Yesterday, in conjunction with Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, LCMS President Gerald Kieshnick held a round-table forum to discuss issues of church related social service and social justice. Conventional wisdom has long observed that with few notable exceptions (abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem cell research) the LCMS has shied away from issuing political-ethical missives. In contrast the ELCA seems to produce statements on just about everything, or so the caricatures go.

President Kieschnick gave some very candid answers to some very difficult questions, which was surprisingly refreshing in our overly political church climate today. Perhaps the highlight was a recognition that the LCMS should have, at times, spoken out more clearly on issues of social justice. Most participants that I talked with came away with a deep sense that here was a man who was honestly grappling with how the church can best fulfill its mission of caring for and advocating on behalf of society’s most vulnerable.

It is no easy task. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam announced in his presentation to the September 2007, Concordia Seminary-St. Louis Symposium that research for his upcoming book indicates that Americans today choose their churches on the basis of their own ethical-political views rather than having their ethical-political views shaped by what their church teaches or pronounces. It was one of those statements that was so obvious that it needed to be said. Most pronouncements from national church bodies (Lutheran or otherwise) are either celebrated by people who agree with what the church says or denounced by those who disagree. Rare is the individual who says, "I am glad my church body figured this one out for me." All of this is to say that statistically there seems to be little value in church bodies issuing official proclamations beyond helping individuals decide what church to join, and even then they are only helpful in as much as a local congregation accepts or rejects what the national church opines.

The better way seems to be for the Church to provide opportunities for social service in the cause of social justice. While reasonable Christians may disagree on what constitutes a just or unjust war, all Christians should be able to get behind caring for the families of active duty soldiers who are left behind, providing assistance and counseling for returning soldiers, and offering aid to countries affected by war. While reasonable Christians can disagree on the socio-political causes of poverty and how best to eradicate it, no reasonable Christian can deny that it is our God-given responsibility to offer assistance to those who are impoverished, in whatever form our conscience and world view deems best. While reasonable Christians can disagree on the best method of educating young people, all should agree that work toward the eradication of illiteracy is a noble goal.

The great problem with social statements is that at their best they are only worth the paper they are printed on, and at their worst they can be needlessly divisive. Change doesn’t come from Chicago or St. Louis or Washington DC, it comes from the priesthood of the baptized, who live out their priestly vocation of service in the communities and parishes where they live.