The Church of the Nazarene, a conservative Christian denomination, in the Wesleyan tradition, is worried about the continued loss of young adults.
Thomas Jay Oord, a professor at Northwest Nazarene University had this to say about the loss of young adults:
In a recent Pew study, more 18- to 29-year olds reported having a positive view of science than those in any other age category. More specifically, sixty-one percent of young people believe life evolved over time due to either natural process or divine guidance. Seventy percent of all college graduates – no matter their age – affirm some form of evolution. In sum, young people and those with degrees in higher education are more likely to trust scientists who argue for the validity of evolution.
Statistics also show, unfortunately, that young people leave the church and/or become atheists because they perceive the church to be opposed to science in general and evolution in specific. In his book, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church and Rethinking Faith, David Kinnaman uses the data from Barna Group research to show why 18- to 29-year olds are leaving the Church. Nearly 3 in 10 say the church is out of step with science, and one quarter say Christianity is anti-science. About one quarter of young people are turned off by the creation vs. evolution debate, and about one-fifth say Christianity is anti-intellectual.
Kinnaman quotes one young person and why he left faith over the church’s failure to accept science: “To be honest, I think that learning about science was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the young person. “I knew from church that I couldn’t believe in both science and God, so that was it. I didn’t believe in God anymore.”
Stories from Nazarene parents, youth pastors, and university professors indicate that some young people are leaving the Church of the Nazarene for the reasons Kinnaman reports. These young people think they cannot affirm the idea that God creates through evolution and still feel welcome in the denomination.
Dan Boone, president of Trevecca Nazarene University, asks an important question of himself that also applies to the Church of the Nazarene, “Will I engage a young generation in an open-minded biblical conversation that welcomes scientific discovery, reasoned philosophy, and careful logic? Or will I ignore all of these in favor of an interpretation of creation that is barely one hundred years old and rooted in the fear of science?”
Oord, along with eight other Nazarene scholars, has started a project called Nazarenes Exploring Evolution. Oord writes:
Recent polling shows that the majority of scientists believe in evolution. More than 9 of 10 professional scientists believe the evidence for evolution is compelling. While the theory of evolution comes in a variety of forms, virtually all forms say that gradual changes occurred to produce new species over long periods of time.
Not only do the majority of scientists affirm evolution, the general features of evolutionary theory – including an old earth and natural selection – are widely accepted in culture today. Most public television and scientifically-oriented programs simply assume the general truth of evolutionary theory.
Recent polling also shows, however, that more than half of American Evangelicals believe humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.Those who hold this view typically believe the world is relatively young. And they interpret Genesis (and other books of the Bible) in a particular way to support their young earth view.
This difference between 1) the majority of Evangelicals and 2) the majority of scientists seems true of the Church of the Nazarene. Many denominational scholars in various disciplines – scientific, biblical, and theological – believe the general theory of evolution is compatible with Wesleyan-holiness theology. Yet, many non-specialists in the Church of the Nazarene reject evolution. In fact, a 2007 Pew poll said only 21% of Nazarenes mostly agree or completely agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life on earth.[ Dan Boone, president of Trevecca Nazarene University, sums it up: “the bulk of our Christian scholars/scientists are in a camp different from the bulk of our laity [on issues of evolution].”
I and about eight other scholars and leaders have begun a project called, “Nazarenes Exploring Evolution.” The project and its participants work to foster greater understanding among members of the Church of the Nazarene about the potential fruitful relation between Wesleyan-holiness theology and evolution. It does so by exploring scripture, science, theology, and other realms of knowledge. It seeks not to ridicule those who hold non-evolutionary views of creation, such as Young Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, or Intelligent Design. Instead, it offers Theistic Evolution (or similar views) to members of the denomination as a viable alternative among accounts of how God creates the universe.
Nazarene Scientists on God Creating through Evolution
In a 2009 Pew research study, 97% of scientists said humans and other living things have evolved over time by natural processes, guided by God, or evolved in some other way. To date, no one has taken a poll of scientists in Church of the Nazarene colleges and universities to determine how they think about evolution. But some scientists in the denomination have published their views on the subject.
