“You leave the
commandment of God and cling to human tradition.” – Jesus in Mark 7:8
In 2017,
Concordia University Nebraska professor Dr. John Jurchen aroused strong
criticism from LCMS officials for an article that he wrote titled, “The Age of
the Earth and Confessional Lutheranism.”[1] Indeed his article raised such ire that he
retracted it upon the insistence of his critics.[2] In support of their censure Dr. Charles Arand
wrote, “As a church we have…maintained
that within our confessional and doctrinal boundaries
there is room for discussion, debate, and even disagreement on matters that do not
transgress or redraw the boundaries /….I hope and pray that [our periodical] will
serve a helpful place within the church, where we meet as theologically trained
servants in the church to discuss and ultimately confess only that to which the
Scriptures commit us”[3]
(boldface mine). It is my judgment that
these two themes of Dr. Arand be cannot be reconciled with each other. Furthermore, for the reason that sola Scriptura (the Word alone) is among
the four major “solas” that Luther
proclaimed, neither can the LCMS’ commitment to an arbitrary “boundary” that can’t
be sourced in the Bible be reconciled with Luther’s Reformation as he exemplified
by his steadfast stance at the Diet of Worms.
It is
my considered judgment that the “boundaries” which Dr. Arand highlights (the
insistence of the LCMS that the creation “days” are approximately 24-hour, and that
death in the animal kingdom began as a consequence of Adam’s Fall), cannot be
proven from the texts which the LCMS has correctly determined to be
authoritative and theologically binding. They include both the Holy Bible and the
Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord. Consequently, this posture effectively
prohibits the open inquiry which the Reformation requires: to follow the
biblical evidence where it leads.
It is
one thing to laud the Bible as God-breathed Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) in an abstract sense in the manner of current
LCMS practice. But it is an altogether different matter to painstakingly study
it (Acts 17:11) to the end that its actual contents
might scrutinize our assumptions and transform our theological thinking (Romans
12:2). Although I write here as an
ancient-universe creationist (AUC), my point here is not to prejudice readers to favor my position, but instead
to freshly re-open the question. For if
our theological deliberations about creation are naively straight jacketed by our
prior assumptions, then we will have deceived
ourselves into imagining that we have exhausted our biblical exegesis (2
Timothy 2:15). In this light, the only
boundary that is legitimate in our task of interpreting Genesis 1 is to submit
to the text itself.
I
suggest your consideration of the following three of my essays which can serve
as guideposts in the task of understanding the first chapter Genesis chapter: ) The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look:
Ten Exegetical Reasons the Creation Days of Genesis 1 are Non-24 Hour,” 2) “How Genesis 1:1 Easily Accommodates the Big Bang,” and “Defusing the Alleged Conflict Between Scientific Fact and the
Text of Genesis 1 Without Compromising Either One.” The can be accessed at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com.
[1]
Dr. John Jurchen. Concordia Journal: A
Partner Issue with Concordia University Nebraska. (Concordia Seminary, St.
Louis MO., Summer 2017), p. 64f.
[2]
Charles Arand. “Regarding the Editorial Process for the Concordia Journal.” Concordia Journal. Concordia Lutheran
Seminary, St. Louis, MO. (Winter, 2018), p. 10.
[3]
Charles Arand. “Reflections on Reactions to the Summer Issue of the Concordia
Journal.” Ibid, pp. 8, 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment