Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars (iure bellare, rechte Kriege fuehren), to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage. They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in suchordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29.

The AC does not state that every war is a just war, but rather distinguishes just from unjust wars. As in all things, Christians are to avoid sin also when it comes to war, serving in the military, and so on. Obeying orders, depending on the situation, may indeed be sinful, and this must be rejected, just as signing a legal contract in order to defraud is sinful, immoral, and illegal and must be rejected. When any earthly order claims authority over God’s moral law, whether written in Scripture or inscribed into the hearts of men (natural law), it must be rejected. The AC says: “obey… save only when commanded to sin.”

Lutherans who suggest that any act committed, solely on the basis of “following orders,” is God-pleasing, are not familiar with this article of the Augsburg Confession. Nor, perhaps, are they familiar with the awful history of the Third Reich.

However, given that I was taken to task this evening on Facebook by two “confessional Lutheran” gentlemen over my critique of their arguments, I’ve invited them to respond here with their arguments supporting the repeal.

Let’s see if they show up.

In the meantime, here’s a video featuring Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass).

Clip HT: Blue Collar Philosophy.

A social trend which has had a tremendous impact upon bioethics is the separation between sex and reproduction made possible by contraception. Why not separate reproduction from parenthood? This is the possibility explored by Daniela E. Cutas, of the University of Gothenburg, and Lisa Bortolotti, of the University of Birmingham, in a recent issue of the journal Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology.Why should artificial reproduction be privileged over natural reproduction, they ask. It is inconsistent to demand that the welfare of the child be a criterion for assisted reproduction, but not for natural reproduction.

“What we should not promote and respect are accidental parenting unaccompanied by critical reflection of its exercise, the ostentatious display of reproductive capacities, unquestioned bad parenting, or blind conformity to the pro-reproductive culture,” they claim.

This reasoning leads them to float some radical possibilities for the future of parenting:

Breaking up the “pro-reproductive culture”

Compulsory contraception, regardless of personal convictions. “Enforcing contraception infringes upon people’s liberties. But we should not forget that preventing individuals from receiving assistance to become parents is also an infringement of liberties.”

Confiscating children after they are born from incompetent parents: “For as repugnant as [it]… might seem, the benefits of having some regulation over natural reproduction and subsequent parenting… are not to be dismissed lightly.”

Compulsory parenting education: “the main purpose of parenting education should be to impress upon prospective parents that parenting is not the prerogative of an individual; and that it should not be viewed just as the means to achieving personal fulfilment when other aspects of one’s life are less than satisfactory.”

No Christian advocates bullying, intimidation, illegal discrimination, or murder. But ELCA Presiding Bishop Hanson’s heresy against the Most Holy and Triune God, that God is the author of sin by creating teens to have same-sex impulses and, by logical extension, to act upon them, is beyond the pale of Christianity.

That’s how Hanson’s video, part of the “It Gets Better” video project on YouTube, is being reported by the Associated Press. Note well that Hanson does not mention sin, does not call for repentance, and does not present the Gospel of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He doesn’t even bring up the comfort all forgiven, reborn, and Spirit-indwelt sinners have in the sweet assurances of Holy Baptism.

In short, false teacher Hanson leads gay teens (and all who do not repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation) to hell. Here’s Hanson’s transcript:

Transcript
Bishop Mark Hanson
It Gets Better video

My name is Mark Hanson, and I am presiding bishop of the largest Lutheran church in North America — the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

I am a father of six and a grandfather of four.

I’ve listened with pain and shock to reports of young people taking their lives because they’ve been bullied and tormented for being different, for being gay or perceived to be
gay, for being the people God created them to be.

I can only imagine what it’s like to be bullied for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

But I do know how bullying can destroy someone.

One day, I came home and found our daughter curled up in the fetal position on the floor weeping uncontrollably. She was struggling to know who she was as a bi-racial young
woman.

She felt bruised by words people had spoken about her, words that ate away at her sense of identity and self-worth. I sat down by her on the floor holding her in my arms.

Words have the power to harm and the power to heal.

Sometimes the words of my Christian brothers and sisters have hurt you. And I also know that our silence causes you pain.

Today, I want to speak honestly with you and offer you the hope I have in Christ: You are a beloved child of God. Your life carries the dignity and the beauty of God’s creation. God has called you by name and claimed you forever. There’s a place for you in this world and in this church.

As a Christian I trust that God is working in this world for justice and peace through you and through me.

It gets better.

“For I’m convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

May it be so. Amen.

May God our heavenly Father, the author and fount of all mercy, call Bishop Hanson to genuine repentance and restore him by His Word and Spirit to true faith through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

I wonder what’s next. So far, we have drugs that contracept/abort one day after intercourse and now one week after intercourse. Will the next drug be the “month-after” pill? How about the “year-after” pill?

