Pericope of the Week: The Theological Declaration of Barmen

Over the years I have regularly taught a university course on Christians in Nazi Germany. I am doing so again this semester. Since I continue also to serve a pastoral vacancy in our area, a few weeks ago I began an adult class there on the same topic. This week both sets of students are examining the "Theological Declaration" that came out of the confessing synod that met in Barmen, Germany in May, 1934. The purpose of the Declaration was to identify the false teaching of the so-called "German Christians," those who sought to change the Protestant Church in Germany to reflect Nazi ideology, for example, by excluding from the pastoral ministry those Protestant pastors who were of Jewish ancestry, and to call upon those who accepted the Declaration to act in accord with its judgments.

Karl Barth

The principal author of the Declaration was Karl Barth, professor of Reformed theology at the University of Bonn, although some Lutheran theologians made contributions to it as well, most significantly in the fifth article (which was not a part of Barth's original draft).


Unfortunately, the English translation of the Declaration that occurs in Arthur C. Cochrane's book, The Church's Confession under Hitler (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962; pp. 237-42), is not entirely accurate. The online reproduction of that translation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm) also includes material that was not originally a part of the Declaration itself, and it omits some material.

I have therefore attempted a translation of the Declaration myself and include it below as this week's "pericope." My translation is based on the seventh German edition: Martin Heimbucher and Rudolf Weth, eds., Die Barmer Theologische Erklärung: Einführung und Kokumentation, foreword by Wolfgang Huber (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 33-43.

If anyone has suggestions for improving my translation, please feel free to share them with me.

Edmund Schlink

I should add that I have written about two German-Lutheran theological responses to the Declaration in the 1930s. The first response was basically positive, namely, that of Edmund Schlink, who signed the Declaration and became a member of the Confessing Church. (See my essays: "Edmund Schlink (1903-1984), Lutheran Quarterly 23 [Winter 2009], 406-38; "Edmund Schlink on Theological Anthropology, the Law and the Gospel," Lutheran Quarterly 24 [Summer 2010], 151-82). The other response, however, was basically negative, namely, that of Werner Elert. (See my essay, "Werner Elert in Retrospect," Lutheran Quarterly 20 [Autumn 2006], 249-302). Whereas Schlink likely could not have supported the Declaration had the fifth article been excluded, Elert could not support the document because he thought the first two articles were contradicted by the fifth article. For him, Jesus Christ is not the only word of God, and the other word, that of the divine law, is to be sharply distinguished from the promise of the divine gospel. Such a distinction also relates to the Lutheran insistence that God works in the world through two differing operations, the so-called "two kingdoms," which is summarized in the fifth article of the Declaration.

Theological Declaration concerning the Present Situation of the German Protestant Church

            According to the opening words of its meeting on July 11, 1933, the German Protestant Church is a federation of confessional churches which grew out of the Reformation and which have equal rights beside one another. The theological presupposition of the unity of these churches is given in Articles 1 and 2.1 of the Constitution of the German Protestant Church, which were recognized by the national government on July 14, 1933:

Article 1: The inviolable basis of the German Protestant Church is the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is attested for us in Holy Scripture and brought to light anew in the confessions of the Reformation. Hereby the full power and authority which the church needs for its mission are determined and delimited.

Article 2.1: The German Protestant Church is comprised of churches (state churches).

            We, the unified representatives of Lutheran, Reformed, and United churches, free synods, church congresses, and congregational organizations at the confessing synod of the German Protestant Church declare that we stand together on the basis of the German Protestant Church as a federation of German confessional churches. Thereby the confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, universal, and apostolic church binds us together.

            We publicly declare before all of the Protestant churches in Germany that the common element in this confession is severely endangered, as is the unity of the German Protestant Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling church party of "German Christians" and the church government undertaken by them. These methods and actions have become more and more visible in the first year of the existence of the German Protestant Church. This threat consists in this, namely, that the theological presupposition, in which the German Protestant Church is united, has been continuously and fundamentally thwarted and made ineffective by foreign presuppositions, both on the part of the leader and speaker of the German Christians and by the church government. When these presuppositions are held to be valid, the church ceases to be the church, according to all of the confessions in force among us. Likewise, as a result of this, the German Protestant Church is intrinsically impossible as a federation of confessional churches.

