# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S202
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

202

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

and the well-being of His creatures—most especially humankind, the crown
of His creation.

influential was this paradigm for several centuries that workers in this area
were often described as natural theologians.

4. The doctrine of vocation

Indeed, the word “scientist” is a new one, not entering the lexicon until
1834,52 and it signified a momentous change in the way science was conceived:

When God tells us to love and serve our neighbor, the ways that we fulfill
this command are defined by our various vocations.49 A vocation is a calling
from God to serve our neighbor where He has placed us using the gifts He has
provided. Science itself should not be a pursuit devised by human beings to
satisfy our own curiosity or gratify our desire for power and control. It reflects
our primary call to be stewards of the earth, which requires us to use reason
to understand the nature and operation of our natural environment, so that
we can utilize its potential to develop culture50 and preserve its resources for
posterity. All vocations are bound by God’s law, and so the scientific vocation
is not a license to exploit the world but involves duties, responsibilities and
other moral boundaries. The world is not a disposable asset, but a trust which
we are to husband for the good of present and future generations of people,
all of whom are our neighbors.
It is important to understand the contrast between this understanding of
science and the one prevalent today, that science is a “profession.” Vocation
and profession are not the same thing. To see the difference, it is helpful to
contrast the self-understanding of scientists at the birth of modern science
with the one which has become dominant since the 19th century. Some of
the greatest scientists of the modern scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th
centuries were Christians. They were greatly interested in theology, and they
wanted a way to conceive of their scientific work as a God-pleasing activity. Before the Reformation, “vocation” was a term reserved for specifically
ecclesial offices, such as priest, monk, or nun. However, Luther emphasized
the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9), which implied that ordinary,
earthly work (in the home, in society, and the workplace) was God-pleasing.
Combining this insight with the idea that nature is God’s other book, several
leading scientists, including Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) and Robert Boyle
(1627–1691), came to see themselves as priests in the book of nature.51 So

49
For an accessible exposition of the doctrine of vocation as a theology of Christian living,
see Gene Edward Veith, God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life, Redesign Edition
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2011). For a superb exposition of the doctrine as developed
by Luther, see Gustaf Wingren’s masterpiece, Luther on Vocation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock,
2004). For an approach oriented to Bible study, see Angus Menuge, “Vocation,” in ed. Edward
Engelbrecht, The Lutheran Difference (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010).
50
A succinct definition of “culture” as the term is used in this report is “what humans do to
nature to serve their own purposes.”
51

The success of this new designation is not merely a semantic curiosity because it was largely a reflection of the general
growth of distinct professions during this period. More importantly, the appearance of the term scientist signaled the end of
that typically eighteenth- and nineteenth-century phenomenon of the priest-naturalist. Over the course of the nineteenth
century deliberate moves were afoot to elevate the status
of the natural sciences … . This could only take place, many
believed, if the social powers of the priesthood were challenged
and the domination of the university curriculum by theology
and the humanities brought to an end … . Henceforth, it is the
scientist who is the authoritative purveyor of true and useful
knowledge.53
The key to the reconceiving of science as a profession, rather than a
priestly vocation, is the assertion that science is independent of the church.
The scientist is no longer seen as a priest (in the broad sense) who happens
to like laboratories or the great outdoors. Instead, the scientist is someone
who follows the methods and procedures prescribed by professional bodies
independent of the church—which generally means a group of qualified
individuals directing the trajectory of scientific research or practice.
On the one hand, it is true that modern science does not require a person
to be a Christian: it recognizes a general human condition, according to which
the procedures and results of science must be accessible to any competent
investigator, regardless of ideological or religious persuasion. So it is fair to
say that practicing science does not require one to see science as a vocation.
But on the other hand, those scientists who are Christian lose a great deal
when they are trained to see their work merely as a profession. Indeed, as
Nancy Pearcey has argued, these scientists often experience considerable
internal conflict, because they do not see how to relate their life as a Christian
with their work as a scientist.54
The difference this makes is that vocation provides a framework of religious and moral meaning for scientific work which is severely truncated in

52

The term was coined by William Whewell (1794–1866).

53

Harrison, “Priests of the Most High God,” 78.

54

See Peter Harrison, “Priests of the Most High God, with Respect to the Book of Nature,” in
ed. Angus Menuge, Reading God’s World: The Scientific Vocation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 2004), 59–84.

See Nancy Pearcey, “How Science Became a Christian Vocation,” in ed. Angus Menuge,
Reading God’s World: The Scientific Vocation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004), 23–57
and her Total Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004).

