Copernicus and the Church, Lutherans and the Missouri Synod

Ptolemaic System (Earth Centered) vs Copernican System (Sun Centered)

In a recent blog post titled, "The Bible Is A Library, Not a Book" by Dr. Karl Giberson, The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod specifically is mentioned as an example of the church getting egg on its face for using literalistic interpretations of the Bible to oppose scientific fact. In this case, the scientific fact is Galileo's discovery that the earth orbits the sun. Dr. Giberson holds a Ph.D. in physics, taught at East Nazarene College and is known for specializing in the creation-evolution debate. He is known both as a friend to science and to Christianity, although he argues against Fundamentalism. Contrary to Atheists, he professes hope in the resurrection (See his blog post, "My Dead Relatives In The Sky.") He also wrote a thought provoking piece titled, "What's Wrong With Science As Religion," where he shows that some scientists are as fundamentalist in regards to professing certain scientific hypotheses and theories as fact, as the so-called Fundamentalists are about some religious teachings. In Dr. Giberson one finds a person that cannot be dismissed immediately as either a scientific or a religious hack. So where does this leave the Lutheran church and the Missouri Synod in particular in regards to Copernicus and the earth orbiting the sun?

The main point of Dr. Giberson's piece is about Biblical interpretation and how literally it should be interpreted. His example is that Christians today are facing a challenge much like the Church did in the 17th century when science showed the earth orbited the sun in regards to human evolution. Copernicus' theory that the earth orbited the sun seemed to challenges the literal (or literalistic) reading of Joshua 10:13, "the sun stood still." This passage had been used to argue that the sun goes around the earth. The larger question, "Did the Bible describe what in fact happens in nature, namely, that the sun orbits the earth?" Or "Did the Bible describe phenomenologically what appeared to the observer to happen that the sun stopped moving?" Most Christians today would probably say that the Bible described how the phenomenon appeared rather than what physically happened. While in the 17th century, Copernicus' treatise was seen by many in the church as going against the Word of God, few today would take that position. Giberson, while not entirely addressing this matter in his essay, "The Bible Is A Library, Not a Book," suggests that a similar interpretative move is necessary in regards to the literal existence of Adam and Eve and Christ as the Second Adam. 

Adam and Eve, Albrecht Dürer, 1504

Dr. Giberson quoted in NPR's "Evangelicals Question The Existence of Adam and Eve" said, that unless the church can get past a literalistic interpretation of a historical Adam and Eve, it will once again end up with egg on its face. He seems to hold that the questioning or denial of a historical Adam and Eve, really does not affect the confession of Christ, or Saint Paul's teaching that Christ is the Second Adam. The parallel for him is the Copernican Revolution where initially religion (the Church) opposed the science that earth orbits the sun, but later was able to interpret Joshua 10:13 that the "sun stopped" in a phenomenological way (or a non-literal way) without loosing faith. He seems to suggest that in a similar way evolution and the non-historical existence of Adam and Eve ultimately will not affect the faith.

In this context, Dr. Giberson mentions the Missouri Synod and its denial of Copernicus in the early 20th century. He writes:

"Reluctantly, and with much egg on its face, the Church eventually made peace with Galileo and the motion of the earth. The last holdout was the ultraconservative Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, which finally capitulated just over a century ago, almost three centuries after Galileo's infamous trial."

What is Dr. Giberson referring to regarding the views of the Missouri Synod? Francis Pieper, President of Concordia Seminary Saint Louis and of the Missouri Synod, wrote in Christian Dogmatics, Volume 1 on page 473:

"It is unworthy of a Christian to interpret Scripture, which he knows to be God’s own Word, according to human opinions (hypotheses), and that includes the Copernican cosmic system, or to have others thus to interpret Scripture to him."

Pieper's Christian Dogmatics

This quotation from Francis Pieper has caused embarrassment to many Lutheran pastors and even to seminary professors who argued that it is time to update the chief dogmatics textbook of the Missouri Synod. Yet it seems that many people miss the chief concern of Pieper, and misunderstand both Pieper's view and that of the Missouri Synod. Pieper primarily was concerned with the placing of science and philosophy over Scripture, rather than using science and philosophy in service to theology. He also was concerned with maintaining human beings as the special creation of God. His position was not much different from that of Lutherans beginning with Martin Luther who is quoted in 1539 in Table Talk (AE 54, 358-359):

"There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked,] 'So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.'"