            As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United churches we may and must speak together today about this matter. Precisely because we want to be true and remain true to our diverse confessions, we may not keep silent since we believe that in a time of common emergency and crisis it is fitting for us to speak a common word. We commend to God what this may mean for the relationship of the confessional churches to one another.

            In view of the errors of the German Christians and the present government of the national church, which are desolating the church and thus also the unity of the German Protestant Church, we confess the following evangelical-Protestant truths:

1.   "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6). "Truly, truly I say to you: he who does not enter into the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way, he is a thief and a murderer. I am the gate; if anyone enters by me, he will be blessed" (John 10:1, 9).

Jesus Christ, as he is attested to us in Holy Scripture, is the one word of God that we are to hear, which we are to trust and to obey in life and in death.

We reject the false doctrine, as if the church can and must recognize as sources for its preaching, apart from and beside this one word of God, also other events and powers, figures and truths as God's revelation.

2.   "God made Jesus Christ to be for us our wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).

Just as Jesus Christ is God's assurance [Zuspruch] of the forgiveness of all our sins, so also, and with the same earnestness, he is God's powerful claim [Anspruch] upon our entire life. Through him a joyous liberation from the godless conditions of this world occurs for us, a liberation for free, grateful service to his creatures.

We reject the false doctrine, as if there are domains of our life in which we do not belong to Jesus Christ but to other lords, domains in which we would not need justification and sanctification by him.

3.   "But let us be upright in love and grow in every respect into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together" (Eph. 4:15-16).

The Christian church is the congregation of brothers in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the church of forgiven sinners, it has to testify in the midst of the world of sinners, both with its faith and its obedience, with its message as well as with its order, that it alone is his property, that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and by his direction in anticipation of his appearance.

We reject the false doctrine, as if the church could relinquish the form of its message and its order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

4.    "You know that the worldly rulers lord over others and the chief lords have power. It shall not be so among you; but if anyone wants to be great among you, let him be your servant" (Matt. 20:25-26).

The various offices in the church do not establish any lordship of one over the others, but the exercise of the ministry is commanded and entrusted to the whole congregation.

We reject the false doctrine, as if the church, apart from this ministry, could give itself and allow itself to be given over to special leaders who are vested with ruling powers.

5.     "Fear God, honor the king" (1 Pet. 2:17).

Scripture says to us that the State, according to divine arrangement, has the task to be concerned for justice and peace in this still unredeemed world in which the church also stands, and to do so according to the standard of human insight and human ability, under penalty of threat and the use of force. In gratitude and reverence toward God, the church recognizes the benefit of this, his arrangement. The church reminds itself of God's kingdom, of God's command and justice, and thereby, of the responsibility of those governing and of the governed. It trusts and obeys the power of the word by which God upholds all things.

We reject the false doctrine, as if the state, beyond its special task, should and could become the single and total order of human life and thereby fulfill also the intended purpose of the church.

We reject the false doctrine, as if the church, beyond its special task, should and could take over state-governmental actions, state-governmental tasks, and state-governmental positions and thereby become itself an organ of the state.

6.    "See, I am with you every day until the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20).

       "God's word is not bound" (2 Tim. 2:9).

The task of the church, in which its freedom is grounded, consists in this, namely, to pass on the message of the freeing grace of God to every nation, in the place of Christ and thus in service to his own word and work through sermon and sacrament.

We reject the false doctrine, as if the church, in human arrogance, could place the word and work of the Lord in service to any arbitrarily-chosen wishes, goals, and plans.

            The confessing synod of the German Protestant Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgement of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological foundation of the German Protestant Church as a federation of confessional churches. It invites all who are able to agree with its declaration to keep in mind these theological judgments in their church-political decisions. It requests all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.

Verbum Dei manet in aeternum. [The word of God remains to eternity.]

