[_ Old Earth _] Clergy Letter Project

[cubedbee]

So, yesterday was the anniversary of Darwin's birthday, and I read a news article about "Evolution Sunday" where a bunch of churches were celebrating, and I stumbled upon this awesome project.

It's called the Clergy Letter Project, and their goal is to show the public that despite the loud voices of the minority of YECs, most Christians find evolution to be compatable with the Bible and their faith.

Here is their letter, which reflect my view perfectly:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others†is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

So far, 10,282 clergy have signed. They had a goal of 10,000, and are now moving to get this letter and their signatures into the public eye, via news stories and advertising.

Part of this, which brought the site to my attention, was Evolution Sunday, where some 445 congregations had sermons/discussions on the compatability of Christianity and evolution.

Here's the website: They are collecting donations for their ad campaign, and so if you are a Christian like me who is sick of the loud minority misrepresenting Christianity in America, this is your change to contribute and try and change that. Please share this with any others (especially clergy) you know who feel similarly.

 

[soma]

Thank you, it is nice to see that the majority of Christians have a brain.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I'd be interested in knowing the donominations making up the majority of the

petitioners. My bet is it's the Church of Christ and The Catholic Church.

These two denominations are known to teach and instill many doctrines

contrary to The Gospel:

A. Catholic Church

1. The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or pray to "saints"? Catholics view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we (not saints) can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."

2.The most crucial of these is the Roman Catholic belief that faith in Christ alone is not enough to save a person. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive Catholic communion AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND etc., etc., etc.

3. The doctrine of transubstantiation is taught by Catholics as being found in such Scripture passages as John 6:55, which says "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink", and Matthew 26:26, which says "Take and eat; this is my body." However, these are clearly metaphoric. Christ says that His flesh is real food and blood is real drink, not, "My food is real flesh and my drink is real blood". Furthermore, when Jesus says, "This is my body", it means "This represents my body." The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is because it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins. Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18).

So, yes, for these denominations, the inclusion of evolution into their faith

would be a very logical step...Their non-Christian. don't judge a book by it's

cover...read the pages.

Peace

"I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Be as wary as

serpents and harmless as doves."

Jesus

 

[cubedbee]

I'd be interested in knowing the donominations making up the majority of the

petitioners. My bet is it's the Church of Christ and The Catholic Church.

These two denominations are known to teach and instill many doctrines

They have a list of all the churches that participated this past Sunday--I copied them into Word and then did a search by denomination. Here's what I came up with

Church of Christ (UCC) 87
Episcopal 67
Methodist 57
Presbyterian 54
Unitarian Universalist 40
Lutheran 39
Baptist 10
Disciples of Christ 8
Catholic 4

So, it seems like the majority of churches were Church of Christ, Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian. Are all these denominations non-Christian, Mr. Judgemental?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

They have a list of all the churches that participated this past Sunday--I copied them into Word and then did a search by denomination. Here's what I came up with

Church of Christ (UCC) 87
Episcopal 67
Methodist 57
Presbyterian 54
Unitarian Universalist 40
Lutheran 39
Baptist 10
Disciples of Christ 8
Catholic 4

So, it seems like the majority of churches were Church of Christ, Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian. Are all these denominations non-Christian, Mr. Judgemental?

Not judgemental, just speaking the truth.

Judge for your self...are these churches teaching what Christ taught.


ICC- The ICoC's teachings on baptism and salvation deny the

essential biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith

alone...so...yup, not biblical so therfore not Christian (most major

denominations consider them a cult...because they so blantantly contradict

the teachings of Christ.


Episcopal- Blesses homosexual unions. Has homosexual

Bishops and priests. So certainly teaching false doctrines. They are in

the process of being disciplined by The Anglican Church, which has

threatened to cast them out into cult status if they don't repent, and begin

once again upholding God's word.

United Methodist- Deny diety of Christ; UMC Bishop James

Thomas:"We do not believe in rigid doctrinal concepts to hold us steady in a

wavering world."; 60% of the Methodist clergy do not believe in the virgin

birth; 82% say they do not believe the Bible is the perfect Word of God.


