The Lutheran Option

[J.E.S (Jonathan)]

Greetings, @EvolvingLutheran! Welcome to Peaceful Science!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EvolvingLutheran, what do you think about this? I show how a Lutheran approach to six days can treat them literally as 24 hr days, but still consistent with an old earth: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-telling-in-six-ordinary-days/1022.

This has been reviewed very well by LCMS lutherans.

[EvolvingLutheran]

Thanks for the link. The idea appeals to me given my particular background in stage performance. God as divine story-teller speaks my language. A couple thoughts…

For me personally, I’ve gone back and forth on the meaning of yom from a literal 24-hour YEC understanding to day/age OEC, but I’m coming to the view that it may be rather immaterial. To your point, if I accept Gen 1 as divine storytelling I’m released from the restriction of a scientific concordism allowing me to accept the 24-hour interpretation as part of a story. So I’m totally with you there.

Now, the real stickler I think becomes the issue of original sin, a historic Adam, and a literal Fall. I’ve read your other posts on historic Adam and genealogical descent and I think they work. The snag is Romans 5 and how we understand death before sin and how we define kosmos. Lutheran theology deals so much with justification from this inherited sin and death coming into the world (kosmos) through that original disobedience that I think its hard for us to know where the line between divine story and actual truth is.

But let me throw one other idea at you that might prove helpful. I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit and that is the Formative power of the Word. Essentially, the evangelical quality of the Genesis story. This ties into how Lutherans view preaching as not simply the conveyance of facts about Jesus but quite literally the power through the spoken Gospel proclamation to form a people. When properly preached the Law and Gospel work in tandem, literally putting the sinner to death and bringing him to life again. The same is true of the Sacraments (the visible word). More than mere memorial or symbolic representation, the Sacrament of Baptism puts to death the old nature and grafts us into the new life in Christ. So these things are Formative in nature. They do something to us. Applied to Genesis as holy story then, God through it is quite literally shaping and forming us into his people in the telling. God said let there be…and there was. I think this idea fits nicely with the one you pose. What do you think?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EvolvingLutheran

Greetings Dr. @swamidass. Has there been an update on the final positions from @CPArand on this topic yet? I’m a bit late to the party here. Thanks @mlkluther for recommending this site and a shoutout to my other LCMS brother @J.E.S.

Great to have you here. I’ve benefited a great deal from Concordia Seminary’s hospitality, and their informal education of my unrefined theological instincts. I really believe that Lutheranism has much to offer the larger conversation. It’s voice, however, really needs to be recovered from the corrosive influence of fundamentalism.

@EvolvingLutheran

I found this surprising because I couldn’t figure out then why the LCMS had adopted a clear literal 6 day position by that time when so many others espoused Day/Age and Gap Theory.

Concordia has people who speak there from a wide range of view. They do not endorse my (or @TedDavis) position on evolution, but are willing to be in dialogue. The reason for the 6 day affirmation, however, is not really about Lutheranism, but the fundamentalist strain within the denomination. Either way, it does not matter. Even if the six days are ordinary days, this is consistent with an old earth, with death outside the garden.

@EvolvingLutheran

My point of all of this is to show how a high concern for Scripture in a world of higher criticism that was seeking to undermine it, led to a literal 6 day view as well as a hardening against Darwinian evolution early in our synod.

I don’t think that is precisely it. The “americanization” of LCMS was very tightly connected to fundamentalism. Ironically, LCMS theology has deep resonance with evolutionary science (minus higher criticism and Darwinism), but it is about as opposite as one can get from fundamentalism.

As for concern for Scripture I agree and share those concerns. This is a place of common ground for us, and perhaps dissonance with evolutionary creationism (which I think is deeply misguided).

@EvolvingLutheran

Now, the real stickler I think becomes the issue of original sin, a historic Adam, and a literal Fall. I’ve read your other posts on historic Adam and genealogical descent and I think they work.

You are right. This is the crux of the issue that provokes the reactionary approach to evolution. If we can’t resolve this, evolution is alarming, and the conflict might be durable.

@EvolvingLutheran

The snag is Romans 5 and how we understand death before sin and how we define kosmos . Lutheran theology deals so much with justification from this inherited sin and death coming into the world (kosmos) through that original disobedience that I think its hard for us to know where the line between divine story and actual truth is.

My book tackles this head on. A very large number of theologians have reviewed my approach. I won’t speak for @CPArand, but the LCMS scholars in the conversation gave some of the most strong endorsements. Once again, I take a Lutheran approach here, which may be why it wass recieved well.

@EvolvingLutheran

But let me throw one other idea at you that might prove helpful. I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit and that is the Formative power of the Word. Essentially, the evangelical quality of the Genesis story.

There are deep resonance with the story of Jesus, and I point this out often. Jesus, however, is the center, not Adam.

---

Glad you are here. I’m looking forward to seeing the conversation develop.

[EvolvingLutheran]

@swamidass

I don’t think that is precisely it. The “americanization” of LCMS was very tightly connected to fundamentalism. Ironically, LCMS theology has deep resonance with evolutionary science (minus higher criticism and Darwinism), but it is about as opposite as one can get from fundamentalism.

Not so sure about how tightly connected it was. Perhaps it’s in relation to what decade of which we’re speaking or I might not be quite seeing how you’re linking the two. Graebner et.al rejected fundamentalism as “inherently unionistic” and in particular for its dispensationalism and views on the means of grace. https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1/page/n382

Not saying we don’t have a ‘fundamentalism’ of our own. But I’d postulate that ours is a kind of biblicism arising from our understanding of sola scriptura. In the 1920s we would remain distinct from other groups like Moody, Princeton, Presbyterians, Baptists and those who signed on to the Fundamentals. I do however agree that we have a streak of it with us today.

@swamidass

There are deep resonance with the story of Jesus, and I point this out often. Jesus, however, is the center, not Adam.

I’d wholeheartedly agree. I think that when Genesis is viewed through the theology of the Cross, that’s when it has its most formative effect for Christians. For the ANE people too I see it as formative story. In other words, assuming Mosaic authorship, those who would have received it in the wilderness would be formed and shaped into a distinct people through the telling and the acting out the sabbatical cycles. “Six days shall you work…for in six days the Lord made…”.

I’ll have to take a look at your book! Thanks again. Appreciate what you’re doing.