Episcopal Bishop's Letter

lucaspa · #1 3rd February 2004, 02:40 PM

I wanted to post this for a number of reasons. I suspect it will become a FAQ for the theistic evolutionists here.
1. It confirms the two creation stories in Genesis.
2. It confirms our oft-repeated argument that Genesis gives the who and why of creation while science, including evolution, gives the how.
3. It demonstrates that Christian denominations accept evolution and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
4. It points out the dangers of creationism to Christianity. Often Biblical literalism is portrayed as a "good" guy. Instead, creationism is a bad guy. Not rescuing Christianity from the evils of materialism and atheism, but instead delivering Christianity to those evils.

"EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ATLANTA, PASTORAL LETTER, The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta A Pastoral Statement on Creation and Evolution

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Legislation is pending before the Georgia State Legislature which calls for the public financing and teaching of Scientific Creationism as a counter-understanding to Evolution, wherever the evolutionary view is taught in the public schools.

Scientific Creationism understands the cosmos and the world to have originated as the Bible describes the process in the opening chapters of Genesis.

The 74th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta, in formal action on January 31, 1981, acted without a dissenting vote to oppose by resolution any action by the Georgia Legislature to impose the teaching of Scientific Creationism on the public school system. A copy of the resolution is attached to this Pastoral.

It seems important that the Episcopal Church in this diocese add to its brief resolution a statement of its own teaching. The office of Bishop is historically a teaching office, and I believe it is timely to offer instruction as to this Church's understanding of what has become a contested public issue.

To begin with creation is a fact. The world exists. We exist. Evolution is a theory. As a theory, evolution expresses human response to the fact of creation, since existence raises questions: how did creation come to be, and why?

The question of why is the deeper one. It takes us into the realm of value and purpose. This urgent inquiry is expressed in human history through religion and statements of faith. Christians cherish the Bible as the source book of appropriating the point and purpose of life. We regard the Bible as the Word of God, His revelation of Himself, the meaning of His work and the place of humanity in it.

The question of how is secondary, because human life has been lived heroically and to high purpose with the most primitive knowledge of the how of creation. Exploration of this secondary question is the work of science. Despite enormous scientific achievement, humanity continues to live with large uncertainty. Science, advancing on the question of how, will always raise as many questions as it answers. The stars of the exterior heavens beyond us and the subatomic structure of the interior deep beneath us beckon research as never before.

Religion and science are therefore distinguishable, but in some sense inseparable, because each is an enterprise, more or less, of every human being who asks why and how in dealing with existence. Religion and science interrelate as land and water, which are clearly not the same but need each other, since the land is the basin for all the waters of the earth and yet without the waters the land would be barren of the life inherent to its soil.

In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.

But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

From this evidence, internal to the very text of the Bible, we draw two conclusions.

First, God's revelation of purpose is the overarching constant. The creation is not accidental, aimless, devoid of feeling. Creation is the work of an orderly, purposeful Goodness. Beneath and around the cosmos are the everlasting arms. Touching the cosmos at every point of its advance, in depth and height, is a sovereign beauty and tenderness. Humanity is brooded over by an invincible Love that values the whole of the world as very good; that is the first deduction: God is constant.

Second, creation itself and the human factors are inconstant. Creation moves and changes. Human understanding moves and changes. Evolution as a contemporary description of the how of creation is anticipated in its newness by the very fluidity of the biblical text by the Bible's use of two distinct statements of human comprehension at the time of writing. As a theoretical deduction from the most careful and massive observation of the creation, the layers and deposits and undulations of this ever-changing old earth, evolution is itself a fluid perception. It raises as many questions as it answers. Evolution represents the best formulation of the knowledge that creation has disclosed to us, but it is the latest word from science, not the last.

If the world is not God's, the most eloquent or belligerent arguments will not make it so. If it is God's world, and this is the first declaration of our creed, then faith has no fear of anything the world itself reveals to the searching eye of science.

Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a six-day week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises. " http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._3_13_2001.asp

Bushido216 · #2 3rd February 2004, 04:11 PM

MagusAlbertus · #3 3rd February 2004, 05:24 PM

the 'homosexual activity is OK' church has NO moral authority.

Bushido216 · #4 3rd February 2004, 08:12 PM

How does that disprove what he said?

Besides, except in Jewish law, homosexuality isn't a sin. We're not Jews.

MagusAlbertus · #5 4th February 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bushido216

How does that disprove what he said?

Besides, except in Jewish law, homosexuality isn't a sin. We're not Jews.

sin isn't sin huh? well, i'm sure my new testament only qotes won't change your mind... just read romans ch1 basicly says that homosexual activity is snfull and imoral and gal ch 5 says that the sexualy imoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.

'Jewish' law is our law except for where the new testament says otherwise. so when it says 'sexual immorality' is wrong, then we refer to the old testament * and other parts of the new testament* to see what the definition of other parts are.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #6 4th February 2004, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by MagusAlbertus

the 'homosexual activity is OK' church has NO moral authority.

This, observer, is the logical fallacy called "Poisoning the Well". It's a close relative of "Ad Hominem", and just as fallacious.

lucaspa · #7 4th February 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by MagusAlbertus

the 'homosexual activity is OK' church has NO moral authority.

1. Nice try at making an irrelevant criteria to get rid of data you don't like. Your reply does not show why anything in the letter was inaccurate!
2. Look at the date this was written: 1982. This was long before the controversy of ordaining homosexual ministers arose. Since at that time the Episcopal Church was still against homosexuality, your argument doesn't apply anyway.

Bushido216 · #8 4th February 2004, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by MagusAlbertus

sin isn't sin huh? well, i'm sure my new testament only qotes won't change your mind... just read romans ch1 basicly says that homosexual activity is snfull and imoral and gal ch 5 says that the sexualy imoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.

'Jewish' law is our law except for where the new testament says otherwise. so when it says 'sexual immorality' is wrong, then we refer to the old testament * and other parts of the new testament* to see what the definition of other parts are.

Right, because those authors were following the old Jewish law! The law that Jesus set out was love thy neighbour. The NT laws are supposed to be much more simple and revolve around compassion and love.

MagusAlbertus · #9 4th February 2004, 09:10 PM

be as foolish as you like, nothing anyone can do for you, like the rest of us what’ve done wrong the fact of your preaching of the acceptability of sin will come home to you some day, i pray for you on that day.

To not give into the flesh is esental to the Christian walk.

lucaspa · #10 4th February 2004, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by MagusAlbertus

be as foolish as you like, nothing anyone can do for you, like the rest of us what’ve done wrong the fact of your preaching of the acceptability of sin will come home to you some day, i pray for you on that day.

To not give into the flesh is esental to the Christian walk.

My RSV Bible does not mention homosexuality in either Romans 1 or Galatians 5. Perhaps you could point out the verses you mean. In Romans 1 Paul is talking about the Romans and their rejection of God. One result of their rejection is a lifestyle that Paul disapproves. But remember, Paul was a misogynist who hated women and advised people not to marry and have kids. By (presumably) being married and having a two year old, you are also on Paul's s-h-i-tlist. You weren't supposed to do that. You too have given in to the the lusts of the flesh that Paul is against.