Render unto Caesar and unto God A Lutheran View of Church and State A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod September 1995 Section 2: Part III-Epilog _III. PRACTICING WHAT WE PREACH_ While Lutherans have often agreed on the theological fundamentals that underlie their approach to the state, they also have disagreed frequently on what those fundamentals mean in practice. As a result, for Lutherans today, there is not only confusion because of different theological models in use among Christians generally but there is confusion also because of different ideas about how to implement a Lutheran two-kingdom model. _A. THE FAILURE OF TWO EXTREMES_ Critical to the debates among Lutherans, as we have seen, are questions about how directly and how substantially Lutheran churches should become involved in addressing the state. Two diametrically opposed approaches have been evidenced in the 20th century, with largely negative results: uncritical acceptance of the state and political lobbying. THE GERMAN CHURCH STRUGGLE AGAINST NAZIISM After the unification of Germany in 1871, the state Protestant churches saw themselves as helping the state build and maintain German society (Niebuhr's "Christ of Culture" model). When Imperial Germany was defeated in 1918, it was therefore a crisis of major proportions also for the church.[111] Americans may look upon the creation of the democratic Weimar Republic in Germany after World War I as a good thing, but many Germans did not. In fact, given the close association in their minds between religion and culture, Christianity and morality,[ll2] German Protestants saw the creation of a "secular" Weimar Republic as opening the floodgates of immorality in the 1920s. German Protestants "faced a crisis in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s in which they felt personally vulnerable and which they believed the future of their nation might hang in the balance."[113] Many German Protestants supported the re-establishment of a more traditional German state, a state organized in submission to a sovereign leader (_Fuehrer_). Even eminent German theologians such as Gerhard Kit and Paul Althaus supported the rise of Adolf Hitler. They did not see Hitler what we, with 20/20 hindsight, see now in terms of the war and the Holocaust. These bright and talented German intellectuals saw in Hitler the restoration of German culture: The theology that Althaus developed contains no single unacceptable element, but in retrospect it is apparent that one of his emphases proved very suitable for National Socialism. In his 'orders of creation' theology, he concerned himself with law more than gospel. This focused his attention on morality, order and stability and allowed him to view the Weimar Republic as a breakdown of God's intended order. By equating the traditional, pre-Weimar order of society with God's will, Althaus opposed progressive and revolutionary ideologies of the left which hoped to remake society in a new and better form, and he affirmed the authoritarian and paternalistic emphases of National Socialism.[114] Althaus realized too late the evils of Naziism because he valued social stability more highly than political and religious liberty. "The crucial element" in Althaus' support for Hitler was "the crisis of modernity, which produced in him fear of an unstable, modern, secular world."[ll5] When Hitler came to power on Jan. 30, 1933, he moved immediately to consolidate the various Protestant state churches into one Reich church. The so-called "German Christians" who spearheaded this drive claimed weakly Christianized Nazi mythologies. They also proclaimed a perversion of Lutheran two-kingdom theology: The totalitarian state controls all law, all morality. The church has all that concerns the kingdom of heaven. . . . Law and order in the church are subordinate to the state. What must be conceded to the church is that its members should be able to gather undisturbed in the name of Jesus Christ, that the gospel should be properly preached to them and the sacraments correctly administered. Even how that happens, and under what order and law is a secular matter. . . . Does that mean that the state not only can but 'may' do with the church what it wishes, and the church may not say a word to rebel? Certainly the state can do that. It can appoint bishops when it likes, and as many as it likes. It can establish community boundaries as it likes. It can transcend the Landeskirchen and organize a Reich church to suit itself . . . in short, it can exercise the most rabid control over the Landeskirchen.[116] This kind of thinking immediately provoked some spirited opposition, including that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hermann Sasse, two young German Lutheran theologians who saw more clearly than most the danger in the Nazi "leader" principle and racial theories. Bonhoeffer and Sasse drafted the Bethel Confession in June of 1933, which some consider more brilliant and insightful than the better known Barmen Declaration of May 1934. Bonhoeffer also helped to create the "Confessing Church" of Lutherans and Reformed, which proclaimed that the creed of the "German Christians" was apostate. Yet, while a Reich church was created and a Reich bishop elected, it never succeeded in setting aside the traditional state churches and their well-entrenched administrative machineries. Thus, many German Protestants were content to "look the other way" when Hitler chose to forego (or at least postpone[117]) any serious confrontation with the churches. Because, at first, Hitler brought renewed vitality to German national life, many German Lutherans simply ignored the early, ominous signs of catastrophe. More importantly, however, their traditional view of church and state simply did not provide for a church that opposed the government. Even those, like Martin Niemoeller, who had initially opposed Hitler (when the Reich church was being created), never joined the active resistance to Hitler once it became apparent that Hitler wanted to avoid a confrontation with the churches. While there was potential for resistance to Hitler by German Christians (as Hitler himself saw from the beginning), no German bishops-- Protestant or Catholic--were arrested for political reasons. Both Hitler and the church leaders sought to avoid a direct confrontation.[118] After the war, the highly controversial _Landesbischof_ Ludwig Marahrens defended his collaboration with the Hitler regime: "For me the decisive thing was this: achieved my aim of bringing the church through the threats uttered by the state and maintained the preaching of the Gospel in the communities, peace in the manses [parsonages] and tranquility at work."[ll9] The two kingdom ethic had become a rationalization for looking the other way when the state became demonic: as long as the beast did not seek to devour the church, the church would refrain from inciting the beast. Karl Barth's criticism of Lutheranism in Germany in 1940 may have been harsh, but it largely was justified: To a certain extent, Lutheranism has provided a breathing space for German paganism, and has allotted it--with its separation of creation and law from the gospel--something like a sacral precinct. It is possible for the German pagan to use the Lutheran doctrine of the authority of the state as a Christian justification for National Socialism, and it is possible for the German Christian to feel himself invited by the same doctrine to a recognition of National Socialism. Both have in fact occurred.[120] Yet, Barth's alternative was simply traditional Reformed teaching (with a "Christ the Transformer of Culture" model). He called for the church "to set in motion the historical process whose aim and content are the molding of the state into the likeness of the Kingdom of God."[l2l] There is consensus among Lutherans now that two-kingdom teaching must not be applied as German Lutherans had learned to do.[l22] It is a generally agreed, however, that this was _not_ the failure of Lutheran two kingdom teaching _per se_, so much as the failure of a particular application of it. Indeed, it was in Norway during the Nazi occupation that Bishop Berggrav's _Man and State_ (written while in prison) pointed to resources in Luther himself for asserting the limited claim that secular authority has upon Christian conscience. Since World War II, most Lutherans have recognized that "Luther's intention was to demonstrate God's twofold rule of the whole world by law and Gospel, and not to separate it into two divorced realms of the 'sacred' and the 'secular.'"[l23] Most Lutherans now affirm the need to prevent two-kingdom theory from merely legitimating the state. _BIG GOVERNMENT AND RELIGIOUS LOBBIES_ What some American Lutheran church bodies have done since World War II, in order to implement a more socially conscious two-kingdom ethic, is what most other American church bodies have done since then: establish a Washington lobby. A 1951 study identified 16 church offices operating in Washington and also surfaced a complaint that would eventually become commonplace: "In many cases. . .church lobbyists promote the causes in which groups of church leaders are interested rather than the views of church members in general."[l24] At first, the church-body Washington offices operated at relatively low levels of activity, but with the election of John F. Kennedy, the pace quickened. While the initial motivation might have been to establish a listening post for church leaders or perhaps to do some lobbying on issues that most affected churches, those meager efforts soon mushroomed into full-fledged lobbying on all sorts of issues. In the 1960s, the political advocacy was mostly by mainline churches, but by the 1980s, religious conservatives also had weighed in with their own lobbying efforts. For many mainline church bodies, the emergence of "Liberation Theology" coincided with their own advocacy interests. Several Latin American theologians, notably Gustavo Gutierrez, Juan Luis Segundo, and Jose Miguez-Bonino, argued that the strategy of liberation must supersede the strategy of development, because poverty exists primarily as a result of political and economic oppression. "Liberation theology" was admittedly sympathetic to Marxism and voiced distinctly anti-American sentiments. After 1970, liberation themes and ideas were common in the social statements of mainline American churches. A delegation of seven churchmen returned from a visit to Cuba in 1977 with the recommendation that its "process of creating a society without beggars, starvation, or illiteracy is a revolution that deserves our respect and support." In 1978, the Committee on Justice and Service of the World Council of Churches gave a grant $85,000 for humanitarian aid to guerrilla forces fighting to overthrow the government of Rhodesia--a government headed at that time by Bishop Abel Muzorewa, a black Methodist who was supported by the dominant white minority. Also in 1978, the Washington office of the United Church of Christ issued a congressional report card based on 20 votes, which were graded positive or negative depending upon whether the position was recommended by the church's Washington Office.[l25] The emergence of the New Christian Right in the late 1970s, however. gave religious conservatives an opportunity to use the same approach oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, the Panama Canal treaty, _Roe vs. Wade_, evolution, and secular humanism while calling for family values and prayer in the public schools. Activists created "biblical scorecards" that identified representative votes in Congress by which to judge office holders' worthiness for re-election. Some, like Paul Weyrich, said flatly: "We radicals working to overturn the present structure in this country-- we talking about Christianizing America."[l26] Prominent religious leaders have recognized that this has gone too far. Charles Colson has concluded, "Both liberals and conservatives have made this mistake of aligning their spiritual goals with a particular political agenda." The danger, he warned, is that political alignment compromises the Gospel: Because it tempts one to water down the truth of the gospel, ideological alignment, whether on the left or the right, accelerates the church's secularization. When the church aligns itself politically, it gives priority to the compromises and temporal successes of the political world rather than its Christian confession of eternal truth."[127] For Colson, only a church free of political alliances can be the conscience of society. Dutch theologian H.M. Kuitert agrees that politicizing the church ruin it, because politics brings the church into contradiction with itself, saddles the church with a role for which it is not equipped, and promotes a partisan intolerance among its members. Christians must not be afraid to participate in politics, Kuitert admits, because it is the only way to achieve social justice; but the church as church will lose itself if it participates in politics.[128] Kuitert argues that this is so because, in a modern democratic political system, it is inevitable that a church that makes social statements must choose one partisan option or another: In a society like ours, a church which expresses itself through official statements about controversial political and social questions automatically falls into one political category or another. There is no escaping this unless the statements are put in the most general way possible and are therefore as vague as possible. But those who are keen that the church should make statements--often the church leaders themselves--are against precisely that. What is left is that by speaking out, the churches can only approve or reject, and in so doing make their entry into the political arena.[129] In fact, for Kuitert, doing politics through church channels actually contributes to the decline of democracy itself, because church assemblies--which have no real accountability to anyone--usurp the work and responsibilities of genuinely political institutions. Thus, there are practical and not only theological reasons to question the wisdom of American religious lobbies. A. James Reichley believes that church bodies that "advocate detailed positions on particular pieces of legislation or administrative policies risk squandering their moral authority on questions on which their technical competence will usually be slight."