LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 222

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

222

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

This repudiation of married life may serve as an extreme
example of how civil law might thoroughly corrupt the
understanding of marriage. Any state that would endorse
such a repudiation would create a moral crisis of monumental proportion for faithful Christians, who would
be compelled to retain the substance of marriage even
though they could not retain it in any legal manner. They
would, thereby, be compelled by conscience to engage
in a form of civil disobedience. A faithful church would
also, of necessity, be required to make this a matter of
public confession and action as it supported, enabled
and encouraged men and women to make lifelong vows
of fidelity and love. And, while engaging in such acts of
civil disobedience, both individuals and churches should,
if necessary, willingly suffer the consequences of such
confession and practices.
In our judgment, the current understanding of marriage in the U.S. as illustrated above from Wex (see page 7)
is not a complete rejection of marriage. The marriage of
a heterosexual couple is fully consistent with it, although
from a Christian perspective the definition certainly confuses marriage by allowing same-sex couples to be married. It does not, however, require a heterosexual couple
who wish to marry to disobey civil marriage law in order
to uphold biblical teachings and practices.
A marriage according to a biblical understanding
would not be invalid, nor would it be subject to penalty
under this view of marriage. Indeed, the marriage of a
Christian couple would continue to enjoy legally insured
benefits under U.S. marriage law, such as reduced taxes
and provisions for easy inheritance, sharing in pensions
and Social Security, and other benefits. It is important to
realize that none of those benefits changed for the heterosexual couple when homosexual couples were given
access to them. This legal understanding, regrettable as it
is, does not require a Christian couple to engage in civil
disobedience in order to marry.
2. Does the state prescribe or impose invalid
marriages upon individual Christians?

It seems completely unrealistic that any current jurisdiction in the United States would impose marriage under
any circumstances. When marriages have been imposed
in the recent past, that has typically occurred in cases
when an unmarried girl or woman became pregnant and
marriage between her and the man who impregnated
her was imposed by parents or communities, but not by
force of civil law or statute.

MARRIAGE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

|

3. Does the state prescribe unbiblical definitions
of marriage for the church,42 impose any
unbiblical practices upon the church, or in any
way seek to prevent the church’s obedience to
God in the church’s marriage practices?

Again, the answer to the question is no, but we answer
here with somewhat less confidence. We are thankful that,
despite some threatening signs, no church or Christian
minister has yet been compelled to go against conscience
in performing weddings. That seems unlikely in the near
term, but the threat of state sanctions against churches
or ministers who refuse to allow same-sex weddings or
refuse to perform them is by no means unrealistic in the
long term.

Should Christians Decline Legal
Marriage? or Can Christians Conscientiously Object to Legal Marriage?
The Christian citizen may well have strong objections to
the post-Obergefell understanding of marriage that has
been imposed on the United States. However, what does
such a change imply for how we, as Lutheran Christians,
engage in marriage? If the legal understanding of marriage
has changed, shall we encourage laity to continue to
secure licenses for their marriages? Shall we encourage
clergy to continue to perform marriage ceremonies only
for couples who have secured a license?
In the view of the Commission, any decision to refuse
to secure a marriage license at this time is both unwarranted and unwise.43 Because of our answers in the
preceding section, we believe that it is unwarranted for
Christian couples to refuse to secure legal marriage on
the grounds that the definition of marriage has changed
in the U.S. and elsewhere. While the definition has
changed, it is not redefined in such a way that it excludes
a positive Christian understanding of marriage. We cannot endorse any convincing moral argument for a couple
to refuse licensure.
There may be Christian couples who decide not
to secure a marriage license according to their own
consciences. While no one can bind consciences, we
42

