LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 157

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 157

3-30

To Clarify Creation Terminology

WuerEAS, The LCMS has experienced concern over the teach-
ing regarding creation and evolution in our colleges’ science and
theology classes. This has also led to questions regarding how this
matter is being taught in the schools (early childhood, elementary,
middle, and high schools) and pulpits of congregations of the
Synod. In response, five overtures were submitted to the 2004
LCMS convention (Ov. 2-24; Ov. 2-25; Ov. 5-43; Ov. 5-44; Ov.
5-45) by five congregations, a Circuit Forum, and a District. Reso-
lution 2-08 and, subsequently, Resolution 2-08A were formulated
by Committee #2, District and Congregational Services (in con-
junction with Committee #5, Higher Education), in response to
these overtures. Unfortunately, the substitute Resolution 2-08A
passed by the convention contained wording that has caused seri-
ous concerns for some members of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, The concerns are in regard to the third Whereas and
the third Resolved of Resolution 2-08A: “WHEREAS, Any teaching
that advocates the transition from one species to another, as op-
posed to maintaining the distinction of species ‘according to their
kinds’ (Genesis, Chapter 1), rejects the clear teaching of Scrip-
ture....Resolved, That the Synod’s educational agencies and insti-
tutions properly distinguish between micro and macro evolution
and affirm the scriptural revelation that God has created all species
‘according to their kinds’...”; and

WuEREAS, In considering these concerns, the origin of the over-
tures must be kept in mind. The overtures arose from particular,
technical controversies that also affected more general, less tech-
nical audiences, Resolution 2-08A addresses the teaching of this
matter in the whole range of educational institutions and agencies,
from early childhood centers to colleges and seminaries. In the
early childhood centers and elementary schools, the problematic
wording might not be used, but the general topic will be introduced
even to young children with references to such things as “di-
nosaurs” and “Noah’s ark.” Likewise, the problematic wording
may not necessarily be used in the pulpit or in confirmation or
Bible classes, whether technically or generally. However, as the
terms contained in the problematic wording are introduced in mid-
dle and high school science classes and continue to be used in col-
lege and seminary classes (both science and theology), they are
used with technical meaning that must be taken into account and
addressed; and

Wuereas, In brief, the concerns are that these statements can
be and have been understood (at least by some) to:

1. equate the ambiguous taxonomic term species with the bibli-
cal term kind, which LCMS publications have stated cannot be
done (e.g., J. W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, Concordia
Publishing House 1972 rev. ed., p. 70);

2. declare, as a result of this equating of terms, that the discred-
ited concept of fixity of species (that all current species divisions
have existed from creation) is scriptural revelation and doctrine
(thus exposing the Bible as well as the LCMS to undue ridicule;
see the book cited above, pp. 69-70, and pp. 64~—65 of Darwin,
Evolution, and Creation [Paul A. Zimmerman, editor, Concordia
Publishing House 1959] regarding the discrediting of this concept);

3. condemn, thereby, any teaching recognizing continued spe-
ciation as anti-scriptural (speciation is differentiation and transition
of descendants from one species to a new species by means of nat-
ural selection, mutation, hybridization, etc.; example, modern
horse, donkey, and zebra species may all be the result of transitions
from a single created equine kind, which taxonomists might clas-
sify as itself being a species);

4. jeopardize, thereby, the standing of faithful pastors and teach-
ers who recognize observed and confirmed instances of such spe-
ciation, exposing said pastors and teachers to charges of false
teaching and to ecclesiastical and institutional discipline, and fur-
ther confusing the matter within the Synod;

5. be self-contradictory: on the one hand, rejecting “any teach-
ing that advocates the transition from one species to another,” and
on the other hand, accepting so-called microevolution, which Klotz

(among others) defines in his book mentioned above as “the
changes which we are able to observe in living things, including
the origin of new species” (p. 9, emphasis added); and

6. result in equivocation (calling two different things by the
same name, which causes confusion) by the use of the terms mi-
croevolution and macroevolution, because the changes and specia-
tion actually observed are different in kind and not only in degree
from what would be required by the evolutionary model of
origins—that is, microevolution is not actually evolution, defined
as change by creation or development of new information
or functional complexity (see Doctor Carl Wieland, “Variation,
Information and the Created Kind,” Creation ex nihilo Techni-
cal Journal, April 1991, TJ 5 (1): 42-47; available online at
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/il/kind.asp>);

therefore be it

Resolved, That we memorialize the Southern Illinois District
convention to request the 2007 LCMS convention to clarify 2004
LCMS Res. 2-08A, “To Commend Preaching and Teaching Cre-
ation,” by stating that

1. the term species is used in 2004 Resolution 2-08A in a gen-
eral sense, such that current taxonomic species are not equated with
the created kinds;

2. any teaching that recognizes observed speciation as amongst
descendants of a created kind does not reject the scriptural revela-
tion that God created all organisms to reproduce “according to their
kinds” (Genesis 1); and

3. observed natural change, variation, differentiation, and spe-
ciation are different in type from that required by the evolutionary
model of origins, and that this difference is to be included in the
proper distinction between what some call microevolution and
macroevolution, whether or not these terms are used.

Southern Illinois District

3-31

To Recommit to Doctrinal Unity

WHEREAS, We, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, have
been blessed by the Lord of the Church with a vast body of Chris-
tian doctrine in which we are in agreement (such as the Trinity, the
deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the physical resurrection
of Christ, the inerrancy of the Bible, justification by grace alone
through faith in Christ alone based on Scripture alone, the Sacra-
ments as means of grace, the Real Presence, eschatology [teaching
on end times], and dozens of other doctrines); and

WHEREAS, This unity is the work of the Holy Spirit alone; and

WHEREAS, Such a great agreement in doctrine is lacking in
many other denominations; therefore be it

Resolved, That we give thanks to the Lord of the Church for
preserving His pure and saving doctrine among us; and be it fur-
ther

Resolved, That we joyfully acknowledge and affirm this unity;
and be it further

Resolved, That we recommit ourselves to that unity; and be it
further

Resolved, That we recommit ourselves to act and speak in keep-
ing with the command of Jesus not to set aside the commands of
God in order to observe our own traditions (Mark 10:9); and be it
further

Resolved, That we recommit ourselves to the teaching of our
Lutheran Confessions that “It is not necessary for the true unity of
the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human
beings, be observed everywhere” (AC VII 3) and that “Diversity
in fasting does not dissolve unity in faith” (AC XX VII 44); and be
it further

Resolved, That we continue to enjoy and share our fellowship
together in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod under the con-
fessional standard of our Synod’s Constitution (Art. ID) without re-
quiring or imposing any other confession; and be it further