[l30] Robert Zwier, a political scientist, also believes that there are even serious questions as to when political advocacy by churches becomes an imposition or "religious establishment": The respondents in this study were undoubtedly engaged in advocacy resting on moral or ethical premises, but they were very insistent that they were not guilty of imposition. How do they perceive this fine line? How do they avoid crossing it?. . . The typical recourse for these religious groups is to claim that they are advocating measures that are in the best interest of all people in society, with a particular concern for the poor and oppressed. They claim to be arguing for social justice. Yet, their argument is at its roots a religious or biblical argument, with which others may disagree. Others may have a different conception of what is in the best interests of society, a different view of social justice. Each group in the debate is then asking Congress or the White House to adopt its view of social justice. Inevitably someone will win or at least dominate; someone's view of morality--or social justice--will come out on top. Isn't that imposition, especially from the perspective of those who lost? Unfortunately, according to Zwier, Washington church-body advocates do not have time to think about these seemingly peripheral questions, because "most of the respondents were too busy. . .worrying about how to support or oppose tomorrow's congressional actions to reflect much about whether and when successful policy advocacy leads to religious establishment."[131] "Why don't the churches just shut up?" Lutheran sociologist Peter Berger once asked.[132] He was expressing the exasperation of many Americans who are faced with a flood of social and political statements issuing from church bodies and church leaders these days. It is becoming clearer that the churches, if they wish to preserve the credibility of their voices, are going to have to be more careful with their speaking than they have been lately. _B. MORAL AUTHORITY WITHOUT POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP_ Reichley (following the suggestion of Berger) proposes that instead concentrating on social action, the church should broker honest and probing dialog on the issues for the benefit of its members as Christian citizens: "By very reason of their broad and varied memberships and the moral standing they should naturally possess, the churches are well suited to as mediators or fact-finders on many issues over which technical experts disagree." In order to do this, according to Reichley, the churches "would have to cultivate reputations for objectivity and openmindedness as means. These qualities are hardly compatible with the positions that so churches have recently been taking as partisan combatants or propagandists for the political left or right." If the churches become "too involved the hurry-burly of routine politics," argues Reichley, "they will eventually appear to their members and to the general public as special pleaders ideological causes or even as appendages to transitory political factions.[133] Os Guinness agrees. For him, a civil public square requires "principled participation" and "principled persuasion."[l34] Thus, people of all faiths and worldviews, transcendental or naturalistic, should freely and fully engage all others concerned with the affairs of public life. The put square may, as a result, become "crowded and noisy," according to Guinness, but this is simply essential to a vital democracy. Equally essential however, is a commitment to persuasion rather than imposition. Inner conviction and conscience must be respected, because religious liberty is the most fundamental liberty of all. Therefore, in a principled democratic society, the church's powerful public influence is from the _bottom up_: Under either the "total state" or the "total church," the chief movement of an ideology or religion is, socially speaking, always direct and from the top down. But in a democratic society where principled participation is flourishing, their chief movement is always indirect and from the bottom up Thus in a pluralistic democracy each faith, whether transcendent or naturalistic, Western or Eastern, modern or traditional, exercises its primary shaping power morally and indirectly rather than politically and directly. Instead of any faith being promulgated from above, each must penetrate and influence from below.[135] It should also be noted that the church must have a "stomach for disagreements" as well as respect for differences of conscience. Also in the church and not only in the public square, civil but principled debate on social ethics must be encouraged.[136] The critical questions, therefore, are not whether the church _should_ be involved with politics, or whether it can even _avoid_ being involved with politics, but "_how_ church and politics are and ought to be related" and "how each kind of political involvement affects the nature and mission of the church."[137] As a result, the remainder of this section will be devoted to characterizing three aspects of the church's _inevitably public_ voice: the message, the messenger, and the means. _THE MESSAGE_ It is tempting to say that the church's public message is simply the Word of God. But given that God's Word is both Law and Gospel, with both spiritual and temporal concerns, we must self-consciously evaluate exactly _what_ the church has to say. We must pay attention to principles, purpose, priority, and prudence. First, the two-kingdom distinction of Lutheran confessional theology' requires that the basic _principles_ of the church's public message be carefully discerned. Is the message concerned with spiritual righteousness or with civil righteousness? Is it focused on sin and grace or on the neighbor an social justice? Is it grounded in the revelation of God in Christ or in human reason and natural law as well? As we have already seen, for Lutherans the normative principles of the civil order are reason and justice. When speaking to different audiences, the church's message must be sensitive to the biblical principles that are most appropriate to each audience. Second, the Lutheran two-kingdom distinction also requires that the _purpose_ of the church's message be carefully discerned. When God's Law convicts the sinner and prepares the way for forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, it also seeks to restrain harmful behavior and enhance our life in a fallen world. Speech to the government regarding sinful behavior is less appropriate than speech regarding the social consequences of sinful behavior. The Bible addresses both subjects and, for the Christian, there a profound connection between them. Yet, in the complex diversity of the modern public square, it is the consequence and not the sinfulness that the focus. The church must clarify its public speech in order to speak most helpfully to what is actually at issue. Third, the church's messages also must be consciously _prioritized_ given the profound limitations of human existence. Even our Lord willingly subjected Himself to these limitations (Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15) in such a way that, when confronted by the magnitude of human need, He accomplished only so much within a given time-frame. When Martha upset because Mary used her precious moments with the Lord to hear teaching rather than to "help out in the kitchen" (with what were, admittedly, also important human tasks), Jesus spoke clearly regarding importance of priorities: "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her" (Luke 10:41-42). The issue not good and bad, but better and best. The church must never let its eternally significant witness to faith in Jesus Christ be eclipsed by the enormity of human temporal concerns. When church conventions, for instance literally become preoccupied with social issues--however important these may be-- Christ's "one thing needful" is lost. The church simply cannot speak with equal effectiveness to all human concerns. To say that human needs are _equally important_ is simply an evasion of the prioritizing that human life (and Christian stewardship) requires. Finally, the church's message must be shaped by _prudence_. With an always toward the goal of the church's ministry, our Lord has advise to "count the cost" before we begin (Luke 14:28) and to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt. 10:16). These considerations should not be interpreted as in any way compromising the integrity of the church's message. They are, rather, a reflection of the church's desire to avoid misunderstandings and petty, fruitless controversies.[135] The church may well find it prudent to heed the axiom suggested to the CTCR by Richard John Neuhaus: "When it is not necessary for the church to speak, it is necessary for the church not to speak." In the final analysis, the church's message must always be drawn from God's Word, which is its only authoritative speech. But in drawing from God's Word a specific message for a particular time and circumstance, the church must carefully identify the principles it considers most relevant, the purpose for which it is speaking, the priority of the message it is bringing, and the most prudent way to frame and deliver that message. _THE MESSENGER_ To say that the "church speaks" is to beg the question of who exactly it is that speaks. Individual Christians speak for themselves. But when and on what basis do pastors, officers, or congregational assemblies speak for congregations? And on what basis do officers, staff, and conventions speak for the members of church bodies? The answers to these questions are not itself-evident, and may even vary considerably between church bodies on the basis of both theological and organizational differences. What is important here is that we become conscious of the ambiguities and intentionally address them when pondering the role of the church as public messenger. "Who speaks for the church?" surfaces the fundamental ambiguity in the term "church." It makes a great deal of difference, for instance, whether the term church is used to refer to the universal, spiritual body of God's people; a national or international church body; a congregation; or individual Christians generally. It also makes a difference whether one is referring to distinctively spiritual and ecclesiastical functions or to an institution that operates under secular law as property holder, employer, deliverer and purchaser of services, or investor. We have already seen how, for Lutherans, the church is fundamentally spiritual. With Luther, Lutherans confess in the Smalcald Articles of 1537, "Thank God, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd" (SA XII, 2). The voice of this Shepherd is heard by means of "the office of the ministry, that is. . .the Gospel and the sacraments," through which God "gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel" (AC V, 1-2). Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, therefore, defines the church simply as "the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel" (AC VII, 1). This church asks publicly for the freedom to proclaim the Word and to administer the sacraments. But the church is also a social organization--in the Missouri Synod, congregations, districts, and Synod. While it is tempting to assume that these groupings are synonymous with that church defined by Word and sacrament, they actually have one new characteristic: they are also institutions of the temporal kingdom. They usually incorporate, adopt constitutions and by-laws, and conduct business according to _Robert's Rules of Order_. While the church of the Word is not subject to civil law, since even in totalitarian societies that Word can still be preached or read "under ground" and cherished in faith even in the isolation of a prison cell, the church as an institution of society is subject to civil law. The church as institution can be created and abolished, it can sue and be sued, and it can address other legal entities, including government, regarding its institutional interests or concerns. The institutional church will be concerned about zoning laws that affect the location of church buildings and church schools. It will be concerned about legislation that may encourage or discourage the work of the church (such as tax exemptions, tuition tax credits, or voucher plans, child care and private education). The church as an institution of society has as much right as any other institution to make its concerns known those who enact legislation, and law-makers should be as concerned about the impact of their legislation on churches as they are about individual; and for-profit corporations. Between these two understandings of church, of course, lie individual Christians pursuing their vocations ("callings") to serve God in all thing the church also in the broad sense of the word. Here there are numerous social concerns: for civil and human rights, for economic and political justice, for world peace, and so on. And Christians must address these subjects in order to avoid the kind of social quietism that resulted in the submission to Naziism of the German churches. But this understanding of church actually involves an intersection of the two kingdoms, because it is the _individual Christian_ who lives _simultaneously_ in _both_ kingdoms. This church, grounded in Word and sacrament, works in society from the "bottom up." It is the individual Christian, both as member of the church and citizen of the state, who is duty bound to become the primary "speaker" of the church's many social concerns. It is the individual Christian who works from the "bottom" in the public square, guided both by God's Word and by the principled persuasion of the institutional church. Therefore, individual Christians can, and must, learn to translate the concerns of God's Word into arguments appropriate for civil government. And the institutional church needs to provide opportunities for believers to study and discuss the application of their faith to the issues that confront them in daily living. Also of great assistance to the Christian in performing the duties of citizenship in the modern nation-state are the mediating structures of voluntary association (such as public interest groups and para-church ministries). The modern world has an unprecedented dichotomy between public and private life. Without mediating structures, "the political order becomes detached from the values and realities of individual life."