LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 208

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

208

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

the text, discovering the laws of its operation. Without this idea that the rationality of nature and our minds reflect the same logos, with a common source
in the mind of God, it might be as if nature were written in German, while
humans could only think in French. As Pearcey concludes, “the doctrine of
the creation (of the world and the human mind) provided the basic ontological and epistemological presuppositions for the scientific enterprise.”120

buckle down and use our gifts to discover something of how God governs this
world, realizing that it is most likely only part of the truth. For in science as
in all things, our lot in this life is to “know in part,” as “in a mirror dimly”
(1 Cor. 13:12), due to our finite, fallen limitations.

More than that, important theological doctrines made a difference in
the way the natural text was read. Following Aristotle, many scientists had
supposed that science proceeds by discerning the essence of things, which
will then tell us how they must operate. This encourages the idea that we
can anticipate nature’s course through metaphysical analysis rather than
by observation and experiment. Without testing ideas against nature, many
erroneous ideas were developed such as the idea that falling rocks “want” to
reach their natural resting place. The decisive turn to the empirical method of
modern science was inspired by the theological doctrine of divine voluntarism:
as a free, transcendent agent, God governs the world as He chooses. Since
God’s thoughts and ways are above our own, and an infinite, perfect God
may choose what finite, fallen beings would not expect, we are well-advised
to go and see what the Lord has done. Since the natural text is the free creation
of God, our goal should not be anticipation of its meaning (that risks eisegesis),
but simply to discern what that text actually says (exegesis). As Peter Harrison
argues at length, this approach was strongly encouraged by the Reformers’
emphasis on the literal meaning of Scripture, a hermeneutic that was transferred over to the reading of the natural text.121

Science is not only feasible: it is worth doing. As we have seen, science
naturally flows from the cultural mandate to shape nature into culture. But
there are also more specific reasons Christians with the appropriate gifts can
and should do science. Science is inherently worthwhile because God created
the world good: the world is full of things worth knowing about. Science is
also a way of glorifying God, by showing His marvelous handiwork. It provides a storehouse of evidence for God’s existence that can be marshaled by
natural theologians and Christian apologists.

Kepler was also inspired in his search for cosmological laws by the
idea that God provides for His creatures in reliable ways because He is a
promise-keeper. Though God is free, He is not arbitrary and capricious. Out
of love, He provides a stable and intelligible world. He can and does sometimes do miracles so that what usually happens turns out differently. Most
of the time, however, He governs the world through predictable ordinances.
Thus, in his astronomical work, Kepler “believed that he had discovered the
part of God’s providential plan that embodies the pattern of the cosmos, and
the divine laws by which God regulated its moving parts.”122 To be sure, we
now know that Kepler’s “laws” are only approximations to the truth, and the
history of science shows that even the most successful theories of the past are
superseded and shown to be valid only in certain domains or under certain
assumptions. This again illustrates the fact that good science involves a balance between legitimate confidence and proper humility. We are like God, but
we are not transcendent over creation, and our will is not His will. So we must

120

Pearcey, “How Science Became a Christian Vocation,” 42.

121

Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science.

122

Peter Barker and Bernard Goldstein, “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy,”
Osiris 16 (2001), 113.

The value of science

But above all, science is a vehicle of thought through which human
beings are enabled to love and serve their neighbor. First, through science,
we have developed all manner of products which improve our quality of life.
It is hard to imagine (or to want to imagine) a world without vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, furnaces, air conditioners, washing machines, telephones,
televisions, and computers.
Second, science helps us to do something to mitigate the consequences
of the Fall. We cannot heal the universal, hereditary infection of sin. But we
can use scientific discoveries to ameliorate human suffering. Whole classes
of disease can sometimes be eradicated from the world, and even when they
cannot, science allows dramatic improvements in the quality and quantity
of earthly life for the sick. We cannot extinguish the corrupt desire to treat
other human beings as tools and possessions, which explains the rise of the
“new slavery” even as we celebrate the abolition of older forms.123 But we
can drastically improve the living and working conditions of many people
through improved housing, clean water and labor-saving technology. And
even when it is the misuse of science which leads to problems (such as many
of our environmental problems, like toxic waste), still, science will likely play
an important part in any effective response.
Christianity provides powerful moral motivations for doing science
because it sees that in all things, Christians are called to love others as God
first loved them (1 John 4:7–12). This love is not merely words or a feeling, but
is found in concrete actions of service. We love one another in and through
our vocations, including the scientific vocation. Indeed, as Veith reminds us,
it is really God at work in us, loving and serving our neighbor.124 The scientist,

