LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Sheet 353

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

A Pyramid Approach
to the Means of Speaking

indirect &
Intentional
Influence

Indirect &
Unintentional
Influence

tude and behavior, to changes in congregational attitudes and behavior
toward those of differing racial or ethnic backgrounds, to involvement in
social and political efforts against racism and its effects ongpur society. Or,
a pastor leads a Bible study regarding “the sanctity of life” that touches the
hearts and the lives of the participants in a variety of ways. One person
arrives for the first time at a clear understanding of what the Scriptures
teach regarding the value of the human persons affected by abortion and
euthanasia. Another is moved to write letters to key political leaders urg-
ing support for specific legislation concerning “life issues.” Still another
decides to initiate the formation of a local Lutherans for Life chapter, and
yet another offers to volunteer services at a nearby crisis pregnancy center.
All of these things happen apart from any direct or intentional “plan” on the
part of the pastor, the congregation, or the Synod to effect societal change
or influence governmental policy.

The great advantage of this approach, of course, is that it enables the
church to keep both the “message” and the “messenger” sharply in focus.
It allows the pastor to focus on his primary responsibility of proclaiming
Law and Gospel, sin and grace, and faith and love. His purpose is not to
change society, but through Word and sacraments to transform sinners
(2 Cor. 5:17-19). This approach helps pastors and congregations to keep
their priorities straight by focusing on “the one thing needful” and avoids
politicizing the church. It also avoids the ambiguities implicit in the iden-
tity of the church as “messenger” by emphasizing that the church is a spir-
itual body in which individual members pursue their God-given voca-
tions. Last but not least, it is a highly potent means of influencing the state,
since its potency is rooted solidly in the power of God’s own Spirit to
change the hearts and lives of the people who constitute society and state.

But there are also dangers associated with the exclusive use of this
approach. The most obvious, perhaps, is the potential for the “quietism” of
which the Missouri Synod has frequently and not always unjustly been
accused (or at least suspected). There are times when, due to certain social
and political realities (such as German Naziism), concrete issues must be
addressed specifically by the church in one way or another (particularly in
speech addressed to its own members), and the church cannot avoid this
responsibility simply by appealing to the obvious strengths and advan-
tages of an “indirect and unintentional” approach to influencing society.
To say that this approach is and even must be the predominant and most
important connection between church and state, therefore, is not to say
that it ought to be the only connection. As noted above, this first means of
influencing the state neither contradicts nor precludes the other three
means—although this first means is foundational and must undergird the
effective use of the others (see fig. 2).

One additional point must be underscored. Precisely because this first
approach is indirect and unintentional and therefore depends ultimately on

75

is increasingly hard to achieve consensus. It is prudent, therefore, to
stay with the lowest level of speaking that will accomplish what is
necessary.

Indirect and Unintentional Influence

The first means, by which the church speaks to and influences the state
indirectly and unintentionally, has predominated in the Missouri Synod
because of its congeniality to the two-kingdom model of Lutheran theolo-
gy. It involves simply preaching and teaching the Word of God and trust-
ing the Holy Spirit to work through that Word to shape the lives and char-
acters of individual Christians who will, in tum, have a transforming affect
upon the society in which they live. This approach is summarized well by
Carl Mundinger:

Keeping strictly within her sphere, the Church must put forth every effort

that the nation within whose boundaries she exists become more and more

permeated with the principles of social life laid down in the Word of God,

the principles of righteousness, of justice, of tolerance and forbearance, of

mutual helpfulness and co-operation.

She must do this not by futile efforts to control legislation or to direct

the administration of government, but by laboring patiently and persis-

tently to increase the number of those within the nation whose hearts have

been regenerated by the Spirit of God and whose lives are directed by that

Spirit. Not by invading political assemblies, but by entering the pulpit with

an emphatic and convincing proclamation of the whole Gospel of Christ

can the Church make a real contribution to the political well-being of our

nation. The fact that the State and the Church are two separate and distinct

organisms, that they have two separate and distinct spheres of influence,
does not imply that they should assume an attitude of complete indiffer-
ence toward each other; on the contrary, a mutual friendly recognition and

a readiness on the part of each (within the limitations of its own scope and

sphere) to aid and serve the other is indispensable to the peace and pros-

perity of both.'6

Thus, for example, a pastor faithfully and consistently proclaims the
Good News that God “shows no partiality” in granting forgiveness and
salvation in Christ (cf. Acts 10:34). As a result, his members not only take
this message to heart personally, but strive—by the Spirit’s power—to
embody this “divine impartiality” in their own lives and behavior toward
others. The specific results are multi-faceted, from changes in personal atti-

“S “Dangers Confronting the Church Today,” The Abiding Word, ed. Theodore Laetsch
{St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1946), 1:503-4

74

the sanctifying efforts of the Holy Spirit who, like the wind, blows where
(and how) He wills (cf. John 3:8) as He works through the means of grace,
it should be expected that individual Christians equally committed to the
same Word and moved by the same Spirit may respond to God’s Word in
many different and sometimes even conflicting ways in the “public
square.” For this reason, Christians who share the same theological con-
victions and confession must leam to tolerate—indeed, even to welcome—
some differences and disagreements when it comes to convictions about
social and political priorities, positions, and strategies. Theological soli-
darity is not necessarily inconsistent with political diversity, nor do dis-
agreements concerning specific political issues necessarily imply theologi-
cal disagreement. In fact, to insist upon complete agreement in political
matters (as if the church were a political party) would be to undermine or
deny the validity of the very principles underlying the Lutheran under-
standing of the “two kingdoms.”

Indirect and Intentional Influence

Whenever and wherever the church faithfully carries out its God-
given duty of proclaiming the Gospel and administering the sacraments, it
will also indirectly and unintentionally influence the society in which its
members live, work, and interact with others. At the same time, societal
issues and situations will inevitably arise concerning which the church will
feel the need to influence its members intentionally—though without nec-
essarily presuming to speak for them and without the church in conven-
tion (whether synod, district, or circuit) taking a partisan stand. The goal
here, in Benne’s words, is “to form the conscience of its own people regard-
ing public issues”'* by bringing God’s Word to bear upon issues of vital
importance to Christians, to the church, and to society itself.

One way in which The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod speaks mten-
tionally to public issues is through official resolutions adopted by the Synod
in convention. While it is often difficult to determine precisely and unam-
biguously to whom the Synod is speaking in adopting resolutions on social
issues (see also “Direct and Intentional Influence,” which follows), our con-
cem here is with those resolutions that appear to be directed specifically or
primarily to the pastors, congregations, and institutions of the Synod itself
and to the members of the Synod’s congregations and institutions.

The Synod, for example, has adopted numerous resolutions over the
years regarding racism and racial discrimination. Typical is 1992 Res. 3-03,
in which the Synod

““ Benne, “The Church and Politics,” 28.

76