Limits2: Theology first, before science; Law and Gospel

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Concordia Seminary President Franz Pieper's address at the dedication of a new building for Concordia College in Milwaukee in 1901. — In this section Pieper gives the firm theological basis for the difference between Christianity and all the wisdom of the world. At first glance it might seem that it is only tangential to the matter, but without it, there can be no "Lutheran Education". — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 47 (Oct. 1901), pp. 290-292 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - -   "The Limits of Human Science" by F. Pieper, Part 2  - - - - - - - - - -

 

1.

The Christian religion lies entirely outside the realm of human science. This is obvious as soon as we realize what the Christian religion is. The Christian religion does not consist, as many erroneously think, in the knowledge that there is an almighty God. If the Christian religion consisted only in this knowledge, human science would also know something about the Christian religion. Why? Because all creatures which we see before us and which are subject to our observation testify to the existence of an almighty God who created and sustains them. Just as certain goods made in Germany or in England bear the stamp: "Made in Germany", or: "Made in England", so all creatures that surround us bear the stamp of the Almighty God who made and sustains them. Kepler says: “In creation I grasp God, as it were, with my hands.” But in this [Page 291] recognition does not consist, as already said, the Christian religion. Scripture and history testify that this knowledge is also found among the heathen. Furthermore, the Christian religion does not consist in the knowledge of the divine law and the endeavor to live up to the divine law. If the Christian religion consisted in this, then human science would know about the Christian religion. For in every human heart there is still a knowledge of the divine law, as Scripture and experience show. The apostle Paul says of the heathen that they “know the righteousness of God” (Rom. 1:32) and are “a law unto themselves,” (Rom. 2:14) [according to Luther’s Bible] although they do not have the Law written in the Holy Scriptures. But now the Christian religion consists neither in the knowledge of the Law nor in the effort to live according to the Law. The Christian religion is something completely different. The Christian religion is the exact opposite of any religion of the Law. According to the Christian religion, a man is saved neither by doing good nor by refraining from evil, but without any works of his own, because Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, kept God's Law in place of man and bore God's punishment for man's transgression of the Law. According to the Christian religion, one becomes saved without Law, through faith in Christ. This is the essence of Christianity! The essence of Christianity consists in the Gospel, in the Gospel of Christ crucified. But no man knows the least thing about the Gospel, whether by nature, by so-called innate ideas, or by research. Nothing of the Gospel stands in the stars, nor on the heights of the mountains, nor in the depths of the sea, nor even in the heart of man, but the Gospel has become known to us men only through the divine revelation now available to us in the Holy Scriptures. The apostle describes the Gospel of Christ or the essence of Christianity thus: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man.” (1 Cor. 2:9) This is also proven by experience. No heathen nation and no heathen religious book knows of the doctrine that one becomes saved without works, through faith in Christ crucified. Prof. Max Müller of Oxford [sic: Monier Monier-Williams], the well-known Orientalist, once said in a lecture that he had studied the religious books of the pagan Orient for a lifetime and found the doctrine in all of them: man must achieve salvation by his own works. Only the Christian religious book, the Bible, teaches the exact opposite, namely, that man becomes saved without works, through faith in Christ. But if it stands thus, that the Christian religion exists only in the revelation of the Holy Scriptures—and so it stands—it is evident [Page 292] that the Christian religion lies entirely outside the domain of human science, that the Christian doctrine can neither be drawn from human science, nor judged and measured by it. Those who still want to do this are acting entirely unscientifically. Only the method that leads to knowledge is scientific, that is, adheres to the sources of knowledge peculiar to the field of knowledge in question. Whoever wants to do astronomy must look at the stars and not, for example, at a potato field. Whoever wants to recognize, explain and evaluate the Christian doctrine must not look at the stars or at the sea or at the heart of man, but at the Bible, which is the only revelation of the Christian doctrine. Our ancient teachers established the principle: Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum [“What is not biblical is not theological”], what is not taken from the Bible is also not theological, does not belong to Christian doctrine. 