And at this rate, why not just sterilization?

Seriously, if some women don’t want babies this badly, perhaps they shouldn’t have them.

Ever.

You must check out the blog for the Center for Morality in Public life. Titled Ethika Politika (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?!?), this looks like it going to be a treasure trove for those wishing to applying natural law thinking to contemporary, hot-button issues. CFMPL President Andrew Haines was kind enough to e-mail me last week. I do hope that we’ll have a chance to partner in something big in the near future.

God’s blessings, Andrew and EP!

The church body also took a step closer to ordaining homosexual clergy.

The issue here, beloved readers, is only partly a rejection of biblical authority, and only partly a rejection of those passages in the Bible that condemn same-sex sexual activity.

The primary offense is against this passage (Gen. 1:28; see also Gen. 9:1):

Be fruitful and multiply.

Until Protestants recognize and reaffirm this primary purpose and reason for God creating us male and female and as the grand “setup” for His institution of Holy Marriage, one continually will see the inevitable pull and downward spiral of confusion in the Church about sex, marriage, and the ordination of clergy.

Again, it is inevitable due to the integral nature of our embodied-ness as male and female, and church bodies that think they’re immune by upholding the authority of Scripture and condemning same-sex sexual activity while ignoring this passage are only kidding themselves.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled July 8 that the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against states like Massachusetts that have legalized gay “marriage.” States are permitted to define marriage as they wish, according to Tauro’s reasoning. He also ruled that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause, part of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Look for more attacks on marriage this fall at the state and federal level. The folks who want gay “marriage” will not stop until they’ve achieved victory.

Robert C. Baker

For partial credit toward MHE 604 Section 01 Social and Cultural Contexts
of Health Care – Summer I 2010

Word Count: 1,935

Abstract: The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) aids that church body in providing “leadership in dealing with the Synod’s needs and opportunities in the areas of theology and church relations.” For nearly fifty years, the CTCR has issued a number of reports touching upon biomedical and health care ethics issues, including those pertaining to the beginning of human life. Because the CTCR’s reports influence the decisions reached by both LCMS clergy and laity, thus touching upon issues of personal autonomy, this paper examines three of those reports to discern if and how that principle is understood and applied by the CTCR. The paper concludes with a general observation how the reports may be interpreted.

Introduction

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) is the second-largest Lutheran Church body in the United States. Founded in 1847 by German immigrants seeking religious freedom so that they could practice a traditional form of Lutheranism, by 2008 the Synod had grown to over 2.3 million baptized members residing in every state of the Union.1,2 By and large, the Synod is known outside of its own circles as a conservative, Protestant church body having affinities with conservative Protestantism (a high regard for the Scriptures and traditional moral values), Evangelicalism (a special emphasis the Gospel, or Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ), and Roman Catholicism (traditional liturgy with vestments, candles, crucifixes, and chanting, an ordained all-male clergy, and a deep piety toward the Sacraments, including auricular confession). The LCMS maintains the largest Protestant parochial school system in the United States, which is second only to that of the Roman Catholic Church.3

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
Since 1962, the LCMS’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has worked to provide “leadership in dealing with the Synod’s needs and opportunities in the areas of theology and church relations.”4(p.1) Comprised of the Synod’s president and vice president, presidents of the church body’s two seminaries, pastors, teachers, and laypersons, committee members are “carefully chosen so that [the CTCR] is as representative of the Synod as possible.”4(p.1) In addition to providing theological guidance to synodical leaders and organizations, the CTCR also publishes and disseminates theological reports at the request of the Synod. These enable official synodical leaders, organizations, parishes, and ordained clergy and commissioned ministers to carry out their duties in line with the Synod’s teachings. The CTCR also advises and recommends the official recognition of other Lutheran church bodies for “altar and pulpit fellowship,” or full eucharistic communion. The LCMS and its members attach great importance to the work of the CTCR, particularly in the areas of biomedical technology and health care ethics.

A Descriptive Focus
Normative ethics, which appeals to moral rules or principles, can be distinguished from descriptive ethics, which examines moral behavior as it plays out in the world. This distinction is important in that ethics understood by description, rather than mandated by theory or principle, can help justify ethical action.5(p.5) Because religious beliefs directly influence moral decision-making regarding health care and health care choices,6(pp. 164-166) it is important to examine reports by church bodies and their various entities that press upon personal autonomy. To that end, this paper will do the following. Following a brief recital of the principle of respect for autonomy as interpreted by Beauchamp and Childress, three CTCR documents related to the beginning of human life will be examined: Christian Faith and Human Beginnings: Christian Care and Pre-implantation Human Life (2005); What Child Is This? Marriage, Family, and Human Cloning (2002); and Christians and Procreative Choices: How Do God’s Chosen Choose? (1996). Next, a determination will  be made whether these documents uphold the principle of autonomy and, if so on what grounds. Finally, since official religious pronouncements have “significant power to shape and transform the meanings attached” to health care and related issues,7(p.259) this paper will conclude with a general observation about a possible affect these CTCR reports have on personal autonomy and decision-making for both clergy and lay members of the LCMS.