Unitarian Universalist- reject the Bible as being the Word of God;

deny the doctrine of the Trinity; belief that all human beings gain salvation;

deny the existance of hell; believe that each individual has the right to

decide for themselves what to believe in, and that others should not infringe

upon this right.


Catholic- Deny Salvation by Grace Alone; Pope can change what is in the

Bible if he wants; The Catechism presents the Roman Catholic priest as

"another Christ", something which the Bible condemns and forbids. Yet,

Jesus talked about the time when "other Christs" would arise.



Peace


This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.

Jesus Christ, God's only Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born a virgin birth, lived a sinless life, died an atoning death upon a cross, raised from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father where He will one day return to the earth.

That man is in a lost and depraved condition by nature, and is in need of the new birth by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

In justification by faith apart from the works of the law.

That salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone, to whom we must respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Through Christ we come into a right relationship with God, our sins are forgiven, and we receive eternal life.

 

[Khristeeanos]

ICC- The ICoC's teachings on baptism and salvation deny the

essential biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith

alone...so...yup, not biblical so therfore not Christian (most major

denominations consider them a cult...because they so blantantly contradict

the teachings of Christ.

I am in no way a member of the ICOC, but the Bible twice states that baptism is the work of God, so at least that part is consistant with salvation by grace through faith.



Colossians 2:11-13
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Titus 3:5
he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,


I don't mean to derail this thread.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I am in no way a member of the ICOC, but the Bible twice states that baptism is the work of God, so at least that part is consistant with salvation by grace through faith.

Right. But ICOC teaches baptism by man as necessary for salvation,

which is unbiblical.

Peace

 

[Solo]

Jesus said, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it".
Matthew 7:13-14

 

[Solo]

Jesus said, "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Matthew 15:13-14

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

...so if you are a Christian like me who is sick of the loud minority misrepresenting Christianity in America, this is your change to contribute and try and change that.

Thank you, it is nice to see that the majority of Christians have a brain.

There are hundreds of thousands of Bible Believing Churches in the US. The

clergy and churches behind this movement make up less than 1% of total

Bible Believing Churches. To present them as a majority is deceptive.

Darwin Day petitioner's statement excerpt:

...While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook...

...We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others†is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children....

Again, deception.


Peace

Ephesians 5:8-11

 

[ArtGuy]

Polls show that a slim majority of Americans don't believe in evolution.

Then again, a slim majority of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, 90% have no idea what a molecule is, and 98% couldn't tell you what a "theory" is in scientific context.

Asking the public their thoughts on matters of science is pretty pointless.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Polls show that a slim majority of Americans don't believe in evolution.

Understood. But my statement was within the context of the Christian

Church, not the public in general. Christians in general overwhelmingly reject

evolution. The vast majoriy believe in creation, including man in his final

form.

Then again, a slim majority of Americans think the sun

revolves around the earth

According to your link, it's about 20 percent- a solid minority, not a

slim majority.

Asking the public their thoughts on matters of science is pretty pointless.

Where then will scientists turn for funding in a democratic society?

Peace

 

[ArtGuy]

Then again, a slim majority of Americans think the sun

revolves around the earth

According to your link, it's about 20 percent- a solid minority, not a

slim majority.

My mistake, I conflated that statistic with the one for the number of people who knew how long it took the Earth to orbit the sun. My larger point, though - that the public is mightily ignorant of science, and that determining the validity of a theory based on polling non-scientists is dumb - still stands.

As to your question of where to get funding for research - well, first of all, the public recognizes the utility of science, even if they know squat about the tenets of science itself. So securing funding for research isn't a problem. Of course, I don't much like the idea of the government funding general scientific research in general, given the ginormous reservoir of funds available in the private sector. I make exceptions for certain fields, such as space travel, where private investment isn't pragmatic.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Fair enough.

I think science is often driven largely (obviously not entirely) in response to


society needs...physically, spiritually, curiosity, etc...