[139] Yet, in addressing values, mediating structures often cut across ideological and political lines. They help to develop the compromise and consensus that is so essential for democratic government, without compromising the integrity of either political or religious institutions: _"Mediating structures are essential for a vital democratic society. . . . Public policy should protect and foster mediating structures for and Wherever possible, public policy should utilize mediating structures for the realization of social purposes."_[l40] The advantage is precisely that Christian citizens can work together on common social concerns with non-Christians as well as Christians outside their church body--and can even work _against_ fellow Christians of the same denomination-- without their church body itself entering into such potentially destructive conflict. _THE MEANS_ When analyzing the message to be proclaimed and the most appropriate messenger to proclaim it, it will be helpful also to consider the manner in which the church relates to the world. Robert Benne has described the four "possible connections" for the institutional church and politics: the ethics of character (indirect and unintentional influence); the ethics of conscience (indirect and intentional influence); the church as social conscience (direct and intentional influence); and, the church with power (direct and intentional _action_). Benne's four "connections" are especially helpful considerations for implementing the Lutheran two-kingdom distinction.[141] Benne's first connection is _indirect and unintentional influence._ This means, according to Benne, that the church as an institution does not get involved in public, political decision-making. Its influence on politics is indirect, through the members of its congregations. Furthermore, its influence is unintentional. It has no specific design for society, no social policy. What it does is simply to preach and teach the Word of God, letting the Word speak for itself and accomplish its own purposes. In this connection, the church relies upon the power of God's own Word, the work of His Holy Spirit, to shape and direct believers as they work out their calling to serve God in the neighbor. It is a powerful connection with great potential: Affecting people in this way is arguably the most important, fundamental, and potentially the most effective way the church influences the public order-its politics, economics and social life ... religious communities are capable of forming a powerful ethos among people who participate. These people then shape the world about them, as political leaders but also as those who condition the political climate around them.[142] This is the connection between religion and politics that has predominated among Lutherans and is, in fact, most congenial to the two-kingdom model and to Luther's teaching on Christian vocation. Yet, no one supposes that the institutional church has ever been bound to merely _reading_ God's Word, as if it were somehow inappropriate to explain or apply it to practical problems and issues of everyday life. The preaching of a sermon, the teaching of a Bible class, or a conversation with a fellow citizen, presume prior training at the hands of other Christians--usually through the work of the institutional church. In other words, ever teaching about the two-kingdom model or the Christian's call to exercise faith through love, is based on _intentional_ influence by the institutional church. It is difficult to conceive of the church ever operating _only_ with a model of indirect and unintentional influence. Therefore, Benne's second possible connection between the church and politics, _indirect and intentional influence_, has also been an important part of the Lutheran two-kingdom model, since the Lutheran Church is self-consciously a "teaching church." This second connection adds intentionally to the first connection. Here the institutional church mobilizes it biblical and confessional resources deliberately, aiming "to form the conscience of its own people regarding public issues."[l43] The church's influence remains indirect; it does not seek a public role for itself. Nor does it presume to speak for its members. But, it does presume to speak _to_ its members on the basis of its religious and moral traditions. Because the institutional church has authority with its own members, grounded in their desire to hear and learn God's Word, it can even challenge its members to address unpleasant social problems that they might prefer to evade. But in doing this, the church does not seek to bind the consciences of its members so much as to sensitize them. For the church is ever conscious of the potential for polarization whenever social issues arise, and the church's goal is never to endanger the flock (through political polarization) but to nurture it carefully with lovingly persuasive speech. As with the first connection, the church relies primarily on the power of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel for motivation to deal with social issues (faith active in love). It is absolutely necessary for the church to "do its homework" on the problems to be addressed. Broad-based consultations with church members who have expertise in the areas of concern are essential. The church also should refrain from presuming to dictate specific _means_ by which certain goals are to be achieved, since selecting the means is often the most difficult and controversial political task. Benne's third possible connection is _direct and intentional influence._ "Direct" here means that the church speaks publicly in addition to the indirect efforts through its members. There may be some social issues about which the Scriptures speak so explicitly and clearly that the institutional church deems it necessary to speak directly on the basis of God's Word. But there are great risks, as we have seen, in such direct speaking. Often this speaking is not appreciated, let alone heeded, by those outside the church. Moreover, it _always_ carries the risk of politicizing the church. And so, from a practical standpoint and from the standpoint of the Gospel, direct speaking should be done _infrequently_, only on the basis of clear and unambiguous teachings of Scripture, where the church's _most fundamental_ concerns are at stake. The fourth possible connection between the church and politics, for Benne, is highly controversial and risky--it is _direct and intentional action._ The church no longer relies on persuasion, as all three of the previous connections do. The church now directly _acts_ to change policy or reshape society. It commits funds and applies political leverage--perhaps even lending its support to particular candidates. Direct action by the church is dangerous. It runs all the risks associated with "religious establishment" that have so dogged the church since the days of Emperor Constantine. Direct political action by the institutional church involves the exercise of civil power and that power has always had a corrupting influence on the church: Generally speaking, when direct action is called for it is much better for the church to let that be carried on by laity in their worldly roles or by voluntary associations that are distinct from the church. Bonhoeffer had an accurate intuition when he insisted that the assassination plot on Hitler in which he was involved--what a form of direct action!--be carried out by a loose association of Christians, not the church itself.[144] Confessional Lutherans will find it very difficult to maintain their confessional subscription and engage the institutional church in direct political action. Many believe that much of the so-called "advocacy" by church-body Washington offices is really direct political action. It certainly is controversial and has deeply divided the church bodies involved. Often, it has led to the withholding of badly needed funds for other essential tasks of those churches. Advocacy is usually more than persuasion (mere "speaking out," as in connection three above). Advocacy is usually a "working" of the machinery in our democratic political system. As such, it flirts with imposition and violation of conscience. Furthermore, this advocacy is not infrequent (as in Benne's third connection) but regular and on a long list of concerns--so regular, in fact, that it tends to desensitize recipients to the church's voice and jeopardizes principled participation from the "bottom up." This does not mean that congregations or church-wide assemblies cannot take a position on social issues, but only that such speaking has its limitations. It is limited primarily to those who have already agreed to speak and hear God's truth in love. It is also limited by the threat of polarization since all public speaking on social issues in a democracy is partisan (that is, associated with one of the "parties" in the debate). Christians will never be of one mind on exactly how to implement their faith in good works--nor must they be, since the true unity of church does not lie in such agreement. Yet neither can such agreement among believers be treated as irrelevant, and therefore ignored, since what is at issue is precisely those good works that God has commanded us to do. The "mutual conversation and consolation of brethren" spoken of in Lutheran Confessions (SA IV) will contribute to Christian life in the world as well as to the strengthening of our faith in Christ. _C. FOR EXAMPLE_ General principles often become more clear and meaningful when applied to specific, concrete issues and situations. However, the practical implementation of the principles discussed above will require the church (or some representative of the church) to make a decision about the "means" of influence or action that are most appropriate in a given situation. Therefore, the following section is organized according to the four "means" outlined by Benne by which the church may "connect with" and thus influence the state (see "The Means" in fig. 1[page 72 of original document]). As we consider various examples of the LCMS's application and implementation of these means, we also will have opportunity to discuss how principles related to "the message" and "the messenger" are pertinent to these applications. Three points must be emphasized at the outset First, our purpose in this section is illustrative, not evaluative. Our goal is to show how the Missouri Synod has sought and is seeking to apply (consciously or unconsciously) the Lutheran two-kingdom perspective to specific church-state issues. Second, there is a practical consideration that applies in all of the following illustrations, namely, the need for prudent sensitivity to the politicization of the church. There are no moral absolutes in a Lutheran two-kingdom perspective that can be addressed without sensitivity to particular circumstances and potential consequences. In each and every instance of social concern, Christians must discern the speaking that will best preserve the church's unity in the Gospel. This will require diligent study of God's Word, along with the exercise of God-given common sense, prudence, and self-restraint. Finally, Benne's four "connections" must not be viewed as precisely defined and narrowly circumscribed "categories" into which each form of ecclesial speaking or acting can be definitively placed. Thus, the question of where a particular example may best "fit" in this model is also open to fraternal debate. Furthermore, the use of one "means" by the church in speaking to a certain issue ought not be viewed as excluding the use of one or more of the other "means" in speaking to the very same issue. In fact, it may be helpful to conceptualize Benne's four "connections" in pyramidal fashion (see fig. 2[page 73 of original docucment). In this way, it is clearer that there is a progressive relationship between the connections. One cannot effectively speak directly to the state unless one has already spoken effectively (and persuasively) to one's own members. It is also clear that each step up the pyramid increases the risk of politicizing the church, because it is increasingly hard to achieve consensus. It is prudent, therefore, to stay with the lowest level of speaking that will accomplish what is necessary. A Lutheran Two-Kingdom Perspective The brokering of honest, probing dialog regarding social concerns based on the principled participation, and social influence from the "bottom up." (FIGURE 1) THE MESSAGE _Principles_ Differentiate Law/Gospel two kingdom concerns _Purpose_ Distinguish between convicting of sin and restraining sin _Priority_ Not all concerns are equally important _Prudence_ Beware of politicizing the church THE MESSENGER _"Church" as Spiritual Body of Christ_ Located by Word and Sacrament _"Church" as Social Institution_ Incorporated entities _"Church" as Christian Generally_ Individual Christian pursuing their vocations THE MEANS _Indirect and Unintentional Influence_ Lets the Word speak for itself _Indirect and Intentional Influence_ Teachings resources aimed at own membership _Direct and Intentional Influence_ Infrequent, based on clear and fundamental Scriptures _Direct Intentional Action_ Always flirts with the establishment of religion (FIGURE 2) A PYRAMID APPROACH TO THE MEANS OF SPEAKING Increasing risk of polarizing controversy--> Direct Intentional Action Direct and Intentional Influence Indirect and Intentional Influence Indirect and Unintentional Influence <--Decreasing ease of consensus building _INDIRECT AND UNINTENTIONAL INFLUENCE_ The first means, by which the church speaks to and influences the state indirectly and unintentionally, has predominated in the Missouri Synod because of its congeniality to the two-kingdom model of Lutheran theology. It involves simply preaching and teaching the Word of God and trusting the Holy Spirit to work through that Word to shape the lives and characters of individual Christians who will, in turn, have a transforming affect upon the society in which they live. This approach is summarized well by Carl Mundinger: Keeping strictly within her sphere, the Church must put forth every effort that the nation within whose boundaries she exists become more and more permeated with the principles of social life laid down in the Word of God, the principles of righteousness, of justice, of tolerance and forbearance, of mutual helpfulness and co-operation. She must do this not by futile efforts to control legislation or to direct the administration of government, but by laboring patiently and persistently to increase the number of those within the nation whose hearts have been regenerated by the Spirit of God and whose lives are directed by that Spirit. Not by invading political assemblies, but by entering the pulpit with an emphatic and convincing proclamation of the whole Gospel of Christ can the Church make a real contribution to the political well-being of our nation. The fact that the State and the Church are two separate and distinct organisms, that they have two separate and distinct spheres of influence, does not imply that they should assume an attitude of complete indifference toward each other; on the contrary, a mutual friendly recognition and a readiness on the part of each (within the limitations of its own scope and sphere) to aid and serve the other is indispensable to the peace and prosperity of both.