This principle is genuinely theological, but at the same time genuinely scientific. And if it is followed, the greatest part of the quarrel between church and human science is already gone. For just as most wars in the world are caused by the shifting of boundaries—think of the wars that are being waged at the present time—so also most of the struggles between the church and human science have their cause in the fact that human science claims dominion in the field of Christian doctrine, which is quite alien to it. It is not the science that does honest research in its own field that comes into conflict with the Christian church, but the science that undertakes bandit-like raids on foreign territory. The Apostle points to this kind of “science” when he says: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy.” With this post-science [Afterwissenschaft] we want to remain unconfused in our educational institutions. Human science, which imagines that it knows something of the Christian doctrine and therefore puts the Christian doctrine before its forum, has become mad.

- - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 3  - - - - - - - - - -

      I was impressed by Pieper's coined term "Afterwissenschaft", a term not in the German dictionaries, which I have translated as "post-science" or it could be translated "beyond science". Reputable scientists would not want to be associated with this term. — In the next Part 3, Pieper addresses the practical aspects of teaching science in a Christian school.

Limits of Human Science, by F. Pieper (Part 1) (1901)

      This 4-part series follows the series reviewing Dr. Thomas Korcok's 2011 CPH book Lutheran Education, especially Part 2. where he faults Old Missouri for holding to the Bible and uses Hermann Sasse's judgment against them. This begs the question: how will the new planned Luther Classical College in Casper, Wyoming address this hot topic for today? We will touch on that later, but first we will be treated to perhaps the best counsel that any Christian school could get… since the days of C. F. W. Walther.  Dr. Korcok rightfully praises the Old Missourians, even if he later criticizes them. So, let's hear exactly what the principles were for them. The following address, delivered 110 years before Dr. Korcok's book appeared, was for a new building at Concordia College of Milwaukee, a campus now owned by the Forest County Potawatomi tribe. It would eventually move and become Concordia University Wisconsin. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 47 (Oct. 1901), pp. 289-295 [EN]: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On the Limits of Human Science.

(Address delivered at the dedication of the new academic building of Concordia College at Milwaukee, Wis.).

[by F. Pieper]

Honored Assembly.

We have just handed over a building which is to be used for secondary school instruction. Our institution is a church institution. But in spite of this, indeed precisely because it is a church institution, human knowledge or, what is the same thing, human science is to be cultivated in it.

You know that in wide circles there is an assumption of opposition between church and human science. Is this assumption correct? Are the Christian church and human science really opposites? Must he who is a faithful member of the Christian church fight human science? And must he who is a sincere and truth-loving researcher in the field of human knowledge declare a feud with the Christian Church? By all means not! The Christian Church is not an enemy of human science. The Christian church itself always uses worldly knowledge for the orientation of its calling in the world, and history proves that the more seriously the Christian church took the orientation of its calling in the world, the more zealously it cultivated all worldly knowledge. Likewise, human science is not in itself an enemy of the Christian church. This is already evident from the fact that thousands of the most renowned representatives of human science were and are faithful members of the Christian church. No! The Christian church and human science are not opposites.

But how is it that the Apostle Paul warns Christians against "philosophy" or human science? He writes to the Colossians (Colossians 2:8): “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, [page 290] after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” The Apostle here warns against human science inasmuch as it has become foolish. He warns here against human science insofar as it does not remain within its limits, insofar as, not recognizing its limits, it judges things of which it knows and understands nothing. 

Unfortunately, this kind of “science”, which does not know its limits, has not died out even in our time. But we want to remain unconfused with this kind of “science”, as in our other institutions, so also in this institution. We want to cultivate true science. We want to cultivate science that is clearly aware of the limits of its knowledge and actually keeps within these limits.

What are these limits? Let me now explain this in brief.

But before I point out the limits of human science, we must agree on what we mean by “human science”. The word “science” has become a catchword of our time. Thousands, indeed millions, carry this word around in their mouths without binding a certain concept with it. We understand by human science the summa of knowledge which men — setting aside the revelation of Holy Scriptures — have from themselves by way of observation, research and investigation. With this description of “science” we can count on general agreement, especially also on the agreement of those who reproach the church that it does not respect science enough. From this side it is asserted that the church does not want to accept what men have investigated and proved by observation and investigation to be the "incontrovertible results of science. What are the limits of this human science?

- - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 2  - - - - - - - - - - 

     The counsel that Pieper gives in this essay does nothing more than follow the spirit of Martin Luther who stated in a letter to Amsdorf concerning Erasmus's learning:

“For it is better that the sciences fall than religion, when the sciences do not serve but want to trample Christ under foot.” —  Martin Luther

Pieper referenced this essay in his Christian Dogmatics vol. 1, pp. 317-318. — In the next Part 2…

- - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - 

Part 1: This Introduction, opening section of Pieper's address

Part 2: Theology first, before science; Law and Gospel

Part 3: Conjecture, hypothesis, speculation = end of science

Part 4: Hostility to Christ dominates civilized world, also textbooks in schools

Part 5: Luther Classical & Valpo compared: Accreditation for Lutheran schools

Appendix: Limits6a: Pieper to Bronxville: "unique knowledge" – don’t forget it (1909)

  Limits6b: Athenians, the “progressives”, the “ignoramuses”; Paul's address

  Limits6c: “What good is all knowledge if…”

  Limits6d: “pretense of modern science” whither Luther Classical College?

Dr. Korcok on “Biblicism”, Melanchthon, Papacy (Part 3 of 3)

     This concludes from Part 2 (Part 1 here) in a short series reviewing Dr. Thomas Korcok's 2011 CPH book on Lutheran Education. — In this segment, we review 3 other weaknesses of this book.  As I reviewed this book, I was mindful of the cover art prominently displaying clear images of Martin Luther and C. F. W. Walther.  Do Dr. Korcok's methods fully measure up to their standards? 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

“Biblicism”?

      This term is used twice in a pejorative sense against Karlstadt (p. 47) and the Pietists (p. 100), both opponents of Luther and orthodox Lutheranism. Unfortunately, no definition of this term is given, leaving the impression that believing the Bible as it reads (i.e. "biblicism") is not good theology.  But Walther was called a Biblicist by a German "Evangelical" (and Carl S. Meyer) and proudly accepted this label for himself.

Melanchthon, “Teacher of Germany.”

      Dr. Korcok helpfully delineates the difference between Luther and Melanchthon on the "nature of liberal arts", stating that (p. 79-80)

[Luther] said that grammar was not to be the judge of truth, but the servant of truth. In his sermons on St. John, he warned against the “grammarians” who with their “idle grammar and rhetoric” would destroy the meaning of Scripture on the basis of their grammatical knowledge. “Let them teach their rules about how to speak Latin correctly,” said Luther, but, at the same time, it was important to recognize the limitations of their art. This view reflects a slightly different understanding of the nature of the liberal arts than that of Melanchthon.

He references a sermon of Luther, who stated (AE 24, 109, StL 8, 286-387):

“But let others be clever in the name of their god, the devil, and come to grief with their idle grammar and rhetoric, with which they want to correct Scripture, tear it up, or at least nullify it.”

Now that is pure Luther — the Reformer defending Scripture, even against those who use science or scholarship over Christ's Word. (See also this blog post.). 

      On p. 198, Korcok reports 

“Walther made particularly extensive use of Luther in his discussions on schools.… What is absent in Walther’s pedagogical writings are references to Melanchthon." 

On p. 199, fn # 512, it is noted that "Walther called Melanchthon 'the father of synergism.'” So we see differences between Luther and Melanchthon, and between Walther and Melanchthon.

      But does Dr. Korcok stand with Melanchthon, the Teacher of Germany? He wants to appear to stand with Luther, but does he promote what Luther strongly defends above, the authority of Scripture?  No. He leaves that in abeyance and focuses rather on the matter of pedagogy. Coupled with his indiscriminate use of the term "Biblicism" in a pejorative sense then leaves him at odds with Luther who stood on Holy Scripture first. 