Fred Cawthorne, of Trevecca Nazarene University, says that “evolution by no means contradicts the fact that God is the Maker of heaven and earth and that he has been actively guiding and sustaining the universe for all time. If we say God cannot create through a gradual, progressive process such as evolution, then we limit God’s transcendence and immanence.”
Karl Giberson, long-time professor at Eastern Nazarene College, affirms evolution: “I think evolution is true. The process, as I reflect on it, is an expression of God’s creativity, although in a way that is not captured by the scientific view of the world… God’s creative activity must not be confined to a six-day period – ‘in the beginning’ – or the occasional intervention along the evolutionary path. God’s role in creation must be more universal – so universal it cannot be circumscribed by the contours of individual phenomena or events.”
Darrel Falk, of Point Loma Nazarene University, says that “for the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy, and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually.”
Rick Colling, a long time scientist at Olivet Nazarene University, says that “some people, on religious grounds, choose to aggressively ignore or deny many scientific concepts and principles, especially in the domain of evolution… The problem, as I see it, is that we tend to squeeze God into small rigid boxes… Unfortunately, this approach to religious faith is fraught with liability because it prevents God from truly being God – a creator capable of using any means He chooses for His creation.”
Regardless of my view of religion, I see this as a good step in the right direction. Any move towards reason and away from myth is a good one. I read several of Karl Giberson’s books when I was trying to decide whether I want to remain a Christian. While I found his books quite helpful, I thought Giberson had to strain at times to maintain at least a modicum of orthodoxy.
As many of you know, I pastored in SE Ohio for many years. During my time in the hills of Perry County, I preached for several local Nazarene churches. My then friend, Bill Beard, pastored several Nazarene churches in the area and he would have me come and preach for him.
Bill was required to take classes at Mount Vernon Nazarene University before the Nazarene’s would ordain him. I remember him telling me theological horror stories about professors who didn’t believe in inerrancy. His concern over “liberalism” in the Nazarene Church ultimately led him out of the Nazarenes and to the Christian Union Church.
In the rural Midwest, Nazarene churches can be quite Fundamentalist. I can’t imagine any talk about evolution will be accepted. I suspect the scholars in the Nazarenes Exploring Evolution Project know this. They will likely focus on the coasts, major cities, and their universities, as they try to sell Nazarenes on the notion that Evolution and Wesleyan theology are compatible.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I commend Oord and his fellow band of Evolutionists for attempting to breach the ignorance divide that is so common among Evangelicals. I do wonder if their attempt will result in a large number of Nazarene churches attempting to flee the denomination for denominations that still pride themselves in scientific ignorance?
I was quite puzzled when I learn of people only accepting the creationist version. There was a society of the flat earth that existed until we finally had pictures of the earth. I suspect the same will happen here.
I always felt that God is Truth, Beauty and Love. If what I believe is True it can be questioned there should be no fear to be questioned, and Science discovers a form of truth.
Thanks for commenting!
Bruce, I agree with you, that this is a positive step for this denomination to take, but as far as stemming the tide of young people turning away in droves, I simply don’t think it is enough. There are many other issues facing the conservative Evangelical movement today, other than the science vs. religion debate. I think many young adults are seeing how Christianity is becoming less and less relevant in our increasingly secular society. The internet has opened up the world to us in ways never dreamed of when I was younger. People are realizing that there are a great many ideas out there, other than the very narrow views they grew up with.
Also, at some point, the Evangelical church is going to be forced to deal with the 2 hot button topics of today – Same sex marriage, and the whole abortion issue. Along with that comes the whole issue of intolerance. Again, young people are having their eyes opened to the fact that what the churches have railed against for years is not lining up with their personal experiences, for example, in dealing with gay people. They are realizing that they are just like everyone else – all they want is to live their lives in peace. Hopefully, the churches will change, or they will continue to fade away into history.
