ligion generally. Parents and churches need to work closely with local school boards to maintain the quality of education in this and a range of areas. But it is just not appropriate for schools to hold compulsory prayer of any kind, since that would put the state in the position of favoring one sort of religious practice over another--even if that religious practice would be "non-denominational" in character. Many Lutherans would have real problems with their children being encouraged, either directly or indirectly, to pray such "non-denominational" prayers, which they feel would water down the strength of their religious witness-and that of other faith groups. Lutherans, believing that all prayer must be made "in the name of Jesus," would object to having their children daily taught to pray without that understanding. From their theological perspective, non-denomination prayer would hurt the religious development of their children.

From our theological perspective prayer in public school is not necessary and is potentially harmful. From a public policy viewpoint, it causes divisiveness in the community and results in significant restrictions on the freedom of religion of minority faith groups. It is not enough to say that a child can leave the classroom--when adults are well aware of the peer pressure that can undermine even the most careful of parental instruction. Protecting the religious liberty of all students in our public schools, whether they are Lutherans, Mormons, Jews, or members of newer religious sects is vital to the good of the nation as a whole.

Our concerns about the divisiveness and potential infringements of religious liberty which could occur when religious practices are conducted in public schools is the foundation for our reservations about "equal access" legislation. We would assert that religious speech should be afforded the constitutional protection it merits, also in the public schools. And in current court cases, specific instances where freedom of religion may have been abridged are being tested. But we are also concerned that legislative measures designed to remedy such abuses must not be so broadly drawn as to open the door to a range of religious activities being held in schools during the school day-activities which could result in sectarian divisiveness or in a situation where impressionable children could be evangelized or proselytized contrary to the wish of their parents, who are sending them to public schools because of the requirement of the law.

CONCLUSION. There are other church-state issues which are of concern to us, such as IRS/CIA/FBI impersonation of ministers in investigations, situations relating to civil disobedience by church members on issues of conscience, and restrictions on charitable solicitation by local units of government. And our state affiliates, I'm sure, could raise other concerns about church-government relations on the state and local levels. This hearing underscores the importance of continuing dialogue between churches and Congress--and between the churches and such agencies as IRS and OMB-- to develop the groundwork for resolving such difficulties. And that interest is shared by others in the House: I would call your attention to Congressman Dymally's proposal that the House Judiciary Committee conduct hearings to discuss governmental intervention in religious affairs, which would touch on many of the issues I have raised in my testimony.

The interreligious community, as well as the Lutheran churches, are engaged in continuing discussions on these issues. In 1981, 300 delegates attended a two day conference on "Government Intervention in Religious Affairs." More than 90 percent of all of the organized religious groups in this nation sent representatives--the most inclusive religious gathering in the history of the United States. A second conference, sponsored by the National Council of Churches, the Lutheran Council, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Synogogue Council of America and the U.S. Catholic Conference, is scheduled for September. In sharing common concerns, these religious groups have noted that, although some religious prejudice has been overcome, the nation still has a way to go in overcoming such prejudice vis-a-vis newer religious groups. In addition, for many mainline religious groups, tensions in the church-state area often arise from government regulation which may, in specific instances, pose a threat to their carrying out works of mercy and justice. They do not sense a sinister plot against religion by government, but a growing government entanglement in their affairs--an entanglement which sometimes occurs with little reason or cause. In continuing congressional dialogue on church-government tensions, input by those organizations, in addition to those testifying before this committee today, is essential.

A number of other gatherings to discuss this issue, which have been held or which are in the planning stage, may be of interest to this committee. Harvard

University hosted a consultation on June 10-11 which involved representatives of diverse religious groups, academics, and political analysts, among others, to discuss the place of religion in the political process. There was a clear difference in theology--but a clear agreement that churches, in carrying out their mission, should be free to engage in the political process. Often their involvement is undertaken on behalf of persons at the margin of our economic and social system, and is quite different from political lobbying to enhance institutional power. People for the American Way has also sponsored programs to support the diversity of religion and political beliefs safeguarded by the U.S. Constitution.

Government treatment of religious organizations must also be fair and evenhanded. I believe this message must be relayed to President Ronald Reagan and his administration. In August of 1980, candidate Reagan publically endorsed the sponsors of a fundamentalist religious and political rally in Dallas, Texas. That endorsement of their views has continued since his election, as evidenced by his meetings with them and addresses to their various coalitions. However, over the past three and a half years, the channels for communications between mainline religious groups and the White House have been inadequate. Some of the Washington representatives of these church bodies have made several efforts to encourage dialogue similar to that which occurred under previous administrations. I personally raised the issue with Elizabeth Dole, Faith Whittlesey, and Morton Blackwell, who served as religious liaison for the White House at various times. I would encourage the White House to engage in the same sort of serious dialogue being undertaken here this morning--a dialogue which should include conversations with mainline religious leaders.