[145] Thus, for example, a pastor faithfully and consistently proclaims Good News that God "shows no partiality" in granting forgiveness and salvation in Christ (cf. Acts 10:34). As a result, his members not only take this message to heart personally, but strive--by the Spirit's power--embody this "divine impartiality" in their own lives and behavior toward others. The specific results are multi-faceted, from changes in personal attitude and behavior, to changes in congregational attitudes and behavior toward those of differing racial or ethnic backgrounds, to involvement in social and political efforts against racism and its effects on our society. Or, a pastor leads a Bible study regarding "the sanctity of life" that touches the hearts and the lives of the participants in a variety of ways. One person arrives for the first time at a clear understanding of what the Scriptures teach regarding the value of the human persons affected by abortion and euthanasia. Another is moved to write letters to key political leaders urging support for specific legislation concerning "life issues." Still another decides to initiate the formation of a local Lutherans for Life chapter, and yet another offers to volunteer services at a nearby crisis pregnancy center. All of these things happen apart from any _direct_ or _intentional_ "plan" on the part of the pastor, the congregation, or the Synod to effect societal change or influence governmental policy. The great advantage of this approach, of course, is that it enables the church to keep both the "message" and the "messenger" sharply in focus. It allows the pastor to focus on his primary responsibility of proclaiming Law and Gospel, sin and grace, and faith and love. His purpose is not to change society, but through Word and sacraments to transform sinners (2 Cor. 5:17-19). This approach helps pastors and congregations to keep their priorities straight by focusing on "the one thing needful" and avoids politicizing the church. It also avoids the ambiguities implicit in the identity of the church as "messenger" by emphasizing that the church is a spiritual body in which individual members pursue their God-given vocations. Last but not least, it is a highly potent means of influencing the state, since its potency is rooted solidly in the power of God's own Spirit to change the hearts and lives of the people who constitute society and state. But there are also dangers associated with the _exclusive_ use of this approach. The most obvious, perhaps, is the potential for the "quietism" of which the Missouri Synod has frequently and not always unjustly been accused (or at least suspected). There are times when, due to certain social and political realities (such as German Naziism), concrete issues must be addressed specifically by the church in one way or another (particularly in speech addressed to its own members), and the church cannot avoid this responsibility simply by appealing to the obvious strengths and advantages of an "indirect and unintentional" approach to influencing society. To say that this approach is and even must be the predominant and most important connection between church and state, therefore, is not to say that it ought to be the _only_ connection. As noted above, this first means of influencing the state neither contradicts nor precludes the other three means--although this first means is foundational and must undergird the effective use of the others (see fig. 2[page 72 in original document]). One additional point must be underscored. Precisely because this first approach is _indirect_ and _unintentional_ and therefore depends ultimately on the sanctifying efforts of the Holy Spirit who, like the wind, blows where (and how) He wills (cf. John 3:8) as He works through the means of grace, it should be expected that individual Christians equally committed to the same Word and moved by the same Spirit may respond to God's Word in many different and sometimes even conflicting ways in the "public square." For this reason, Christians who share the same theological convictions and confession must learn to tolerate--indeed, even to welcome--some differences and disagreements when it comes to convictions about social and political priorities, positions, and strategies. Theological solidarity is not necessarily inconsistent with political diversity, nor do disagreements concerning specific political issues necessarily imply theological disagreement. In fact, to insist upon complete agreement in political matters (as if the church were a political party) would be to undermine or deny the validity of the very principles underlying the Lutheran understanding of the "two kingdoms." _INDIRECT AND INTENTIONAL INFLUENCE_ Whenever and wherever the church faithfully carries out its God given duty of proclaiming the Gospel and administering the sacraments, it will also indirectly and unintentionally influence the society in which it members live, work, and interact with others. At the same time, societal issues and situations will inevitably arise concerning which the church will feel the need to influence its members _intentionally_--though without necessarily presuming to speak for them and without the church in convention (whether synod, district, or circuit) taking a partisan stand. The goal here, in Benne's words, is "to form the conscience of its own people regarding public issues"[146] by bringing God's Word to bear upon issues of vital importance to Christians, to the church, and to society itself. One way in which The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod speaks _intentionally_ to public issues is through official resolutions adopted by the Synod in convention. While it is often difficult to determine precisely and unambiguously to _whom_ the Synod is speaking in adopting resolutions on social, issues (see also "Direct and Intentional Influence," which follows), our concern here is with those resolutions that appear to be directed specifically primarily to the pastors, congregations, and institutions of the Synod itself and to the members of the Synod's congregations and institutions. The Synod, for example, has adopted numerous resolutions over the years regarding racism and racial discrimination. Typical is 1992 Res. 3-03, in which the Synod _Resolved_, That The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod urge its members to repent of any attitude or practice of racism as individuals and congregations; and be it further _Resolved_, That the Synod repudiate all racism and urge its members to celebrate God's love in Christ and their forgiveness and acceptance as God's children by loving and serving all their fellow humans as they have been loved and served, without any exception of persons, and to work toward social justice in their neighborhoods and workplaces and all areas of society. . . .[147] The speaking that takes place in this resolution is "intentional" in that the church here deliberately and specifically brings Scriptural truths and principles to bear upon a contemporary issue that is not only of ecclesial but also of social and political concern (and controversy). It is "indirect" in that the Synod's repudiation of racism is directed primarily to its own members (not to the state) and in that its call "to work toward social justice in their neighborhoods and workplaces and all areas of society" stops short of advocating any specific political agenda or strategy for achieving "racial justice" in the secular realm. Similarly, the Synod has adopted a significant number of resolutions addressing the problems of poverty and world hunger.[148] In 1986 Res. 71A, for example, it was "Resolved, that The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod in convention urge its congregations to seize every available opportunity to minister to total human need through intentional social ministry activity."[149] As with its resolutions on racism, the Synod here intentionally urges "intentional" action in response to problems of human need, but its urging is directed expressly to "its congregations" (not to politicians or political entities) and does not advocate any specific social or political program. In order to underscore the conscious and deliberate nature of the "indirect" aspect of this means of influencing the state, it might be helpful to consider several examples of issues concerning which the Synod expressly declined to take a specific public position even when urged by some in the Synod to do so. In 1981, for example, the Synod adopted Res. 8-10, "To Decline to Support Documentation for Undocumented Aliens." This resolution reads: _WHEREAS_, On the one hand, Christ has commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and for many of us undocumented aliens are residents of our local neighborhoods; and _WHEREAS_, On the other hand, to support documentation for undocumented aliens involves political decisions for which the church has neither adequate knowledge nor divine mandate on which to make a judgment; therefore be it _Resolved_, That the members of the Synod be reminded of their duty to show Christian compassion to undocumented aliens and not to exploit them but to help them seek legal documentation; and be it further _Resolved_, That the overture to support documentation for undocumented aliens be respectfully declined.[150]. Note, first of all, that the Synod did _not_ say that Scripture has no application whatsoever to this issue. On the contrary, the first "Whereas" reflects a clear recognition that certain passages of Scripture may indeed be brought to bear upon this issue, and the very wording of this resolution indicates that the concerns addressed here were sympathetically received by the convention. Ultimately, however, it is apparent that the decision not to take a specific public position was made on the basis of principles related to both "the message" and "the messenger." First, reasoned the Synod while Scripture speaks clearly regarding the need to show love to one" neighbor, it contains no unambiguous principle (no "divine mandate") or governmental policy regarding "documentation for undocumented aliens." Second, this lack of a clear Scriptural principle also impacts the priority of this issue for the church and the need for prudence in addressing it. The Synod argued that taking a position on this particular issue would be inappropriate because in this case the messenger (the Synod itself) was ill-equipped to do so, since it lacked the knowledge and expertise necessary for such speaking. To take such a position, said the Synod would necessarily involve "political decisions for which the church ha neither adequate knowledge nor divine mandate on which to make a judgement." The Synod may also have felt that this particular issue (as important as it may have been) did not impact critically enough upon the life c the church (either as the spiritual body of Christ or as a social institution to justify the risks associated with taking a public position. In view of the above, it is equally important to note that at this same convention the Synod strongly supported (as it had done in previous years) efforts "To Intensify Resettlement of Refugees.' 151 Although the "action" focus of this resolution was to develop and support "programs Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service," the Synod also resolved "commend the governments of the United States and Canada and call upon them to continue their involvement in the resettlement of many refugees from around the world." This resolution begins to involve Benne's third connection, _direct_ and _intentional_ speech by the church to the state. However, the way in which this issue is addressed indicates that the convention's primary concern was not so much to "influence" "over mental policy in a specific way or to take a specific "position" as to express support for refugee resettlement in general--primarily at the congregational level (cf. the final "Resolved" concerning individual and congregational "sponsorship" of refugees). In 1983, a number of overtures were submitted to the synodical convention regarding the issue of nuclear arms and "the nuclear freeze." One read: _Resolved_, That the LCMS declare that arms escalation and nuclear proliferation are against the best interest of the United States and the world, since they threaten to diminish, rather than enhance, the prospects for national and global security and peace; and be it further _Resolved_, That we urge our government to invite the Soviet Union and other nations to join us in a freeze on the development of any new nuclear weapons systems and on the production of any additional warheads or delivery vehicles within already developed weapons systems.