43

As only a voluntary, occasional servant of the state with
respect to marriage, a pastor officiates only for those
couples he has agreed to serve. Therefore, clergy have
not been compelled to perform any marriage in the U.S.
Pastors are instead able to follow the teachings of their
church body. In our judgment, an LCMS pastor should
not officiate at a public marriage ceremony for a couple
that has refused to secure a marriage license from civil
authorities. To do so would inevitably be a form of
ecclesial endorsement of the couple’s act of disobedience
to authority. While the Synod recognizes the rights of the
individual conscience, it cannot go against its own doctrine. Scripture is plain about the responsibility to honor
and obey the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1–6; see also
1 Peter 3:13–14; 1 Tim. 2:1–2). Our confessions also uphold
the importance of obedience to those “whose duty it is
to command and to govern.”46 They acknowledge the
legitimacy of the processes of government.47
Therefore, in our judgment, a minister is not bearing
false witness or acting in any way contrary to the teachings of Scripture and the Confessions when he conducts
the wedding service of a heterosexual couple. This is not
an implicit endorsement of the current legal definition
of same-sex marriage. As much as the CTCR, together
with our church body,48 objects to the legal widening of
marriage to include same-sex relationships, the Commission does not believe that this expanded definition
excludes the understanding of marriage we hold that is
based on biblical teaching. Therefore, we conclude that
for a pastor of the Synod publicly to endorse disobedience to state marriage statutes would be confusing and
misguiding and may lead to a misperception of the Lutheran Church’s support for governing authority. Unless
and until the Synod itself determines that it is impossible
to be obedient to current marriage law without being
disobedient to God, our pastors should not give public
endorsement to civil disobedience in this matter.

46

LC I 141; KW 405; see also Ap XVI 1, 3, 6; KW 231.

47

Ap XVI 7; KW 232.

48

See, for example, 2004 Res. 3–05A, 2010 Res. 3–01A, 2013 Res.
2–07A, 2016 Res. 14–02A and Res. 14–04, and 2019 Res. 11–02A.

Although this is a slightly different question, we believe
the previous answer addresses this concern. No, we
do not believe a pastor of the LCMS should refuse to
serve as an agent of the state in the solemnization of the
marriages of heterosexual couples. We recognize that
here, too, the matter of individual conscience might be
invoked. A pastor of the Synod might say that he cannot
in good conscience any longer serve as an agent of the
state in performing marriages. While that may indeed
be true — we cannot determine what an individual’s conscience may dictate and we must respect it — individual
conscience does not allow a Synod pastor to impose
his conscience upon his flock. If he refuses to conduct
marriage services for members who themselves have no
conscientious objection to securing a marriage license,
he is allowing his individual conscience to “lord it over”
the flock (1 Peter 5:3) unless he provides some appropriate means for them to follow their own conscience.49
3. Ought a Christian pastor perform a marriage
for a same-sex couple?

The fact that our Synod accommodates divorce in some
manner may lead others to ask whether some such
accommodation should be possible for a same-sex
couple. No biblical or confessional church can accommodate same-sex marriage in the manner that it accommodates divorce among members. Divorce must always
be understood as a failing that results from sin — for
promises have been violated by at least one party to the
marriage. However, there is a biblical warrant for recognizing that at times there is no alternative to suffering a
divorce in circumstances such as adultery and malicious
desertion.50 Moreover, “the Bible allows for the possibility
of divorce and remarriage in these circumstances.”51
In such a case, the pastor may have other options. For example, he
might ask the couple to go to a fellow Synod pastor who does not
share his objection. He might also counsel the couple to secure their
legal marriage from a justice of the peace or similar civil servant and
then schedule a “Blessing of a Civil Marriage” (see LSB Agenda, 71).
Moreover, before a pastor reaches such a conscientious conclusion,
he ought most certainly to discuss his concerns in the counsel of his
peers and his ecclesiastical supervisors.

50

For discussion of these exceptions, see the 1987 CTCR report,
Divorce and Remarriage: An Exegetical Study, at https://files.lcms.org/
wl/?id=vYacb8D5XlLSfs2tYNYK9f3fsjdWo2Pq.

51

Luther’s Small Catechism, 100.

A REPORT ON CLERGY SERVING AS ‘AGENTS OF THE STATE’

2023 Convention Workbook

9

11

They should also be aware that if they portray themselves as a married couple, they risk confusing others
and perhaps causing offense — especially among other
Christians. Moreover, in this fallen world divorces sometimes occur even in the marriages of deeply committed
Christians. Without the benefit of legal marriage, a couple that is legally unwed foregoes any of the important
legal protections afforded by the state for themselves and
any children.

