Grace to you and peace from our loving God, and from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

It may seem odd for me to be saying this from the pulpit, but February 12, 2009 marks not only the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, but also the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin. Interesting coincidence. Another milestone—and this may add to your puzzlement—is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species in 1859.

You won't find it on any liturgical calendar or in our hymnal, but today is "Evolution Sunday," It is part of an "Evolution Weekend" begun by "The Clergy Letter Project" in 2004 (you can find it online). It is dedicated to overcoming the "misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict." And it provides a welcome occasion for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. About a thousand congregations in fourteen countries are observing "Evolution Weekend" along with us today.

The Clergy Letter states things in what is a very Lutheran way. Here is the text:

"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."

As of Thursday, that letter had 11,829 Christian clergy signatories, including me. The Jewish version had 438, and the UU version had 183.

For many of you, this is old news. Thank God. For some of you, there may be questions about whether I'm Christian or not. So be it. For others, you will have questions that my comments may help to answer. I hope you are the ones paying the greatest attention.

There is a context for this, of course. Many of you participated in the study—recently completed—of the first book of the "Book of Faith" initiative of our national church. "Opening the Book of Faith" led us through the basic traditional forms of bible study that have been used over the centuries in trying to understand the Word of God. There are four such methods, which I will just name here. There isn't time to explain them.

The methods are: historical, literary, devotional, and theological. Just note that not a single one of them implies anything like words that have been bandied about for a little more than a century now (modern and dangerous words, I may add), such as "literal" and "inerrant"—words that have led to the controversies between evolution and creationism. If you study the origins of "inerrant" and "literal" as they apply to scripture, you will find that they lead back to a single movement just over a century ago. They were almost unheard of before that. And they have caused considerable harm to Christianity, and to our ability to search scripture for what God is trying to communicate through it.

Martin Luther, of course, would not have understood such words. His deep study of scripture was guided by a passionate search for the God of grace. He was so passionate that he even suggested removing one or two of the books (James and Revelation) because they failed to reveal much that was useful in understanding Christ. That is not the attitude of a "literalist" or a proponent of "inerrancy." I'm sure that he would be convinced, as I am, that anyone attempting to apply those odd words to God's word simply could not have entered very deeply into the text. He would likely, as I often do, instruct such folks to talk less "about" the bible and start reading it.

One of the ways I often explain this when teaching is to say that looking to scripture for answers about how the world was created is an error of categories. "Where would you go," one might ask "if you have a question about how a single-celled organism functions or how a clock works?" Well, of course, the answers have to do with books of science and engineering. "How" questions are the questions science helps to answer.

On the other hand, one might ask, "Who created the earth?" or "Who is God?" These questions get at the heart of our faith. They point to the God of all creation and redemption.

"How" questions are appropriate to scientific endeavor. "Who" questions and those of meaning are appropriate to Holy Scripture. To ask "how" questions of scripture is simply asking what scripture does not try to answer. The bible is about God, not about science.

These matters are perhaps especially relevant because of the Youth Group activity this evening. Tonight is "Doubt Day" and we are encouraging the young people at St. Thomas to lay out for us all of their doubts and questions about the Christian faith. As you know, I have always encouraged questioning. Indeed, I think it is at the heart of the faith, with Mark 9:24 in the background—what I consider the quintessential statement of faith in the bible, "I believe; help my unbelief." Or "I have faith. Help me with my doubts." I would never have spent so much of my life studying the bible and faith if I didn't have questions and doubts. Inquiring minds want to know! And if we aren't honest about our questions, we may never get moving along the path of finding answers.

I'm convinced that much of the rejection of Christian faith is simply a misunderstanding of it.

It is far too easy for people—young and old—to say, "I'm not stupid enough to buy the idea that the world was created in six days. I can't be a Christian if you have to believe things that contradict science."

Or, "I'm not going to leave my brain at the entrance when I go into the church."

I'm here—along with around a thousand congregations in fourteen countries today—to remind people that you don't have to be stupid or believe unscientific things in order to be a Christian.

Let me do a rather basic Lutheran theological primer with you. Some of you will have heard me do this in other setting, but a refresher won't hurt.

As I understand Martin Luther, he had two primary theological lenses for viewing scripture: Scripture cradles Christ and scripture interprets scripture. Now just so I know you're listening, I wonder if you would be willing to repeat after me: Scripture cradles Christ (repeat) and scripture interprets scripture (repeat). Thank you.

Now these sound simple, but their implications are vast. First—scripture cradles Christ. The way I often say that is "The bible is the manger in which the baby Jesus lies." Scripture is merely the vehicle that carries understanding of who Jesus is. The bible is intended to point to Christ and God. Holy Writ is not the object of our worship—that would be a form of idolatry—bibliolatry. We worship the One who is revealed as the Word in the word.

When we place a baby in a cradle, we are clear about what is more important. Not the cradle, surely, but the one the cradle exists to serve. So it is with the bible. It is the cradle of Christ. And when portions of the bible do not point to Christ or reveal who Jesus is, Luther taught, it is not to be considered as important as those passage which do. Hence his willingness to dispense with a couple of those less useful books for getting to know our Lord.

Second—scripture interprets scripture. Again this is anything but a literalist approach. And again, one passage of scripture may take a lesser place because of its position on the margins of what scripture says. This lens for reading the bible reminds us that not all passages are equally understandable or useful, and all must be judged against the over-arching flow of the whole. When it says, "If your hand offends you, cut it off," to treat such a passage literally would be unthinkable. More importantly, imagining this to be a direct instruction clearly flies in the face of the over-arching concerns of our Lord related to love, grace, and forgiveness.

That "scripture interprets scripture" implies that whenever we find a passage that leads us away from thinking of our Lord as anything other than love, grace, forgiveness, and justice, we must look elsewhere for a word that moves us closer to those characteristics of Christ. "If your hand offends you, cut if off" must clearly be taken metaphorically—that we need to take care that our hands not give offense, because that is not consistent with lives which reflect the love of Jesus.

So what about the story of creation? That seems to be the sticking point for so many folks. Genesis clearly states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And good theology says, "Yes, that is exactly right. That is the statement of faith that is appropriate for those who believe in the God of the bible."

But the trouble begins with the rest. The six day stuff that adorns so beautifully the west and north windows of this sanctuary. From orbs to plants to animals, God created, it says, in six days. Isn't this a matter for faith. Isn't this what scripture says.

You can see the apparently compelling nature of that simple argument. The bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

But, don't you see, you have just left aside nineteen centuries of biblical heritage. You have wiped away the progress of the Reformation. You have committed that error of category I spoke of earlier. The bible is a book of faith, not a science book. It's about who, not how. Our constitution says that the bible is the source and norm of our faith-not of every matter under heaven, and not of science. Matters of faith are relational, not scientific. That I believe that God created the universe has profound implications for how I relate to God, to myself as a holy creature, to other persons and animals as God-created beings, and to the earth and the universe as handiworks of God. Our movement in this direction of true faith in the creating God is one of the essential steps we must reclaim and nurture if we are to save this planet from ecological disaster.

On the other hand, what does a belief that the world was created in six days have to do with anything? So far as I can see—nothing. Faith is about relationships, and belief in a six-day creation does nothing that I can imagine that would enhance our relationships with God, self, others, or creation beyond what belief that God did the creating will.

Let me hasten to add that it's okay with me if you believe that God created the world in six days. It really doesn't bother me what you believe regarding matters I consider to be unrelated to faith. If it works for you, fine. But I do want folks to open their arms to other people and their minds to other ways. And I would be very interested to know—if you are one who believes in a six-day creation—exactly how that is a matter of faith, rather than science, for you.

One more word—a metaphor. That I love my wife is a relational reality that cannot be proved or disproved using any scientific method. It is a fact for me, but it is not empirically demonstrable—at least not at all times. Love is a way of knowing that is different from the way that science knows. I might believe that Marie was in the womb for nine months, that she comes from decent hard-working parents who live on a farm in South Haven, that she has silvering hair and brown eyes—all empirically true facts about her. But these facts say nothing that is important about my relationship with Marie. They are circumstantial, not relational. I love her, and I am sure that that love would persist regardless of the particular circumstances of her birth, parentage, and so forth. So also do I love the God who created me and the earth, and that love would persist regardless of the particular circumstances of that creation.

Somehow that metaphor seemed appropriate on this day following Valentine's Day.

Well, that is probably enough. I hope, since most of you will already agree about this, that the reminders weren't too painful. Still, I believe this to be one of the most important things we need to know as Christians. And there are a lot of Christians who are wasting a lot of time and money dealing with things that have nothing to do with faith (the "Creation Museum" in Petersburg, Kentucky and efforts to insert creationism into school curricula are prime examples).

Maybe folks just have more fun playing with ideas than trying to be faithful. I just don't get it. And I hope if you have concerns, you'll let me know. I'd love to talk about whatever questions I may have raised. You could even come tomorrow evening—when we begin our class on a related topic—the origins of the bible. Amen.

May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord unto eternal life. Amen.