LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 351

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

about the parent-child relationship. As we think about a child born
through surrogacy, we ask whether the circumstances of the child’s con-
ception and birth may complicate or interfere with the parent-child rela-
tionship. We ask questions such as those raised by Oliver O’ Donovan con-
cerning whether surrogacy risks turning a child into a “project” or
“product.” What are the implications for parents and children honoring,
serving, obeving, loving, and cherishing each other?

Concluding Thoughts on Surrogacy

What shall we say about the plan proposed by Harriet, Albert, James,
and Rachel? Members of the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions worked their way through a number of the resources that this docu-
ment has indicated could be helpful for this case. The conclusion reached
was that the weight of considerations concerning surrogacy is against the
plan that Harriet, Albert, James, and Rachel have proposed.

The kev considerations present themselves in two different categories:

1. A number of concerns have to do with practical complexities in family
relationships. Surrogacy will introduce complications into the lives of
both couples. These difficulties threaten to damage the relationship of
husband and wife in both marriages, the relationship of Harriet and
Albert to their other children, the relationships of the birth mother, the
biological father, and the adoptive mother to each other and to the child
they propose to bring into the world. A related problem concems the
danger that the child may be seen more as a project or product than as
a unique individual. Relationships within the congregation where Har-
riet is a teacher must also be considered.

. The preceding considerations involve practical judgments about what
may happen as a result of bringing a child into the world in this way. A
related but distinct set of considerations concerns a Christian’s desire to
trust and follow God’s guidance about marriage and family. In the
Commission’s 1981 report on Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective,
reflection on scriptural teaching concerning mamiage and family led to
the conclusion that God intends the conceiving of a child to take place
within the context of the one-flesh union of husband and wife.'* The
plan we have been discussing proposes that the child’s conception and
gestation cut across the lines of two different marriages. Consequently,
if the 1981 study has read God’s scriptural guidance rightly, a Christian
who seeks to trust God’s guidance will refrain from the disturbance of
the one-flesh union of husband and wife in the conceiving of a child.

We note that some surrogacy proposals involve in vitro fertilization
using gametes from the married, but childless, partners. In such a propos-

* Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective. 39

17

and other reproductive technologies lead people to view a child more
as a proyect or product than as a unique human being. We may find
ourselves disagreeing about the risks involved in a relatively rare
arrangement such as surrogacy. Insofar as our reasoning turns on the
assessment of such risks we may find ourselves disagreeing about the
acceptability of surrogacy.

3. In its discussion of surrogacy the Commission put special weight on its
1981 conctusion that the proper context for the conception and gestation
of a child is the one-flesh union of husband and wife. Faithful Christians
will not disagree with the commitment to be guided by God's Word.
Some may, however, disagree with how the Commission has applied
the scriptural “one-flesh” principle to the question of bringing a child
into the world. The Commission's own words in the 1981 document
leave some room for considered disagreement: “Although the Scrip-
tures do not deal directly with the subject of artificial insemination by a
donor other than the husband (AID), it is our opinion that such a prac-
tice must be evaluated negatively... the process of fertilization is
Temoved from the personal context of the one-flesh union of husband
and wife in a way that not even their consent can allow.”"* In our syn-
odical life together there are a variety of ways for responsible pastors
and congregations to communicate and work through disagreements
concerning how God's Word speaks to complicated contemporary
issues. The significance of the one-flesh union of husband and wife is
important for other matters, which we will be discussing below, and the
biblical foundation for this understanding will be examined in further
detail m connection with case 3.

Justification by Grace through Faith

In its work on end-of-life issues in both 1979 and 1993 the Commission
highlighted the following principle:

Any decisions made in this highly complex area, and any actions taken that
may later appear to have been wrong, have been redeemed by that forgiveness
which is available to all who put their trust in the work and merits of mankind's
Savior and Redeemer.*

Disagreement on ethical issues reminds us that sometimes even our
best efforts may yet lead to error. Always present are the dangers of saying
too little or saying too much. In retrospect we may come to wonder
whether we correctly discerned how to be guided by the Scriptures. But
whether we rightly or wrongly assessed the situation, God’s Word wit-
nesses that all our righteousness comes from Christ. Luther asks, “Are we

“Human Seruality: A Theological Perspectroe, 38-39.

© Report on Euthinasiz with Guiding Principles, A Report of the Commission on Theclo-
gy and Church Relations, 1979. 30; Christasn Care at Life's End, 29-30, 62

19

al the embryo would be conceived from within the one-flesh context of the
marriage. Still, the implantation of the embryo and the gestation of the
child in another woman's womb continue to locate some of the mist inti-
mate features of marital and parental relationships outside the one-flesh
union of husband and wife. Furthermore, most of the considerations sur-
veyed in item 1 above would continue to threaten this type of surrogacy
plan. !n vitro fertilization raises some other difficult questions as well.
These will be addressed in case 4 below.

Continuing Disagreement?

Not all Christians will agree with the conclusions to which the Com-
mission came concerning surrogacy. Disagreement usually means people
think that somewhat different questions are the most important to ask
and/or that somewhat different answers are more plausible on the key
issues. Some people will be able to pinpoint precisely where their dis-
agreement arises. They will be able to show where their seeking, gather-
ing, and selecting of information parts company with the line of reasoning
developed in the preceding section.

Other people may simply be troubled by a feeling that something is
“not quite right.” Nagging feelings that something is “not quite right”
should not be summarily dismissed. Emotions sometimes point us in the
direction of questions that need asking or suggest information that can put
matters in a new light. As we together wrestle with difficult choices, we
endeavor to respect both the feelings and the carefully formulated reasons
of others. The goal is to become as clear as possible about the guidance God
may be providing us for the shaping of our lives.

What is the significance of disagreements that may arise on issues like
this within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod? Several observations
are in order.

1. We are together pledged not to disagree on our basic strategies for
approaching difficult ethical questions. For example, we are pledged to
give God’s Word the central place in our deliberations, and we are
agreed that Lutheran confessional documents such as the Small Cate-
chism are reliable guides for finding our way in the Scriptures. “Walk-
ing together” in our Synod means that we together agree on the key
resources available for Christian guidance. We also agree to pray
together in the midst of our deliberations. We together trust that the
Holy Spirit will strengthen our faith.

Ethical reasoning often includes reflection on somewhat unpredictable
aspects of human life. In the case of surrogacy, for example, we reflect
on possible emotional and psychological implications for the parents
and children who are involved, Judgments concerning such implica-
tions often leave room for honest disagreement among Christians. For
example, not everyone will agree with Oliver O/ Donovan that surrogacy

18

to rate the price of [Christ’s] blood so low as to say that it has redeemed
only what is lowest in man, and that what is most excellent in man can take
care of itself and has no need of Christ?”"* Clearly, we need Christ always,
and we live always and only by God's grace.

Our living always and only by grace does not, however, exempt us
from seeking God's guidance as we wrestle with issues in procreative
ethics. People who know themselves to be redeemed by Christ, do—for the
sake of Christ and the neighbor—seek to make the right rather than the
wrong decisions. How else should we seek to bring God's love and care to
our neighbors? Right or wrong ethical decisions do not ultimately make us
right or wrong with God. We live by grace. But people who live by grace
ponder God's guidance and seek ways to apply that guidance to the com-
plexities of life in a world made difficult by sin

“LW 33207

351