LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 201

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

is absolutely stationary and does not involve commitment to a particular
astronomical theory. It then becomes clear that the apparent conflict between
science and Scripture was generated by reading scientific claims into Scripture that were simply not there.
This example suggests that we must proceed with caution when putting
Scripture and nature side by side. Living after the scientific revolution, it
is difficult for us to see nature without already conceiving of it in scientific
terms. This poses several dangers for our proper reading of Scripture. One of
these is that whenever Scripture speaks about a natural topic, we naturally
suppose it is speaking in scientific terms. We then complain, for example, that
the mustard seed is not “the smallest of all seeds” (Mt. 13:32) or that grains
of wheat do not “die” when buried in the ground (John 12:24; 1 Cor. 15:36),
when it is clear that we are being presented with potent images of faith and
our baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, before even
raising the question of whether science is relevant to a scriptural text, we must
first ask: what is the primary message of the text? That primary message is
a helpful guide to discerning the genre of the text. If the primary message of
the preceding passages is about how man is saved, and the truth is a spiritual
and theological one expressed in the images understood by a particular audience not versed in modern science, it is both gratuitous and anachronistic
to impose a wooden interpretation based on contemporary science, as if the
principal purpose had been to offer advice in modern agronomy (these matters are taken up at greater length in chapter 4).
But another problem is that in our scientific age, an unexamined presumption of scientism (the view that science is the only source of knowledge)
can deaden our sensibilities to deeper truths God intends to communicate
through nature, simply because we lack a scientific framework for making
sense of them. This was one of C. S. Lewis’s concerns in his great work on
the transition from the medieval to the modern world, The Discarded Image.42
Lewis was well aware that the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model of the seven
planets was false as science, but he rightly lamented that in rejecting that
model, modern science also encouraged the rejection of some theological
truths that model had been used to express. Lewis pointed out that, as developed by medieval thinkers who suggested that each planet was guided by
an angelic intelligence, this model beautifully expressed the truth of God’s
universal, immanent presence in the world. However, after Newton—himself
a religious believer—it became easy to think that space was just a dark, silent
void (Newton had thought of space as simply a vacuum, something more
recent science has rejected43). By unconsciously transferring this cosmological model into the realm of theology, it is much easier for modern people to
42

C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

43

be deists, who accept God’s existence as a transcendent being, but who deny
His providential, immanent presence within the cosmos and in each of our
lives. 44
By contrast, Scripture tells us that God is so intimately concerned
with each one us, that even the hairs of our head are numbered (Matt. 10:30).
Furthermore, nature is not a silent void but an active means of communication between God and man:
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge. (Ps. 19:1–2)
We should not assume that this is a thesis of modern, scientific, information theory, demanding that we uncover a hidden system of transmitting
data to us in rocks, animals and plants! Rather, the natural world was not
only created by God’s Word, but is still governed by it. His Word, His logos, is
inscribed in nature and speaks to us of God’s glorious design and providence.
So not only should we resist imposing alien scientific interpretations on
Scripture, we should also see that science is not the only way of understanding
nature. Scripture opens our mind to the natural world as a source of spiritual
and theological knowledge: it speaks of God, His attributes and His works,
and it testifies to a God whose involvement in this world is ubiquitous and
ongoing.
At the same time, it is possible to impose scriptural and theological truths
on science in inappropriate ways. For example, as Peter Harrison points out,
the scholastic approach to both science and Scripture emphasized allegorical
over literal interpretations.45 Not only did this mean that the plain meaning
of Scripture was sometimes obscured by endless speculations about secondary, symbolic meanings, but it also meant that Scripture was sometimes
inappropriately imposed on science in order to see nature as a storehouse of
moral and theological lessons for mankind. A well-known example of this is
the ancient Christian symbolism of the pelican which, in Christlike fashion,
wounds its own breast to feed its young with its blood. As a poetic image this
is poignant and powerful, but pelicans do not in fact do this.46 It is important
to see that the main goal of science is to offer accurate, testable descriptions
44
Evidence for this is found in the survey of American teen religiosity reported in Smith
and Denton, Soul Searching. Smith and Denton say that a common view held by members of a
variety of religious groups (both Christian and non-Christian) is that the religious life is about
being good (moralism), feeling good (therapy), and a distant God who is there if needed but
otherwise stays uninvolved in our lives (deism). For more on the origin of moralistic therapeutic deism, see chapter 2 of this report.
45
Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1998).

According to the latest cosmological theories, “empty” space is actually filled with dark
matter and dark energy.

46
This poetic image continues to be used on occasion in Christian hymnody. See Lutheran
Service Book (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 640, v. 3.

