LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 342

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

342

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

The state’s interest in protecting human life from its earliest stages is not
absolute and must be balanced against the rights of the pregnant woman.
However, because the state’s interest is in the preservation or protection of
a human hie, only the protection of another human life, Le. the mother’s,
may outbalance the interest of the state in prohibiting abortion.

The so-called “right of privacy,” argued the brief, “should not be consid-
ered sufficient, absent the need to save the life of the mother, to outweigh
the state’s interest in protecting life from its early stages through laws pro-
hibiting abortion.”'*

In other words, the Synod’s speaking was grounded firmly in its beliefs
based on the clear teachings of Holy Scripture about abortion. Yet its action
in this case was shaped by the realization that it needed to address the gov-
ernment on its own terms, as a temporal rather than spiritual kingdom.'**
Appeals were made to constitutional principles and historical precedent,
particularly the role of representative legislative assemblies.'"*

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the wisdom or necessity of the
Synod’s taking such action, its rationale for doing so (as discussed above
and in the brief itself) should be carefully considered. First, it should be re-
emphasized that although this action by the Synod was rooted ultimately

‘“Thid , 16.

“" according to the brief: “The foregoing statements opposing abortion except as necy
essary to save the life of the mother indicate that the positions of the Synod and other
churches represented in this brief and the aforementioned resolutions of The Southern Bap-
tist Convention express protoundly held religious behefs. However, we do not advocate the
impoaition of our religious views by law in order to impuse upon others our rehgious beliefs.
Rather, those religious behets are also deeply seated in the moral and ethical system that
forms the basis of much cf the civil and criminal law of this nation and, therefore if the state
legislatures so decide, may coincidentally be expressed in legislation.

“The fact that a state's law comncides with a deeply held religious belief does not render
that law unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” Ibid., 20-21

“David R Liefeld writes. “Christian citizens can expose the logical fallacies in the pro-
abortion rhetoric regarding ‘freedom of choice’—since no one ever has an unlimited nght to
self-expression. Chnishan citizens can show how the truism, ‘you can’t legislate morality,’ is
contradicted by the very definitions of law and morality—since every law ts a formal expres:
sion of the community's most important, shared moral values. And Chrisban citizens can
also challenge those who adamantly defend abortion while vehemently promoting ‘anima!
rights’ of opposing the killing of baby seals-—since it is logical that, for them, a fetus at beast
chould have the nghts of an animal and should not be subjected to the agonies of abortion

“Now, of course, such debates can be lengthy and complicated, and the process of law-
ful social change never moves quickly or always satisfactorily. But, if Christians jump to the
simplistic notion that what ix required is simply a preaching of the Scriptures, they will not
only confuse spintual and temporal authority but also foment a temporal backlash, It is
interesting to sec how the Misxnuri Synod’s amicus bnef was used in the Supreme Court's
Webster decision: it was cited two fimes in the personal opinion of Justice Stevens as ‘proof’
that the abortion issue is a matter of religious behef, | disagree with that superficial evalua-
tion of a bref so clearly addressed to the proper exercise of temporal power, but it stall
demonstrates the ambiguity which attaches to the church’s role in society.” “A Pastoral
Approach to the Politics of Abortsun,” 260.

39

Epilog: “Who Speaks for the Church?”

The original impetus for this study was the 1983 Synod convention res-
olution (Res. 3-06A) that asked, “who speaks for the church,” “when,” and
“on what basis” on issues of social concern. We have seen what compli-
cated questions these actually are, and how difficult it is to give simple
answers or even any answer that adequately addresses all of the many ele
ments that constitute the enduring problem of church and state.

One of the important elements of an answer for confessional Luther-
ans is our understanding of the church. The church is a precious institution
for us, which dare not be jeopardized by immersion in secular politics. The
Law /Gospel distinction of Luther and the Lutheran Church has helped us
to see that the primary concern of the church must always be the Gospel of
the forgiveness of sins, for Christ's sake, through faith alone. From this per-
spective, the church speaks most appropriately through the preaching of
the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. While this is certain-
ly “public” speech, it is also spiritually persuasive, rather than temporally
coercive, for it is addressed to those with “ears to hear” (Matt. 11:15; cf.
13:11-17)

Another important element of an answer for confessional Lutherans is
our understanding of Christian vocation. The church, as body of Christ,
involves the daily work of all believers as they engage in the many occu-
pations that, together, constitute human communities and meet human
needs. The church reaches out with the love of God for a suffering world
primarily through the words and deeds of its members. From this per-
spective, the church speaks most appropriately through the voices of
Christian citizens, as they participate in the political pursuit of liberty and
justice for all. While this, too, is “public” speech, it is also distinctly indi-
vidual rather than corporate. Christians may certainly band together with
other citizens to make their voices heard through the mediating structures
of voluntary association, but it is often dangerously counter-productive to
politicize the institutional church for this task. When the institutional
church does wish to speak on social issues, it ought usually speak to its
own members and in disciplined, dialogical fashion.