[152] Other overtures expressly urged the Synod not to take a partisan position on this issue, but rather to encourage its members to acquaint themselves thoroughly both with the theological principles underlying the Lutheran two-kingdom model and with the relevant political issues, and to exercise their own moral judgment in responding to this matter. The Synod's response to these overtures came in Res. 3-06: _Resolved_, That we acknowledge the cause of all human contention and war to be man's sinful nature, and that we therefore intensify our efforts to call all people to repentance and to proclaim reconciliation in Christ as the only means of achieving true and lasting peace with fellow human beings; and be it further _Resolved_, That the Synod urge its congregations and members a. to study what the Scriptures and the Confessions have to say about world peace and the respective responsibilities of the state and its citizens, giving special attention to Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms and the nature of just wars (AC XVI, XXVIII, Ap. XVI); b. to carry out their duty as Christian citizens by becoming knowledgeable about issues such as the arms race, the nature and the results of the use of nuclear weapons, and the state of world affairs and by working within the framework of responsible participation within the political process to effect those policies which enhance the prospects for world peace; c. to support the efforts of our duly elected and appointed governmental authorities to carry out their constitutional and God-given responsibility to provide for the safety and welfare of the citizens of our country; d. to pray, both as individual Christians and in our congregations, that God in His mercy spare humankind from the horrors of nuclear war and guide the rulers of the nations to lead us in the way of world peace; and be it further _Resolved_, That The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in principle oppose the adoption of conscience binding pronouncements which are not based on the clear teachings of Holy Scripture; and be it finally _Resolved, That the Synod request the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and its Social Concerns Committee to carry out a basic study of the various aspects of the relationship between church and state, giving special attention to issues such as "who speaks for the church," "when," and on what basis."[l53] The second "Resolved" reflects the Synod's decision to speak to its own congregations and members regarding the issue, _not_ directly to the government. The third "Resolved" confirms the deliberate nature of this "indirect" speaking and the Synod's reluctance to bind the consciences of its members by attempting to speak _for_ them instead of _to_ them regarding an issue concerning which Christians equally committed to God's Word may in good conscience disagree. The final "Resolved" illustrates the Synod's awareness of the need for further careful study and discussion o the principles underlying the position taken in this resolution--the most concrete result of which has been the preparation of this very report. There are many more examples of synodical conventions bringing "indirect and intentional influence" to bear on social and political concerns. However, this means of influencing the state is not limited to convention resolutions, nor are such resolutions necessarily the most effective form of such influence. Various documents, statements, and resource have been developed by synodical entities regarding each of the issues discussed above, and these resources may well be more effective means "speaking to" and influencing members of synodical congregations the convention resolutions (though in many cases the latter have undoubtedly given rise to the former). In 1994, for example, the CTCR adopted and distributed a report on _Racism and the Church_ that addresses such topics as "Racism and the Necessity of a Christian Response," a "Biblical Perspective on Racism," and principles for "Combating Racism in the Church." As with synodical resolutions addressing this topic, the CTCR's report is based on the presupposition that racism involves fundamental principles to which the Scriptures speak clearly, but that society's response to racism involves a number of political complexities that require the church to be careful in speaking. This report speaks, therefore, primarily to individuals within the Synod itself, and it does so on the basis of biblical and confessional resources without specifically addressing the question of what specific governmental policies and regulations are best suited to dealing with racism as a social malady. Individual Christians, of course, must address such questions and make such decisions, and are free--even obligated--to participate in the partisan politics necessary to implement such measures. The underlying assumption of the CTCR's report, however, is that what the church can do best--and what should be its priority--is to address the root causes of racism within its own membership. Typically, therefore, such "indirect and intentional" speaking is best and most effectively carried out at the local level, through sermons, Bible classes, and congregational activities _intentionally_ focused on combating the problem of racism in church and society _without directly advocating_ specific social or political means of dealing with this problem. As individual Christians are moved to respond in various ways to this issue, social change will be effected among those predisposed to listen to the church's message and to look to its example: We in The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod have before us a wonderful opportunity to commit ourselves to strive toward making racism a thing of the past, and to demonstrate before a watching world how people of all cultures and groups can become one in Christ, who has made of many one body for the edification of all.[154] Similarly, a wide variety of programs and resources have been developed within the Synod (and in cooperation with other Lutheran churches) addressing the problems of poverty, human suffering, settlement of immigrants and refugees, and "war and peace" issues. Such programs and resources allow members of the Synod to focus intentionally on these issues on the basis of Scriptural principles, while leaving necessary room for individual Christians to form their own opinions about the wisdom of specific governmental policies and to make decisions about personal involvement in ecclesial and/or social efforts and activities in these areas. Obviously, there is subjectivity involved in determining when and how to speak indirectly but intentionally to social issues. This will become even more evident in the next section, as we discuss situations and issues concerning which the Synod _did_, in fact, decide to take a partisan position("partisan" in the sense that it does, admittedly, side with some and not with others in social and political debate). Again, that Christians equally committed to the same principles may disagree about the most appropriate means to employ in a given situation, well illustrates the _inevitable complexity and ambiguity of the Lutheran two-kingdom model itself_. Indeed, if the Scriptural validity and practical value of the two-kingdom model is to be maintained, we must learn to view such "inconsistencies" and disagreements not only as inevitable, but as a positive and healthy outgrowth of Scripture's teaching regarding the relationship between church and state. Such differences, when there is agreement in principle, actually serve to clarify our grasp of what is truly essential to Christian fellowship and service (cf. AC VII). _DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL INFLUENCE_ In the previous section we discussed examples of issues concerning which the Synod, at various times, has considered it appropriate or even necessary to speak intentionally (though indirectly) regarding specific social issues, despite the ambiguity and risks involved in such speaking. Obviously, even greater risks are involved when the church speaks not only intentionally but also directly to the state--when the church aligns itself publicly with a specific social or political position or strategy or when it speaks directly to the state regarding matters that, properly speaking, are the responsibility not of the church but of the state. Such risks notwithstanding, the Synod has chosen to engage in this type of speaking on a _limited number of occasions_ regarding issues that it deemed to be of critical importance for the church's life and work, its witness, or its own moral responsibility (_as church_) to seek and promote the welfare of the state and its citizens. In the preceding discussion we made reference to the Synod's various resolutions on racism as an example of Benne's second connection between church and state. In 1986, however, the Synod adopted a resolution on racial discrimination in which it expressly denounced a specific political system and publicly declared its position as a church body concerning this form of government. Res. 7-08A reads: _WHEREAS_, Christ commands His disciples to love everyone (Mark 12:31, Matt. 5:44); and _WHEREAS_, Racial discrimination occurs throughout the world; and _WHEREAS_, This discrimination is particularly fostered by the system of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa; and _WHEREAS_, We abhor racial discrimination wherever it occurs; and _WHEREAS_, Christians have a moral responsibility to advocate for victims of racial discrimination; therefore be it _Resolved_, That all Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod members be encouraged to undertake a self-examination with respect to their attitude toward all people; and be it further _Resolved_, That congregations through worship, prayer, and Bible study groups assist in sensitizing members to evils of racial discrimination so that they may through the love of Christ respond to the needs of the oppressed; and be it further _Resolved_, That The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod declare publicly that it denounces apartheid as well as other forms of racial discrimination; and be it finally _Resolved_, That The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to develop ways and means to share the love of Jesus Christ in all parts of the world and to bear witness to the reconciliation that is possible in Christ. That this was a controversial issue for the delegates to the 1986 convention is reflected in the notation accompanying this resolution. Two amendments were debated (and ultimately declined), one calling for the deletion of the specific reference to "apartheid" and the other suggesting the inclusion of a qualifying phrase indicating that the Synod does not "countenance the use of any violence against those who support apartheid in South Africa."[155] This resolution raises a number of questions pertinent to our discussion. Was it necessary for the Synod to speak directly to this issue and not only to its members, but _for_ them? Was such speaking worth the risks referred to earlier? There are no easy answers, and compelling arguments could undoubtedly be adduced on various sides of this issue. Perhaps more fruitful for our purposes, however, is to attempt to discern the Synod's reasons for deciding to employ such direct speech in this case. These reasons appear to be linked closely to concerns about "the message" that the Synod would be sending by adopting--or by not adopting--this resolution. Obviously, the Scriptures do not address specifically the political system called "apartheid." Scripture does, however, speak clearly regarding the sinfulness of racial discrimination and the "moral responsibility" (cf. the final "Whereas" of Res. 7-08A) of Christians to speak and act in behalf of the victims of such discrimination. In the case of racial discrimination, furthermore, there is an obvious responsibility of government itself to act justly and impartially. It is clear that the focus of Res. 7-08A is not so much on apartheid as a "sin" but on the social consequences of the racism perpetuated by this form of government. Thus the purpose of this resolution is not to call the nation of South Africa to "repentance" but to make clear the Synod's concern for those victimized by an inherently unjust system of government. The foregoing discussion assumes, moreover (as does the resolution itself), that in the case of apartheid it is simply impossible to separate "political system" from "racial discrimination," since this system itself is inherently racist. The Synod undoubtedly recognized that its _failure_ to speak on this issue when specifically challenged to do so (and when other churches sensitive to the risks were also speaking out on this issue) would also send a clear message, whether accurate or not: The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod tolerates, does not care about, or perhaps even advocates racial discrimination. Confronted with this set of circumstances, those representing the Synod at this convention apparently felt that racism was indeed a "priority issue" requiring direct speech, and that it was more prudent to speak than not to speak in this specific instance. It should be noted, however, that the final "Resolved" of this resolution puts the focus back on the _church_ and its responsibility, through its members, to fight racial discrimination by means of the Gospel: "Resolved, That The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to develop ways and means to share the love of Jesus Christ in all parts of the world and to bear witness to the reconciliation that is possible in Christ." Another interesting (and also problematic) aspect of speaking to apartheid is that, strictly speaking, the "state" to which the Synod was speaking in Res. 7-08A was not its own government. However, by speaking publicly on this issue the Synod was also, in effect, communicating its concerns to anyone who might be interested in listening (including other concerned church bodies, businesses, and politicians). A second example of "direct and intentional influence" brings us a bit closer to home, as we consider the Synod's response to the issue of child care. The Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions view the family as the basic social unit. Yet, as a social unit, family life will vary considerably from culture to culture and from generation to generation. Therefore, in spite of a priority concern for the family, the Synod nevertheless has exercised great care with its speaking to specific family issues. For example, in 1989, when Congress was debating the passage of various child care bills, the Synod's Office of Government Information (OGI) worked together with the Schools Department of the Board for Parish Services to craft basic guiding principles underlying the Synod's concerns about federally funded child care. Of particular concern was the effect of legislation on the Synod's many schools and early childhood education centers (a legitimate institutional concern). The principles were disseminated to members of congregations through synodical publications as well as to district education staff. The speaking to government that the Synod did on the basis of these principles was careful and restrained, stressing the potential for adverse effects on religious child care providers. The purpose of the Synod's speaking on these matters was _not_ the advocacy of federal child care legislation but the enunciation of _concerns about federal involvement_ in an area of _significant ministry_ by synodical congregations. The "messenger" in this case was not the church as "spiritual body of Christ" but the church as a "social institution"--an institution with legitimate concerns about specific legislation that would have a real impact on it and other churches as institutions In effect, the Synod was advocating the so-called "Kurland rule," a Supreme Court decision that states that "if a policy furthers a legitimate secular purpose it is a matter of legal indifference whether or not that policy employs religious institutions."