LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Sheet 356

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

When federal child care legislation was passed in 1989, it authorized
States to provide funding to parents who utilized religious child care
providers. Unfortunately, confusion about, and even disagreement with,
that legislation or its implementing regulations jeopardized the imple-
mentation of this option. As a result, OGI organized a project by which dis-
tricts and congregations with early childhood ministries were given the
rather extensive information they needed to work with their own state
education departments on implementing the child care legislation.

While it might be argued that the Synod’s concerns in this area, too,
are best handled by speaking to its own members as they then address
their own legislators, the child care law and regulations touched on fun-
damental concems for the family and for congregational education min-
istries on behalf of families. Therefore, the Synod President deemed it nec-
essary in this case to speak directly to government regarding this issue,
although he did so very carefully and informationally. The primary focus
always remained on assistance to congregations and the problems they
actually faced with the implementation by states of this federal legislation.

Once again, fruitful discussion might be stimulated by mentioning an
important issue concerning which the Synod has rot produced a study
document or taken a partisan position in convention—namely, prayer in
public schools. In response to a constitutional amendment on voluntary
school prayer proposed by Sen. Everett M. Dirksen in 1966 (Joint Resolu-
tion 148), the Synod’s Board for Parish Education issued the following
statement:

The Board of Parish Education of the Lutheran Church—Missouri

Synod feels that the Dirksen [prayer] Amendment fails to recognize fully

the religious pluralism of the American scene. We believe that Christians

cannot join with non-Christians in addressing God in circumstances that

deny Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. We believe likewise that non-Chris-

tians should neither be expected to participate in Christian prayer nor

should they expect Christians to join them in prayers that deny Christ.
The concept of voluntary participation in prayer provides either a coer-

ive force or an embarrassing situation for both Christians and non-Chris-

tians. Under these circumstances we believe that it is best for the public

school not to engage in prayer or other religious worship exercises.'7

This statement, while expressing the opinion of the BPE at this time
toward this specific piece of proposed legislation, was never officially
adopted by the Synod, nor has the Synod to date taken an official position
on this matter. In 1982, in fact, LCMS President Ralph Bohlmann publicly
expressed “general support” for Ronald Reagan’s proposed prayer

‘The Board of Parish Education of the LCMS, “Statement on the Prayer Amendment
Proposed by Senator Everett M. Dirksen,” July 29, 1966.

85

recognizing the risks and dangers of such an approach, the Synod has nev-
ertheless concluded that the question of abortion is addressed so clearly by
Scripture, that it is such an extraordinary social problem, and that this
problem is so fundamentally tied up with what Scripture says about the
God-given duty of the state,'® that failure to speak and under certain cir-
cumstances to act would be tantamount to the failure of the German
church under Hitler.

Even before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing
abortion, the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations
addressed the subject in a 1971 document, Abortion, Theological, Legal, and
Medical Aspects. It spoke again in a 1984 document, Abortion in Perspective.
Convention resolutions have also been adopted over the years urging con-
gregations, pastors, and individuals to remain informed regarding this
issue and to respond in appropriate ways. In most cases this speaking was
done primarily to the Synod’s own members, an example of Benne’s second
connection, “indirect and intentional jnfluence.” But the Synod has also
adopted resolutions of support for Lutherans for Life, a pan-Lutheran orga-
nization with an educational ministry that promotes legal protection for the
unborn. Also, the Synod has clearly, publicly, and repeatedly stated its posi-
tion on abortion, declaring it to be “not a moral option, except as a tragical
ly unavoidable byproduct of medical procedures necessary to prevent the
death of another human being, viz., the mother” and expressly encourag-
ing Christians “to speak and act as responsible citizens on behalf of the liv-
ing but unborn in the civic and political arena to secure for these defenseless
persons due protection under the law.”"® In short, abortion is an issue on
which the Synod has laid a strong foundation for direct action.

To the extent that such speaking is directed beyond the church itself
and is intended, at least in part, as a “statement” that may well influence
decision-making in the realm of the state, such speaking is an example of
Benne’s third approach, “direct and imtentional influence.” The Synod’s

“" The importance of the church's awareness of the state’s own God-given responsibil-
ity ought not be underestimated, but this has not been the focus of this report. For a helpful
examination of Scripture's teaching regarding the God-given role of government (see, e.g.,
Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) and the esponsibility of the church to remind the state of
God-given role, see Guidelines for Crucial Issues in Christian Citizenship, A Report of the Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
(1968). This report says, for example, “the Creator instituted government as a means where-
by He wills to preserve and order life in community among fallen men ... Our Scri
assign to it the twofold task of rewarding the good citizen and punishing the evildoer.
(Romans 13:3-5; 1 Peter 2:15)" (3). It goes on to point out that one of the ways Christian cit-
izens, “as members of a church body.” bear witness to Scripture's teaching regarding the role
of government is by “reminding rulers that they are under God and the Law and that they
too must give an account of their stewardship (Romans 13:4-5)” (5).

*° 1979 Res. 302A (1979 Proceedings, 117; cf. 1983 Res. 3-04B; 1989 Res. 3.09A and 7-14;
1992 Res. 3-10).