Bruce, I think it is truly pitiful that a denomination is looking to turn over their convictions to popular vote and exchange their principles for more numbers. I haven’t seen your blog before, but I read your brief history on the sidebar. I hope that evolution was not what led you away from Christ. Evolution (on a grand scale of molecules-to-man) is not scientific. Why would exchange a supernatural explanation for a natural explanation? Sure change occurs today, but how does that prove that it explains the variation of all life? First, I think you need to be willing to exchange supernaturalism for naturalism. Then I think you would need to be willing to exchange the Bible’s catastrophic history for the assumption of uniformitarianism. Both are unobserved histories. Without observation, and the ability to repeat/test, it is unscientific. Creationists have a starting assumption of catastrophism. This basically means that if the Bible is true, then there are three very important events (a 6-day literal creation, a cursed world following original sin, and a worldwide flood) that intrude and disrupt the assumption of uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism fails, so does all conclusions that have been drawn using that assumption. Now, you are left explaining to me why I should abandon my assumption for yours?
My reasons for leaving the faith are many. However, evolution was not one one them. Anti-intellectualism, that ignores scientific evidence and explanations IS one reason. Any way you cut it, a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 goes against everything we know about the natural world. Supernaturalism requires faith, a faith I do not have. Believing a God spoke the world into existence
6,000 years ago, or believing virgins can get pregnant without a man and believing dead people can come back to life, requires a faith I do not have.
I am no scientist but I do have a brain and I know when I am being sold a bill of goods. Creationism is telling me that the car in my drive is White when I can see with my own eyes it is Red.
You are free to believe what you will. However, you are not free (not saying you do this) do demand theology be taught as science. (as Creationists do)
If you want to understand my journey please read http://brucegerencser.net/start-here/
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
I fully understand when you say “theology be taught as science”. That is how I feel about evolution: an unobserved, untestable, and unrepeateable set of hypotheses. That’s not science, that’s philosophy. Again, I have no problem with natural selection – that IS proven, observable, testable, and repeatable. But natural selection is 100% compatible with a literal Genesis. I have no problem with teaching evolutionary concepts, but I think they need to be presented as how they really are: requiring faith.
God and the bible are unobserved (by anyone currently alive), untestable, and unrepeatable.
Great observation, Jada.
Jada – EXACTLY! That’s my point entirely – both viewpoints (creation and evolution) are faith systems. I’m glad you agree. Now, why do we teach one in schools and not the other?
No, she is saying the foundation for your creationist belief is untestable. You accept as fact that there is a God and the Bible is true, a claim you accept by faith, especially since on a scientific, historical, and textual basis, it is quite clear the Bible is errant and fallible. You are playing the false equivalence game. Science does not purport to have all the answers nor does it claim itself to be absolute truth. Those are claims that Fundamentalist Christians make for their Bible and their God.
And I am saying the foundation for your evolutionary/atheistic belief is also untestable: naturalism and uniformitarianism of all history. Show me the one experiment that has been conducted over millions of years to prove these processes have been continuing unchanged or affected for millions of years. Obviously you can not. You can show me experiments done here in the present that seem to suggest constants, and you can give me arguments as to why you BELIEVE constants do not change – but that doesn’t make the truth, that makes it a compelling argument OR philosophy – not science. That is neither based on observation or testable. The overall point is that creation and evolution are in the same boat: unobservable and untestable – so choose your belief system but don’t act like believing one makes you more educated than someone who chooses the other. This is a philosophy issue through and through, and should be no where near the word science.
I know what are saying…I trust science to give me the right answers about the world I live in. I am not a scientist and neither are you. (2 years studying the issue does not make one a scientist) But, what I do know about science, best explains the world I live in.
No claims of superiority here but basing one’s understanding of the world based on a errant, fallible text 2-4 thousand years old does lead to a warped world view and ignorance of the world as-it-is.
And admit it, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince you otherwise. Your presuppositions, the Christian God is the one, only, true God, and the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, keep you from accepting anything that does not fit in your narrow box. That is not so for me. I am free to accept new beliefs and understandings and abandon old beliefs and understandings when it is warranted. (which I have done throughout my life)
BTW, I did post a comment you left on REDDIT http://brucegerencser.net/2013/01/same-evidence-different-conclusion-a-young-earth-creationist-said/ Perhaps some of the scientists who read this blog will engage you on this post.