The Principle of Autonomy
Beauchamp and Childress (2009) recognize that while the concept of the rights of persons to make autonomous choices is generally recognized, of what autonomous choice actually consists can receives various treatments.8(p.99) While the principle of respect for personal autonomy is derived from Greek political theory,8(p.99) the personalization of autonomy later received extensive expansion during the Enlightenment. Contributing to that expansion was the philosophical work of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, which focused on the autonomous, rational moral self. The emphasis on personal autonomy and decision-making have especially influenced and penetrated Western thought,8(p.103) including biomedical and health care ethics. As an example, Beauchamp and Childress place the respect for autonomy as one of four key ethical principles in health care, the others being beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Here it is important to note that the principle of respect for persons, supporting the broader concept of personal autonomy, also has been enshrined in federal law through the Belmont Report (1979). The Report recognizes that respect for persons includes an obligation to both (1) treat individuals as autonomous agents; and (2) protect persons with diminished autonomy.9

Three Reports Pertaining to Beginning-of-Life Issues
The first CTCR report to be examined in this paper is titled Christian Faith and Human Beginnings: Christian Care and Pre-implantation Human Life, which was published in September 2005. In its fifty-one-pages devoted to discussing embryonic stem cell research, the report seeks to make “progress toward consensus across the broad range of opinions found in our society and in the LCMS,” with the assumption that not all persons will approach issues related to pre-implantation human life with the same biblical hermeneutic as the Synod.10(p.8) To that end, the report hopes: (1) to offer a “careful articulation of competing viewpoints” about these issues; as well as (2) to aid the synodical members in articulating the Synod’s pro-life position.10(p.9)Along with noting the “competing viewpoints” concerning embryonic stem cell research, the report likewise provides basic scientific information regarding human development while applying pertinent Bible passages speaking to the same. Ultimately, the report concludes that those who would seek to justify using fertilized human oocytes (blastocysts, or embryos) for scientific research have a burden of proof to demonstrate that such research, which inevitably results in the destruction of human life, is morally permissible.10(p.43)

A second and earlier report titled What Child Is This? Marriage, Family, and Human Cloning, was published in April 2002. At twenty-three pages, the report aims “to make a contribution to the ability of Christians to discern when to celebrate emerging gifts and when to witness against looming evils.”11(p.6) The report seeks to apply Scripture passages concerning “marriage, family and procreation. . . in light of God’s redemptive purposes” to the issues of human reproductive cloning.11(p.6) Ultimately, the CTCR suggests that reproductive cloning is unacceptable because (1) it is the procreation of human life outside the context of marriage; (2) since it upsets the balance of contribution of genetic material it likewise violates a purpose of marriage; (3) the cloned individual would be deprived of “normal conditions for establishing its own identity” (presumably by having two, opposite-sex parents).11(p.19) As an alternative, the report suggests that infertile couples be encouraged to consider the adoption of children. The report concludes with an exhortation to caution about the “grave moral dangers in the practice of cloning,” and an emphasis on “assessing contemporary technologies. . . in light of Christ’s promise of new birth” through Holy Baptism.11(p. 21)

A third and still earlier report dated September 1996 is titled Christians and Procreative Choices: How Do God’s Chosen Choose? Capitalizing on the popular secular language of “choice,” this forty-page document is devoted chiefly to helping Christians “practice and reflect on what is involved in biblically disciplined moral reasoning.”12( p.5) The report recognizes that Christians often disagree on difficult moral issues attendant to human reproductive technologies and, as such, the report does not intend “simply to [arrive] at one set of answers. . . [but to] explore how thoughtful Christians can become more practiced and adept at biblically disciplined moral reasoning. . . [so that they can] be able to understand the significance of disagreements. . . and how [they] can continue to reason together concerning God’s guidance.”12(pp.5-6) The report uses concepts such as “disciplined chaos” and “biblically disciplined reasoning” to interpret hypothetical case studies involving gestational surrogacy, artificial insemination by donor, a decision by a couple not to have children, and a case involving in vitro fertilization with a marriage.12(pp.7-39) Taking a utilitarian approach, the document makes a cost/benefit analysis of these issues, but all within the context of the marital union. Thus, for example, the CTCR is “troubled” by the potential of IVF abuse, but is likewise “reluctant” to suggest forbidding the procedure altogether.12(p.37)

