Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1998 · 60th Convention › Page 348

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 348

front matter 1 front matter 2 front matter 3 front matter 4 front matter 5 front matter 6 front matter 7 front matter 8 front matter 9 front matter 10 front matter 11 front matter 12 front matter 13 front matter 14 front matter 15 front matter 16 front matter 17 front matter 18 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 237 Page 238 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 271 Page 272 Page 273 Page 274 Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Sheet 299 Sheet 300 Sheet 301 Sheet 302 Sheet 303 Sheet 304 Sheet 305 Sheet 306 Sheet 307 Sheet 308 Sheet 309 Sheet 310 Sheet 311 Sheet 312 Page 298 Page 299 Page 300 Page 301 Page 302 Page 303 Page 304 Page 305 Page 306 Page 307 Page 308 Page 309 Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 315 Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 Page 327 Page 328 Page 329 Page 330 Page 331 Page 332 Page 333 Page 334 Page 335 Page 336 Page 337 Sheet 353 Page 339 Page 340 Sheet 356 Page 342 Page 343 Page 344 Page 345 Sheet 361 Page 347 Page 348 Page 349 Page 350 Page 351 Page 352 Page 353 Page 354 Page 355 Page 356 Sheet 372 Page 358 Page 359 Page 360 Page 361 Page 362 Page 363 Page 364 Page 365 Page 366 Page 2 Page 368 Sheet 384 Page 370 Page 371 Page 372 Sheet 388 Page 374

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

348

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

our work will be to discipline our reason by reference to the guidance pro-
vided in God’s Word.*

Procreative Ethics

Many of the most difficult ethical problems in contemporary life are
related to human procreation, to questions about giving birth, and to the
technological means that may be used to bring about or prevent new life.
Many moral questions hover around the problems of infertility, technologi-
cal reproduction, contraception and abortion. How much should children
matter to a marriage? Of what moral significance is the biological connection
between parent and child? What medical techniques may be permissibly
used in pursuit of conception? Are some means of gaining children morally
superior to others? In a hungry world how much may couples justifiably
spend in pursuit of children? Is voluntary childlessness a responsible choice
for married life?

Contemporary methods of genetic screening as well as current adop-
tion practices raise questions about choices parents might wish to make
concerning their child's characteristics and makeup. If genetic screening,
can provide vital information at the earliest stage of conception, how
should Christian parents use that information? Should prospective parents
be willing to accept any available adoptive child or may they rightly spec-
ify some characteristics that they wish the child to have and others that
they wish the child not to have?

Questions such as these regularly face Christians in their daily lives.
Christian communities should be prepared to help people relate these
questions to the biblical faith. We intend in this document to provide a
resource that can be read and discussed by study groups within a congre-
gation. We also intend to help Christians who work their way through this
document to practice and reflect on what is involved in biblically disci-
plined moral reasoning. The questions we will be addressing are not easi-
ly answered, and they sometimes are so perplexing that they leave Chris-
tians in disagreement concerning God's will. For this reason attention will
be given not simply to arriving at one set of answers. Instead, we will also

’ Reflection on the nature of human reason has led to the development of qumerous
accounts of reason’s tasks and capabilities. This document draws on an account called the
~interrogative model” of reasoning. This account has been developed over the last several
decades by Jaakko Hintikka and his associates, The interrogative model has been used for
this document both because it is simple and because it seems well suited for highbghting
ways in which human reasoning can be disaphned by biblical faith. Two resources that pro:
vide background information concerning the interrogative model are Jaakko Hintikka and
James Bachman, What If . ? Toward Excellence in Reasoning (Mountain View, CA: Mayheld
Publishing Company, 1991), and James Bachman, “The Appeal to Authority,” in Fallacies
Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Robert C. Pinto and Hans V Hansen (University
Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press. 1995).

5

CASE 1:
CHOOSING AGAINST CHILDLESSNESS

We begin with a case based on questions originally raised in a local
congregation.