Germany and the Czech Republic in July 2013

St. Thomas Church - Leipzig

Next summer I will once again be leading a 12-day tour to Germany and the Czech Republic. Not only will we visit significant places connected with the lives of Martin Luther and J. S. Bach, but we will also explore other sites that are important in the history of Germany. The journey begins with a few days in bustling Berlin. From there we will travel through Wittenberg, Leipzig, Erfurt, and Dresden, and then on to historic  Prague.

Along the way we will visit the home of "Hitler resister" Dietrich Bonhoeffer, explore the rich cultural opportunities in the German capital, tour the state-of-the-art Luther museum and other exhibits in the town he made famous, undertake a pilgrimage to the Wartburg Castle (and see its rich variety of religious relics and artwork), visit the Bachhaus museum in Eisenach (where we will learn about and listen to all things Baroque), experience world-class music at the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig and at the recently-renovated Frauenkirche in Dresden. There will be shopping and museum-exploring in Berlin and Prague, people-watching in various market places and town squares, eating wonderful meals in such places as Leipzig's Auerbach's Keller (made famous by Goethe), and lingering in an art museum or two. We will engage German history and culture from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first. So we will learn about Goethe and Schiller, but also walk the haunting grounds of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp and wrestle with the dark side of Germany's more recent past.

What better way to spend a late afternoon in July than to sample a good German beer or wine over conversation at an outside cafe in the shadow of a medieval cathedral, as you watch others going about their business in the town square or market place... And then to catch an early dinner before heading off to a cabaret show or the opera or an evening concert...

Zwinger Museum - Dresden

As one who has taught university courses on Luther and Bach (and who lived and taught in Germany for two years [2007-9]), I will be providing "color commentary" on the places we visit and the histories we uncover. While there will be several guided walking tours, there will also be much time for informal conversation and discussion.

I should stress that one does not need to be a Lutheran Christian to enjoy this experience! Just ask the several non-Lutheran participants from last summer's trip! In fact, two of them told me after last year's journey that they planned to publicize this upcoming trip to friends at their local Roman Catholic church.(Several of the participants are also Valparaiso University alumni, but one need not have any connection to my university to join us!)

Our tour company is Trans World Travel, located in Highland Park, Illinois. They have been organizing and leading tours to Europe and elsewhere for several decades.

To download a color brochure about the trip, visit  http://www.thedaystarjournal.com/
Then click on the link that will take you to "Luther/Bach Trip 2013."

To register for the trip, simply print off the brochure and send in the registration form to Trans World Travel. They are handling all of the actual travel arrangements.

Since space is limited, I encourage you to register soon.

Religion in the Economist

Among the more interesting journals about religion that I read on a weekly basis, none is more insightful and provoking than the British Economist. First published in 1843, its original purpose still graces the masthead: "...to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.'" Given this nineteenth-century liberal, modernist aim, one might think "religion" and even "theology" would be relegated in its pages to the wrong side of that "severe contest." Not so. Or, at least, not always. Perhaps in a way not foreseen in the mid-1800s, "religions" have persisted into the present. Whereas less than a century before the magazine's founding, David Hume confidently predicted that "within 300 years" most all religions would cease to exist within modern, scientific societies, such has not been the case. If anything, a well-educated business person today needs more knowledge of the world's religions and their impact on societies and regions than was the case in Hume's eighteenth century. Careful reporting on human beings, their hopes and fears, their beliefs and behaviors, cannot avoid the long shadow of "religion" and even "theology." The faith-dimension to many of the most troubling of problems in the contemporary world cannot be avoided: the growing gap between rich and the poor, the population explosion, ongoing violent conflicts between different racial, cultural, and religious groups (the arming of which no one seems able to stop), the global environmental crisis.The list could go on. So it is not surprising that "religion" and even "theology" appear in such a secular-minded magazine as the Economist.

Witness this week's edition (Sep 15, 2012). Beyond the several pages devoted to Muslim rage and violence in response to a vile, online anti-Muslim film made by a Coptic-American Christian, attention was given to:

(1) two letters to the editor on "atheism" (in response to an earlier article on "growing disbelief" in America). One of the letter writers wrote, "I can't imagine how belief or unbelief in a god would made any difference in my life. I'll still try to treat my fellow man and woman like I'd like them to treat me. It really is possible to try to be good without the aid of an organized religion or belief in the supernatural." But did you invent the notion of "treating your fellow man and woman as you'd like them to treat you?" And how well are you doing at that? What if you are not the only judge of your behavior?