However, when a Christian disobeys a law which
he considers to be in conflict with the higher law
of God, he should:

Just as Christians have had to accept the necessity
of divorce laws, and perhaps even divorce laws that we
believe are erroneous in their concepts (e.g., no fault
divorce), so also it seems that we cannot avoid the reality
of changing marriage law. However, just as divorce laws
did not require the church to change its teaching about
marriage and divorce, so also the adoption of same-sex
marriage requires no change in doctrine or practice (at
this time). We believe that securing a marriage license from
civil authorities is not sinful and that it cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that a couple has endorsed same-sex marriage or any other unbiblical understanding of marriage.
And for those reasons, we strongly encourage all Christians
to continue to secure a license or its equivalent from civil
authorities before any marriage ceremony is conducted.

1. be quite sure that all legal means of changing
the law have been exhausted;

Clergy as ‘Agents of the State’

Such a refusal to secure legal marriage not only foregoes important protections, but it also imposes significant
obligations. Here we simply repeat what the Commission
said in 1967 after acknowledging that there are times
when a Christian might engage in civil disobedience:

2. consult with men of good conscience to test the
validity of his judgment;
3. carry out his act of disobedience in a nonviolent
manner;
4. direct his act of disobedience as precisely as
possible against the specific law or practice
which violates his conscience;
5. exercise restraint in using this privilege because
of the danger of lawlessness.44
The couple that refuses to secure a marriage license
on the grounds of conscience is essentially engaged in an
act of civil disobedience. They are refusing to acknowledge the state’s laws for marriage. They should, therefore,
accept the necessary consequences for their disobedience. That is, they must not claim to be a married couple
for tax purposes, for pension or Social Security benefits,
or in order to claim other marriage benefits unique to
their state.

44

2. Ought a Christian pastor refuse to serve as an
agent of the state in the matter of marriage
when the state has redefined marriage in
such a way that it now includes as “marriage”
same-sex relationships (or, potentially, other
non-biblical marriages)?

49

|

We realize that in some states one can secure a legal marriage apart
from a license where common-law marriage or another form of
marriage registry apart from a license is possible.

A REPORT ON CLERGY SERVING AS ‘AGENTS OF THE STATE’

1. Should a Christian pastor officiate at a public
marriage ceremony for a couple that has decided
they cannot in good conscience secure a license?

MARRIAGE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

“Church” in this context does not mean only the LCMS. It refers to
all religious bodies that confess the Christian faith in the Triune God.
Church is, in this context, the whole Christian church on earth as
it lives under a particular state — the various “denominations” and
“non-denominational” churches who share a creedal understanding
of God.

cannot encourage a refusal to marry legally. Rather, to
such a couple we believe a strong caution is in order.
First, the Fourth Commandment enjoins all Christians
to obey governing authorities unless obedience results in
disobedience to God. Second, we note that the purpose
of marriage laws is to preserve and protect those who
marry. Marriage laws provide legal protections against
abuses of marriage in matters such as inheritance and
divorce and are intended to provide some benefits and
protection also for the children that are born or adopted in a marriage. They also make provisions for other
important benefits, such as reduced taxation and shared
Social Security and pension benefits, that enable a couple
to live more economically and help surviving spouses to
meet their own and their children’s needs at the death of
a spouse.

Civil Obedience and Disobedience (1967), 5, https://files.lcms.org/
wl/?id=qksptP0PO8oTohSekk2uIXF63da5XxfE.

MARRIAGE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

|

4. What about the particular case of military and
institutional chaplaincy?

We give thanks that, although chaplains often serve
under governmental authority either directly or indirectly, their freedom to act according to the teachings
of their church body is retained. Although no one can
guarantee that such freedom will continue, it is the case
at the present time.
5. Should a Christian pastor officiate at a public marriage ceremony for a couple that has
decided that a legal marriage would cause a
financial hardship?

The foregoing paragraphs do not address other circumstances in which couples may seek a “church wedding”
without securing a marriage license. One example is
individual couples who discover that if they marry, they
will lose financial resources that they depend on to meet
their needs. This has been the case at times when mothers receiving aid for their dependent child(ren) will no
longer receive certain benefits, or will have the amounts
of those benefits reduced, if they marry.53 Such a couple
may sometimes seek a “church marriage” or some kind
of religious blessing for their relationship but decline to
secure legal marriage.
Somewhat similar is the increasingly common
number of older, cohabiting, retired couples who have
chosen not to be legally married because there is a
financial benefit to remaining unmarried. Such couples
52

See LCMS 2016 Res. 14-04; note also 1998 Res. 3-01, 2004 Res.
3-04A, 2010 Res. 3-01A, 2013 Res. 2-07A and 2019 Res. 11–02A.

