I’m well aware of that statement. That article is a prism that reveals more about the reader than the official position of LCMS, as most artifacts written by elected officials. It can be read more than one way.
Is it also because Lutheranism is okay with some internal contradictions, and doesn’t try and stamp them out? At least it seems that paradox seems to run through your denomination, especially here.
“Evolutionary science” and “evolutionary creation” will probably always be terms to avoid in LCMS. I wonder if “common descent” might be more neutral and acceptable terminology, especially when conjoined with a Genealogical Adam. What do you think @Philosurfer?
No, it’s true. I supplied you with a quote from the official doctrinal statement on the LCMS website.
Read it again:
Of Creation
We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in six days.
swamidass:
I’m well aware of that statement. That article is a prism that reveals more about the reader than the official position of LCMS...
This is becoming surreal, Josh. You’re telling us that the official doctrinal statement on the official website of the LCMS does not reflect the official doctrine of the LCMS.
In other words, that the LCMS is in no position to tell us what its official doctrine is, but that you, Joshua Swamidass, are.
Joshua Swamidass has spoken. Let the LCMS fall silent.
For someone who preaches the importance of listening to and understanding the positions of others, this is an embarrassing display.
I’m telling you there is more to the story. It is not my story to tell though and it’s high stakes. I encourage you to ask @Philosurfer and @CPArand during their office hours. Maybe they will give you enough to figure it out.
Very funny. I can see why you think this. I do listen, and that’s how I know what is going on. In things like this, hindsight is 20/20. Give it time. It may become clear soon.
No, what you’re telling us is that the official doctrinal statement on the official website of the LCMS does not reflect the official doctrine of the LCMS.
That’s a mistake, and you clearly don’t want to admit it. Don’t let your ego get in the way of honesty, Josh.
Well played. Context: Luther colorfully illustrating that reason can get us into all sorts of trouble when doing theology. Example A: Medieval Scholasticism which, if I’m remembering correctly, those quotes are directed.
Luther also says in the Disputation Concerning Man (1536),
And it is certainly true that reason is the most important and the highest in rank among all things and, in comparison with other things of his life, the best and something divine.
It is the inventor and mentor of all the arts, medicines, laws, and of whatever wisdom, power, virtue, and glory men posses in this life.
By virtue of this fact it ought to be named the essential difference by which man is distinguished from the animals and other things.
Holy Scripture also makes it lord over the earth, birds, fish, and cattle, saying, “Have dominion” [Gen. 1:28].
That is, that it is a sun and a kind of god appointed to administer these things in this life.
Nor did God after the fall of Adam take away this majesty of reason, but rather confirmed it.
@swamidass Luther’s take on reason seems to be paradoxical as well!
The Pew research data is shocking to say the least. Particularly when one looks at how much publicity AiG gets through our various media outlets. I’ve personally heard sermons that take special moments to remind the laity that they should not be buying into various evolutionary scenarios. I’m not sure that the educational data on evolution and the LCMS is a paradox in the sense that we like to employ paradox to understand theology. The two natures of Christ is a paradox as scripture speaks as if Jesus was man and Jesus was God, thus we hold our reason silent, captive to the word of God. The discrepancy between pastor and laity is not paradoxical in that sense (logical), it is more a surprising find when one takes a moment to look away from the official position of the LCMS to what people in the pews actually believe.
Also, now that I think about it, did the data make any distinctions between church workers and laity? Regardless, I (we) are in for some interesting times!
To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure that the LCMS is going to move anywhere closer to any sort of evolutionary scenario. @keiths is correct in his insistence that the going position is young earth and, perhaps evolution within kinds, but never between kinds. That being said, the direction that the LCMS has moved is to not even be able to discuss the relevant science as, for some reason, even discussing the science is tantamount to sinning. Thus, we find a false confidence in the work of others (e.g., AiG), instead of doing the more difficult task of engaging the science (and the scientists) directly to see where common cause may be made.
My $.02 on what good may come of your paper for the LCMS is something akin to Osiander and the work of Copernicus. What Osiander did in writing a forward for Copernicus’ book is to disarm immediate theological concerns so that the science (and theology) could be discussed in as open a manner as possible. I see the value of your paper in a similar fashion. Your carefulness with keeping scripture and key doctrines in tact, while at the same time promoting a deep commitment to evolutionary theory, should be intuitively troubling to a LCMS Lutheran. It goes against the standard narratives.