(2) no easy choices in Syria, now that the death toll is approaching 30,000 and the refugee count ten times that amount;

(3) religious differences among the Syrian rebels and how that is complicating their resistance;

(4) moral-religious issues relating to women's health care and their impact on the US presidential election;

(5) gay marriage ballot measures in several US states;

(6) the lack of much debate about foreign policy between the two US candidates (the editorial makes reference to Pres. Obama's failed "ambitious plan" to "reach out to Muslims" so as "to reduce the antagonism of Muslims toward the West and Israel");

(7) the growth of private universities in Brazil, some of which are Roman Catholic;

(8) the Haqqani network that is straining US-Pakistani relations;

(9) the heated election for mayor of Jakarta (Muslim-Christian tensions in Indonesia);

(10) the new moderate Islamist president of Somalia;

(11) the elections in the Netherlands (Christian Democrat setback; anti-Muslim politics);

(12) Peddling religion in Turkey (relationship between Muslim theology and modern sciences);

(13) Angela Merkel's (Lutheran?) austerity in the euro crisis;

 (14) moves among British Tories toward better relations with gays (which is upsetting to conservative Christians);

(15) the pros and cons of circumcision (and controversy surrounding communities that want to ban the religious practice);

(16) reinventing Bach (review of a new book about how modern musical technology has allowed Bach's music to be reinvented by its interpreters);

(17) a review of the book, "And Man Created God: Kings, Cults, and Conquests at the Time of Jesus" (a review that would have been better had it paid closer attention to the work on Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, who is mentioned in the earlier review on the Bach book);

(18) an obituary of peace-maker, Roger Fisher, whose knowledge of the world religions was central to his work as "a fixer."


This was not an atypical week. When time is limited, one is hard-pressed to find better analysis of global events, including their religious dimensions than this weekly newspaper.

The Human Animal and Other Animals in God's Creation

This summer I am again teaching a course on the Christian doctrine of creation. Early in the semester we wrestle with the place of human beings in creation and with the idea of "human exceptionalism," the notion that human beings are qualitatively different and separate from/above all other animals. Among those most critical of this idea has been Benjamin Hale, who writes for Harpers magazine. Last summer, in honor of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, he contributed an essay on Psalm 8 that attacked "the anthropocentric ordering of the Judeo-Christian universe," a view that "enrages" him "more than anything else in the Bible." He thinks it "has fostered an attitude dominant in our culture that uncompromisingly divides 'man' from 'beast.' Christian theology requires the assumption of human exceptionalism, since the Christian heaven is a human one. It requires us to assume that we alone have a culture and the capacity for morality; that only by the light of our 'unnatural' (whether this means supernatural or contradictory to survival of the fittest) human morality can we overcome the amoral, purely self-interested State of Nature. The dichotomy that pits humanity and morality against 'nature' does not align with observations of moral, social, and altruistic behavior in primates or in many other mammals--dogs, elephants, bats--something that suggests that both the good and the bad in us have precedent in other species" (Benjamin Hale, "Lower Than the Angels," Harpers Magazine [June 2011], 38.. In the August 2012 issue of the same magazine, he has written a film review that also makes reference to his critique of "human exceptionalism.")

I recently asked my students to respond to Hale's portrayal of "the Judeo-Christian universe" and its supposed assumption of "human exceptionalism." Many defended the idea that human beings, at least as understood within the main religious traditions, are indeed different from all other animals because they can use their reason and freedom to go against "natural" impulses and instincts that serve the self (and often do harm to others). While acknowledging the biological-evolutionary connection that human beings have to all other life forms on the planet, other students argued that human beings are uniquely qualified and positioned to act differently from other animals. This is both a challenge and a threat, since human actions can both help and harm other creatures and creation itself. 