53

See Elaine Maag and Gregory Acs, “The Financial Consequences
of Marriage for Cohabiting Couples with Children” Urban Institute
(September 2015), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/65776/2000366-The-Financial-Consequences-of-Marriage-for-Cohabiting-Couples-with-Children%20.pdf.

|

45

The practice of clergy conducting marriage ceremonies is an allowance granted by the state, not a right. It is perhaps more likely that at
some point in the future a state would not allow clergy to solemnize
the marriage of a couple that has obtained a valid license. That is only
a theoretical possibility, of course, and it is not the case in any U.S.
jurisdiction presently. However, were it o take place, clergy would no
longer in any sense be “agents of the state.”

A REPORT ON CLERGY SERVING AS ‘AGENTS OF THE STATE’

There are no similar grounds for accommodating
same-sex marriage. It implies an endorsement of sexual
acts that are inherently sinful and contrary to creation as
man and woman (see Rom. 1:26–27). Therefore, the Synod
has consistently expressed its understanding that Scripture and the Confessions forbid our church from any
endorsement or sanction of same-sex marriage as well
as any participation by a Synod pastor in such unions
or marriages.52 Here the answer is a straightforward no,
as we have already indicated in the first question of the
previous section. The Synod itself has addressed this by
stating unequivocally in 2016 Res. 14–04 that “no LCMS
pastor shall consent to officiate or participate in any ceremony sanctioning the union of a same-sex couple.”

MARRIAGE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

While the foregoing discussion addresses the matter of a
Christian couple that considers a conscientious decision to
forego legal licensure of their marriage, it does not answer
the matter of clergy serving as “agents of the state,” which
they do when they perform weddings in accord with state
law. Here it is important to note, however, that clergy are
serving the state only on a case-by-case, voluntary basis,
not as full-time agents of the state. In other words, the
incidental act of an occasional marriage service limits the
degree to which a pastor is an agent of the state. He takes
no oath of office as a justice of the peace, judge or others
would do who serve the government directly at all times
and have, as one part of their duty, the task of solemnizing
marriages. This distinction is all-important because it
means that a minister cannot be compelled by the state to
perform any wedding.45

10

may choose this course because they discover that if they
marry one party will lose a pension or other retirement
benefit from a previous marriage. Such couples have also
sometimes asked to have a religious marriage ceremony
and recognition as husband and wife by the church while
they remain unmarried in the eyes of the state.
These circumstances present significant pastoral challenges. On the one hand, pastors and other Christians
cannot glibly ignore the very real financial dilemmas that
may discourage marriage. Christians have rightly exercised our responsibility for free speech in matters such
as same-sex marriage. We ought also to make our voices
heard when tax laws and other governmental policies
impose financial burdens that discourage marriage. In
addition, while the church does not have the financial
resources of the government, it is certainly reasonable
to seek to extend some measure of financial support —
insofar as the church is able — for couples that want to
marry but face legal or other economic requirements
that discourage marriage. Of course, it may also be
necessary for the two Christians to accept that God is, at
the present time, requiring them to forego marriage and
remain celibate, unmarried individuals.
On the other hand, pastors are morally bound not to
conduct a “wedding ceremony” for a couple that is refusing to marry legally for financial gain. As sympathetic
as one must be toward those facing such financially
difficult circumstances as we have described, it is an act
of deceit for a couple to portray themselves as married by
the church when they have refused to abide by marriage
laws. The church must not be complicit in that deceit.
Instead, our churches and pastors are duty-bound
to teach that obedience to God is more important than
securing financial benefits or other earthly gains. Just as
Christian obedience to God may at times compel a costly
disobedience to human authority, there are other times —
like this — when obedience to God compels obedience to
human authority no matter how inconvenient or costly
that obedience may be. And, finally, we should note that
it is particularly important to impress on older Christians that the example they set is one that their children
and grandchildren will likely emulate.

Conclusion
The foregoing discussion indicates the appropriateness
of the title of this report. Marriage truly does stand
between church and state. It is both sacred and secular.
It is God’s institution and holy work, but one that He

A REPORT ON CLERGY SERVING AS ‘AGENTS OF THE STATE’

12