BTW, your religious bias is showing when you do the whole evolution/atheist thing. Evolution and atheism are two separate things. Many Christians believe in evolution so evolution and atheism go hand in hand.
You say you are “free to accept new beliefs and understandings and abandon old beliefs” and somehow I am not, right? Well, first of all I’ve done this myself plenty of times. Right now the evidence is pointing me towards YEC. In two years of debating this with people I have not had one piece of evidence presented that convinced me that YEC was wrong. I will be honest with you – the closest one that seemed problematic to me was the white cliffs of dover. That one took quite a bit of research, but eventually I found this explanation: http://www.detectingdesign.com/DesmondFord.html#chalk, and realized that these large chalk deposits are incredible evidence for a worldwide catastrophe that happened very quickly eerily similar to the flood.
Yes, young earth creationists change…within the confines of their box. They can’t go beyond their box because their presuppositions about God and the Bible make it impossible. I, on the other hand, am really free to go wherever the evidence leads. I have no God or divine book that I must make my beliefs and understanding conform to.
Bruce, I have not always been a YEC, the evidence and arguments convinced me. How does that fit into the box exactly? I choose the Christian God because I need a god capable of creating time, space, and matter. I need a God that does not contradict himself. I need a historical outline that can actually make sense of the physical evidence I see left in the world. I don’t get that from any other religion.
Unless you were an evolutionist, all the other creationist theories fit in the box. It is a shell game, kind of like creationisms pretty cousin, intelligent design.Same dogma, prettier clothes. All of these beliefs presuppose the Christian God is the one, true God and that the Bible is the Word of God. (even though ID adherents do their best to hide their religious agenda)
So you are an atheist, right? On all God’s but the Christian God. If you were looking for a God that doesn’t contradict himself…why would you choose the Christian God? The Bible is littered with discrepancies and contradictions. If the Christian God can’t keep the Bible straight, what makes you think he can take care of the created world? Now if you told me you believed in a unknowable deistic God, then I might think differently.
Bruce, I understand fully what you are saying and trying to do here, but I know for a fact it does not work. One of my fellow redditor friends is JoeCoder. If you have some time I might suggest you checking out his work (http://www.reddit.com/user/JoeCoder/). He was an atheist turned Christian by following where the evidence led. How does that fit into your paradigm? At this time he is old-earth, but admits that is only because he has not fully studied young-earth arguments. He is not against young-earth. He is open.
” I choose the Christian God because I need a god capable of creating time, space, and matter. I need a God that does not contradict himself.”
Why do you “need” there to be a God?
Well in all fairness you did just kinda jump on some wording there and go off on a tangent and ignore the overall response. But anyways… I “need” a God because I am an intelligent person who realizes that although science can actually prove very little it is pretty well documented that something doesn’t come from nothing. Therefore a first cause must be capable of making time, space, and matter. Therefore this first cause must be greater and/or outside of time, space, and matter or else we will be in a forever paradox.
A further complication of your view is that you assert the Christian God, the God of the Bible, is THE creator God. Why should I accept your God as the Creator God? Why not any of the other gods that are Creator Gods? Are you not an atheist too? You do not believe any of the other gods exist. Only your God is the one, true God. The only difference then between you and I is that my list of no-gods has one more god than yours.
Tim, you do not make one single argument that I have not heard before. Guess what? It doesn’t convince me of a thing. Science has answered a lot more questions than religion because science is about the empirical method – looking at the evidence first and foremost. Of course we can’t replicate the big bang! But we can look at the evidence all around us and draw reasonable conclusions. There is not one thing in the creation story that has one iota of scientific evidence backing it up. And as for your YEC theory? When I was in my teens, many years ago, I went caving with some friends in Alabama. I found evidence of water carving rock that made me question the whole young earth idea, in spite of my then-fundamentalist beliefs. I remember thinking, “This had to have taken tens of thousands of years.” As a youngster I looked at maps of the continents and observed that they fit together like a puzzle. I wondered if maybe at one time they actually were connected. That was evidence speaking to me! If you want to call that an unprovable and unrepeatable set of circumstances that are on the same level of religion, which is completely without any evidence, I won’t try to convince you otherwise. You say you are open to new ideas, but you are not. That is why you are picking fights on this blog and wasting everyone’s time.
