Speaking about slavery in the past and present, Pope Leo XIV wrote the following in his latest encyclical Magnifica Humanitas:

In the development of her doctrine, the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of “infidels.” It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards. Although there was not always consistency in practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized. This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached. It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon. (Paragraph 176.)

I’m not used to church leaders asking for pardon, especially those who occupy such publicly visible offices. Perhaps that’s why I found it so refreshing, and hopeful, because more often than not, people in positions of leadership tend to justify why they did what they did rather than ask for the pardon. What follows this plea is no less refreshing to me.

This is why the memory of past complicity and blindness in the face of the injustice of slavery becomes a call to vigilance. What we have learned must be translated into discernment and responsibility in the present. If we want to avoid the need to ask for pardon again in the future for having failed to respect the treasure of human dignity that is required by our faith, it falls to us today to denounce, clearly and firmly, trafficking in its many forms and, together with all who are committed to this cause, to support concrete efforts of prevention, protection, liberation and rehabilitation. (Paragraph 177.)

The line that really stands out to me is this one, “what we have learned must be translated into discernment and responsibility in the present.” The fact is, we are responsible for this moment, for the present, if for no other reason than that we occupy it. Those who came before had their moment. Those who come after us will have theirs. But this moment, it is ours, it is the one that God has made us responsible for.

In my own church body, we are in the midst of preparations for the convention that happens every three years. Conventions are where the business gets done. people get elected, resolutions get passed, and the church body moves forward one way or the other. Conventions are not time to debate, they are the time to act and that means, more often than not, that voices are ignored or downplayed and the one with the most votes wins.

Of course, voting on something doesn’t make it right or true. Doctrine is doctrine because it is found in the scriptures, not because a church body votes to affirm it. And yet the church will vote, on doctrine, but also on other matters, matters that will affect the lives of people, and it will do so with or without debate from the floor and the conversations that happen in the halls and with the floor committees.

What I find helpful from the Pope in this document as a whole is his willingness to call people, not to a utopia, but to what may be possible. He makes this clear as he asks the church, that is, the Roman Catholic Church over which he sits as the head, to consider the implications for their own life together. He points out that, “the Church will be able to bear credible witness to society that seeking the common good together, with shared responsibility and fraternity, is not a utopia, but a real possibility” (para. 89). The question of what is possible can only be answered by those who bear responsibility for the moment.

Of course there are Lutherans, and others, who don’t think the Pope is worth listening to in this encyclical or any other. He doesn’t speak like a Lutheran (shocking I know). He doesn’t have our definition of the Gospel or our Law and Gospel framework. He doesn’t speak like us or think like us and so what value does he have to bring to the table. He is someone to read, mark, and avoid.

This is true of more than just Leo for many as the most cited verse in the convention workbook is Romans 16:17.

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. Romans 16:17–18 (ESV)

I’ve included verse 18 above because in context it justifies the warning. Avoid those people, they serve only themselves and not Christ. Lutherans have made that claim partially concerning the office of the papacy. He serves himself, his power, his place, but not the Christ when he withholds the gospel or obscures it. He’s not the only one, and in the interest of full disclosure, some of the overtures in that workbook invoking the apostle’s warning are aimed at a group I am affiliated with, the Center for Missional and Pastoral Leadership. To be clear, I’m affiliated with them because I believe that Christ and his work and word should be communicated clearly and effectively to all people. I’m not in it for an institution as much as I am for the sake of educating people to deliver the gospel clearly and effectively in the moments and spaces they are responsible for.

Still, hearing the warning gives me pause and forces me to ask the question, am I doing this to serve my own stomach. If I am, and have convinced myself I’m not, then like the Pope, I need to ask for pardon. I am not closing that possibility off, in part because I have seen a church leader ask earnestly for something, something he may not have been directly responsible for and yet holds himself accountable for.

Nearly seventy-five years ago Martin Franzmann offered his own exegesis on that Romans text, and I’ve read it multiple times, even more these last few weeks. What strikes me most is his concluding paragraph.

Our findings suggest that the interpretation traditional in our circles is essentially sound. It is not the exegete’s business, strictly speaking, to go beyond the interpretation of the text itself to its application; but he may with propriety remind the church: 1) that Romans 16:17ff. is not the whole of New Testament teaching on error and errorists and that the whole of that teaching should be brought to bear on any given situation; 2) that the traditional interpretation, which our study has confirmed, does not, by any means, mean an easy way out for the church: the warning both in its breadth and its severity lays upon the church a solemn obligation which can be met only by long, intensive, and loving theological work-the church should not be startled to find that the decision on error is not always easy or the question of fellowship always simple; and 3) that the passage is to be applied to ourselves, too, in constant self-scrutiny and self-judgment—a church that complacently deems itself above the possibility of belly service is already dangerously close to serving its belly. (Franzmann, “Exegesis on Romans 16:17ff” Concordia Journal 7, no. 1 (January 1981): 20.)

Yes, the traditional read of avoiding false teachers is valid, but it isn’t the whole of what the scriptures have to say. As with the Pope or pagan philiosphers and poets, we can receive the truth of their words without swallowing their entire framework and perspective whole. More importantly, Franzmann points out that avoiding the errorist, the belly-server, does not mean an easy way out. It is not a vote to be done and a washing of the hands. It is patient, painstaking, loving work, work done best outside the floor of the convention.

The warning, though, is perhaps the most striking aspect of it all, because it shows what is possible, not just for people, but for church bodies too. We are often blinded by our positions, our sense of right, our zeal for the truth, that we often don’t think that we might be the belly-server. The Pope reminds me that I could be that. Franzmann reminds me that it is possible of me to be the one in the wrong who needs to be corrected. I’m grateful for the witness. But, that witness does not exculpate me from the moment for which I am responsible. This moment, this world, this humanity, I have been places here for them, not to fill my belly, but to fill it with the gospel that fills me. It isn’t the utopia I am after, it is the possibility that people hear about a God who, in the words of the Pope, is worthy of every human situation (paragraph 232).