The Papacy

      Does Korcok speak of the devastation of the Papacy as Luther does, as Walther does? He does quote from Walther against the Papacy, pp. 202-3, yet he reports this as what "Walther said…" or "for Walther…", or "Walther believed…".  He does not seem to take this as his own position against the Papacy.  No further polemic is offered against the devastation of the Papacy for Christianity and Christian education. Dr. Korcok may protest my assertion — to that I would say: "Show me".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      I will be comparing the proposed pedagogy of the upcoming Luther Classical College in Wyoming with the points that Dr. Korcok makes.  Will they follow his weaknesses… or will they remain true to Luther, Walther and J. C. W. Lindemann in their pedagogy? While this book is informative and refreshing in its judgments and has positive comments on the Missourians, yet Dr. Korcok needs to re-listen to the Missourians, not Hermann Sasse, on the authority of Holy Scripture. Without a true adherence to this principle, all education is what Walther would call (p. 234)

“just for this world and not for the next life.” 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

     For a much better approach to science education in a Christian school, an essay by Prof. Franz Pieper at the opening of the a new building for [2023-12-23] Concordia College in Milwaukee in 1901 will be presented in the next series of blog posts.

Dr. Korcok on the teaching of Science (Part 2 of 3)

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents here) in a short series reviewing Dr. Thomas Korcok's 2011 CPH book on Lutheran Education. — In this segment, we review Korcok's position on the place and importance of science in the curriculum. This is certainly a topic of importance today, with the stress on "STEM" education: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. I was trained in this field as an Engineer. But I lost my Christian faith because the LC-MS teachers allowed "Science" (falsely so called), to rule over the Bible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Science in the curriculum (p. 233-235, 270-272):

      This subject is uppermost in many people's minds primarily because of the importance placed on it by modern pedagogues. But who would deny that the teaching of Evolution, considered a "science", has taken over in public schools for over a century, yet Dr. Korcok makes no mention of it. So how does he write about the matter of science in the curriculum? We will come to that, but first we find that he essentially criticizes the "failings" of the Missourians: 

— p. 233, fn # 599: “There is some debate as to how Luther regarded Copernicus’ theory.” [Korcok is attempting to soft-pedal Luther's view of Scripture over Science by stating it this way. See Part 7 of my Copernicanism series.]

— p. 233: “by the mid-nineteenth century, these [scientific] disciplines had come into their own. One could no longer speak of education in terms of the arts alone but of a combination of the arts and sciences. This presented a problem for Walther and the Missourian pedagogues.”

— p. 233-4: “Their [Missourians] own personal experiences with the sciences were minimal at best 601) (fn # 601: [Hermann] Sasse recognized this and believed that the epistemological understanding of the Missourians suffered accordingly.” [Korcok listens to Hermann Sasse against Walther and Lindemann. See this blog post documenting Prof. A. L. Graebner's knowledge of the natural sciences and medicine.]

— p. 234: “While Walther acknowledged that science was a legitimate discipline and that true science was in no way opposed to true religion, it was clear that he regarded it as secondary to the arts [Der Lutheraner, vol. 6 (1950), p. 161]: 

‘All science, insofar as it is man’s own product, is just for this world and not for the next life. It knows no way to God and gives no true information about the world beyond.’” 

[If only Dr. Korcok would take Walther's words to heart, and treat of science as Walther does!]

— p. 234-5: “Educators such as [J. C. W.] Lindemann, who had not attended a classical gymnasium, appear to have had a better grasp [better than Walther?] of the value of science, but even that was limited.605): (605 In Schul-Praxis, Lindemann devoted a chapter to the teaching of science in the Lutheran classroom in which he argued that the teacher should strive to show the harmony that exists between nature and the Bible. J. C. W. Lindemann, Amerikanisch-Lutherische Schul-Praxis (St. Louis: Lutherischer Concordia-Verlag, 1888), 208 ff.)” [Korcok ridicules the harmonizing of nature and the Bible! But even he praises this type of harmonizing when Luther included history and music to provide "insight into the nature and wisdom of God". — How would Lindemann respond to Dr. Korcok's lack of caution in the integration of science with arts which include matters of religion:

“Woe to every teacher who misuses the doctrine of nature only to upset a child: to sow in his heart conceit and unbelief, arrogance and doubtfulness. Only ignorance and malice find a contradiction between the Bible and nature; enlightened reason sees the most beautiful, most wonderful harmony.”                                                  — J. C. W. Lindemann (Am.-Luth. Schul-Praxis, p. 210)

— p. 234-5: “In 1873, over three hundred years after Copernicus published his heliocentric theory, Lindemann wrote a paper arguing that the theory was to be rejected as it contradicted Scripture.606) (606 J. C. W. Lindemann, “An Astronomical Debate…,” (St. Louis: Synods of Missouri, Ohio, and other States, 1873).” [Korcok earlier calls Lindemann’s “grasp of the [high!] value of science “limited”.]