[156] 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 implementation of this option. As a result, OGI organized a project by which districts 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 fundamental concerns for the family and for congregational education ministries on behalf of families. Therefore, the Synod President deemed it necessary 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 _not_ 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 Resolution 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-Christians 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 coercive force or an embarrassing situation for both Christians and non-Christians. Under these circumstances we believe that it is best for the public school not to engage in prayer or other religious worship exercises.[157] 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 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 conceded that "there are some questions that have to be answered.''[l58] While it seems clear that the President of the Synod in this case was not intending 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 speaking 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 principle pertinent to this debate. _DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL ACTION_ The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has rarely, if ever, venture into the arena of Benne's fourth connection between church and state taking "direct and intentional action" with the explicit goal of changing 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 undermining the unique and primary mission of the church as defined by Scripture, and thus compromising and undermining the Gospel itself. Nevertheless, the Synod has at times taken specific actions that (it might argued) go beyond Benne's third connection of "direct and intentional _influence_." One of the few social issues concerning which the Synod has been willing to take a (more or less) "activist" role is abortion. While presumably recognizing the risks and dangers of such an approach, the Synod has nevertheless 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 l59 that failure to speak and under certain circumstances 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 congregations, 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 influence." But the Synod has also adopted resolutions of support for Lutherans for Life, a pan-Lutheran organization with an educational ministry that promotes legal protection for the unborn. Also, the Synod has clearly, publicly, and repeatedly stated its position on abortion, declaring it to be "not a moral option, except as a tragically unavoidable byproduct of medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of another human being, viz., the mother" and expressly encouraging Christians "to speak and act as responsible citizens on behalf of the living but unborn in the civic and political arena to secure for these defenseless persons due protection under the law."[160] 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 intentional influence." The Synod's speaking becomes particularly "direct" in 1979 Res. 32A 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."[161] This is a direct attempt on the part of the Synod to help to effect, albeit through its representatives, specific 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 v. 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 acknowledging the Synod's "profound belief that human life begins at conception"[162] and its opposition to willful abortion, it continued with reasonable arguments grounded in American constitutional principles. The brief argument that, under the U.S. constitution, a state legislature is the proper body determine whether a state has a protectable interest in the life of an unborn human being.[l63] The brief also argued: 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 life, only the protection of another human life, i.e. 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 considered 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 prohibiting abortion.[164] 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 government on its own terms, as a temporal rather than spiritual kingdom.[l65] Appeals were made to constitutional principles and historical precedent, particularly the role of representative legislative assemblies.[l66] 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 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.[l67] 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 central 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 important to any discussion about which issues and circumstances may call for similar "actions" by the church. We stated earlier that "direct political action by the institutional church involves the exercise of civil power and that power has always had a corrupting 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 consistently 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. _EPILOG "WHO SPEAKS FOR THE CHURCH?"_ The original impetus for this study was the 1983 Synod convention resolution (Res. 306A) that asked, "who speaks for the church," "when," and "on what basis" on issues of social concern. We have seen what complicated questions these actually are, and how difficult it is to give simple answers or even any answer that adequately addresses all of the many elements that constitute the enduring problem of church and state. One of the important elements of an answer for confessional Lutherans 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 perspective, the church speaks most appropriately through the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. While this is certainly "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 occupations 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 perspective, 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 individual 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. Still another important element of an answer for confessional Lutherans is our understanding of the church as a participant also in the temporal 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 appropriately 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 confessional Lutherans is a clear process by which the institutional church may speak and accountability for that speaking.[l68] 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 according to the adage "where there's a will, there's a way." It may very well be that, in such a cumbersome process, the institutional church will miss many opportunities to say important things. But the day-to-day political process does not 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 attention 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 everlastingly faithful God. ________________________________________________________ ENDNOTES AND CITATIONS [1] James Davison Hunter, _Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America_ (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 34; 42. [2] Ibid., 42. Richard John Neuhaus agrees: "Our present moment and the decades ahead it is reasonable to think, may best be described as a _Kulturkampf_ over the defining of the American experiment. From Providence to Privacy: Religion and the Redefinition of America in _Unsecular America_, ed. Richard John Neuhaus (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1986), 60. [3] OS Guinness, _The American Hour: A Time of Reckoning and the Once and Future Role Faith_ (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 4. [4] Ibid., 20. [5] Ibid., 19. [6] _The Life of Reason_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1905-6), 1:284. [7] See, e.g., Ethelbert Stauffer, _Christ and the Caesars_, trans. K. and R. Gregor Smith London: SCM Press LTD, 1955); Edward Gibbon, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (New York: The Modern Library, n.d.), 161. [8] _In Excelsis: Hymns with Tunes for Christian Worship_ (New York: The Century Co., 1897), hymn 637:1. [9] John Emerich Edward Dahlberg Acton, _Essays on Freedom and Power_ (Boston: Beacon Press, 1948), 364. [10] See Richard A. Horsley with John S. Hanson, _Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus_ (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985): "Study of Jewish social banditry may shed some light on the way in which Jesus was arrested (as if a brigand, Mark 14:48) and on the crucifixion scene, in which Jesus was crucified with two brigands. . . . More importantly, the occurrence of banditry illustrates the disintegrating social conditions in which Jesus' words and actions would have found a resonant response" (256). [11] Martin H. Scharlemann writes in his "Scriptural Concepts of the Church and the State," in _Church and State under God_, ed. Albert G. Huegli (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964), 30: "There is nowhere in the words and works of Jesus even the shadow of a suggestion that the state and its authority were institutions He proposed to ignore or to escape. On the contrary, before Pilate He recognized the claims of political authority over Him as a subject of Rome, although He had to remind the Roman procurator that he exercised a power that did not basically derive from his position as a Roman official but from God's will'' [12] Gibbon, 25-26. Cf. "Christianity and the Roman Government" (ch. 10) in _A History of the Christian Church_, 4th ed., ed. Williston Walter et al (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons 1985). [13]. Stauffer, 210. R.J. Rushdoony, writing in _The Politics of Guilt and Pity_ (Fairfax, Thoburn Press, 1978; 304-5), agrees: "The empire was ready to "rant 'religious freedom the church _provided_ the church recognized the right of the state to grant that freedom, which meant a recognition of the state as the principle of order. . . . All religions and all gods could have their place in Rome, as long as the Roman state and its emperor were recognized as link between the human and the divine orders." [14] Scharlemann, 36: "The member of the church could not in good conscience render to the state what properly belongs only to God. His faith, expressed most briefly in the formula 'Jesus is Lord,' ran head on into the pagan insistence that 'Caesar is Lord.'" [15] Steven Ozment, _The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 156-57. [16] Ibid., 162-63. [17] Martin Luther, "Eight Sermons at Wittenberg" (1522), _Luther's Works_, American Edition [hereafter LW] (Philadelphia: Fortress Press and St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958-67), 51:77. [18] RW. Scribner, "Politics and the Institutionalization of Reform in Germany," in _The New Cambridge Modern History_, vol. 2, _The Reformation 1520-1559_, 2nd ea., ed. G.R Elton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),172-73. [19] John Stephens, _The Italian Renaissance: The Origins of Intellectual and Artistic Change before the Reformation_ (New York: Longman, 1990), 210. [20] Overall, each of the three major regions in which the Reformation proved successful--central Europe, northern Europe, and England--demonstrate the crucial importance of the state in initiating and defending the reforms. Town councils, territorial princes, and centralized monarchies. . .held control of many of the resources on which the fate of religious reforms depended: influence over the selection and payment of clergy, power to mandate certain styles of public worship, military force or financial leverage capable of intimidating interested parties from the outside and quashing popular upheaval from below, legal authority to convene religious councils and disputations, oversight of publishing and book distribution, and responsibility for doling out public assistance. Where social conditions made it possible for ruling bodies to exercise these functions at their own discretion, their role cast a decisive imprint on the Reformation." Robert Wuthnow, _Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and European Socialism_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 81. [21] Ibid., 116. [22] Martin Luther, "Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia" (1525), _LW_ 46:18. [23] Martin Luther, "Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants" (1525), _LW_ 46:50. [24] Scribner, 176. [25] "In his exegetical sermons on the first two chapters of the Gospel of John, 1537/38, he fulminated at length against the nobles, princes, and jurists who wish to teach the preachers what they should preach and wish to force people to the sacrament on the grounds that one must obey the secular authority. 