LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 255

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
know the exact marine creature that swallowed Jonah because the words used (dag gadol, or
great fish, in Hebrew, and ketos, or sea monster, in Greek) are not precise terms. Sometimes we
may not know specific details, such as an explanation for the star of Bethlehem. The Greek term
aster could mean a star, a planet or a comet. In Scripture we must also pay attention to cultural
details—wedding banquets, sowing seed, plowing with oxen—that are not familiar to us today
but help to teach eternal truths.
It is helpful to identify the type of literature that appears in the text, such as historical narrative,
poems, regulations and laws, prophecies or psalms, although this alone is not conclusive as to the
meaning of the biblical text. It would be wrong to dismiss the creation story as merely a poetic
metaphor because the Genesis account conflicts with modern scientific theories. Clues within the
text itself will indicate the style and purpose of an account.
Read Exodus 15:1–10. What is the style of literature in this text? How does it express historical
events? Read Psalm 98:4–9. What is the style of literature in this text? Does it present historical
events or does it have another purpose or meaning? Read 2 Kings 6:1–7. What type of literature
is used to present this miraculous event?
Does final authority lie with the Word of God or the claims of science? Especially today, all
forms of authority are challenged, including the moral authority of Scripture. For example, in
recent years some theologians have claimed that Romans 1:26–27 does not speak against sexual
activity between people of the same sex but only of first century abuses such as temple
prostitution. In this approach, modern beliefs are read back into the text, in this case the modern
claim that homosexuality is one of many natural orientations. However, such a conclusion cannot
be drawn from the words of the text itself.
Scripture is infallible, but its interpreters are not. Further study may lead faithful scholars to
question assumptions or conclusions about a biblical text, yet they must guard against simply rereading the text in light of the newest scientific theories. The Bible cannot be isolated from
science, but it does not speak directly to many of the topics that science addresses. “Scripture is
not an encyclopedia of all human knowledge, but it is the inspired record of God’s particular
work in history—especially the incarnation and saving work of His Son” (120). Scripture is
certainly clear about its central, primary truth—Jesus Christ and His saving work.
Read Isaiah 55:10–11, John 20:30–31 and 2 Timothy 3:16–17. What do these texts have to say
about Scripture and its purpose?

255

The power of Scripture is not limited to what we find easy to understand. The power of Baptism
comes from God’s Word, even though a baptized child may not fully understand that Word. Yet
there are areas of uncertainty—God has not revealed everything to us. Sometimes the exact
meaning of a passage is the subject of ongoing scholarly debate, but it is unwise to try to “prove”
or “disprove” the truth of Scripture by impressing modern, scientific explanations onto the text.
When there is no clear way to integrate a claim of Scripture with scientific claims, we must do
our best to offer an interpretation of the passage or explain the tension involved—acknowledging
that the explanation may be uncertain, yet showing the extent to which that interpretation is
grounded in the biblical text, which is reliable.
Read 1 Corinthians 13:9–12 and John 21:25. What do these verses tell us about areas of
uncertainty or things we do not know or understand in Scripture?
It is honest and faithful to the goals of both Scripture and science to realize that we must
sometimes live with unresolved tensions, knowing that our hope lies not in our perfect
knowledge but in Christ Jesus. Scripture alone is the ultimate source and standard for all
teaching. The proper role of science, and of human reason, is to be a servant to the faith. We
must humbly follow the original, intended meaning of the text, for that is where we meet Christ.
How might you respond to the following statements concerning the truth of biblical teaching?
“Religion doesn’t have a methodology to weed out what’s false. In fact, it’s a way of fooling
yourself. They have authority, revelation, dogma, and indoctrination as their methods and no
way of proving their tenets false.” 41
If Christians are to accept science, they have to admit that the Bible is not a reliable source of
information about the natural world. And why should we believe that it is a reliable source of
information about anything? The creation story in Genesis is a myth. And, it is not the only story
in the Bible that science can now prove is largely fiction.” 42
In Session 6, Practical Applications, we will discuss the opportunities and challenges that science
provides for thoughtful Christians. We will examine the ways in which students, teachers,
scientific investigators and non-scientific laity might respond to the claims of science.
Responsive Reading of Psalm 119:89–96

“The Bible is clear about those doctrines essential to salvation and Christian living. This means
that if there is a text that expresses a doctrinal truth in a way that is less than clear to us, we can
be sure that it is also expressed more clearly in some other passage of Scripture” (121). Scripture
interprets Scripture, and clear passages will illuminate those that are less clear.
Scripture does not teach only spiritual or moral truths. It reveals truths about the world and about
history that are historical and scientific even when telling us about God’s miraculous ways. God
is fully involved in His creation. His work of redemption involved His incarnation, His flesh and
blood birth among us.