— p. 250: “The study of science was another area that caused the Missourians difficulty. They seemed [“seemed”?] unsure as to how this emerging discipline might be incorporated into primary education.” [The Missourians had "difficulty' and were "unsure".]

      Where are there any warnings about the encroachment of Science against the authority of Holy Scripture? They seem not to be found in this book. But Luther railed against Erasmus and his "science" in a letter to Amsdorf. Korcok skirts this and only focuses on "the melding of the liberal arts, particularly the lower three arts of the trivium, with an Evangelical catechetical program".

      How does Dr. Korcok differ from Walther and the Missourians? He proposes to return to the "epistemological assumptions upon which the liberal arts rest." (p. 271) What is this? A "long-standing tradition that all truth was of divine origin, and the study of the classic works of literature" which "led to a fuller understanding of the divine Author of truth." His example is Luther's call for a study of history and music. What is missing from this is an adherence to the authority of Holy Scripture: "Thy Word is Truth", John 17:17. What does the Apostle Paul teach Timothy? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding… oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim. 6:20) While Scripture is only warning against "science falsely so-called", yet science, a human endeavor, is highlighted as a subject to be careful of — just as the Missourians were. Dr. Korcok could have made a much stronger case for his assertion if he had included the authority of Holy Scripture in his narrative. We see further evidence of his weakness in the concluding Part 3.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table of Contents: Part 1: Intro, Catechesis; Part 2: Science; Part 3: "Biblicism", Melanchthon, Papacy

Dr. Korcok's book on education: helpful but flawed; catechesis, Science, "Biblicism"? (Part 1 of 3)

Lutheran Education (CPH 2011)

      Recent research pointed me to a book that had some interest because of its subject matter and that it included a report of C. F. W. Walther's efforts in the area of Lutheran education. Although it is 12 years old, it treats a subject that is the heart of the upcoming new school in Casper, Wyoming, the Luther Classical College. The book is Lutheran Education: From Wittenberg to the Future by Rev. Dr. Thomas Korcok (CPH 2011, 298 pgs + Foreword by Dr. Gene Edward Veith.) Dr. Korcok is currently serving on the faculty of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, Ontario, Canada. He is also on the Board of Scholars of the Consortium for Classical Lutheran Education 🔗.

      Dr. Korcok is quite well read in the history of education and offers a comprehensive view through the ages. In his Preface he states "Thus, direction for the future is to be found in the sources and pedagogues of the past. To look back is to move forward." — How important was theology in education? He says (p. 4): “As the Reformation was primarily a theological movement, theology had a profound affect on how the Lutheran educators interpreted the role of the liberal arts in Lutheran pedagogy.” — What about the Old Missourians, how did they handle education? They went “...back to the Reformation era for a confessionalized model of the liberal arts.”

      As examples, I learned about the "trivium" education model: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Also about the history of "scholasticism" or how Aristotle's teachings were incorporated into Christian teaching. Most informative was the history of rationalist German pedagogues Pestalozzi, Fröbel, and Herbart (p. 111 ff.) who have had an enormous impact on American education today, the model on which I was educated.

      Most refreshing was Dr. Korcok's refutation of the history of Walter O. Forster (Zion on the Mississippi, p. 112) on the primary reason for the emigration of the Missourians from Germany. While Forster opined the reason was "Stephan's personality", Korcok says it was "the desire for confessional freedom". Even more, Korcok refutes the "popular opinion" among LC-MS historians that the Missourians' primary reason for establishing Lutheran schools was to preserve the German language (p. 227). — Curiously Paul E. Kretzmann, who wrote a considerable amount of material on education, was not mentioned.

     I really wanted to like Dr. Korcok’s work, but was disappointed in his criticisms of the Old Missourians. How does he do this? In several ways:

Catechesis (p. 57-61, 210-213, 261-262): 

      While he praises the Missourians for going back to Luther and the Reformation, yet he repeatedly criticizes them for what he states as deficient in this area. And he uses LCMS and a Harvard teachers to support his assertion (p. 57, emphasis mine): 

"…the Small Catechism is treated simply as a didactic [or teaching] tool whose only function was to impart theological knowledge, ignoring or at least downplaying its use as a prayer book.” 

