What I Learned at Exploring Origins
by Thomas Jay Oord
January 28, 2014
The Exploring Origins conference at Point Loma Nazarene University was a great success! I’m grateful to the many who attended and to those who led in various ways. This aspect of the Nazarenes Exploring Evolution project, however, taught me some things.
My conference co-director, Mark Mann, and I put together a strong program and lineup of speakers. We emphasized table discussions, panels and workshops, and I’ve been hearing very positive reports indicating these were helpful. We included speakers from multiple perspectives. The spirits of those who left the event were, for the most part, positive and upbeat.
Now that the conference is over, I’ve been thinking about highlights, lessons learned, and prospects for the future. Here, in no particular order, are my reflections.
Nazarenes agree God is Creator but may disagree on how God creates.
The overwhelming majority of the 200+ conference attendees thought evolution was compatible with the idea that God creates. In fact, probably only a handful of young-earth creationists attended, although Answers in Genesis had a booktable and Georgia Purdom was a plenary and workshop speaker. While I’m sure the conference attendance numbers did not represent the overall percentage of young-earth creationists who are members of the Church of the Nazarene, I am confident that Christians stand united under the claim that God is our Creator.
I was pleased at how central the Bible was for so many speakers. It reminded me that what is really at stake are claims about how the Bible should be interpreted and what role it should play in relation to science. For instance, young-earth creationists typically interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a rather straightforward, literal fashion. Evolutionary creationists tend to interpret the same Scripture as telling us theological truths but not necessarily scientific truths. They believe the genre of Genesis is different from the genre of science. Many Nazarenes Exploring Evolution essays posted online illustrate this point.
Most U.S. Nazarene scholars of ministry or science think evolution is compatible with believing God is Creator.
Prior to the conference, 10-question survey was sent to professors of ministry and professors of science in the universities, colleges, and seminary in the United States. A little more than half took this survey, and the full results are now available in the new book, Nazarenes Exploring Evolution.
Here, for instance are the results of one survey question: Eighty-four percent (84%) of ministry professors agreed or strongly agreed that the Church of the Nazarene should allow the theory that God creates through evolution as one acceptable view of creation among others, and only eight percent (8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. Ninety-three percent (93%) of science professors agreed or strongly agreed that the Church of the Nazarene should allow the theory that God creates through evolution as one acceptable view of creation among others, and none (0%) disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Here is one of the ten sets of survey graphs I showed at the conference:
The conversation about evolution can be difficult but is important.
We began the Exploring Origins conference with worship and Eucharist. I think this set the right tone, because I heard few demeaning statements during the time we were together. In my opening presentation, I offered guidelines for conversation that urged attendees to be humble, discerning, kind, open to others, and respectful of authorities. The overwhelming majority followed these guidelines. But there were a few statements and materials that subtly sent demeaning messages about the views of others. I wished those had been otherwise. I had hoped for 100% affirmation of others even when we disagreed. I was reminded that we have work to do to speak well about those who hold contrary views.
The Church of the Nazarene needs a new statement about creation.
The current statement on creation in the appendix of the denomination’s Manual offers these brief words: “The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…’ --Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3).” A number of those at the recent Exploring Origins worked to suggest ways to enhance this statement. They offered brief but substantial ideas that seem helpful. Perhaps their work will eventually come to fruition.
We have more to explore and more conversations to be shared.
The Exploring Origins conference concluded with a brainstorming session about where things should go after we left PLNU. The suggestions were helpful and energizing. Many said we need ways to expand the conversation. Others emphasized the need to model Christ-like conversations on this difficult topic. The consensus was that the conversation was important not only for seeking truth, but also to encourage scientists in the pews and show young people that the denomination takes scientific and biblical truths seriously.
I’m not yet sure about the particulars of all of this. I plan to keep facilitating the conversation and offer proposals I hope others will find helpful. I am cheered that so many believe talking about evolution and Christian faith is a central concern for the growth and maturity of the Church of the Nazarene.
I conclude by expressing my heart-felt appreciation to Sherri Walker, my colleague in this overall project. She did nearly all the essay editing, she networked, and she organized the book we co-edited. Her project activities will taper off soon, but I want to acknowledge my great gratitude to her.
Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: giving credibility to nonsense
(or, walking into an apologetic war machine)
by Peter Enns
January 29, 2014
Bill Nye will be debating Ken Ham in a week’s time–inexplicably, on Ham’s home turf, where he controls the terms and the crowd.
Nye is either going to get destroyed by Ken Ham or at least grow extremely frustrated with Ham’s tactics.
I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not (unless I am, but we’ll need to wait and see).
Nye seems to think he is walking into a debate of some sort over science, and that presenting the data will, if not prove victorious, at least put a dent into Ham’s armor.
It won’t. Nye is strolling into a well-tuned, battle-tested, apologetic war machine.
Nye and Ham won’t even be able to agree on what the data are, what science is, and what it means to interpret evidence. Ham will make sure of that.
This is a debate over worldviews, and they get nasty quickly and go nowhere.
Ham is a master of crowd manipulation, with a long and documented track record of interpreting his opponents in the worst possible light, twisting data and logic, and other passive-aggressive debate tactics (praise God).
Ham can’t and won’t give one square inch on his science because if he does his finely tuned worldview will crumble to the ground–a worldview that includes deeply held (and erroneous) views of God and the Bible.
No one who thinks he has a handle on reality as Ham feels he does is actually capable of debate. Such types only lecture, declare, and prophesy.
Ham needs his theology just the way it is in order to maintain his strong grip on his understanding of reality. His theology requires a science that supports biblical literalism. Failure in this regard is not an option for Ham.
If Nye wants to debate, he’s got a week to study theology and hermeneutics so he can address Ham’s unexamined and faulty premises that allow him to handle science as he does.
Nye is clear that he has no delusions of convincing Ham. The debate presumably is aimed at dissuading those who listen to Ham. That may work, for a small number who are already questioning Ham’s agenda, and that alone may be worth the effort.
That being said, this debate strikes me not simply as a general waste of time, but a win-win for Ham.
Ham is an immovable force. He will not in any conceivable universe “lose” the debate, and simply being debated by Nye will give Ham credibility in the eyes of those who might otherwise have successfully navigated past Ham’s treacherous port and found a true and living faith elsewhere.
The ideal opponent, if a debate were unavoidable, would be (1) a theistic evolutionist, who (2) doesn’t lose his/her cool, but (3) isn’t above giving hard punches to the gut, and who (4) knows his/her way around theology, hermeneutics, and the history of Christian thought to expose to a larger crowd was is self-evident to most everyone else:
Ham is not capable of true debate, and his views are not worth debating to begin with.