Harriet teaches fifth grade in a Lutheran school. She and her husband
Albert have been married for 10 years and have two children. They have
become close friends with James and Rachel, a childless couple in their
congregation. After many months of conversation and study, the four have
gradually settled upon a plan for Harnet to be a nonpaid surrogate moth-
er for the child that James and Rachel so much desire Harmiet would be
artificially inseminated with James’ sperm, and the baby would be legally
adopted by James and Rachel.

Because all four are active members of the congregation, and because
Harriet’s vocation is teaching at the Lutheran school, Harriet went to Pas-
tor Amold to discuss the plan with him. They quickly agreed to pursue the
issues further in a conversation involving both couples, Pastor Arnold, an
elder, and two other members of the church council

Initial Observations

Perhaps you already have a firm opinion concerning the proposal that
Harriet serve as a surrogate to help James and Rachel have a child. Perhaps
your study group is also reasonably well agreed in what to think about this
plan. On the other hand, some of you may be perplexed as to just what to
think at this point.

Regardless of your own opinions, we ask you to imagine for a time
that you find yourself in a situation in which members of your congrega-
tion are not initially in agreement about what choices are right or wrong in
this case. Then, assuming there is some perplexity and disagreement,
spend some time writing down and communicating to each other a list of
steps that might be taken to help your group or congregation think
through this case.

What did you come up with? We imagine that a number of possible
steps came to mind, perhaps such as these:

© Seeking to learn more about how and why the two couples settled

on this choice.

explore how thoughtful Christians can become more practiced and adept
at biblically disciplined moral reasoning. In this way we will be able to
understand the significance of disagreements that we may have and to see
how we can continue to reason together concerning God’s guidance. We
will also be in a position to take up related questions or new issues that are
not directly addressed in this document.

Reflection on our disagreements also serves us well by reminding us
that right reasoning is not the key to righteousness before God. In this, as
in all endeavors of life, even our best efforts are in need of Christ’s redemp-
tion. We give thanks that our righteousness before God is given freely by
grace through faith. One way of living out our thanks is by attending seri-
ously to the ways in which God may be guiding us in the midst of the dif-
ficult choices that confront us in life.

* Praying together for God’s guidance, especially when the conver-
sations are becoming difficult or stressful.

* Seeking biblical materials that may be relevant to the case.

Asking if other Lutheran congregations or our Synod or its theolo-
gians have offered any advice about nonpaid surrogacy by a
friend for friends.

© Looking for relevant discussions of this matter among Christians
in other confessional communities.

* Examining discussions of surrogacy found in medical, psychologi-
cal, sociological, legal, philosophical, and other literature.

© Raising questions about the effect of this choice on children in the
school and on the congregation.

* Exploring your own moral and ethical insights / principles /intu-

itions concerning this set of choices.

DISCIPLINED CHAOS‘

This list of possible steps to follow in considering this case is by no
means exhaustive, but it illustrates what is needed when we begin to
address a difficult and perplexing issue. Notice what happens when peo-
ple patiently listen to each other in the first phase of reflection on a prob-
lem. People typically begin to suggest lines of reasoning that they think
ought to be considered. What first emerges in their responses can be called
disciplined chaos. Thoughtful people throw out a number of possibilities and
some tentative proposals. They try to look at the problem from several dif-
ferent perspectives.

Disciplined chaos is needed in the first phase of practical reasoning
concerning a challenging problem. We know from experience that our
problem-solving skills are enhanced when we permit some disorder to
enter into our initial approach to a puzzle. We are troubled when people
try to cut through the disorder too quickly, insisting on their own preferred
shortcut to a solution. Some suggest that religious communities are espe-
cially tempted to insist on shortcuts, but impatience with disorder is a uni-
versal phenomenon.

The initial phase of disciplined chaos more often than not takes us
down some blind alleys and leads us to some information that turns out not
to be relevant or useful. We can become anxious about the seeming, “chaos”
of information we are receiving. We need to have confidence that the initial
overload of information will gradually be sorted out into what is significant

“The word chaos refers here to the process of “brainstorming,” which Webster's Colle-
giate Dictionary (10th edition) defines as “a group problem-solving technique that involves

the spontaneous contribution of ideas from all members of the group.”

8