At least a couple of students questioned Hale's assumption that "Christian theology requires the assumption of human exceptionalism, since the Christian heaven is a human one." For starters, these students noted that other creatures beyond humans will populate heaven. What about angels, for example? But students also noted that the difference between human beings and other animals does not necessarily mean that humans can mistreat animals. "The righteous know the needs of their animals, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel" (Prov. 12:10). 

Still other students asked, "Is it not also possible that other animals will be brought into God's future?" What about the vision of Isaiah of God's "new heavens and new earth" (Isaiah 65:17-19; cf. Rev. 21:1), which does not merely include renewed human beings but also renewed animals? "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent--its food shall be dust! They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain" (Is. 65:25; NRSV). This new age is further described in 11:6ff: "The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them..."

The question of "human exceptionalism," supposedly premised on an animal-less heaven, is not merely an academic issue. It is also a pastoral one. Last week our 2.5-year-old "Schnoodle," Skipper, was killed by a fast-moving car on the county road behind our house. My wife had taken him for a walk in our quiet sub-division, but upon coming home he saw a wild rabbit and got away from my wife. His instincts told him to chase that critter, and so he did--and his chasing took him right out into the road. 

I wasn't present for the accident, but shortly thereafter my neighbor and crying wife appeared at our front door. Skipper was a mess. It was clear he had suffered severe head trauma and was bleeding internally. He was unconscious but still breathing. My son, Jacob, who has had only this one pet (other than a little hamster), immediately starting screaming and crying. We all quickly jumped in the car and tried to get Skipper to a pet hospital, but he died in my wife's and son's arms in the back seat. It didn't help that all the local vet offices were closed, with it being Sunday, and the closest pet hospital was forty minutes away.

It all happened so fast. I even remember pinching myself, "Is this really happening." And then to hear as I was driving the car, "I think he's gone."

But where did he go? Did he have a "spirit" or a "soul," like the Scriptures say human beings do? Skipper certainly had "life" and "breath" in him, and we've been around enough other pets to know that he had had a distinct "personality."

Skipper's death has been like losing a child. My 13-yr-old son laments, "I have lost a brother." For the past several days, as we wander through the house, we'll see things that remind us of him, spots he used to go to (and spots he has left behind!), items he's chewed, toys he's played with. We buried him in our backyard that Monday morning and put a grave marker over the spot, just like you would for a deceased human being. Certainly, anyone who has had a beloved pet knows what I'm talking about. They really become a part of your family. You have a deeper relationship to them than you realize, until they're gone. Skipper brought us a lot of joy and laughter. He could be so goofy at times. Our lives were made fuller because of him.

Do all dogs go to heaven? Just the good ones, the loved ones? Do not the visions of Second- and Third Isaiah, and John, indicate that non-human animals, too, will be brought through death into God's new creation. I find it difficult to believe that God would create all these varied creatures, just to have them die rather senselessly, if they too were not an aspect of God's eternal plan. Why couldn't the Creator of all these animals not make a provision for them in that future world? The actions and words of St. Francis to bless animals would also suggest this possibility.

As word of Skipper's death reached other family members and friends, one of them told me that when he had been a student of Jaroslav Pelikan at Concordia Seminary, Pelikan had told them about his own pet's death and how it had affected his family. His son, too, asked him, "Will there be pets in heaven?" Dr. Pelikan responded by saying that if that was important for his son's happiness in heaven, then his son's pet would surely be there. This is what I have told my son, too.

Coincidentally, today's "Sightings" article by Carol J. Adams, "Five Religious Approaches to Thinking about Meat Eating," raises the same issue about the relation of "human beings" to "animals" in God's creation. Adams, who participated in the first-ever panel on "Animals and Religion" at the American Academy of Religion in 1994, has identified at least five approaches "for addressing the issue of the consumption of animals" that arise when one studies religion: 

1) Most religious traditions postulate a vegan beginning. In the religions that hold the Book of Genesis as a part of their scriptures, a vegan diet is pronounced as the appropriate food for human beings (Genesis 1:29); the much-contested “dominion” granted in Genesis 1:26 is dominion within a vegan world. Christopher Chapple suggests the possibility that one can trace religious ideas of the practice of nonviolence to an ancient renouncer tradition that later gave birth to Jainism and Buddhism and influenced aspects of Hinduism, including the classical yoga school. This is one of the reasons Rynn Berry calls Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism the “four ahimsa-based 'vegetarian’ religions.” What do those beginnings suggest about our relationships with other created beings?

