[Fwd: Re: Darwin quote]

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 07:48:15 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Darwin quote"

    Jay - Sorry you'll get multiple copies of this - I 1st hit "reply only".
                                            George

    -- 
    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    

    attached mail follows:


    Jay Willingham wrote:
    >
    > Suggestions for uncovering the root theological concerns driving
    > the Creation/Evolution debate within the church?

            It's important to distinguish _theological_ concerns from other concerns which
    may masquerade as theological. I take the liberty to include below the first part of my
    sermon today on John 6:51-58 which was directed to concerns about the Episcopal church's
    approval of a non-celibate homosexual as a bishop. I do NOT do this to raise again the
    verboten issue of homosexuality on this list: You can replace "homosexuality" with
    "evolution" below.

                    TO GET THE RIGHT ANSWERS, ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

            Our gospel readings for the past few weeks have been about the "bread of life."
     This week the emphasis is on the Eucharist. Jesus says, "I am the living bread that
    came down from heaven." And so when we share in Communion we call it "The body of
    Christ, the bread of heaven," and "The blood of Christ, the cup of salvation."

            The Eucharist is a central feature of the Christian church. Unfortunately,
    because it is so important there have heated debates about it among Christians over the
    centuries.

            One of those debates, a thousand years ago, had tragic consequences for the
    church. It was one cause of the split between the Eastern Orthodox and the western
    church of which we are a part - a division that still hasn't been healed. That was the
    "Azyme Controversy" - "azyme" meaning "without yeast" or "unleavened." What was in
    dispute was whether the bread used in the Eucharist should be leavened or unleavened.

            A later debate, at the time of the Reformation, had to do with how to understand
    Jesus' words at the Last Supper, "This is my body"? Is bread and wine changed into the
    body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Is Christ truly present with the bread and
    wine in some way that we can't explain? Is he united with us in a spiritual fashion?
    Or are the bread and wine symbols, ways in which we are to remember Christ? Again the
    arguments were intense, and again, unfortunately, the church was split - this time into
    several pieces. And again, these divisions have not been completely healed.

            Should we use leavened or unleavened bread? In what sense is Christ present in
    the Eucharist? I hope you recognize that those two questions are at quite different
    levels. Leavened or unleavened bread is hardly a big deal. It has little, if any,
    theological significance. To destroy the unity of the church over the kind of bread or
    wine that should be used in Communion is, if you'll pardon the technical term, "dumb."

            In what sense is Christ present in the Eucharist? That's a real theological
    question. We can regret that the church was divided over it, but the answer we give
    makes a difference to the way we think about important issues: How is God related to
    the world, how are we saved, and what does it mean to be members of the Christian
    community? It's a question that's worth wrestling with.

            The Christian church today is engaged in another heated debate, this time about
    homosexuality. The Episcopal church has been in the news with that recently, but most
    churches are struggling with it in one way or another. There are some profound
    questions about human nature involved in those debates, and some very basic
    disagreements. But too often people have entered into this debate without asking,
    "Which of these questions are like the one about Christ's presence in the Eucharist, and
    which are merely 'What kind of bread?' questions?" What, in other words, are the real
    theological issues that have to be dealt with in connection with homosexuality?

            "Theology" and "theological" can be intimidating words, and that's part of the
    problem. If we're scared of theology, we'll argue instead about biology, politics, our
    personal tastes and other things - important matters but not the fundamental ones for
    the church.

            "Theology" simply means thinking about what you believe and trying to make sense
    of it. For Christians that means asking about any issue: What does our belief in the
    God revealed in Christ, the God to whom the Bible bears witness, mean for this issue?
    What does it have to do with God as the creator and savior and sanctifier of the world?
                            .......................................

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 07:49:17 EDT