The Lutheran Witness

Because It’s There

Previous Article
Treasures in Church Attics
Comments (7)
  1. The challenge is the movement between the three categories of science. We are seeing that in the rapid advancement in understanding the genome and particularly the human genome and our ability to quickly sequence and produce large volumes of modifiable DNA. This scientific knowledge can be used for great good in medicine, biology and botany, food resources, substitutes for oil-based products and energy, and even art.
    However, the making of moral, God-pleasing decisions regarding the use of this science is not being addressed adequately, I fear, in the public discourse. I believe the Church has to step to the forefront, lest we find ourselves standing again as the human race before the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as well as the Tree of Life (which, of course, we stand at with every ME-focused choice in our earthly journey).

  2. Rev. Mr. David M. Burge says:

    “The Church is the only place where theoretical science still exists” What is the basis, please,for this statement? As it stands, it implies that theoretical science is not being done in non-Church institutions. Do you really mean to say that? I would assume that theoretical physicists and planetary and stellar scientists, among other scientific disciplines, are still doing carrying out their various experiments and calculations, still sending out their various probes, and still carrying out their various studies “to see more fully, to expand our understanding,” and, “to contemplate our place in this world.” Granted, they are doing these things, most of them, at institutions that are not God-centered and that most of them, but not all, are doing them from the perspective that God does not exist. So, we can debate the appropriateness of their starting principles. Nevertheless, to say that what they are doing is not “theoretical science” is to fail to appreciate how they are still seeking to know and to understand “what is true, what is good and what is beautiful, even if it has no immediate practical or productive application.” The statement, as it stands, also implies that the Church has some monopoly on theoretical science. Surely, given all the activity going on in the theoretical sciences at present, you do not mean to say that. You need, please, to clarify what you mean by such a sweeping statement, especially if theology and science, in all its forms, are to have a fruitful and positive dialogue

    1. Jason M. Braaten says:

      Pastor Burge, thanks for your reply. I’d point you to Pastor Cwirla’s post below, and my reply.

  3. Resha Caner says:

    I must respectively disagree with Rev. Braaten. In Luther’s essay, “On War Against the Turk,” he is careful to note that the Turks were “faithful and friendly and careful to tell the truth.” In other words, they are just as capable of leading an upright life as a Christian. In the same way, those outside the Church are just as capable of wonder as are we.

    The difference is that we acknowledge God as the ultimate source of our desire to know and of our wonder. It is a way to know God better – a way to worship him. The heavens declare the glory of God!

    I can’t know what led Rev. Braaten to write his essay. However, it seems to me the Christian community has become extremely frustrated with the success of the secular community in seizing control of science – further with the public impression that this means they also have access to the truth. As such, they are seeking ways to take back some authority for the Church.

    I, too, wish Lutheran organizations were better engaged with the Kingdom of the Left, but first we need to decide who it is that should lead that effort or all our hopes will be for naught.

    1. Andrew Fields says:

      I agree with Resha Caner, based on my own experience with people seriously engaged in theoretical science who are not Christian. Rev. Braaten overstates the case when he says that “the church is the only place where theoretical science still exists,” which is unfortunate, because it is the kind of statement that leads people outside the church to disregard what the church has to say.

  4. William M. Cwirla says:

    Aristotle’s understanding of what he calls “science” in his Ethics is not the same pursuit that we call “science” today. By “theoretical science,” the author of this piece actually means “natural theology,” that is, the glimpse of the supernatural and spiritual that is afforded by observation of the natural world, particularly in its order and beauty. This is not what we term “theoretical science” today.

    We in the church need to heed St. Augustine’s warning carefully lest we bring the teachings of forgiveness, eternal life, resurrection, and salvation in Christ into disrepute on account of our mishandling and misunderstanding of science as it is practiced today. The church is hardly the only place where theoretical science takes place. In fact, it is not the place at all. The church is where the mysteries of God are revealed to fait, not where the mysteries of the universe are studied.

    1. Jason M. Braaten says:

      Thank you, Pastor Cwirla, for clarifying what Aristotle meant by the term “theoretical science.”

      I understand the confusion over my choice of the word “Church” in the last paragraph. I did not intend that the church institutionally is the only place where this type of science takes place. And if that is how it is being taken, I wish I had used a different term. You are right, in that understanding of the term, it is not what the Church does.

      My intent was the broad understanding of the word “Church” as all those who believe in the one, true God. In that sense, though I can be persuaded otherwise, I think it is the only place it exists, and I do think that the church in this sense should engage in it. Even though the heavens and the earth pass away, even though the form of this world will pass away, there will be a new heavens and a new earth. While then we will see clearly, face to face, we are given the joy of seeing dimly as in a mirror now. Nevertheless, this is not a replacement for those things that will never pass away: the Word of God which remains forever.