Letters to the editor

Religion, science deal with different questions
Religion and science are not at odds; they just seek truth differently.
Science explores and verifies what, how and when. Religion seeks what cannot be verified but is implied in all that is. Religion seeks who and why.
When Copernicus theorized that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, strident voices screamed, “Heresy!” Today similar voices contend that Charles Darwin’s scientific theory of evolution is in conflict with biblical revelation.
The conflict lies in misinformed biblical scholarship, not in biblical revelation.
In Genesis 1 and 2 the Bible gives two creation accounts. They disagree on what happened but agree on whom. The quest of faith is to discover why God would do so.
Scientists don’t compete with scripture. Science seeks facts and discovers truth; religion promotes faith in truth revealed. Science belongs in school; religion belongs in church. The faithful working in both will produce the best of minds and souls.
The Bible doesn’t need public endorsement. The scriptures don’t address the Big Bang or Intelligent Design.
Charles Darwin—an avowed Christian—enlightened the world with a theory of how creation continues beyond its inception. Darwin didn’t address who created the building blocks of life, only how and when those building blocks might have colonized in various forms.
Who brought being into the void and why remain the purview of faith.
Carl W. Rohlfs
Austin

I came back and am now giving UMC another try
I’m responding to James Ryan’s comments about the “exodus” from the UM Church (“How would bishops answer these questions about UMC?” March 24).
I was part of that exodus for nearly 15 years, so maybe my view is helpful.
I left because my first 35 years in the Methodist Church had left me with a shallow, unsatisfied faith. Leaving the traditional church freed me to develop an authentic relationship with the infinite, awesome, sustaining mystery that I call God.
Because I want to be part of a church community, I am now testing the waters in the UM Church again. I’ve stayed for two years because I’ve found enough people who are willing to open their hearts, minds and doors to someone who experiences God and hears God’s word in a nontraditional way.
In the end will God judge our churches on how many members they have or on their ability to generate loving spirits?
Carol Howie
Wimberley

Shifting to right would simply change outflow
While I respect James Ryan’s perspective (“How would bishops answer these questions about UMC?” March 24), I disagree with its unstated thesis.
Moving The United Methodist Church to the right would not check the outflow of members; instead, it would merely change the composition of that outflow.
Many progressive Christians, for example, would undoubtedly object strongly to measures such as a loyalty oath to unstated “biblical tenets” and submission of sermon texts for scrutiny. Many of us seek guidance on Christian life in Sunday sermons, not scare-’em-into-submission thunderings on the second coming.
One of the strengths of the Methodist church is its Wesleyan injunction to “think and let think.” Let’s build on this strength, which surely must appeal to believers of a wide variety of philosophical leanings.
Kathryn Tullos
Austin