  

2) As mentioned above, some find it helpful to invoke what Jesus, the Buddha, or Mohammed ate. Recently, the question has shifted to “if they were alive in our time, what would they eat now? If they learned about the way animals live and die within factory farms, what would they do?” Would they agree with the winner of the recent New York Times competition that “most present-day meat production is an ecologically foolish and ethically wrong endeavor”?

 

3) What is the nature of creation and what is our place in it? Some religious traditions are seen as reinforcing human-centeredness because they appear to suggest that humans are the teleological fulfillment of creation. Are we removed from creation or embedded within it? If our relationship with creation is a religious issue, and since animals are a part of creation, is not our relationship with animals also a religious issue? Karen Davis suggests in response to Aldo Leopold that before she could think like a mountain, she wanted to know if that would include thinking like a chicken. In other words, we should not lose sight of the individuals within creation.

 

4) What are the effects of anthropormorphizing God? Does an anthropormophic God cause us to see animals as excluded from God’s love or concern? Moreover, what is the effect of seeing humans as in God’s image? Why is being in God’s image often interpreted in view of power and manipulation and hegemony instead of compassion and mercy and emptying unconditional love? Do we anthropomorphize God out of properties that we are most likely to be using against others? We are most likely to assert the image of God when we are lording over others, and using our power. Acts of unconditional love, suspensions of judgment, mercy for the weak, kindness to animals, get associated with a picture of wishy washy ineffectualness and weakness—qualities often seen as undesirable.

5) How do we show compassion and who are our neighbors? Do animals fall within a religious call to be compassionate? Are animals our neighbors? While most religions might have what some call a “miminal treatment” ethics regarding how animals should be treated, recent writings argue for expanding that. In their Religious Vegetarianism, Kerry Walter and Lisa Portmess suggest, “Whatever the sacred and the holy are thought to be, the human slaughter of animals questions it, renders it paradoxical, demands reflection.” In my own work, I have found the writings of Simone Weil illuminating. Weil writes that all our neighbor requires of us is to ask “What are you going through?” and to be willing to listen to the answer.

  

What are you going through, chicken, cow, pig, lamb, fish? This may be a more profound and urgent question in the twenty-first century than ever before. 

("Sightings" comes each Monday from the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School.) 

References

Berry, Rynn. Food for the Gods: Vegetarianism and the World’s Religions. New York and Los Angeles: Pythagorean Publishers, 1998.

Chapple, Christoper Key. Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993.

Davis, Karen, “Thinking Like a Chicken,” in Carol J. Adams, and Josephine Donovan, eds. Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham: Duke University Press, 1995.

Walters, Kerry S. and Lisa Portmess, ed. Religious Vegetarianism from the Hesiod to the Dalai Lama. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2001.

Weil, Simone. “Reflections on the Right Use of School Studies with a View to The Love of God,” in Waiting on God. London: Fontana Books, 1971. 

Carol J. Adams is the author of The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, Woman-Battering (in Fortress Press’s Creative Pastoral Care and Counseling Series), Prayers for Animals, and a four-book children’s series of prayers for animals. In addition, she has edited and co-edited five anthologies, including Ecofeminism and the Sacred. She is working on a book on theology and animals. Her website can be found at www.caroljadams.com.

A Couple of Questions from an LCMS Vicar

Every now and then I get an email from someone who has read my online essay, "The Scandal of the LCMS Mind" (The Daystar Journal [Summer 2005 issue]), and desires some clarification. Last week an LCMS vicar contacted me for just this purpose. He's given me permission to share his email here:

Dear Dr. Becker,

...I have always struggled with the tension that exists, more generally in the larger Christian community and more specifically in the LCMS, between theology and science. This issue is nowhere more present for me than in the debate over evolution. I recently read your article "The Scandal of the LCMS Mind," and appreciated your insight on the issue. I especially liked your distinction between "primary" and "secondary causes," how theology seeks to understand the triune God, and science seeks to understand the secondary causes (in this case the genesis of the cosmos). I also appreciate your critique of those who reject a Copernican view of the cosmos in favor of a literalistic reading of the scriptures. (Ironically, they reject evolution on these same grounds.)