There are a number of social issues, including abortion and school prayer, which have been widely labelled "moral issues." The nation faces hard decisions in these areas, and moral considerations should be raised in this process. However, it is important that all engaged in discussions--from church leaders, to members of Congress, to the President himself--avoid using the type of "religious" language which denies moral legitimacy to persons or groups who have a different theological perspective--or a different political position on those issues.

The Lutheran churches I represent would maintain that moral considerations must also be raised in the debate over a far wider range of issues that those designated as "moral issues" by the religious right. Our religious beliefs compel us to be involved in issues relating to nuclear disarmament, increased poverty and homelessness, global and domestic hunger, and civil rights. Our stances may differ from those of the current administration--as they at times differed from those of previous administrations. But it would be helpful to church-government relations if the President and others in the various branches of government would acknowledge that religious groups, having different theological perspectives and different sources of information, may legitimately differ with them; this does not make them "duped" or "soft on communism" or "naive."

In dealing with the issue of church-state relations, it is important to remember that the United States is not a Christian nation. The Lutheran churches, unlike the Moral Majority and the Christian Voice, can accept that reality and affirm the tradition of religious freedom based on the U.S. Constitution. They would assert that the government must be careful that its representatives not use their offices to promote a theology which offends the consciences of individuals of different religious faiths. As Dr. Martin Luther once stated, "Secular government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and to external things and relations on earth. For over the soul, God can and will let no one rule but Himself alone. Therefore, where secular power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches on God's government and only misleads and destroys souls." One should not mix these two authorities--the temporal and the spiritual, the courthouse and the church; otherwise the one devours the other and both perish."

Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on the complex issue of church-government relations.

THE NATURE

OF THE CHURCH

AND ITS RELATIONSHIP

WITH GOVERNMENT

A statement with public policy recommendations on church-state issues
adopted by the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A.

A. INTRODUCTION

An increasingly complex society has produced growing interdependence and interaction among groups, persons, and resources in the governmental, economic, and voluntary sectors. The government's responsibilities to maintain equity and order have led both the churches and the state into greater contact and, at times, into tension. As governmental bodies seek to perform their roles and the churches seek to fulfill their missions, each needs to be aware of the other's purposes, principles, and methods. In their endeavors, both the churches and the government have the task of formulating and clarifying position statements and guidelines for implementation and application when appropriate.

The Lutheran Council in the USA, a cooperative agency of The American Lutheran Church, Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, Lutheran Church in America, and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, is aware of rising concern within its participating bodies over governmental activity in matters affecting the churches and their ministries. There are instances in which laws, rulings, and regulatory procedures on the part of government appear to infringe upon the churches and their agencies and institutions. Governmental efforts to define the nature, mission, ministries, and structure of religious organizations are likely to continue. These developments have raised questions within the Lutheran churches about the right and competence of government to define the nature, mission, ministries, and structure of religious bodies.

The Lutheran Council recognizes that an ongoing process of communication within the Lutheran family of churches and with other religious bodies and organizations in the voluntary sector is proper and timely as response is given to the government. Government officials need to be informed about the positions and perspectives of the Lutheran churches.

On these grounds the Lutheran Council convened a consultation on churchstate issues which resulted in the following statement and recommendations. The report of the consultation was adopted by the council's 1979 annual meeting on May 16 in Minneapolis.

B. STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATION

1. Church and Government in God's World

God's omnipotent activity in creation is dynamic; that is, it is living, active, and powerful in all human affairs. The structure and polities of civil and Christian communities are determined and arranged by tradition, circumstances, and needs. Lutherans acknowledge the twofold reign of God, under which Christians live simultaneously. God is ruler of both the world and the church. The church is primarily the agency of the Gospel in the new age of Christ, while the state is primarily the agency of the Law in the old age of Adam.

Given the balance of interests and differing responsibilities of the churches and the government in God's world, the Lutheran churches advocate a relationship between the churches and the government which may be expressed as "institutional separation and functional interaction."

Both the churches and the government are to delineate and describe the proper and responsible extent of their functional interaction in the context of God's rule and the institutional separation of church and state.