in clear and fundamental teachings of God’s Word, this consideration
alone did not constitute the basis for the Synod’s decision to take such a
clear position and public action on this issue.'* Other considerations, such
as the critical life-or-death nature of this issue and the church’s awareness
of the state’s own God-given and self-professed (i.e., constitutional)
responsibility to ensure the “right to life” of its own citizens, played a cen-
tral role in the Synod’s decision. Moreover, it is clear from the careful
wording and reasoning of this brief that the Synod was extremely sensitive
to the ambiguities and even potential dangers of this action even as it was
engaging in it. Such sensitivity, together with a clear understanding of the
principles that need to be considered in a case like this, are critically impor-
tant to any discussion about which issues and circumstances may call for
similar “actions” by the church.

Westated eartier that “direct political action by the institutional church
involves the exercise of civil power and that power has always had a cor-
rupting influence on the church.” It is necessary to emphasize, therefore,
that even with an issue as critical and “clear-cut” as abortion, the church
cannot avoid the serious consequences of direct political action. This fourth
connection between church and state must be regarded as a “last resort”
when all other forms of influencing the state have clearly proven to be
inadequate, and when it is clear that direct action in a particular situation
is necessary. Even then, such action will very likely not have the intended
effect unless the other “means” of influence are also being used consis-
tently and effectively. Finally, such action must always be characterized by
great restraint, prudence, and studied readiness on the part of the church
“to give an answer” to those who would (and no doubt will) question the
necessity or propriety of such action.

It might be noted that while the Scnptures speak unambiguously regarding the sin-
fulness of divorce (except in cases of unfaithfulness and malicious desertion), the Synod has
not felt compelled to speak directly to the state regarding this issue or to urge the state to
enact legislation that reflects Scripture’s teaching on this matter. Similarly, the Synod has
clearly stated its position on the sinfulness ‘of homosexual behavior (1973 Res. 2-04) but it has
not entered into debate in “tbe public square” about whether such behavior should be legal-
ly prohibited. The CTCR has stated: “The question whether homosexual acts between con-
senting adults should be legally prohibited is one about which Christian citizens may dis-
agree. Not all matters of morality are fit subpects for legislation” (Human Sexuality: A
Theotegical Perspective, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relanons of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1981, 35). To stimulate further discussion, it might
be noted that in addition to Scripture’s clanty on these issues, both divorce and homosexu-
ality have obvious social consequences that need to be considered as the church wrestles

with how best to speak to the state on these matters.
.

90

Still another important element of an answer for confessional Luther-
ans is our understanding of the church as a participant also in the tempo-
ral kingdom. The church participates as an institution of the society in
which it exists. It has a legal existence and is directly affected by a wide
variety of civil legislation. From this perspective, the church speaks appro-
priately when it informs civil authorities of its concerns and the impact of
legislation on its work. But here, in particular, the church must speak self-
consciously and pursue its interests prudently.

The final element of an answer for confessiona Lutherans is a clear
process by which the institutional church may speak and accountability for
that speaking.’ The previous elements imply that a decision will be made
regarding appropriate public speech, but who should make that decision?
It is tempting to say that, in our democratic polity, such decisions should
be made in the various ecclesiastical assemblies: congregational voters’
meetings, district and synodical conventions. But we have already noted
the great danger in turning these assemblies into political conventions that,
finally, are not accountable for the political solutions they propose. There
is probably no way to preclude the institutional church from becoming
politicized in this way if it chooses to do so, since self-restraint is what is
required. Both coercion and policy restrictions can be undermined accord-
ing to the adage “where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

it may very well be that, in such a cumbersome process, the institu-
tional church will miss many opportunities to say important things. But
the day-to-day political process does nut depend upon the church. If The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is to avoid the failures of those church
bodies where the advocacy agenda is so full that their voices are simply
dulled by overuse, it must be willing to accept such limited speaking and
the cumbersome process of checks and balances that produces it.

That the church must speak the Word of God to the various crises of
contemporary human existence is self-evident. But the complexities
involved in such a simple assertion require that Christians pay close atten-
tion to their choice of message, messenger, and means. Failure to do so will
only compromise the deep moral conviction that emerges from the time-
less Word of our everlasting}y faithful God.

© Benne’s book The Parntoxical Viswon supplies an excellent rationale for this approach.
Writes Benne (206-9): “Credibility is one of the essennal characteristics of adequate public
theology ... First, credibility increases as the frequency of church social statements decreas-
es ... Similarly, the church should speak only when it has something unique to offer from its
own theological-ethical heritage ... Finally, the credibility of statements is enhanced by the
weight of authority ... {Glenuine authority only accrues to a statement when the bishops or
assemblies recognize and affirm the intrinsic truth of the argument made by the bearers of
the tradition. They perceive that something of the light of religious and moral truth ts shin-
ing through.”

92