LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 290

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

290

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

with civil righteousness? Is it focused on sin and grace or on the neighbor and social justice? Is it grounded in the revelation of God in Christ
or in human reason and natural law as well? As we have already seen,
for Lutherans the normative principles of the civil order are reason and
justice. When speaking to different audiences, the church’s message
must be sensitive to the biblical principles that are most appropriate to
each audience. (64; second emphasis added)

When addressing issues of social justice and human care in
the secular public square, the “right question” to ask is not simply
“What does the Bible say?” Rather (as the CTCR’s 2005 report
puts it) we must also ask how we can “find ways of articulating
our pro-life position that can command attention from persons who
may have thought that they could easily dismiss our pro-life reasoning” (CFHB 9). One reason such people often “easily dismiss”
pro-life reasoning is precisely because they question the premise—
understandably so—that “what the Bible says” should necessarily
serve as the basis for public policy in our country, the United States
of America.
For this reason, the attempt to find persuasive arguments that
are not explicitly grounded “in the revelation of God in Christ” but
in “human reason and natural law” is by no means an illegitimate
task or venture which is somehow at odds with the clear proclamation of God’s Word. On the contrary, it is a critically necessary task
in which Christians must be engaged “in the context of the political realities of our pluralized society” (CFHB 9). Confessional Lutherans, equipped with the biblical and historic distinctions noted
above, are wonderfully poised and positioned to engage in this effort. But it requires some “hard thinking” about how to communicate foundational ethical truths and principles in a way that can be
meaningful and persuasive even in contexts where (according to
God’s own design) the Bible is not recognized as “the normative
authority” for determining what is right and wrong.
As the CTCR points out in Render Unto Caesar:
For Luther, the normative principles of the church are faith and love,
while the normative principles of the civil order are reason and justice.
With regard to spiritual righteousness, Luther had a well-known contempt for human reason. When it came to civil righteousness, “Luther
was quite confident that human rationality could and often would find
a good set of positive laws and upright customs to serve a society—no
matter how many or few Christians lived in it.” Luther was confident
that natural law would provide human reason all that it required for social justice. Social justice, therefore, must be grounded in the Law and
human reason rather than in the Gospel and faith. (35–36)

The foregoing discussion provides the context for understanding the nature and purpose of the “burden of proof” argumentation
used in the Commission’s report. “Social justice,” says the CTCR
in Render Unto Caesar, “must be grounded in the Law and human
reason rather than in the Gospel and faith” (36). Arguments about
the worth and value of human life in the secular public square are
most appropriately and effectively made not on the basis of “faith
in God and His Word” but on the basis of rational arguments that
are accessible to all human beings, whether or not they have faith
in Jesus Christ.
The Commission makes use of “burden of proof” argumentation
in CFHB in order to expose the fact that (whether they realize it or
not) those who advocate the killing of embryos for research are
using this same line of human reasoning. As the Commission says
on page 30:
Without always realizing or acknowledging their strategy, people
advocating the use of embryos for research tend to be making an implicit “burden of proof” argument. They claim that because the health and
well-being of people afflicted by disease and injury might be improved
through embryonic stem-cell research, a heavy burden of proof lies
upon those who would stop the research. Their hope is that by casting

some doubt upon the pro-life arguments, they can claim that the burden
has not been met and therefore the research can go forward.

The Commission’s report, however, argues on the basis of
human reason (on which those who advocate embryonic stem cell
research would stand) that “destruction of human life cannot be justified by pointing to promising outcomes for other humans” (47).
To argue that it is morally justifiable to kill some human beings
in order to (“possibly”) save other human beings is actually the
crassest form of “the end justifies the means” argumentation. The
Commission seeks to expose such fallacious reasoning by “turning
the tables” on those who demand “proof” from those who seek to
protect human life.
As a matter of fact, says the Commission, no “proof” has been
offered by science or philosophy—and certainly not by Scripture!—to overturn the presupposition that “human embryos, beginning with conception, are set on a course of development that
leads continuously to an unfolding of a unique human life” (47).
Therefore, unless and until proof can be offered to the contrary,
human reason itself tells us that all human beings, from the earliest
moment of their existence at conception, merit our care and protection “on the same basis” as live born humans (7, fn. 4). Thus,
while the “burden of proof” argument does, to some extent, “cut
both ways,” it certainly does not cut both ways equally. There is a
greater burden on those who advocate killing human life (even for
allegedly “humanitarian” purposes) than on those who advocate the
protection of human life (even at the risk of “impeding” potentially
beneficial research).
As Christians, of course, we know and believe that “God’s
Word makes plain that God cares for human lives from beginning
to end” (42) and that “Scripture offers no guidelines for exempting certain lives from God’s interest and care” (34). Scientific research and proposals in this area are changing constantly (for better
and/or for worse); God’s Word does not change. Obviously and
unfortunately, however, not everyone in the public square recognizes the clarity or authority of God’s Word regarding this issue.
This is the point the Commission seeks to make in quoting Oliver
O’Donovan’s comment that IVF and cloning technologies puzzle us by “presenting to us members of our own species who are
doubtfully proper objects of compassion and love” (35). Neither
O’Donovan (a strong, Roman Catholic defender of the value of all
human life) nor the Commission are suggesting that people ought
to have doubts about showing compassion and love to human beings from the moment of conception. But, obviously, such doubts
do exist in the minds of many people today. Even some Bible-believing Christians (and Lutherans) may be “taken in” by arguments
about the “possible benefits” of embryonic stem-cell research. The
Commission’s intention is that by exposing the fallacious reasoning
of those who support the killing of embryos for so-called “therapeutic” purposes, Christians may be better equipped to participate
“in public debate concerning the use of embryos for medical research and therapy” (4, fn. 1)—and in so doing, to undermine what
many in our society regard as the strongest argument used by those
who support embryonic stem cell research.
It is not true, therefore, that the Commission’s use of this argumentation implies that “should new and more convincing arguments be developed, then the synod could reject the biblical
position that all life, from the moment of conception … is worthy
of our help and compassion” (eighth whereas). The Commission
explicitly states that “God’s Word makes plain that God cares for
human lives from beginning to end” and that “Scripture offers
no guidelines for exempting lives from God’s interest and care”
(42). Nor is it true that “the CTCR suggests that … at some point,
embryonic stem cell research might be appropriate should other

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 290

4/15/10 2:40 PM