Korcok offers no evidence where the Missourians excluded or "downplayed" the devotional or "prayer book" use of the Small Catechism.  On page 212, Korcok elaborates further:

"The enthusiasm toward the Dietrich catechism and its subsequent incorporation into the Missourians’ education system reveals a stark divergence from Luther’s thought whose understanding of catechesis was much more spiritually oriented. Luther intended the texts of the catechism to be used to develop a proper devotional life and a sense of Evangelical piety."

Again, Korcok offers no evidence of the Missourians ignoring the devotional aspect of the Small Catechism, only implying that the expanded Dietrich catechism was too difficult, too complex. He then quotes from Luther's Preface as evidence of his assertion, but Luther's opening paragraph states"

"The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach…" 

So Luther's first statement of the need was to teach, or didactic. He later speaks of the devotional and prayer life needs.  But if the doctrine is not right, the devotional life will be useless. This line of reasoning is typical for LC-MS theologians, and Korcok's appeal to the writings of Prof. Charles Arand (p. 58) is proof of this. — 

      In the final section we see where Dr. Korcok is headed with this in his recommendations for "Lutheran Education" (p. 261):

"Lutheran catechesis is best described as a life-long nurturing process that endeavors to enable individuals to grow in their identity as Confessional Lutherans. The aims of catechesis have not always been understood in this way. At the time of the early Missourian Lutherans there was a neglect of the original catechetical goals of the sixteenth-century Evangelicals. The Missourians’ catechetical program tended to be more concerned with the inculcation of correct doctrinal formulations and less with a reflective meditation on one’s faith. This is not to say that the Missourians were uninterested in developing thoughtful individuals. They wanted people to think critically, and the arts taught that skill; however, they did not seem to understand that their catechetical program did not fully support this view of the arts. This certainly was not the intent of the earlier Evangelicals. They believed that this catechetical growth is accomplished by the divine teacher working mediately through the Word as it is taught to the child."

So for Dr. Korcok, "correct doctrinal formulations" are less important than "reflective meditation on one's faith".  That is subjectivism, not an objective faith. (Yet he stated on page 4 that the Missourians went “...back to the Reformation era for a confessionalized model of the liberal arts.”) Korcok uses Harvard professor Steven Ozment to support his thesis, that "these [sixteenth century] catechisms served to develop a spirit of humanity [!] — they cultivated spiritual growth." (p. 262) A "spirit of humanity"?

      Incredibly, Dr. Korcok criticized the Missourian's use of Bible history in classrooms because "the nature of these classes further detracted from the devotional nature of instruction." (p. 213) I was shocked by this assertion!  But he refutes himself later when he approvingly pointed out how Luther encouraged the study of history (p. 271). 

      He attempts to recover from his criticism by stating (p. 213) “This is not to say that devotional and spiritual life were completely ignored.” How wonderful to hear that the Old Missourians did not "completely ignore" devotional life! Later he states that "Walther and the Missourians did possess this 'clarity and certainty,'” for "a proper relationship between the liberal arts, Lutheran theology, and catechesis" (p. 213). 

      The devaluing of doctrine in the LCMS has been most corrosive for its spiritual life. It led to the "Walkout" of 1974. It is especially ironic that Dr. Korcok would devalue the didactic role of the Small Catechism in a book entitled "Lutheran Education". — In the next Part 2, we present Dr. Korcok's criticisms of Old Missouri's science education.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Table of Contents: Part 1: Intro, Catechesis; Part 2: Science; Part 3: "Biblicism", Melanchthon, Papacy

Pasche's 50 Reasons: Copernicanism Part 19d (Tribute to Pastor F. E. Pasche)

[2023-11-09: this draft post was inadvertently overlooked from June 19, 2016.  It belonged in my Copernicanism series of that year, but, again was overlooked. I am presenting it now, with a few edits, to honor Pastor F. E. Pasche.]