Bruce, as a free-thinking scientist do you not agree that extreme circumstances can greatly alter many of the gradual processes we measure today? If you are honest you will admit that has been proven over and over. There are tons of articles and studies on catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism. Extreme conditions can lead to extreme results. Those caves at today’s accumulation rates would take millions of years to form, but that proves nothing. IF Noah’s flood actually occurred, then the right conditions would have been in place to form those caves relatively rapidly as well as move those continents apart. All the evidence you cite for your position is the same I use for mine.
Perhaps it’s all in our starting bias and not actually in the evidence.
I am no scientist and neither are you.
You have deluded yourself into thinking that the only difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is their interpretation of the data. You think evolution requires faith just like creationism requires faith. Have I missed anything?
The scientific method begins with observation. The creationist begins with dogma that contradicts what is observed.
But, let’s forget all that. Please show me WHY I should accept YOUR God as the Creator God and not any of the other gods that humans have created?
I can look at the universe and understand that a deity was involved in creating the universe. There is nothing in evolution that precludes believing in a deistic God. Why should I accept YOUR God as the Creator and why should I accept YOUR religious text as infallible, absolute truth?
As I said on James McGrath’s blog, it is a waste of time to argue science with creationists like you. Since neither you or I are scientists, lets talk theology. Let’s talk about why any of us should accept your God and your Bible about all other Gods? What proof do you have that your God is the real God and that all other Gods are false?
If you crave true knowledge then you are a scientist. That’s all there is to it. It is not a delusion that it is the interpretation we are squabbling over, it is. We both have the same rocks, same bones, same evidence – different conclusions. You simply BELIEVE you interpretation is more valid. Your welcome to that belief, but you need to admit that it IS a belief.
God cannot be proved through discourse. We can argue back and forth until we are blue in the face, it won’t make a difference unless one of us is willing to change our bias. You have to be open to change to let any hint of truth in what I say come through. It is obvious that you are not actually open to change. You are dogmatic as I am.
There are plenty of good reasons to believe in my God and the Bible, but since none of the reasons are without dispute, you will side with the dispute every time, because you believe it gets you out of consequence.
I am not a scientist and staying at a Holiday Inn won’t make me one. If you want to take your two years of reading and call yourself as scientist by all means do so. I have more respect for people who give their lives to science than to ever suggest I am a scientist.
I am however a theologian and I suppose you think anyone you reads the Bible is a theologian?
You answered none of my questions, just like the last time you came by to sell your creationist wares. You prove my point…that the best way to deal with creationists is not with science but with the Bible itself and the claims creationists make for the Bible.
You expect me to just accept your God is the one true God and the Bible is absolute truth. Surely, you give evidence for these claims?
Note, btw, how you move the discussion from the questions I asked to some supposed moral defect in me. Nice dodge.
Hi Mr Tim,
I replied to you on a different thread, but in case you missed it because you didn’t click ‘inform me of replies’ (I know I always forgot to click on it) thought I’d repost it here. I can see from your comment history that debating with you is on par with arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Useless, in other words. But I thought I’d give you a chance to prove you really do have an ‘open’ mind, not just a made-up one. The Ken Ham book you mentioned, by the by, is aptly named. Check out the following link as a starting point to entering a much more interesting and amazing world than the opaque bubble you currently occupy the now. Cheers
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe
I would also like to point out that I did not just up and decide one day to be an atheist. In fact I really wanted to continue believing in God. But I just had to give it up, all of it, when I started honestly looking at the facts. Unfortunately for Tim and other churchgoers, they can’t do that while they are still attending church. They have to break away from it and clear their head of all the rhetoric before they can actually think for themselves. That can be a scary process, but it is worth it in the long haul.