suspended animation, with no foreseeable op-
portunity for transfer to a woman’s reproductive system.

Some, including various theologians in the LCMS, suggest that
the solution to both of these practical problems is, in principle, to
arrange for a couple to transfer all of their embryos with a view to-
ward nurture in the womb. If all embryos are dealt with in this fash-
ion, then respect for human life is thought to have been clearly
expressed. Others maintain that the practice of not transferring all
the embryos is, in principle, similar to the sifting of embryos in nat-
ural procreation. Nature, it is claimed, usually selects against non-
viable embryos. Clinical practice is simply following nature’s lead.
This observation applies most directly to point one above, the prac-
tice of not transferring certain embryos thought not to be develop-
ing in a viable way.” While we do not presume to advise on all of
the intricacies of medical procedures and possibilities, we urge cou-
ples and their medical advisers to aim toward the practice of trans-
ferring all embryos. If the goal is to initiate and foster human life,
then we trust that those involved will let their respect for human life
guide them in their practical decisions.

At the same time, the practice of freezing embryos for future at-
tempts at pregnancy can be a life-affirming practice. If couples pro-
vide an opportunity for each embryo to be transferred, then respect
for human life is being clearly expressed. We consider that respect
for human life can also be expressed by making embryos available
for adoption by couples willing to provide the opportunity for life.”

Moral difficulties arise, however, when hundreds of thousands
of frozen embryos end up having no viable prospects for transfer to
a woman’s reproductive system. Under these circumstances three
possibilities present themselves:

1. No decision is made, and the embryos face an indefinite future
of suspended animation.

2. After a specified length of time, the embryos are thawed and al-
lowed to expire. This is the legislated practice in Great Britain at
the current time.

3. Couples donate their unused embryos to scientific research.

Concerning option three, we have already made clear that defi-
nite and serious moral uncertainty attends the use of embryos for
scientific research. We urge couples not to consign their embryos
to this fate. The advice to use these lives so that others may benefit

2007 Convention Workbook