123
See Kevin Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, rev. ed. (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 2012).
124

Gene Edward Veith, God at Work.

49

50

like other workers, is God’s instrument, providing services that help to preserve the world and meet our neighbor’s temporal needs.

Chapter II

Yet science is not everything, and the Christian scientist is only one member of the body of Christ which includes many other members with different
but critically important functions. It may be the scientist who develops a new
strain of wheat. But when that scientist drives to the store to buy a loaf of
bread made using that wheat, he still relies on farmers, truck drivers, bakers,
and store clerks (not to mention automotive and road construction workers).
Even if scientists are, in some respects, “smarter” than other people, and can
claim to be the “eyes” of a modern, technological society, while these other
workers are merely its hands, still (drawing on St. Paul’s vivid analogy for the
church as a “body”): “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’”
(1 Cor. 12:21). Reflection on our creaturely interdependence in God’s economy
is a good antidote to the inflated veneration some give to scientists. Without
the scientist, the farmer might have a poorer yield. But without the farmer,
the scientist would most likely starve. So the Christian scientist should see his
or her work realistically, as an important, God-pleasing opportunity to contribute to a diverse, interdependent community of many other workers. All
Christians together, regardless of our various vocations, are called to “grow
up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole
body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when
each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up
in love” (Eph. 4:15–16).

Historical Context
1. Introduction
Despite the tremendous resources which theology affords scientific
inquiry, we see today a stunning disconnect between faith and science. At
best, faith provides encouragement to do scientific work honestly and well,
which is a good thing, but it has nothing to say about the deeper meaning of
that work. This is due to two major and closely related movements of secularization. During the Enlightenment, reason was transformed from a servant of
the faith to an autonomous judge of objective reality, and nature was transformed from a divine work of providence to an autonomous world machine.
How did we lose the sense that nature is God’s world and that reason is God’s
gift to understand it? That is the focus of this chapter. The aim is to give a brief,
historical account that explains how we arrived at the default perception of
the relation between science and faith predominant today.
The story begins with the revolt against Aristotle (384–322 BC), and in
particular his appeal to final causes. Aristotelian metaphysics recognized four
causes: the material cause (what is something made of?), the formal cause
(what is its structure, shape or form?), the efficient cause (what produced the
effect or made it come into being?) and the final cause (for what purpose was
it brought into being?). A simple illustration is given by the chef’s preparation of a dinner. The material cause of the dinner is all of the ingredients. The
formal cause is the recipe for combining those ingredients which accounts for
the form of the final product. The efficient cause is the cook himself, as without him the dinner would never come into existence. And the final cause (the
goal or purpose of all this) is to provide the dish requested by the guest. As
modern science arose, the idea that science could discern the final cause (the
goal or purpose) of natural events was increasingly viewed with skepticism.
For example, did science really have to speculate on the goal or purpose of
burning wood in order to understand how wood burns?
Many of those who criticized the appeal to final causes in science (like
Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes), continued to believe that nature was God’s
other book, but over time, that critique inspired others to outright attack on
the natural theology which claimed to read that book’s messages (section 2).
Increasingly, thinkers of the Enlightenment encouraged a diminished reverence for revelation and believed that our own faculties were sufficient for
understanding nature. This led to the rise of autonomous, universal reason
(section 3). Combining this view of reason with the rejection of natural theology, nature itself came to seem a self-sufficient, Newtonian world-machine

51

2016 Convention Workbook

52