      This continues from Part 19c a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Fifty Reasons: 
Copernicus or the Bible

      One of Pasche's publications can still be purchased today – his last publication on astronomy: Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible.  It is available from Anchor Publications for a small cost ($5.50 post paid, 49 pages). [2023: It is now available on Google Books]  While Pasche had a popular book published by Concordia Publishing House in 1926, Daily Bread or Home Devotions, yet his last booklet against Copernicanism was not published by CPH, but by the author himself.  One wonders why?...

      Here are the 50 "reasons" in Pasche's English language booklet:

The earth stands fast; The pendulum experiment; Job 26:7; Our atmosphere; The Trade Winds; A law of nature?; Ocean currents; Contradicting the hypothesis; Earth, the central body; Gravitation against rotation; The flattened poles; Falling bodies; Richer’s discovery; The sun moves; What does "shemesh” mean?; Zodiacal light; Earth older than sun; Waters above firmament; Biblical plan more rational; The vapors of water; Scientists baffled; Conservation of energy; Agrees with chemistry; Copernican difficulties; Comets against them; Orbit around the sun; An impossibility; Sun through space; Attraction and repulsion; Results of theory erroneous; Fundamentally false; Elliptical orbits crushed; Against nature of earth; Motion natural for sun; Very plausible...; Parallax of stars; Roemer’s discovery; Bradley’s observation; Spectroscope favors Bible; Biblical view explains more; They minister to the earth; Bible implies reality; Ps. 74;16; Eccl. 1:4-5; No insignificant things; No erroneous conceptions of men; Only one, the literal sense; We must accept literal meaning; Appearance ("Optice”); Full conviction; Theory and superstition

      Pasche refers to Carl Schöpffer several times.  He also references Valentin Ernest Loescher, General de Peyster, Humboldt, Matthew Henry, Dr. C. W. Siemens, Lindemann senior, Martin Luther, Andrew Dickson White, Prof. George Stoeckhardt, Dr. Robert Woodhouse (Cambridge University Observatory, Google Books, quote- Copernicanism "may be false"), 

Dr. Gerardus Bouw reports (page 375) on Pasche's booklet and is somewhat harsh with the science presented therein:

In 1915 Pasche published a 51-page booklet entitled Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible. This work was published in English and consists mostly of scientific arguments. Most are easily dismissed, but a few are still valid. In his closing statement, Pasche says this about faith in the majority opinion:

“Many know that there is no proof for the Copernican hypothesis, but they are blinded by the cry: 'It is accepted throughout the civilized world!' (Dr. Carl Pierson, “The Grammar of Science,” 1892.*) The most common objection raised against the Biblical system is the general agreement of the learned. But voices must be weighed, not counted.”

"Christian Cyclopedia" drops Name Abbreviations: "Walkout" history or "Cancel culture"?

      This follows the previous post presenting a 1965 listing of all the Concordia Seminary professors up to that year.  While researching that post, it was discovered that the well-known "Christian Cyclopedia" has recently, mysteriously dropped their listing of abbreviations for the names of the authors of its articles.  That list was the only way to determine who actually was behind their history writing. When I clicked on my previous link to call up that web page, the "Name abbreviations" were gone. Further research using the Wayback Machine determined that the web page was dropped between February and August of this year – 2023. 

Missing webpage (as of 2023)

One may go to the last viable Archived web page from February 2023 here, but then in August the Wayback message "Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time" appeared briefly before reverting to the home page. Now this omission could be an oversight by the LC-MS web administrator but that would hinder a 2023 Synod resolution that 

"…calls on members of the Synod to study the history [of the 1974 Walkout] and make use of resources from Concordia Historical Institute, Concordia Publishing House and the seminaries on the subject."

So if the Synod assembly is encouraging the study of the history of the "Walkout", why then withdraw one of the resources, the webpage that names the names of several prominent "Walkout" professsors (F. Danker, C. S. Meyer, etc.),  and sympathizers (A. C. Piepkorn, etc.), who wrote for their "Christian Cyclopedia"?

Why indeed… — More is forthcoming on the LC-MS's observance of the "50th anniversary" of the 1974 "Walkout". Just how will they "Give Thanks for Preservation of the Gospel"? Will they also "Give Thanks" for upholding the authority of Holy Scripture? Is the Synod really to "Give Thanks"?… or not?