But, this is ultimately good for “us” as it requires us to engage the science and the theological thoughts in a way that the standard narrative(s) do not allow. We might be able to actually learn from evolutionary biology, while strengthening our theology, even without adopting your conclusions whole hog. It would be something akin to the way “we” treat Augustine on creation. “We” can’t confirm that Augustine’s view is true, in fact, we aren’t even sure it is scriptural. However, it is not heretical. You may be the closest I’ve seen to that sort of position with evolutionary biology. We might not be able to go along with you, but its possible that your position could be held while not being heretical.
And now for something completely different:
Yes. I admit that I am very interested in that as well. My younger self thought this awesome, my older self is curious how even my younger self would have, hmmm… kept going so to speak It must have something to do with the gift of Wisdom…
In all honesty, is there any sort of definitive book/research on Solomon and his concubines? I would love to try and get into the mindset of that little slice of biblical history.
@keiths and do you think that just because politician X says A that politician X actually means A? Of course there is more to the story! The problem is that we (LCMS) do not have a well-formed story to tell as we’ve relied on others (c.f., AiG) to tell the story for so long. In the 16th century, we created the story. In the 20th-21st century, we’ve let others (again AiG) manage our story (at least in terms of Christ/Culture, science/religion issues). This is that fundamentalist strand that @swamidass keeps mentioning. That statement on creation you keep bringing forward works with many different scenarios/interpretations of creation that we are officially silent on, but unofficially committed American fundamentalist.
Cheers!
P.S. - I can only imagine that others are viewing and reading this thread. I’m very interested in perceptions of Lutherans from other Christians (as well as @Patrick non-christians) as I’ve learned we are often an anomaly. I am LCMS and NOT representative of all Lutheran denominations, but if you’ve got questions that you were too polite to ask a Lutheran you may have bumped into on the street don’t be afraid to ask here. I’ll let you know if it is something that I do not know how to answer or wish not to answer. You can also check out the open office I’ll be helping out with regarding Crosswise. I can promise at least three Lutherans present at that time to answer any questions!
Keiths, as someone who spent a lot of years directly observing such things “behind the scenes” (in various venues of the theological world), I must tell you that you have a poor grasp of how these things actually work.
Frankly, I’ve even seen “official statements” of organizations which reflected the very opposite of what a strong majority of their members or even their decision-makers actually thought. Why? Call it politics, if you wish. (I’d also call it typical human group dynamics.) Sometimes the minority position nevertheless wields the most political power in an organization, or they have control of the “public relations” department. I’ve even watched just one powerful person cause the public statement of an organization to reflect a position very very different from an entire faculty, administration, or (yes) much of a denomination.
I am not claiming that I have any insider knowledge of exactly what has been happening with the LCMS lately. (I’ve been retired for far too many years and I no longer know the movers and shakers there.) But when someone like @swamidass tells me that “there is more to the story”, I’m prone to believe them—because I’ve personally observed the truth of such a claim time and time again!
MODERATOR NOTE: Keiths, you are being rude and the very opposite of “peaceful” in a Peaceful Science thread. You are also making unwarranted accusations.
Yes, we all at one time or another have fallen into the habit of making assumptions about the motives of someone else—but it is inappropriate. Ultimately, we can’t get into someone’s mind and know with certainty that some assumed ulterior motive applies to a particular opinion, decision, or action. In this case, I don’t know the details of what Dr. Swamidass may know about the discussions and theological movements within the LCMS, but from my own experience I have about a hundred reasons to believe him—or at the very least to give him the benefit of the doubt. That is not only good etiquette in a courteous forum, it makes good common sense.
Let’s all do our best to keep our discussions peaceful and polite even when we may disagree.
I agree with my answer and your answer since they are both correct. We did remove them from the Tanach and the Jews never had them in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews in Alexandria, Egypt had them in the Greek Septuagint; therefore the Egyptian Jews did use them including the Wisdom of Solomon, a Greek text not written by Solomon or Patrick. Therefore, you are not wrong and neither am I. I also used my Greek Language Tools to verify my statement. In any case, you may accept what you wish and I shall do the same.