Notice that Luther did not explicitly mention Copernicus by name, but referred to him as "a certain new astrologer." It should be noted that Luther's comments about the "new astrologer" came four years before Copernicus' work was published in Nürnberg. Clearly, Copernicus' ideas were circulating in universities before the formal presentation became publicly available. Luther was far from alone in questioning Copernicus' theory. Most people trained in Aristotle questioned the theory. However, although Lutherans questioned the validity of the theory, as a group they were not threatened by the new theory. In fact, while Rome condemned it, the Lutherans published the scientific works and even expanded upon them.

Nicolaus Copernicus, "On The Rotation Of The Heavenly Spheres," 1543

Nicolaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus was first published in Nürnberg, Germany, with a Preface by Andreas Osiander, who wrote:

"For it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the celestial motions through careful and expert study. Then he must conceive and devise the causes of these motions or hypotheses about them. Since he cannot in any way attain to the true causes, he will adopt whatever suppositions enable the motions to be computed correctly from the principles of geometry for the future as well as for the past. The present author has performed both these duties excellently. For these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable."

Note the attitude of Osiander. While he considered the theory that the earth orbited the sun to be unlikely, he recognized that Copernicus' mathematical predictions regarding the motion of the planets were more accurate than the dominate predictions in his day. His faith was not threatened by the new scientific discovery.

Scholars have observed how the Reformation and the scientific revolution are connected. As Patrick Ferry noted, "This transitional time, therefore, ought not be depicted as either a pro-Copernican or anti-Copernican period, for each description says too much." (Ferry, Patrick T. “The Guiding Lights of the University of Wittenberg and the Emergence of Copernican Astronomy.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 57, no. 4 (1993): 267.) Instead, the new ideas were evaluated, reacted to, and debated in the typical university fashion.

Hermann Sasse remarked, "Unbelievable as it may seem to many of our contemporaries, it is a fact that in the last analysis Christianity has saved the freedom of science to search for truth." (Sasse, Herman. “Hexaemeron: Theology and Science with the Church Fathers.” THE REFORMED THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XVII, no. 3 (October 1958): 65.) Christianity and the Gospel give Christians the freedom from philosophy and science that tells us how things must necessarily be so, allowing the person to consider other alternatives. Even Francis Pieper in his apparent rejection of Copernicus was free not to be bound to any particular scientific theory. In fact, Francis Pieper wrote, "Our human knowledge of astronomical matters is naturally limited much by our inability to view them from a position outside this globe and the universe." (Christian Dogmatics, Vol 1, 473.) Pieper even noted how Einstein's Theory of Relativity would finally undo the Copernican system, since everything now is relative to an observer's position -- who could argue against that from God's perspective the earth was the center of the universe?

Several Cosmologists have arrived at a similar position to Pieper when considering what happened before the Big Bang. Human beings are limited by what they can observe. Brian Clegg in Before The Big Bang, wrote, "Questions in principle have answers, but in practice are never satisfactorily answered... Physicists have come up with theoretical solutions to these problems (they're linked) but they may well never be real. Similarly we may never have a definitive answer to the question, What came before the Big Bang?" Ultimately, it comes down to faith... faith that confesses the "maker of heaven and earth," or faith that confesses the universe brought itself into being.

The Hexaemeron (Creation in Six Days) always has presented challenges to reason of man. The church always has confessed this as an article of faith. Augustine's preferred way of interpreting the six days of creation was that creation happened instantaneously. After all, if the Lord God "willed" the Universe into existence, it must happen instantaneously after He willed it as God is outside of time. This stands in sharp contrast to people today who prefer to understand the "days" of Genesis in terms of thousands, millions, or billions of years -- once again it must necessarily be so... to match up science and the Bible. The Lord God is not limited by anything we consider necessarily so -- be it a creation that must occur instantaneously or one that must take billions of years.

While Dr. Giberson considers the debate of whether Adam and Eve were historical people on par with the Reformation era debate over whether or not the earth orbited the sun, it is not an apple to apple comparison. The Copernican Revolution did not challenge Christology or diminish Christ unlike the denial of the historicity of Adam and Eve. Like Pieper, we must resist any theory or philosophy that tells the Lord God how He must necessarily do something. Perhaps, the Missouri Synod and Francis Pieper do not end up with quite as much egg on the face as would appear at first glance.