25

26

the concept of a profession. Professional standards of scientific conduct say
nothing about being called by God to be a steward of His creation, or about
our obligation to love and serve our neighbor through all that we do.55 On
this understanding, while Christian scientists may benefit from their faith in
private, they may see no meaningful way to relate their faith to their public
work. A recurrent problem is that while professional codes of ethics may
express the consensus on “best practice,” they do not reflect a biblical understanding of morality, especially as it bears on the dignity and value of all life.
But the disconnect is also found in the inability of some scientists to integrate
their findings with a Christian worldview. To cite one of Pearcey’s starkest
examples, one Christian quantum physicist, when asked how he related his
faith to his work, said merely that quantum mechanics is like auto-mechanics,
and had no connection with his faith.56 Had this scientist thought through the
implications of the doctrine of vocation, he might have realized that faith is
relevant to both auto-mechanics and quantum mechanics. Both are ways of
glorifying God by unveiling the ordering principles God built into nature and
by serving our neighbor through discovering nature’s secrets and developing
beneficial technology.57

one can in good conscience participate in the research and even about whether
it should be openly opposed. Human beings are specially made in the image
of God. While we are authorized, within limits, to shape the non-human
environment to serve our needs, we should not attempt to “flatten” creation,
so that other human beings are also treated merely as natural resources. As
the great philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) said in his ethical writings,
we should never treat other persons as a means to an end but always as ends
in themselves.59 What he meant was that persons are not merely things which
exist to be used for various purposes. Persons have value in themselves. It is
a violation of the dignity of persons for us to use them merely as a collection
of experimental resources to serve our purposes, as if we were persons but
they were not.

Not only does the idea of vocation invest science with considerably more
meaning than the secularized notion of a profession, it also provides important guidance and boundaries for scientific work. If the goal is to love and
serve one’s neighbor then the scientist should not do certain things. He or she
should not merely pursue a popular form of technology because it will make
money or make the scientist famous. These outcomes as such are not wrong,
but they should be the result of developing a product which serves human
welfare, not the primary motivation for doing science. A great example of
someone whose Christian values informed and guided his science is Robert
Boyle. After studying theology and ethics, Boyle went into science partly to
discover inexpensive, chemical remedies for the ailments of the poor.58 This
moral motivation for doing science is a powerful way of finding meaning in
scientific work.
Likewise, some forms of scientific experimentation will be off-limits
because they are unethical. If they directly involve, or indirectly cause, avoidable harm to people, the faithful scientist should think hard about whether
55
Originally, the “Hippocratic Oath,” which physicians swore to uphold, contained a prayer
and forbade practices which would harm patients. The various oaths now used by many medical schools typically omit any prayer and also omit certain practices from the list of proscribed
procedures (most notably abortion).
56

Pearcey, “How Science Became a Christian Vocation,” 27.

5. Christianity and culture
When negotiating the intersection between faith and science, a theological assumption that plays a large role in how these realms are understood to
relate to each other concerns the proper way for the Christian to approach
culture. Although it can be criticized, the classic typology for relating Christianity and culture developed by H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962) is helpful in
explaining the different approaches of various theological traditions.60
Niebuhr distinguishes two one-dimensional models and three twodimensional models. The one-dimensional models involve the radical
extremes of rejecting culture for Christ (“Christ against culture”) or affirming
culture for Christ (“Christ of culture”). The two-dimensional models emphasize that God is King of all things and that He rules in two ways, through two
“kingdoms.” He rules in our hearts through the spiritual kingdom of grace
through faith. But He also rules the earthly kingdom through various orders
He has instituted to maintain order and to preserve His creation.

a. The one-dimensional models
The Christ against culture paradigm, exemplified by Leo Tolstoy
(1828–1910) and the Mennonites, sees the Christian’s calling as one of following Christ directly in all of life. Thus obligations to the state (taxes, oaths of
allegiance) may be seen as violations of the first commandment. Since Christ
59
This is the second formulation of his celebrated “categorical imperative,” which attempts
to explicate the rational basis for the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do
to you. The first formulation of the categorical imperative says: so act that you can will your
action to be a universal law for all people. It attempts to short circuit the person who wants to
do a wrong that they rely on others not doing, such as burglary.

58
See Edward B. Davis, “Science As Christian Vocation,” in ed. Angus Menuge, Reading God’s
World: The Scientific Vocation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004), 189–210.

60
H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1956). For a critical evaluation of this work see, for example, ed. Angus Menuge, Christ and Culture in Dialogue (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1999) and D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). See also the appendices Z, AA, and BB in Charles Manske and Daniel
Harmelink, World Religions Today (Irvine, CA: Institute of World Religions, 1996) for a helpful
two-page outline and chart illustrating Niebuhr’s model.

27

28

57
Admittedly, quite a bit of theoretical quantum mechanics might seem remote to serving our
neighbor’s needs, but in fact it lies behind such incredibly useful technological innovations as
the laser.

2016 Convention Workbook