Absent Autonomy
Although the Christians and Procreative Choices report mentions the word “autonomy” once,12(p.30) it does not refer to autonomy as understood and promulgated by Beauchamp and Childress or The Belmont Report. Neither do the two other CTCR reports. This is especially curious given that reports seek to develop “consensus” toward embryonic stem cell research (Christian Faith and Human Beginnings), provide a “contribution” toward Christian discernment regarding human cloning (What Child is This?), and offer an aid in developing “biblically disciplined moral discipline” regarding procreative issues (Christians and Procreative Choices). That is not to say that the lack of reference to a secular philosophical principle is not unanticipated given the conservative, Bible-based focus of the church body. One could expect that the CTCR, having been delegated with the responsibility by the Synod in formulating theological documents, would follow suit in speaking only when Scripture speaks. Further, such a focus could be justified on the basis of the scriptural emphasis of the Protestant Reformation: sola scriptura, or “Scripture alone.”

However, in that these reports seek to avoid proscribing certain procreative behaviors (for example, by tacitly permitting in vitro fertilization within the context of marriage but discouraging the practice outside of the marital union), doubt is cast as to whether the guidance these reports offers is actually based on Scripture alone, or whether such guidance is based partly on Scripture and partly on some other source of authority. In this instance, for the conservative Missouri Synod it would seem feasible that the Bible’s clear indication of the inherent value of human life (Genesis 1:26-27), as well as the Bible’s prohibition against murder (Exodus 20:13), would carry weight when applied to a procedure in which unused frozen human embryos, even those created by a married couple, could be destroyed due to surplus or for research.

Conclusion
A medical-anthropological approach to biomedicine and health care ethics recognizes the deep influence of “social, cultural, biological, and liguistic” issues that “influence health and well being (broadly defined).”13 Such deep influence includes official reports and opinions of religious institutions. This paper has offered a small window into the contextual religious issues attending moral discernment regarding beginning-of-life issues within the LCMS. While a longer treatment could provide more detail, the examination provided here of three reports from the LCMS’s CTCR has revealed that the principle of autonomy is absent. However, this paper has also noted the CTCR’s emphasis on marshaling Scripture to aid in consensus-building and decision-making. For clergy and lay members of the LCMS, this emphasis and the apparent ambiguity regarding the tenuous and complicated features of beginning-of-life moral decision-making may be the cause for disappointment or frustration, particularly when clear, moral guidance is preferred. Viewed in this light, it could be interpreted that the CTCR reports examined here ultimately rely on and by default commend the Enlightenment principle of personal moral autonomy when it comes to contemporary biomedical and health care ethics issues that the CTCR has determined are not explicitly addressed by Scripture.

References:

1. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. LCMS at a glance. Available at: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2436. Accessed June 23, 2010.

2. Loest M. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod at one hundred and fifty years, 1847 to 1997. Concordia Historical Institute. Available at: http://chi.lcms.org/lcms/synod150.htm. Accessed June 23, 2010.

3. Nafzger SH. An introduction to The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Concordia Tracts. St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 2009:1-17. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church_Missouri_Synod. Accessed June 23, 2010.

4. Lehenbauer JD. What is the CTCR? February, 2010. Available at: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=10558. Accessed June 23, 2010.

5. Hoffmaster B. Introduction. Bioethics in social context. Hoffmaster B, ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2001:1-11.

6. Beeson D and Doksum T. Family values and resistance to genetic testing. In: Bioethics in social context. Hoffmaster B, ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2001:153-179.

7. Marshall P and Koenig B. Accounting for Culture in Globalized Bioethics. J Law Med Ethics. 2004;32(2):252-266.

8. Beauchamp TL and Childress JF. Moral principles: Respect for Autonomy. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009:99-148.

9. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. April 18, 1979. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm. Accessed June 24, 2010.

10. Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Christian faith and human beginnings: Christian care and pre-implantation human life. September 2005. Available at: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=504. Accessed June 23, 2010.

11. Commission on Theology and Church Relations. What child is this? Marriage, family, and human cloning. April 2002. Available at: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=514. Accessed June 23, 2010.

12. Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Christians and procreative choices: How do God’s chosen choose? September 1996. Available at: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=514. Accessed June 23, 2010.

13. “What Is Medical Anthropology?” Society for Medical Anthropology Web site. Available at: http://www.medanthro.net/definition.html. Accessed June 24, 2010.

Obama clearly honors a “two-father family” as a “nurturing family.”

I thought that, generally speaking, women were the more nurturing sex.

Why not a three- or four-father family?

This is really getting confusing!