2. Institutional Separation

In affirming the principle of separation of church and state, Lutherans in the United States respectfully acknowledge and support the tradition that the churches and the government are to be separate in structure. As the U.S. Constitution provides, government neither establishes nor favors any religion. It also safeguards the rights of all persons and groups in society to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, worship, practices, and organizational arrangements within the laws of morality, human rights, and property. The government is to make no decisions regarding the validity or orthodoxy of any doctrine, recognizing that it is the province of religious groups to state their doctrines, determine their polities, train their leaders, conduct worship, and carry on their mission and ministries without undue interference from or entanglement with government.

a. The Church's Mission

1) The central mission of the church is the proclamation of the Gospel; that is, "the good news" or promise of God that all persons are forgiven by and reconciled with God and one another by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

2) The church is the fellowship of such forgiven and reconciled persons united in Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit to be sons and daughters of the Father. In and through that fellowship Christians express their love for, confidence in, and reliance upon God through worship, education, social action, and service.

3) The church is also the people of God called and sent to minister under his authority in his world. God also calls the church to be a creative critic of the social order, an advocate for the needy and distressed, a pioneer in developing and improving services through which care is offered and human dignity is enhanced, and a supportive voice for the establishment and maintenance of good order, justice, and concord. Another mark of the presence of the church in the world is in its ministries involving activities, agencies, and institutions through which the church and society seek to fulfill their goals in mutual respect and cooperation.

4) Lutherans hold that their churches have the responsibility to describe and clarify to their members and to society the mission of the Lutheran churches and to determine, establish, maintain, and alter the various forms through which that mission is expressed and structured.

5) The distinctive mission of the churches includes the proclamation of God's Word in worship, in public preaching, in teaching, in administration of the sacraments, in evangelism, in educational ministries, in social service ministries, and in being advocates of justice for participants in the social order.

6) On the basis of their commitment to him who is both Lord of the church and Lord of the world, Lutheran churches establish, support, operate, and hold accountable their congregations, agencies, institutions, schools, organizations and other appropriate bodies.

7) While church bodies have differing polities, it is fitting to describe them, including their duly constituted agencies, according to their ecclesiastically recognized functions and activities.

8) Lutheran churches have the authority, prerogative, and responsibility to determine and designate persons to be professional church workers, both clergy and lay; to establish criteria for entrance into and continuance in the functions carried on by professional church workers; to create educational institutions for training professional church workers; and to provide for the spiritual, professional, and material support of such persons. Such support extends throughout the preparation for, activity in, and retirement from service in the several ministries of the churches.

9) Lutheran churches have the authority and prerogative to enter into relationships, associations, and organizations with one another; with overseas Lutheran churches and bodies; with other Christian fellowships or other religious groups on regional, national, and international levels; and with voluntary or governmental agencies which the Lutheran churches and other groups deem helpful and fitting to their respective purposes.

b. The Government's Role

1) According to Lutheran theology, the civil government's distinctive calling by God is to maintain peace, to establish justice, to protect and advance human rights, and to promote the general welfare of all persons.

2) As one of God's agents, government has the authority and power in the secular dimensions of life to ensure that individuals and groups, including religious communities and their agencies, adhere to the civil law. The churches and their agencies in the United States are often subject to the same legislative, judicial, and administrative provisions which affect other groups in society. When necessary to assure free exercise of religion, however, Lutheran churches claim treatment or consideration by government different from that granted to voluntary, benevolent, eleemosynary, and educational nonprofit organizations in society.

3) Government enters into relationships, associations, and organizational arrangements with nongovernmental groups, including churches, according to the nation's laws and traditions, in order to fulfill its God-given calling and without compromising or inhibiting the integrity of either the groups or the government.

4) Government exceeds its authority when it defines, determines or otherwise influences the churches' decisions concerning their nature, mission, and ministries, doctrines, worship and other responses to God, except when such decisions by the churches would violate the laws of morality and property or infringe on human rights.

3. Functional Interaction

Lutherans in the United States affirm the principle of functional interaction between the government and religious bodies in areas of mutual endeavor, so that such interaction assists in the maintenance of good order, the protection and extension of civil rights, the establishment of social justice and equality of opportunity, the promotion of the general welfare, and the advancement of the dignity of all persons. This principle underscores the Lutheran view that God rules both the civil and spiritual dimensions of life, making it appropriate for the government and the churches to relate creatively and responsibly to each other.