That said, I am still wrestling with several concepts in your paper, and humbly ask for clarification. (I understand you are a busy man, wearing many hats.)

1. You state:

For example, scientific data about the reality of physical death in the animal and plant kingdoms prior to origin of human beings (e.g., fossils of animals that lived long before the origin of human beings) must lead those who interpret the Bible in light of scientific knowledge to restate the nature of God’s good creation prior to the advent of human sin (e.g., such a good creation must have included the reality of death prior to the existence of human beings) and the character of the historical origin of sin (e.g., the advent of sin is to be traced to the first hominids who disobeyed God’s will but not necessarily to their having eaten from a tree in an actual place called the Garden of Eden several thousand years ago).

The seminary and many theologians sight death before the fall as their primary concern with evolution. In your paper, you do not seem to hold the same concern. I am wondering how you reconcile this issue, especially in light of Romans 6:23? It seems like you are creating a disjunction between sin and death. How does one do this in light of the gospel, namely that Jesus conquered death and, thus, sin?

2. Earlier, you state:

   But “reason” has its limits, according to Luther.  Reason is given to human beings for use within the earthly or natural domain.  Here, reason has its proper role and function.  As noted above, Luther is even prepared to acknowledge that the powers of human reason remain largely uncorrupted by sin.  For Luther, it was simply a matter of making proper distinctions, especially between “the things of nature” and “the things of the Spirit.”  Only when transferred from the natural domain into matters of the Spirit, does “reason” become a “whore,” according to Luther. Before God (coram deo), reason is unreliable and of no use to human beings; but within the world (coram mundo), reason is reliable and of great use to human beings.

Before God, reason is unreliable, because human reason is corrupt and cannot comprehend the hidden God. Before the world, is human reason any less corrupt? I understand that we use human reason to interpret the scriptures, but it seems like you are suggesting that we let our interpretation of creation guide our interpretation of the scriptures. Does this place reason on par with or above the scriptures?

Again, thank you for your response. I understand you have come under criticism for discussing such things, and I by no means desire to criticize you in this email. I am simply curious about your reflections on these issues.

Sincerely,

(LCMS Vicar--name withheld)

Here's my edited response to him:

Dear Vicar-------,

Thank you for taking time to read my essay and to ask your two questions.

With regard to your first question: I need to state clearly that the human experience of death is revealed in the Scriptures to be a judgment from God for human sin. The Scriptures clearly teach that sin and the death of human beings are related, as your reference to Rom. 6:20-23 indicates. However, Paul is not talking here about biological death among animals (and this would include human beings insofar as they are animals, too), but about the death that is experienced as God's judgment by human sinners. Paul's teaching only make sense in reference to actual human beings who live "on this side of Eden." In our present situation, the biological death of human beings is now revealed to be a judgment from God. Death now "exercises dominion over" human beings, "even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam" (Rom. 5:14).

The Scriptures do not speak of "sin" in reference to animals, nor do we understand their biological endings as a judgment of God (unless you understand Rom. 8:20-21 in this way, but even there the reference seems to be to the suffering and decay of human beings in the old creation who are awaiting their revelation as the children of God, not to the biological death of all creatures). The Scriptures speak of sin and "the dominion of death" only in reference to human beings. The fact that animals have died for millions of years before the appearance of the first human beings is only problematic for those who insist on reading Gen. 2-3 as an actual literal-historical account of a time of "innocence" and "immortality" prior to an actual, literal "fall into sin," after which human beings became mortal. It is also problematic if one thinks the Scriptures teach that the death of all creatures is the divine judgment for the sin of the first human beings. As far as I can tell, the Scriptures do not teach this. Gen. 3 should not be read as an historical account of an actual event, but as a profound narrative that reveals what human beings are before God: anxious, tempted, finite sinners who have come under the judgment of God.