'Where the princes in that way mix things together as they now do, God help us that we do not live long and see such a misfortune, for there the Christian religion must fall in ruins, as happened under Popery, when the bishops became secular princes. And if now the secular lords become popes and bishops, so that one must preach for their benefit and say what they gladly hear, then the very devil himself preaches; he will also preach. We, however, may beseech God that both sides refrain from misusing their office in that way.'" Lewis W. Spitz, "Luther's Ecclesiology and His Concept of the Prince as _Notbischof_," _Church History_ 22 (March 1953):133 34. See _LW_ 22:228. [26] The role of the town is particularly clear in the Swiss Reformation. Both Zwingli and Calvin based their reforms in the right of town councils in Zurich and Geneva respectively to act also as church councils. For Zwingli, all doctrinal and ecclesiastical questions were to be settled by the Scriptures and civil government had both the right and the duty to see that the rulings of Scripture were observed: "As Zwingli understood the problem church and society were one; to maintain the unity of the commonwealth was to defend the church." Robert C. Walton, "Was There a Turning Point of the Zwinglian Reformation?" _The Mennonite Quarterly Review_ 42, no. 1 January 1968): 56. Drawing heavily upon Old Testament Israel as a model, Zwingli saw Zurich's social stability as dependent upon a proper obedience to God. Since, even before the Reformation, the town council already supervised the appointment and dismissal of clergy, it has been argued that Zwingli (like Luther) was simply working within the political system he inherited. [27] "Only in those settings in which the central regimes obtained a substantial degree of financial and administrative autonomy from the landed elite was it possible for Reformation ideas to gain active and decisive support." Wuthnow, 115. [28] "Admonition to Peace," _LW_ 46:32. [29] See Cynthia Grant Schoenberger, "The Development of the Lutheran Theory of Resistance: 1523-1530," _Sixteenth Century Journal_ 8, no. 1 (April 1977): 61-76. [30] See Oliver K. Olson, "Theology of Revolution: Magdeburg, 1550-51," _Sixteenth Century Journal_ 3, no. 1 (April 1972): 56-79. [31] "Not until the twentieth century would the Western world again know the wanton pillaging, raping, and killing of a semi-guerilla force which no government could command. As the last great war of those men who hired themselves out to governments, then raised armies which preyed on the peasants and townsmen, the Thirty Years' War stands unique--a series of bloody campaigns in which civilians often suffered more grievously than soldiers." John A. Garraty and Peter Gay, eds., _The Columbia History of the World_ (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 584. [32] Robert M. Bigler, _The Politics of German Protestantism: The Rise of the Protestant Church Elite in Prussia, 1815-1848_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 38. [33] Neuhaus, 52-53. [34] A. James Reichley, _Religion in American Public Life_ (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1985), 74. [35] Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, _Telling the Truth about History_ (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994), 92. [36] Guinness, 270. [37] Quoted in Reichley, 86. [38] Ibid., 90. [39] Ibid., 165-66. [40] "The United States of America was not, therefore, a secular state; it might more accurately be described as a moral and ethical society without a state religion." Paul Johnson, "The Almost-Chosen People: Why America Is Different," in _Unsecular America_, 6. [41] Reichley (96) notes that, "On the eve of the Revolution, only three colonies had no provision for an established church: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. . . . In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, the Congregational church was established, with various provisions permitting Anglicans and dissenters to form their own churches, sometimes with government subsidies. In New York, New Jersey, and the five southern colonies, the Anglican church was established in one form or another." [42] The First Amendment reads: "_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof_; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." US Const, Amend I (emphasis added). [43] See Reichley, 113. [44] Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by Madison, wrote that the First Amendment did not even prevent the government from encouraging Christianity generally (or discouraging Islam, Judaism, atheism, etc.) but only excluded "all rivalry among Christian sects." The general sentiment of the founders, according to Story, was that "Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as it was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and freedom of religious worship." Quoted in Benjamin Hart, "The Wall That Protestantism Built," _Policy Review_ 46 (Fall 1988): 51. [45] Johnson, 10. [46] See, e.g., Walther's address on "Earthly Authorities" to the 26th Western District Convention (1885), _Essays for the Church_, vol. 2,1877-1886 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992). See also Walther's address on "Church and State" to the Eighth Western District Convention (1862), Essays for the Church, vol. 1, 1857-1879 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992). [47] Robert Kolb, "An Historian's Reflections on Luther's Concept of the Two Governments" (an unpublished paper delivered to a conference on church and state sponsored by the LCMS in Washington, D.C., in 1986). Kolb elaborates: "At least two matters are worth observing: the political and religious were sharply differentiated in Walther's mind; this political activity received his support and the support of the Synod and congregation." See also Arnold F. Krugler, "What If? Missouri Synod's Political Journal," _The Cresset_ 38, no. 7 (May 1975): 24-26. [48] Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_ (Vintage, 1945) 1:316. Quoted in Reichly, 113. [49] The Fourteenth Amendment includes the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US Const, Amend XIV, 1. [50] _Reynolds v United States_, 98 US 150 (1878). Quoted in Reichley, 121. [51] The message that God is on the throne created the fruitful tension basic to Western society, caused the Reformation of the church, guaranteed our own liberties in the Bill of Rights, and holds back the tidal wave of social evils. This message comes from no other source than from the church. In our country's third century it is our turn to say it." Oliver K. Olson, "The Revolution and the Reformation," in _The Left Hand of God: Essays on Discipleship and Patriotism_, ed. William H. Lazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 30. [52] Francis Oakley, _The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974),114. [53] "Covenantalism, or chartered pluralism, is therefore a vision of religious liberty in public life that, across the deep religious differences of a pluralistic society, guarantees and sustains religious liberty for all by forging a substantive agreement, or freely chosen compact, over three things that are the 'Three Rs' of religious liberty: rights, responsibilities respect. The compact affirms: first, in terms of rights, that religious liberty, or free conscience, is a fundamental and inalienable right for peoples of all faiths and none; in term of responsibilities, that religious liberty is a universal right joined to a universal duty to respect that right for others, and third, in terms of respect, that the first principles of religious liberty, combined with the lessons of two hundred years of constitutional experience require and shape certain practical guidelines by which a robust yet civil discourse sustained in a free society that would remain free." Guinness, 250-51. [54] Note that the discussion is focused on the relationship between church and state and not the separation--often understood as divorce--between church and state. See Ernest B. Koenker, "The Two Realms and 'The Separation of Church and State' in American Society," _Concordia Theological Monthly_ 27, no. 1 January 1956): 1-12. [55] H. Richard Niebuhr writes of the value of interpretive models in his study of the "enduring problem" of Christ and culture: "Yet it is possible to discern some order in this multiplicity, to stop the dialogue, as it were, at certain points; and to define typical partial answers that recur so often in different eras and societies that they seem to be less the product of historical conditioning than of the nature of the problem itself and the meaning of its terms. In this way the course of the great conversation about Christ and culture may be more intelligently followed, and some of the fruits of the discussion may be garnered." _Christ and Culture_ (New York: Harper and Row, 1951), 40. [56] Tertullian, _Apology_, xxxviii. Quoted in Niebuhr, 54. [57] Niebuhr, 42. [58] Ibid., 217. [59] Ibid., 43-44. [60] See John R. Stephenson, "The Two Governments and the Two Kingdoms in Luther's: Thought," _Scottish Journal of Theology_ 34, no. 4 (August 1981): 321-37. [61] _LW_ 45:75-129. [62] See William H. Lazareth, _Luther on the Christian Home: An Application of the Social Ethics of the Reformation_ (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960),102-31. [63] For a helpful discussion of civil righteousness, see Holsten Fagerberg, _A New Look at the Lutheran Confessions_ (1529-1537), trans. Gene J. Lund (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), 102-11. [64] Lazareth, _Luther on the Christian Home_, 113: "Christians are voluntarily to submit themselves to the authority and demands of civil officers and rulers for the sake of the general welfare of the community. Believers and non-believers alike are all children of God whom Christians are to look upon as 'neighbors' in need of personal love and social justice. The question of bearing arms on behalf of the civil community--in the light of the non-resistance demands of the Sermon on the Mount--is thereby settled in terms of the two kingdoms. Personally, no man may take up the sword on his own behalf as one Christian acting among other Christians (under the gospel). But socially, he may bear arms as a Christian citizen acting on behalf of others in the larger community of non-Christians (under the law). In a fallen and sinful world, Christian love will often have to do some strange and dirty work (_opus alienum_) in order to protect the good and punish the wicked." [65] _Works of Martin Luther_ (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Co., 191 32) 3:241-42. Quoted in Lazareth, _Luther on the Christian Home_, 114. [66] Robert Kolb, "Christian Civic Responsibility in an Age of Judgment," _Concordia Journal_ 19, no. 1 January 1993): 20. [67] "If, then, we are to do justice to the complexity of Luther's thought, we must carefully distinguish: (1) natural reason, ruling within its proper domain (the Earthly Kingdom); (2) arrogant reason, trespassing upon the domain of faith (the Heavenly Kingdom); (3) regenerate reason, serving humbly in the household of faith, but always subject to the Word of God. Within the first context, reason is an excellent gift of God; within the second, it is Frau Hulda, the Devil's Whore; within the third, it is the handmaiden of faith." B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Reason: A Study in the Theology of Luther (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962), 26. [68] _Temporal Authority_," LW 45:93. [69] Ibid., 105; 114. [70] Helmut Thielicke, _Theological Ethics_, vol. 2, _Politics_, ed. William H. Lazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 567. [71] Herman Sasse, _Here We Stand: The Nature and Character of the Lutheran Faith_, trans. Theodore G. Tappert (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938),137. Sasse zeroes in on the essential difference between Lutheran and Reformed: "Both communions wish to distinguish the Gospel from the Law and yet indicate the relation which subsists between them. Both acknowledge that the chief article of the Christian faith is the forgiveness of sins: the Lutherans consider it the whole content of the Gospel, while the Reformed consider it the principal content of the Gospel. Both know that Christ preached the Law as well as the Gospel, even as the Old Testament contains the Gospel as well as the Law. Both know that the church must proclaim the whole Word of God, both the Law and the Gospel. The difference lies in the fact that the Reformed believe that both Law and Gospel are parts of Christ's real work, and consequently are essential functions of the church; the Lutheran Church, on the other hand, teaches that the preaching of the Law is the "strange," and the preaching of the Gospel is the "real," work of Christ, and that accordingly, although the church must also preach the Law--how else could it proclaim the Gospel?