21

22

and explanation. The statements of science do not claim to have moral or
religious significance, and one is forsaking science proper when one adds a
value-laden interpretation to them (even though that interpretation may be
philosophically or theologically sound). It is important, therefore, to distinguish carefully what science as science can tell us from further conclusions
we may draw with the aid of additional, non-scientific assumptions. Science
alone cannot tell us that nature is a medium of God’s communication to mankind. But then, we should never have supposed that science is the only way
of knowing in the first place.
A second problem, which reflects the influence of scientism on our
thinking, is that modern Christians are tempted to use science as a way of
proving Scripture. This is an odd approach, given the relative status of science in relation to Scripture. Scripture is the eternal, infallible revelation of
a perfect Being uncontaminated with sin and unlimited by spatio-temporal
location. Yet the finite and fallible findings of human reason are thought
necessary to establish the authority of God’s Word! To be sure, in an apologetic context, when dealing with someone who does not accept Scripture as
God’s Word, it is very helpful to provide independent, scientific evidence
in favor of its major claims. The problem arises, however, when a particular
scientific theory or finding is used as a final proof of a scriptural text. Science by its nature is a fallible enterprise, and its theories and even its most
basic assertions are frequently revised. For centuries, nothing seemed more
obvious than that the Earth is stationary, that weight and time are constants,
that light travels in straight lines, and that nature makes no jumps; yet the
advances of Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and quantum theory have shown
that every one of these ideas is mistaken. Pluto, discovered in 1930, survived
as a “planet” only until 2006, when scientists reclassified the heavenly body
as a “dwarf planet,” although the decision remains controversial and may be
reversed.47 It is unwise to rely on fallible conjectures that may tomorrow be
consigned to the dustbin of science, in order to give the final seal of veracity
on Scripture’s claims.

2.

Yet, the Scripture speaks through its inspired human writers, and
generally reflects the way the world ordinarily appears in their
experience. It should not be assumed that Scripture advocates a
particular scientific theory, or that all of its claims about particulars
are presented in a scientific manner.

3.

Science is not the only source of knowledge about nature. As science
is currently practiced, it aims at a literal, value-free description and
explanation of nature, and is not able to account for deeper meanings.
Scripture tells us of a natural revelation in which God, our Creator,
speaks to us through the medium of the natural world to reveal His
orderly design and providential care of His creation (Ps. 19:1–2).
This does not have to be understood as a scientific account, but is an
independent source of knowledge in its own right.

4.

Scriptural and theological interpretations of nature, while they are
legitimate and valuable, should not be confused with science itself.
Science can provide knowledge about the “what” and “how” of
nature, but only Christian theology—revealed partially in nature and
with full clarity and authority in Scripture—can explain the “why” of
nature and help us to behold God with the majesty and awe that His
work deserves. This is precisely why a rich theology of nature should
complement natural science.

5.

For the purpose of Christian apologetics, scientific evidence may be
used in support of scriptural claims (about nature or all theology),
but due to the fallible nature of science, it is incapable of providing
certainty of proof. Rather, Scripture is self-authenticating.

48
On NOMA, or, “nonoverlapping magisteria,” see Introduction, 7. The concept is given further consideration in chapter 3.

In applying these principles, we are pointed toward the primary purposes of Scripture and science. As John’s Gospel tells us, God’s Word is
“written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). So our central
focus in reading Scripture must be on what Scripture tells about the nature
and work of Christ and on our living relationship with Him. That means that
the scientific implications of scriptural statements should generally be given
only secondary attention, and may often be irrelevant to the intended sense
of the text. Likewise, the primary purpose of science is to tell us how nature
appears to be working. Speculations about the meaning and value of this
working should be viewed as secondary layers of philosophical and theological interpretation, not as part of science proper. While NOMA suggests
(at least in theory) that there is no overlap between science and theology, it is
apparent that is not the case. There is overlap—often significant overlap. And,
where they overlap, Christian theology asserts that Scripture, not science, has
final authority. Nevertheless, it is critical to see that the overlap is partial, not
complete. Both science and theology have important roles. In Lutheran terms,
both the vocations of the scientist and the theologian are honorable and godly.
Neither replaces the other. Both are ultimately intended for the glory of God

23

24

To summarize this discussion, rather than relying on a simplistic
algorithm for relating God’s two books (such as NOMA, 48 with its stark
separation between God’s Word and God’s work), it is helpful to keep in
mind several principles about Scripture, science, and their interrelationship:
1.

Scripture, not science, is God’s Word. It is inspired and infallible,
even as its source is a perfect Being unaffected by sin or finitude.

47
For a recent discussion, see Doyle Rice, “Wait, what? Pluto a planet again?” USA Today, October 2, 2014, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/02/pluto-planetsolar-system/16578959/.

201

2016 Convention Workbook