41
Worrall, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150531-religion-science-faith-healing-atheism-peoplengbooktalk.
42
Stenger, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/christianity-and-modern-science_b_5182177.html.

30

29

Session 6: Practical Applications
(Chapter 5, pages 125–139)

Students
(All Things, 125)

“At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to
ask the panelists an unexpected question: ‘Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?’
Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. ‘No!’ declared
Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of
crystals.” 43

High school and college students may learn about scientific theories—for example, evolutionary
claims about the origin and diversity of life—that are in conflict with their Christian faith. Many
students react to such claims in unhelpful ways.

Being involved in science is a natural outflow of our own human natures and God-given
intellect, and Christians in the sciences can be a witness to the world around them. We need
good science to care for the needs of people and the world around us. We have many good
examples of past and living Christians in the sciences who both love God and are thrilled to be a
part of studying the majestic, tremendous natural world. 44

Author Gene Veith presents a constructive approach to dealing with this challenge. Before
responding to any scientific claims, the student of science should ask some questions:
(1) To what extent has a purely scientific theory or observation been combined with nonscientific ideologies or philosophical assumptions?
(2) Can we distinguish and disentangle the science from the ideology and the philosophy,
and if so, how much of our disagreement is primarily with the latter and not the former?

“I don’t think that by studying science you will be forced to conclude that there must be a God.
But if you have already found God, then you can say, from understanding science, ‘Ah, I see
what God has done in the world.’” 45

(3) Even if we still think that the purely scientific claim is overstated and/or false, is there an
element of truth in it?

I build molecules for a living, I can't begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of
God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about
science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you
closer to God. 46
As the above comments indicate, there are conflicting views concerning the compatibility of the
Christian faith with a career in science. How should students of science respond when they are
taught a theory that is in conflict with their faith? What is the best way for teachers to present
controversial scientific ideas? How should the scientists themselves correctly understand their
responsibilities? How should non-scientific laity respond to the claims of science found in
popular books, articles and news reports?

(4) Can we distinguish domains and applications where the claim is useful (and perhaps true)
from others where it is more questionable (perhaps because it is untested, or even
untestable, in those areas)? (126) 47
When we learn about certain scientific theories, even those with which we disagree, we are better
able to understand our neighbors’ opinions. We can respond with gentleness and respect (1 Pet.
3:15). Asking questions such as the four above, Christian students can separate truth from
falsehood, the scientific from the philosophical and what is useful from what is merely
speculative. Christian students—and all believers—are to be in the world, not of it (John 17:14–
15) and should therefore maintain a critical distance from the world’s ideas and theories.
For example, if scientists suggest that evidence points to the non-existence of God, “there is no
reason Christian scientists cannot dispute this, either by critiquing the limitations of that
evidence, or by offering other evidence that points in the opposite direction. It is obviously unfair
and ideologically biased to claim that scientific evidence can be used to support atheistic
conclusions but cannot be used to support theistic ones” (127).
Biochemist Michael Behe comments: “It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions
which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science.
Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be
permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality.” 48

43
Dean, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/us/scientists-speak-up-on-mix-of-god-and-science.html?.
44
Dorothy Boorse, “The Wonders of Creation,” in When God and Science Meet (Washington, D. C.: National
Association of Evangelicals, 2015), 19 at http://nae.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/When-God-and-ScienceMeet_bw.pdf.
45
Cancer biologist Carl Feit, quoted in Begley, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm.
46
James Tour, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 111.

The four questions are from Gene Edward Veith, “The University of Babylon” in Loving God With All Your
Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003).
Michael Behe, “Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference,” in Intelligent Design
Creationism and Its Critics, ed. Robert T. Pennock (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
47
48

31

32

2019 Convention Workbook