--the only thing which is essential to its nature as the church of Christ is that it is the place, the only place in all the world, in which the blessed tidings of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake are heard" (121). [72] "Franky Schaeffer's approach to abortion. . .is predicated on the assumption that faith must prove itself in obedience. Therefore, he challenges a Lutheran's 'right' to worship God if the necessary response to abortion is absent. Furthermore, he declares that the 'proof' will be found, not merely in personal conviction or testimony, but in particular political actions such as picketing abortion clinics and writing Congressmen. The Lutheran must respond to these statements with an unequivocal reaffirmation of justification by faith alone." David R. Liefeld, "Abortion and the Two Kingdoms," _Concordia Journal_ 12, no. 6 (November 1986): 212. [73] "Adrnonition to Peace," _LW_ 46:35. [74] Ibid., 22. On the other hand, Gerhard O. Forde issues a helpful caution against absolutizing Luther's political judgments: "As a medieval man he was entirely caught up in mythology of the status quo. He was afraid of change and revolution and had no faith in popular movements. This he did not see. If he had been more aware of his own blind spot perhaps his decision might have been different. At least, even though we come to understand his theological reasons, we need not concur with his final decision--especially not if the cruel and intemperate manner in which it was expressed." _Where God Meets Man: Luther's Down-to-Earth Approach to the Gospel_ (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972 09-10. [75] Robert Kolb, "God Calling, 'Take Care of My People': Luther's Concept of Vocation in the Augsburg Confession and Its Apology," _Concordia Journal_ 8, no. 1 January 1982):13 [76] Cf. William H. Lazareth, "Lutheran Ethics," in _The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics_, ed. James E. Childress and John Macquarrie (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), 360 63. [71] John F. Johnson, "Confessional Lutheranism and Civil Affairs: The Contemporary Significance of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine" (an unpublished paper delivered to a conference on church and state sponsored by the LCMS in Washington, D.C., in 1986). [78] This subject is also addressed clearly in Melanchthon's _Loci Communes_ of 1543: "The Gospel clearly teaches that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual. Christ sits at the right hand of the Father and intercedes for us, and gives the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins to the church, that is, to those who believe in Him and call upon God with confidence in Him that He will sanctify them, so that He may raise them up on the last day to eternal glory. . . . The Jewish error of the Anabaptists must be rejected and condemned. They have the notion that the church before the last day will be some kind of civil and worldly state in which the godly will rule, and by force of arms destroy all the ungodly and occupy all the empires of the world." Philip Melanchthon, _Loci Communes_ 1543, trans. J.A.O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992),176. [79] The Journals of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, trans. Theodore G. Tappert and John Doberstein (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 3:121. [80] Christa R. Klein with Christian D. von Dehsen, _Politics and Policy: The Genesis and Theology of Social Statements in the Lutheran Church in America _(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 11. Reginald Dietz summarized the perspective of American Lutherans before World War this way: "Liberals and conservatives alike agreed that personal salvation was the church's basic mission. Liberals were simply a bit more venturesome in staking out for the church society a somewhat broader area of responsibility for judgment, rebuke, criticism, guidance and education. All agreed that whatever public action was to be taken to deal with the specific ills was the responsibility not of the church but of individual Christians as citizens, workers and employers. The church as such must eschew the roles of political lobby and reform movement." "Eastern Lutheranism in American Society and American Christianity 1870-1914" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1958), 25-56. Quoted in Klein and von Dehsen, 12. [81] See George W. Sandt, _Theodore Emanuel Schmauk_ (Philadelphia: United Lutheran Publication House, 1921), 279. Quoted in Klein and von Dehsen, 11-12. [82] 0n the issue of temperance, the General Synod learned how to take a corporate activist stance. From 1866 to 1917, this issue dwarfed all other social concerns in the Synod. Three responses demonstrate forms of activity which would become more common in the mid-twentieth century. First, the General Synod was drawn into corporate public advocacy. Second, it organized a committee with funding from the general treasury and eventually hired an administrator. Third, it developed links to a political lobby and came into the orbit of churches which founded the Federal Council of Churches in 1908. Temperance more than the Social Gospel accomplished this shift." Klein and von Dehsen, 12-13. [83] Frederick K Wentz, _Lutherans in Concert: The Story of the National Lutheran Council, 1918-1966_ (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1968), 31. [84] Ibid., 87. In the 1930s, The American Lutheran Conference (consisting of all the members of the National Lutheran Council except the ULCA) also created a Commission Social Relations, but its mandate was limited to keeping denominational leaders abreast of social issues. During the Depression, there was little impetus for new ventures in cooperative church work in social ministry because Lutherans were not in agreement regarding the New Deal. [85] Ibid., 124-25. [86] See Ralph Moellering, "Lutherans on Social Problems, 1917 to 1940," _Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly_ 42, no. 1 (February 1969): 27-40. [87] Four men who studied at both Philadelphia's Lutheran Seminary and New York's Union Seminary played key leadership roles in the ULCA: Harold Letts, Rufus Cornelsen, George Forell, and William Lazareth. According to Klein and von Dehsen (39), Lazareth "would become one of the most influential voices, first as a board member and later as the staff director of the unit charged with drafting social statements " [88] "Let us say it dialectically with St. Paul and Luther in this way: although Christians, as forgiven sinners, are _free in faith_ from the religious fulfillment of the divine demands of the law as a way of eternal salvation; they are simultaneously, as social citizens, _responsible in love_ for the ethical performance of the civil demands of the law as God's means for their communal preservation (I Cor. 9:20). In short, the Christian is free from the red light in the chancel which presumes to direct traffic to God, but not from the red light on the street corner which directs traffic among men. It is with this latter, non-redemptive expression of God's rule that we are here concerned." William Lazareth, "Christian Faith and Culture," in _Christian Social Responsibility_, vol. 3, _Life in Community_, ed. Harold C. Letts (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), 54. [89] Ibid., 71. [90] _Taito Almar Kantonen_, "Christian Faith and the Political Order," in Christian Social Responsibility, 143. [91] Cf. Klein and von Dehsen, 39. [92] Ibid., 62-71. [93] Charles P. Lutz, _Public Voice: Social Policy Development in the American Lutheran Church_, 1960 1987 (ALC Standing Committee for Church in Society, 1987), 3. [94] Ibid., 10. [95] After 1970, the ALC had a system of ranking social statements: "comment and counsel," adopted by 51% of the delegates in order to stimulate the thought and action of church members, "judgment and conviction," adopted by 60% of the delegates in order to contribute to societal debate; and "policy and practice," adopted by two-thirds of delegates, in order to determine ALC institutional behavior. Statements of judgment and conviction as well as policy and practice were considered to be a speaking of the church body to the larger society. Between 1973 and 1987, Presiding Bishop David Preus also spoke often to public issues. [96] Lutz, 10. [97] Ibid., 25. [98] Debra Illingworth Greene, "LOGA Gives Lutherans Voice in D.C.," _The Lutheran_ 6, no. 6 June 1993): 36. [99] Even David W. Preus, the last bishop of The American Lutheran Church has publicly called on the ELCA to "close Lutheran lobbying offices at national and state legislatures." Well known for his personal involvement in social justice issues, Preus nevertheless wrote: "Synod and churchwide assemblies appear more interested in claiming church legislative majorities on contentious public issues than in providing theological resources to help members do their own wrestling with those issues. In its legislative mode the national church seen as accepting 'the world's' agenda (social issues). David W. Preus, "What Is to Be Done? ELCA Responses," _Lutheran Forum_ 28, no. 3 (August 1994):17-19. [100] F. Dean Lucking, _A Century of Caring: The Welfare Ministry among Missouri Synod Lutherans 1868-1968_ (St. Louis: LCMS Board of Social Ministry, 1968), 55. [101] Ibid., 56. [102] 1965 Res. 1-01E (1965 _Proceedings_, 81). [103] 1971 Res. 907 (1971 _Proceedings_, 192). [104] _Social Ministry Blueprint for the Decade Ahead_, Convention Edition: Wichita 1989 (November, 1984; revised November, 1985, January, 1988, and December, 1988: LCMS Board for Social Ministry Services), 13 (emphasis added). Cf. 1986 _Workbook_, 345-46 and 1986 Res. 7-02A (1986 _Proceedings_, 209). [105] _Social Ministry Blueprint for the Decade Ahead_, 14-15. [106] Lueking, 65. [107] "Statement of Affirmation," II.A.3; III, prologue; "Public Policy Recommendations,'' VIII. [108] 1983 Res. 3-06A (1983 _Proceedings_, 155-56). [109] "Tuition Tax Credits and The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod," Board for Parish Services, The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Information Bulletin #32283. [110] 1. The President of the Synod shall be responsible for communicating the official position of the Synod to all branches of the federal government. He may do this directly or through the Office of Government Information of the Synod, or through another synodical staff person as he deems appropriate. It shall be the general policy of all departments and administrative units of the Synod that relations with federal legislative and executive branches of the government be established in cooperation with OGI. . . Continuation of such contact may then occur with the knowledge and approval of the office of the President. 2. All official position statements by any board, commission, department or administrative unit to the federal legislative, executive or judicial branches of government shall be approved by the President of the Synod or his designated representative and reported to the Board of Directors. If any emerging issue goes beyond established policy of the Synod, the Synodical President shall be consulted and his approval requested. The Office of Government Information will assist in the development of such statements by reviewing pertinent legislation and regulation and by providing information and counsel. All such statements shall be in harmony with policies of the Synod adopted in convention as well as the Lutheran theology of two kingdoms. (Policy Statement--Board of Directors: F-8, "Relations with Governmental Units") [111]. The opening speech by President D. Moeller at the Dresden _Kirchentag_ captured the spirit of this crisis: "We can do nothing else here but bear solemn witness to what rich blessings have issued from the previous close relations between state and church upon both state and church, and through both of these upon the people and the fatherland. Moreover, we can do nothing else here but in deep grief bear solemn witness how the churches of our fatherland owe a deep debt of gratitude to the rulers who have been their patrons." See _Verhandlungen des Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchentags 1919_ (Berlin: Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenausschuss, 1920), 57-58. Quoted in Klaus Scholder, _The Churches and the Third Reich_, vol. 1, _Preliminary History and the Time of Illusions 1918-1934_, trans. John bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, [1977] 1988), 4. [112] Scholder, 37: "The solemnity of this view, which has become alien to us today, should not cause us to overlook the fact that at the time it represented a vital claim--of undoubted truth and seriousness. The connection between religion and morality formed the centre this common Protestant world-view. The conviction was that the meaning of individual human existence and of humanity as a whole lay in the development of an ever higher, more perfect morality; and that the Christian religion was the goal as well as the instrument of this development." [113] Robert P. Ericksen, _Theologians under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 26. [114] Ibid., 117-119. [115] Ibid., 119. [116] Wilhelm Stapel, _Die Kirche Christi und der Stuat Hitlers_ (Hamburg, 1933), 65-70; Stapel, _Volkskirche oder Sekte?_ (Hamburg, 1934), 57. Quoted in Scholder, 422. [117] "At the latest after 1941 the National Socialist leaders were dear about the need to annihilate Christianity in Germany because of the ideological rebellion of the churches. . . . However, tactical considerations meant that this aim had to be kept back until the end of the war." Klaus Scholder, _A Requiem for Hitler and Other New Perspectives on the German Church Struggle_, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1989), 116. [118] Scholder, _A Requiem for Hitler_, 130-39. [119] J. Beckmann, ed., _Kirchliches Jahrbuch 1933-1944_ (1976), 146. Quoted in Scholder, ibid., 139. [120] Karl Barth, _Eine Schweizer Stimme, 1938-1945_ (Zollikon-Zurich, 1945), 113. Quoted in William Lazareth, "The Twentieth Century Recovery of Lutheran Political Responsibility," in _The Ethic of Power: The Interplay of Religion, Philosophy, and Politics_, ed. Harold Lasswell Harlan Cleveland (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 127. [121] Karl Barth, _Community, State and Church: Three Essays_ (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1960), 80. Quoted in William Lazareth, "Luther's 'Two Kingdoms' Ethic Reconsidered," in _Christian Social Ethics in a Changing World: An Ecumenical Theological Inquiry_, ed. John C. Bennett (New York: Association Press, 1966), 121. [122] Even leaders of the Confessing Church in Germany, which had done the most among the German churches to resist Naziism, admitted their guilt in October 1945: "True, we struggled for many years in the name of Jesus Christ against a spirit which found its terrible expression in the National Socialist regime of violence, but we accuse ourselves for not witnessing more courageously, for not praying more faithfully, for not believing more joyously and for not loving more ardently. . ." Translation from Stewart Herman, _The Rebirth German Church_ (New York: Harper and Row, 1946). Quoted in Lazareth, "The Twentieth Century Recovery of Political Responsibility," 128-29. [123] Lazareth, "The Twentieth Century Recovery of Lutheran Political Responsibility," 130. [124] Luke Eugene Ebersole, _Church Lobbying in the Nation's Capital_ (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 25. Quoted in Reichley, 246. [125] See Reichley, 265; 268. [126] See ibid., 327-31. [127] Charles Colson, _Kingdoms in Conflict_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 310-11. [128] H.M. Kuitert, _Everything Is Politics but Politics Is Not Everything: A Theological Perspective on Faith and Politics_, trans. John Bowden (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, [1985] 1986), 146- 51. [129] Ibid., 142. [130] Reichley, 354. [131] Robert Zwier, "Church and State: The Views of Reli