JOSIAH

[Albion]

As Josiah was saying, church convention delegates are not chosen because they are scientists, so the question cannot be answered that way. However, this doesn't mean that science is discarded during deliberations or that the delegates are hostile to it or ignorant of it or that there aren't any credentialed scientists in the delegations.

And if there is a very controversial issue to come before the body, it's normal for a study committee to be authorized and for it to report its finding at the following convention. I am referring to Protestant church conventions in general, not of LCMS ones in particular.

 

[Faith]

As Josiah was saying, church convention delegates are not chosen because they are scientists, so the question cannot be answered that way. However, this doesn't mean that science is discarded during deliberations or that the delegates are hostile to it or ignorant of it or that there aren't any credentialed scientists in the delegations.

And if there is a very controversial issue to come before the body, it's normal for a study committee to be authorized and for it to report its finding at the following convention. I am referring to Protestant church conventions in general, not of LCMS ones in particular.

Ok, so I’d still
ike to know, roughly, how many were educated in Science, or astronomy, in particular. IOW, we’re these men mostly basing the young earth theory on what they were taught in seminary and religion class or were they basing it on science?

 

[Faith]

i asked my pastor in email and am waiting on a reply.

 

[Albion]

Ok, so I’d still
ike to know, roughly, how many were educated in Science, or astronomy, in particular. IOW, we’re these men mostly basing the young earth theory on what they were taught in seminary and religion class or were they basing it on science?

I would be surprised if most delegates didn't value both of those and take the stand that they did after considering all the available facts, logic, and evidence.

On the other hand, it's not reasonable to ask anyone of us how every last delegate at any church convention made his decision before voting. Or how many did so versus how many might not have. No one can answer such questions with certainty.

Presumably, it could somehow or other be ascertained how many college classes in biology, how many in astronomy, and how many in other sciences each of the hundreds of delegates to some convention had taken and passed, but I can't think of anyone who would know...and even if we did know the answer to that, it wouldn't answer your question about what they took away from such instruction.

 

[Josiah]

Ok, so I’d still
ike to know, roughly, how many were educated in Science, or astronomy, in particular. IOW, we’re these men mostly basing the young earth theory on what they were taught in seminary and religion class or were they basing it on science?

Again, there's no way to know. For the 50% of delegates ordained, I have NO CLUE how many did college level work in science. For the 50% of lay delegates, I have NO CLUE how many did college work in science. Of the great many delegates, the only information available is whether they are pastors or laypersons... and the city in which they reside. That's it.

I already gave my opinion as to why the resolution likely passed....

The resolution ONLY speaks to the opinion of the convention. It's not dogma. It's not binding. I voted against it... I was not rebuked or critized or even frond upon... my pastor did not excommunicate me. And I voted against it NOT for any science reasons but because I thought it best for the convention to be silent on this.



.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Half of the delegates are ordained pastors. They might have their undergraduate degrees in just about anything. The other half are lay persons, most of whom probably are college grads but the only qualification is that they are over 18 and a Confirmed member in good standing at an LCMS congregation. So, I can't answer your question.

I have a Ph.D. in physics.... but that had little to no impact on my vote. I simply felt it best to not take a science position. But the decision did not cause me any concern; it's a convention position - nothing more.



.


.

Hey Josiah! Hope you're well
I find it interesting that science didn't inform your vote one way or the other. It would seem that scientific knowledge, as it may (or may not) inform our faith would be a factor. It may only be a non-binding resolution, but a resolution nonetheless that speaks to our beliefs

 

[Josiah]

Hey Josiah! Hope you're well

Ditto! Good to see you...

I find it interesting that science didn't inform your vote one way or the other.

1. The resolution (as I recall... it's been awhile) was really just theological. I "get" why some would conclude that the Creation Account(s) would be important to be seen traditionally... and even more that Adam and the Fall would be. I think I noted that earlier in this thread.

2. My Ph.D. is in physics (theoretical at that, lol) and so I can't claim any special expertise. But to ME, for MY vote, it simply was a matter of whether the Convention SHOULD have a position on this, especially one that could be seen as anti-science. The Confessions are silent on this ... while that's understandable (I think the early Lutherans would have agreed with the resolution), I just think it is better for theologians to stick to theology and for scientists to stick to science. In MY opinion, both do a lousy job of the other.


I hope to see you around!!



- Josiah



.