Take care Miller. Miller
Then you are jumping to conclusions, because I haven’t made any claims about what happens “behind the scenes”.
Frankly, I’ve even seen “official statements” of organizations which reflected the very opposite of what a *strong majority* of their members or even their decision-makers actually thought.
Of course “official statements” can clash with what members think. That’s true, and it’s obvious, but it’s entirely irrelevant to the point that Josh and I are disputing, which concerns the official position of the LCMS.
When the official LCMS chooses to publish an official doctrinal statement on the official LCMS website, then what that document contains is official doctrine – by definition. The LCMS, and only the LCMS, is in a position to state its official doctrine. Joshua Swamidass is not.
Read the exchange again:
keiths:
Congregants’ views may have shifted, but the official doctrine is still six-day creation:
Of Creation
We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in six days.
Josh disagreed:
That’s false. Common misconception.
But it’s right there in the doctrinal statement:
and in six days.
Josh got this wrong, and the LCMS doctrinal statement makes that obvious.
Why is it so hard for him to acknowledge his mistake? If he wants “open discussion”, then ignoring the evidence and refusing to acknowledge mistakes is not the way to go.
[[MODERATOR NOTE: (1) Perhaps because you two have a difference of opinion. (2) In any case, peaceful disagreement is still the goal. It is certainly OK to express frustration over strong disagreements. I’m simply asking that you do so courteously. Some of your remarks were rude—and assigning motives to another participant is rarely constructive.]]
Do you understand that there are multiple ways of understanding this, such as the Days of Proclamation view? Indeed, I personally know of LCMS scholars who take that view (although I don’t know whether they have necessarily gone public with it, so I couldn’t provide citations without doing the necessary research.)
I’m not presuming to know about the details of which Dr. Swamidass has knowledge but this is one of several realities which lends credence to his position.
[[MODERATOR NOTE: (1) Perhaps because you two have a difference of opinion. (2) In any case, *peaceful* disagreement is still the goal. It is certainly OK to express frustration over strong disagreements. I’m simply asking that you do so courteously. Some of your remarks were rude—and assigning motives to another participant is rarely constructive.]]
When the official LCMS doctrinal statement says “in six days”, and Josh claims that “in six days” is not official LCMS doctrine, then Josh is incorrect. It’s not a matter of opinion. The evidence settles the matter.
And when Josh refuses to acknowledge his mistake, it is not rude to point out that he is doing so, and that it runs counter to his stated intentions for this site.
We have been over this several times now: (1) In and of itself it is obviously not rude for a poster to explain why they consider someone else to be wrong. (2) You were rude for how you did so. My hunch is that you know that. I think you also understand why assignment of bad motives to others is rarely constructive.
That said, let’s return the thread to the points of discussion—and let’s all be courteous as we do so.
Keiths, a discussion of a Moderator’s requests for courtesy are an unnecessary distraction from this interesting thread’s topic. I’ll provide one last explanation and then this tangential “sub-thread” is closed.
This is an obvious example:
That is rude as well as an inappropriate assignment of motive.
Now, let’s return the thread to peaceful discussions of the LCMS and why you left.
Keiths, a discussion of a Moderator’s requests for courtesy are an unnecessary distraction from this interesting thread’s topic. I’ll provide one last explanation and then this tangential “sub-thread” is closed.
In other words, “We promote open discussion here. Now shut up.” Too funny.
If “open discussion” allows for moderator admonitions, then it also allows for commenter responses. Don’t be hypocritical.
keiths:
What, specifically, are you objecting to? Please provide a quote and explain what you find problematic about it.
Allen:
This is an obvious example:
Don’t let your ego get in the way of honesty, Josh.
That is rude as well as an inappropriate assignment of motive.
Why is it inappropriate? Josh is denying the evidence right in front of him, knowing full well that it comes from the official LCMS doctrinal statement. What is your explanation of his poor behavior?
Neither of you have acknowledged and corrected your mistakes. Why?
I felt that what I had believed so strongly had to be true, and that it was impossible that my parents, my minister, and other trusted elders had taught me something that wasn’t true. It seemed impossible that so many Christians, whose faith was so palpable, could be wrong. I thought that my doubts must be a sign of weakness in me, and I felt ashamed and guilty that I had reneged on my confirmation vows. I beseeched God for guidance and for evidence of his existence.
But the spark of that idea — that if Christianity (or any other idea) were true, it should hold up to critical scrutiny — never left me. I realized that knowing the truth was more important than clinging to a set of comforting beliefs, and so I remained determined to examine my beliefs critically.
I want to elaborate on this, because it was a crucial milestone in my deconversion.
Prior to that point, my goal had been to find a way to assuage my doubts and remain Christian. I was willing to consider arguments against Christianity, but my purpose in doing so was to dissect them, find fault with them, and show why they were not a threat to the faith. I was approaching them like an apologist, in other words.
But at that point, I made a crucial shift. I stopped searching for Jesus and started searching for truth instead. If my search for truth led to Jesus and Christianity, then great! What a blessed relief! I could reaffirm my faith, confident that it had survived my tests. If my search led away from Christianity, then at least I was pursuing the truth. That path was much scarier, but once I had decided that truth was paramount, I had no choice but to follow it.
What about my eternal fate? My reasoning went something like this. Would God sentence an honest seeker to eternal damnation? If so, then he seemed evil to me. But if God were evil, then all bets would be off. We’d all potentially be screwed.
On the other hand, if God existed and were good, I reasoned, then I could rest assured that he would not punish me for my search. That realization made a huge difference. I could pursue the truth without fear, confident that I would not be penalized for having honest doubts and for testing my prior beliefs.
So ironically, it was actually an idea about what a loving and fair God would do that helped me to begin the long process of deconversion!
@keiths Your comment was deleted. Probably because he felt that he wasn’t getting listened to, and if you won’t listen then you have no right to be heard. Truthfully, there is no right to be heard anyway.
I have been mostly watching and I will say that it does indeed appear from the LCMS website that they hold that the world was created in six days. However if you will listen to what Josh is saying there is more information… Considering what @Philosurfer said there seems to be more to the story. If he does not want to betray a confidence by disclosing something new before the official announcement then your clogging the thread with demands he do so serves no good purpose. Just wait and see. [@moderators edit]
Now let’s talk about your “crucial change”…
What “truth” was it that you found which led away from Jesus and Christianity?
Perhaps this was the sort of thing Luther meant when he said “Reason is the Devil’s whore.” Yet there was nothing wrong with your reasoning there. Rather, the error was in your premises, at least from an LCMS perspective. They would not accept your premises about the condition of your own heart. Rather they would agree with Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”. We are not in the middle between God and the Devil (or godlessness), neutrally evaluating the pros and cons of each. We are bound by sin in the Devil’s camp until Christ sets us free.
Your whole take on things strikes me as one an evangelical would have, not an LCMS congregant. I realize that individual churches vary and that the larger evangelical culture which has swept through Christianity in America is bound to have affected some congregations, but what I am hearing from you just doesn’t fit with what I know about people educated through the LCMS.
But this question is important "What “truth” was it that you found which led away from Jesus and Christianity? "
@keiths, you have been repeatedly warned that this bickering with moderators must end and your rude attacks on others must stop. You have received repeated explanations. Your posts which ignore these warnings will continue to be removed from public view. They do nothing to expand upon the thread topic.
Please return to a discussion of “How Keiths Left LCMS.” This forum is Peaceful Science, so we expect that you post peacefully. Strong disagreement is fine. Those posts will remain. Needless complaints and arguments about moderation will not be further tolerated. If you continue to ignore our polite requests, you will be suspended. Please contribute to the congenial atmosphere we are trying to cultivate here. Everyone will appreciate that sincere effort.
You have deleted yet another of my comments, this one directed to Josh. It’s an appalling abuse of your moderator privileges.
Stop interfering with the discussion. Yes, you’ve discredited yourself. Yes, you’d like to hide the evidence. No, that does not give you the right to censor me.
It must have something to do with the gift of Wisdom…
Therefore, you are not wrong and neither am I. I also used my Greek Language Tools to verify my statement. In any case, you may accept what you wish and I shall do the same.