87

amendment, which read: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed
to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public
institutions. No persons shall be required by the United States or any state
to participate in prayer.” Bohlmann said:
This is a highly nuanced and sensitive issue, more so than many realize.
And as citizens, we have to be careful that the constitutional principle of
separation of church and state is upheld. The founding fathers never
intended, I don’t believe, that there be a separation of God and state. I find
[President Reagan's) proposal to restore a greater consciousness of God in
the schools of our nation a good one and one I can support.

Despite his general support for the amendment, Bohlmann readily con-
ceded that “there are some questions that have to be answered.”"™ While
it seems clear that the President of the Synod in this case was not intend-
ing to speak for the Synod but simply expressing his own opinion, he was
undoubtedly aware that his personal position would be associated (to
some degree or another) with the position of the Synod itself. His speak-
ing on this issue, therefore, is noticeably guarded and nuanced to avoid the
impression that members of the Synod ought to feel in any way “bound”
by his personal statements on this matter. This issue will undoubtedly
receive increased political attention and discussion in the days ahead, and
the Synod will face the challenge of discussing honestly and fraternally the
various possible means of addressing this sensitive issue and the Principles
pertinent to this debate.

Direct and Intentional Action

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has rarely, if ever, ventured
into the arena of Benne’s fourth connection between church and state by
taking “direct and intentional action” with the explicit goal of changing or
effecting policy in the civil sphere. The reasons for this (whether or not
always expressly stated) are precisely those mentioned earlier: not only
does such action have great potential for dividing, politicizing, and even
corrupting the church, it also runs the risk of compromising and under-
mining the unique and primary mission of the church as defined by Scrip-
ture, and thus compromising and undermining the Gospel itself. Never-
theless, the Synod has at times taken specific actions that (it might be
argued) go beyond Benne’s third connection of “direct and intentional
influence.”

One of the few social issues conceming which the Synod has been will-
ing to take a (more or less) “activist” role is abortion. While presumably

“**Bohlmann Comments on Prayer Amendment,” Reporter 8, no. 20 May 24, 1982): 3

86

speaking becomes particularly “direct” in 1979 Res. 3-02A when, in the final
“Resolved,” pastors, teachers, officers, and boards of the Synod are
“earnestly encourage{d} ... to support the efforts to secure the human life
amendment to the United States Constitution.” This is a direct atternpt on
the part of the Synod to help to effect, albeit through its representatives, spe
cific governmental policy. It is also worth noting in this context that the
Synod’s Washington Office has given a high priority to this issue since 1987.

In 1988, however, the Synod went so far as to file a friend-of-the-court
(amicus curiae) brief with the United States Supreme Court to support the
Missouri state law that was at issue in Webster 0. Reproductive Health Services.
Depending on how one defines “action,” it could be argued that in filing
this brief the Synod, for one of the few times in its history, determined that
“direct and intentional action” was appropriate, or even necessary.

Interestingly, however, while the amicus brief began by acknowledg-
ing the Synod’s “profound belief that human life begins at conception’’'*?
and its opposition to willful abortion, it continued with reasonable argu-
ments grounded in American constitutional principles. The brief argued
that, under the U.S. constitution, a state legislature is the proper body to
determine whether a state has a protectable interest in the life of an unborn
human being.’ The brief also argued:

""1979 Proceedings, 117.

“Brief of The Lutheran Church—-Missouri Synod, The Christian Life Commussion of
The Southern Baptist Convention, and the National Association of Evangelicals as Amici
Curiee in Support of Appellants,” No. 88-605 in the Supreme Court of the United States,
October Term, 1988, William L. Webster, et al., Appellants, v Reproductive Heaith Services,
et al, Appellees, 2. :

" According to the bet: “The Missouri legislature acted within the scope of its police
power in enacting a statute stating that life begins at conception. Nothing in the Constitu-
tion prohibits the state from reaching the factual conclusion that life begins at conception
and codifying it. The Supreme Court generally does not require legislatures to prove ther
assumptions or that the means which the legislature chooses will achieve only the ends
which the legislature hopes to obtain. ... Legislatures properly may rely on scientifically
unprovable assumptions when protecting the broad social interest in order and morality

“The difficult determination of when human life begins depends upon the adequate
collection and analysis of facts. Legislatures are better suited than courts to investigate fac-

“When the Supreme Court declared the Texas statue unconstitutional in Roe r. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court violated its own precedent defining its role relative
Yo the sovereignty of the state legislature when reviewing an exercise of police power. The
cardinal rule of the Supreme Court when reviewing state statutes is that the judges on the
Court ‘do net sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need and propriety of laws
that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions.’ Griswold 0. Connecticut,
381 US. 479, 482 (1965). The Supreme Court failed to observe this standard in Ror v. Wade.
and, in essence, violated the federal separation of powers, when the court created a federal
abortion ‘statute’ after, in effect, declaring all anti-abortion statutes unconstitutional

“The regulation of abortion demands the resolution of conflicts of value, and assess
ments of the competing worth of the lives of the unborn human being and of the mother, alt
very sensitive issues that involve differences of feeling. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter wrote,
‘Obviously the proper forum for mediating a clash of feelings and rendering a prophetic
judgment is the body chosen for these persons by the people,’ the legislature.” Ibid, 6-3.

88

34}