LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 198

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

198

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

search into nature could only result in the vindication of the
faith in rationality. 13
The whole idea that the cosmos is governed by universal rational laws
derived from the Christian conviction that all of reality is governed by the
will of a single, personal, rational creator who provides for His people, a will
which cannot be anticipated by our finite, fallen reason, but must be patiently
investigated by empirical means. Early modern scientists saw nature as
God’s other book. Galileo wrote that the book of nature “was written in the
language of mathematics”14 and that “whatever we read in that book is the
creation of the omnipotent Craftsman.”15 Johannes Kepler concurred, going
so far as to say that astronomers could learn something of God’s providential
plan for the world.16 Appealing to the reformers’ emphasis on the priesthood
of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9), Kepler saw his scientific work as having devotional
value, maintaining that the world was God’s temple and that the scientific
contemplation of nature was a form of worship.17
The contrast between the theologically motivated, faith-inspired scientific
vocation of the early modern scientists and the highly specialized, secularized
professionalism typical today is a sharp one. The scientism, compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, disorientation and vocational angst found
in many contemporary attitudes to science have deep historical roots and
require a close analysis of currents in philosophy and theology. The problem
of how Christian theology should best engage science is multi-dimensional,
requiring close attention to a number of historical and contemporary issues.
From the perspective of the church, perhaps the most troubling feature
of scientism is the way it undermines the authority of revelation. The early
modern scientists did not see their reason as an autonomous source of secular
knowledge about the world, but as a “natural light,” a God-given minister
to their faith which they employed to the glory of God and for the service of
neighbor. However, during the later Enlightenment, religious claims were
increasingly dismissed as “superstition.” The withering attacks of David
Hume, the French Encyclopedists and Higher Criticism assumed that autonomous reason was in a position to judge faith and decide which parts (if any)
13
Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: New York Free Press,
1997, first published 1925), 13.
14
Galileo Galilei, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, trans. Stillman Drake (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 237 f.

of it could remain.18 This approach is manifest today in the tendency of many
books on the “problem” of science and religion to assume that the “solution”
is to see how religion can be reinterpreted or revised to accommodate the latest scientific findings. The early modern scientists would have found it odd
that God’s book of nature—as interpreted by finite, fallen reason—would be
taken to be authoritative over the inspired, inerrant book of God’s Word.
To be sure, the fact that Scripture is supreme in its authority, and the
only source and norm for orthodox Christian doctrine, does not mean we are
always correct in interpreting Scripture. So it can seem (and may sometimes
be) reasonable to consider whether some alternative ways of reading Scripture might make it easier to accept some apparently well-confirmed claim of
science. Yet there are dangers here all the same. One of these is the unstated
assumption that the best science is on the same level as the Word of God. The
problem is that God’s Word has an eternal and ultimate validity, while even
the best scientific theories are the products of finite, fallen minds and have
at most a temporal and penultimate status. A marriage between the eternal
Word of God and temporal science is apt to produce a widow as the science
changes. And it may also create the false impressions that the Word of God
changes with the times, or that science is the arbiter of ultimate truth. In this
way, science may supplant Scripture as the source and norm for Christian
doctrine and life. When this happens, the church must stand on the Word of
God, whatever reaction this may provoke.19
The church cannot simply baptize the latest findings of science “Christian,” accommodating its teaching to the times. Yet neither does it need to
adopt a separatist posture that discourages young people from entering
science and which has the unappealing appearance of censoring sources of
secular information. A lasting synthesis of penultimate science and ultimate
truth cannot be had, because the things of this world are passing away, but
only God remains eternally the same. Nor is it wise to follow the Reformed
approach of “transforming,” “redeeming,” or “Christianizing” science, as if
we can convert the penultimate into the ultimate. A better approach, and one
more consonant with Lutheran theology, is to encourage an ongoing dialogue
between Scripture and scientific theories that critically evaluates the strengths
and weaknesses of the latter, avoiding both uncritical embrace and uncritical
dismissal.20 It is because we have one foot in eternity that we are free to dialog
with any of the world’s scientific ideas, appreciating their value in serving our

15
Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic and Copernican,
trans. Stillman Drake (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), 3.
16
Peter Barker, “Astronomy, Providence, and the Lutheran Contribution to Science,” in ed.
Angus Menuge, Reading God’s World: The Scientific Vocation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 2004), 175.
17

Peter Harrison, “’Priests of the Most High God, with Respect to the Book of Nature’: The
Vocational Identity of the Early Modern Naturalist,” in ed. Angus Menuge, Reading God’s World,
70.

18

See chapter 2 of this report for a more in-depth account of these secularizing influences.

19
See chapter 4 of this report for more on the best approach to interpreting scriptural passages
with apparent scientific import.
20
See the discussion of Christ and culture using H. Richard Niebuhr’s typologies in chapter
1, pages 28 ff.

