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
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