Copernican Revolution Revisited -- The Goldilocks Enigma

Lately, I have been reading in the subjects of Natural Law and Cosmology (not to mention watching those "science" shows on the History Channel). It always has struck me that when science departs from "description" of how systems operate (be the system a cell, a chemical reaction, or cosmology), and into "prescription" about why things are as they are, that science quickly slips into theology.

The idea of the "Big Bang" developed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Although many in the early 21st century teach and believe that the "Big Bang" is scientific fact, it is really the chief theory proposed by many cosmologists to explain what is physically observed by various telescopes. Ironically, the concept of the "Big Bang" first was conceived by Georges Lemaître, a Belgium Roman Catholic priest, in 1927. Lemaître called his theory, "hypothesis of the primeval atom," while his detractors called it "Big Bang."(Fred Hoyle, who rejected Lemaître's theory, coined the term "Big Bang.")  Lemaître's "hypothesis of the primeval atom" not only argued against the prevalent theories of his day but also was viewed as being too "religious" as Lemaître described the explosion of the "primeval atom" as the moment of Creation. Today, most people view the "Big Bang" as being science and against religion.

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître

At the time Lemaître proposed his "hypothesis of the primeval atom," few scientists accepted it. Albert Einstein said to Lemaître regarding his theory, "Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable." The prevalent theory held that the universe was static, a steady-state. This view of the Universe was first put forth by none other than Aristotle in Ancient Greece.  Favor toward the so-called "Big Bang" theory of the origin of the universe (the universe has a beginning and is perhaps cyclical) over the the steady state view of the universe (the universe is eternal), began to wane when Hubble observed that that the Universe appeared to be expanding in the early 1930s and was more or less defeated with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

Sky Map of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Since the mid-1960s, nearly all astronomers and cosmologists have accepted the "Big Bang" theory as the origin of the universe. In late 20th and early 21st centuries, a number of cosmologists have begun to ask the question, "What was before the Big Bang?" Since by definition, the "Big Bang" is outside of space and time -- it is, according to the theory, the origin of space and time -- as a statement of causality to speak of "before" the Big Bang makes no sense. Yet cosmologists and physicists are wondering what caused the so-called "Big Bang" and what happened before it. Some have suggested that the universe is the result of multiple Big Bangs  or is a member of a multi-verse," a cyclical process by which the universe is recreated or goes through multiple births and deaths (it is really difficult to keep track of all the variant theories). Recently, Michio Kaku, cosmologist and co-creator of "String Theory," stated that his grandparents were Buddhists while he went to Sunday School, and the multi-verse view of the universe allows him to merge his Buddhist heritage (cyclical) with Christianity (beginning).

As previously stated, when science leaves the realm of description, it enters into theology. Modern cosmology (not as the descriptive science but in prescribing how and why) is a jumble of ideas dating from the earliest philosophizing of man. Is the universe eternal? Did the universe have a beginning or multiple beginnings? Is it cyclical? These ideas whirl in utter confusion.

Nicholas Copernicus

In 1543, Nicholas Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) in Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. His book challenged Ptotlemy's view that the earth was the center of the universe by positing that the sun was the center. The earth went around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. The Lutherans published his work, even though Luther apparently did not think much of Copernicus' ideas -- Melanchthon and others were intrigued by them.  The main theological concern regarding Copernicus' ideas was that it somehow diminished the earth and more importantly human beings as the special creation of God. Cosmologists today see the Copernican Revolution as pivotal in demonstrating,"It is evident that in the post-Copernican era of human history, no well-informed and rational person can imagine that the Earth occupies a unique position in the universe." (Michael Rowan-Robinson, Cosmology (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press, Oxford. pp. 62.)

Yet despite this "evident" fact that human beings do not occupy a unique position in the universe, cosmologists have noted since the early 1970s that there is a troubling anthropocentric principle in physics and cosmology. If certain physical constants were slightly different, life could not exist. If the earth were slightly closer or slightly further from the sun, life could not exist. If the sun itself were in a different position in the galaxy life could not exist and so on. In fact, the entire universe seems to favor the existence of life on earth. (Of course, some of us know.)

This brings me to the book The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?