9

10

neighbor while critiquing any ideologies smuggled along with them.21 We
can see manmade theories as, at best, penultimate shadows and anticipations
of the eternal and necessary Word of God, and at worst, as idolatrous traps
which provide comfort to those who wish to live as if there is no God. We do
not seek a final answer in science, or anywhere else in the space of human
ideology. Yet we do maintain that it is in Christ that all things, including the
world and the scientist, hold together (Col. 1:17).

Once human value is grounded in natural capacities (whether physical,
psychological or sociological), it is clear that some humans will be more
valuable than others, and some humans may be disposed of to maximize the
welfare of those that remain. The result of this line of thought is that the idea
of universal, inalienable rights for all humans can no longer be sustained.26
The weak, the vulnerable and the despised may lose their protection. In the
face of this threat, the church must confidently proclaim, teach and defend the
scriptural basis for human dignity and worth. It must speak up for those who
cannot speak for themselves (Prov. 31:8). The church will be greatly assisted
in this effort by the support of articulate pro-life scientists, whose authority
the culture recognizes.

The supreme authority of Scripture matters, not merely for its own sake,
but also because it is where God’s action to save mankind—the Gospel— is
disclosed. A second danger of the assumption that Scripture should simply
be re-interpreted in light of modern science is that, in some cases, it may (perhaps indirectly and inadvertently) undermine the Gospel. Of grave concern
here are well-meaning attempts to harmonize the early chapters of Genesis
with some version of evolutionary theory. It is not merely that these efforts
seem to make incorrect claims about the Genesis text itself. They also appear
to undermine later Pauline explanations of how sin and death entered the
world, and how, therefore, humans were rescued from their predicament by
the work of Christ.22 It seems that the magisterial use of reason combined with
an impatient desire to solve apparent conflicts between science and religion
by developing a “patch” for Genesis may subvert the Christological core of
the Scripture—the hermeneutical equivalent of killing the patient by suppressing a troubling symptom.
It is not only in the right-hand kingdom, but also in the kingdom of the
left23 that the implications of scientism are felt. For example, materialistic
science rejects the Christian claims that human beings are specially made
in the image of God, and specially redeemed by the saving acts of the Godman, Jesus Christ. Consistent with his Darwinian materialism, Peter Singer
declares that it is “speciesism” (analogous to racism or sexism) to suppose
that there is anything of unique value about human beings.24 Singer wrote
in 1979 that “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping
that they exist over time. They are not persons,” and concluded that “the life
of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”25

21

An excellent exposition of this approach is Gene Edward Veith, Loving God With All Your
Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003).

There is something of a renaissance of apologetics both inside and
outside The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), and this is a great
opportunity to forge alliances between theologians, scientists, philosophers,
and professional apologists in our church for the sake of defending the faith.
While the Word of God has its own authority independent of reason, scientific
apologetics can play an important role in creating the intellectual and cultural
space that allows the Gospel a fair hearing. To be sure, reason cannot produce
faith. But it can clear away misconceptions and refute erroneous worldviews
that lead people to reject the Christian claim out of hand. Christian scientists
and philosophers can help here by marshaling evidence that this is a created
world and that human beings are a special part of it. This task has become
more important because of the rise of the New Atheism, which seeks to use
materialistic science to discredit revealed religion.
This report will provide guidance and encouragement to a number of
constituencies who seek to combat scientism and recover the sense of science
as a vocation which glorifies God and provides beneficial services to the
neighbor. These constituencies include:
(1) Students, teachers and investigators in the sciences;
(2) Pastors and other church workers who minister to those involved in
the sciences in regular congregations and in campus ministry;
(3) Administrators and teachers at Christian high schools and universities who would like input to help them think through the hard task of
integrating the Christian faith with science education;

22
On this topic, see the penetrating critique of the theological implications of theistic evolution in Norman C. Nevin, ed., Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific
Responses (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011).

(4) Non-scientific Christian laity whose faith is being attacked as an unscientific relic of the past.

23
In simplest terms, the “right-hand kingdom” refers to the realm of the church (God’s kingdom of grace), where God works through His means of grace (Word and Sacraments) to create
and sustain faith in Christ, while the “left-hand kingdom” refers to the realm of secular government and society (God’s kingdom of power), where God works to provide and promote order
through earthly rulers, structures, means, and institutions.

This last group is by no means the least significant, as the authority of
science is being used as a cultural weapon and non-scientists are often illequipped to defend themselves. As C. S. Lewis wrote in his famous essay, “On

24

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco Books, 2002; first published 1975).

25

Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23.

26
For discussion, see Angus J. L. Menuge, “Why Human Rights Cannot Be Naturalized” in
Legitimizing Human Rights: Secular and Religious Perspectives, ed. Angus J. L. Menuge (Farnham,
UK: Ashgate, 2013).

11

12

2016 Convention Workbook