A theological reading of these early chapters of Genesis discloses to oneself and to other human beings our own incapacity for good, our sense of common guilt with all other human beings, and our need for redemption. We are aware of ourselves as creatures of God, created in the image and likeness of God for relationship with God and for freedom and creativity in the world (and in this sense, every human being has a sense of an "original perfection" before God, to use Schleiermacher's phrase, a time of innocence/perfection that has been lost to them), but we also are aware that we are now estranged from God, enslaved to sin, adrift in the world, disconnected from God's will, mortally judged, and in need of Christ's salvation. The revelation of God's law clarifies and intensifies this estrangement and divine judgment.

One need not interpret the stories in Gen. 1-3 as reports about two actual events in the past, "creation and fall," or hold to the (non-biblical) notion that all biological death is the result of the actual sin of two human beings in the past, to arrive at a true theological understanding of human beings as fallen creatures, as theologians from Schleiermacher to Tillich have also correctly underscored.

My reading of Rom. 6:20ff. is that every human being, from birth, is a slave to sin. We can only talk about human beings as sinful creatures. We know of no human being who is not a sinner, save One, Jesus. To the extent that human beings are biological animals, their lives are conditioned by the same conditions that affect all other creatures. They are finite and mortal. But unlike other creatures, human beings have been created for freedom and creativity within creation and we continue to reflect the image and likeness of God (albeit in a distorted manner because of our sinful condition), and we are also aware of our estrangement from God, that we are "slaves to sin," and incapable of saving ourselves.

There is no escaping the fact that our deaths are closely connected to our experience of God's judgment against our lives, that our lives do not go on forever, that they come to an ending, and that they are put into the divine balance, so to speak. But Christ, the new human being, has freed those who are enslaved to sin from the judgment of God, has united them in himself through baptism into his death and resurrection, and has invited them to trust that so united they will be brought through death into eternal life. (As to the ultimate future of God's other creatures, I am agnostic.)

With regard to your second question: human reason and our senses are preserved by God and they give us reliable knowledge of God's creation, as Luther's explanation to the First Article indicates. Despite Luther's criticism of the wrongful use of "reason" in theological matters, he freely acknowledged its rigorous use in natural philosophy (what we today would call "the natural sciences"). Melanchthon had an even more positive view of reason in these areas than did his elder colleague. To deny the power of reason to uncover accurate knowledge in nature is to deny God's preservation of our reason and senses vis-a-vis the things of this world. When the Scriptures refer to matters of this world that are also investigated by people using their God-given and God-preserved reason and senses, then the latter investigations are helpful for identifying false interpretations of those same Scriptural passages. That is why I have criticized those who reject the Copernican theory in favor of a literalistic reading of all those biblical passages that refer to the immovability of the earth, to the earth resting on pillars, to the four corners of the earth, to the sun moving around the earth, and so on. A basic hermeneutical principle is that one should read a passage literally unless there are good reasons for adopting a figurative or symbolic reading. In the case of the above cosmological passages, extra-biblical knowledge has provided solid reasons for adopting figurative readings of those passages. If we did not allow the natural sciences to inform our reading of the cosmological passages in the Scripture, then we would have to insist with Dr. Pieper that indeed the Copernican theory is wrong because a literal, straight-forward reading of the Bible indicates that the earth does not move, that it is resting on a foundation (or on pillars), and that the sun does move around the earth (Josh. 10; Ps. 19; etc.). Thankfully, the Augustinian-Lutheran-Melanchthonian approach to biblical interpretation allows the natural knowledge of nature, gained through the use of God's reliable gifts of reason and the senses, to shed light on how we are to interpret biblical passages that also refer to the cosmos. Such knowledge now assists us in eliminating false readings of the narratives in the early chapters of Genesis and to minimize the tensions to which you referred regarding the interpretation of the Bible in light of scientific knowledge of the natural history of the earth.

Hope this helps to clarify.

Warm regards,

Matt Becker