Mocking and Rejecting God And His Word

“Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:22

They twist God’s word for their own purposes.  We see them all around us now more than ever before, or so it seems.  Perhaps they are just simply less subtle and have been emboldened to be more plain about their heresies.  Complacency by both leadership and laiety alike further enables them to take a stronger foothold in our “Christian” universities, seminaries, and churches.  The sincere desire for “unity”, “love”, and setting aside “minor” differences has led to a watering down of God’s word and a reliance on man’s rationalizing to decide what is valid in Scripture.

Tom Oord of Northwest Nazarene University, a highly regarded professor of theology and philosophy, is perhaps the leading false teacher in the Church of the Nazarene.  He has been allowed to continue on and on with his poisonous agenda of evolution and open theism, and you would think he would be out by now, and teaching in a secular school instead.  Why he remains, as well as others, is either a matter of complacency, or fear, or the leadership sees no problem with his ideas.  He certainly is not there because he holds fast to biblical truth, because he has rejected biblical truth in place of his own.

In his latest article that caught my attention, he practically starts off with a falsehood:

“I take the Bible with utmost seriousness”

Anyone who does not believe Adam and Eve were real, or who believes that God cannot know the future, or who believes that God can learn from His mistakes, or that God could not have created all things in a brief period of days- does not take the Bible seriously!

He then starts slowly explaining how he came to his disbelief:

“Witnessing to God’s truth seemed to require that I believe the Bible was without error on all matters, including matters related to science.”

His love of man’s wisdom instead of God is shown in these words:

“Instead, I started reading the Bible carefully and the work of biblical scholars.”
“I also discovered discrepancies in the Bible.” (so he says)

“My quest for better ways to think about the Bible prompted me to read theologians and Bible scholars from the past and present.”

His claim of “discrepancies” can be proven to be false, and that is another whole new article in itself.  He also rejects John Wesley’s own testimony that he believed in biblical inerrancy, conveniently dismissing it as being inconsistent at best.

He continues with his high regard for what “leading scholars” think:

“And I discovered through reading and conversations that those considered the leading biblical scholars and theologians today also reject absolute biblical inerrancy.”

“Perhaps even more important was my discovery that great theologians and biblical scholars of yesteryear believed the Bible’s basic purpose was to reveal God’s desire for our salvation.”

“The vast majority of Evangelical scholars with whom I talked also didn’t think the Bible has to be inerrant about scientific matters.”

These statement are all indications that show he clearly does not come to his conclusions based on what the plain teaching of God’s word is, but rather on the wisdom of “great scholars and theologians.”  Throughout his writings you will see examples of what he “thinks” is, instead of taking God’s word for it, when God clearly speaks in a literal, not allegorical fashion.  But leave it to Tom Oord and other intellectuals to decide what’s best for us and convince us that only certain parts of Scripture are infallible; the rest are not trustworthy in what they say, because of a so-called conflict with “science” and man’s foolish and unproven theory of evolution.

Scripture instead asks “Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  1 Cor. 1:20

And then he finishes with a flourish and an example of his superior intellect over what the Bible teaches:

“After my studies, I came to believe that the Bible tells us how to find abundant life. But it does not provide the science for how life became abundant.”

So Tom Oord’s premise is this: we cannot believe anything the Bible teaches us, even if evidently in a plain literal way, if it has to do with such things as geography, science, history, anthropology, or even politics.  No, to Tom Oord and others, we can believe in biblical inerrancy only in matters of salvation.  I don’t know who originally came up with this, but it is certainly not based on God’s word.  The Bible does not teach us this at all; it is man’s invention.  I believe the answer as to why he thinks this way, is that he has no trust in God’s word at all.  It is impossible to trust God’s word, and then at the same time say that parts of it are false.   And if he does not even trust God’s word, let me dare ask the question: is Tom Oord even saved?

How do we determine which parts of Scripture has to do with salvation, and which does not?

For instance, in Romans 5:12, it is written that “sin entered into the world” and thus “death” by sin.  Does Tom Oord reject the fact that the “man” that Paul is talking about is none other than Adam?  And if sin entered the world through Adam according to Scripture, followed by death, how is that compatible with the story (fable) of evolution, which logically says that death came into the world long before man existed?  Is Paul a liar, thus making God a liar, since what Paul wrote IS God’s word?  How then can Tom Oord or any other pastor or Christian leader tell us that this passage has nothing to do with “matters of salvation?”

Let me make it clear as far as what I believe.  If you are actively teaching others that evolution is compatible with the Bible, you are a false teacher.  If you believe this theory to be true, you are sadly deceived and need to re-visit the Bible and what it says.  You have been fed a lie, and if you think that a Christian can continue on in their Christian faith solidly believing in only part of God’s word, and not stumbling on account of that belief, you are sorely mistaken.

In part two of his series on BioLogos, Oord says the following:

“I think, however, that the Bible can be trusted about what it says about salvation even though its statements about the natural world – when interpreted literally – may be wrong.”

What total arrogance!  His reliance on “biblical scholars once again brings him to this man-driven conclusion:

“After all, biblical scholars say we best interpret Genesis 1 and other Bible creation passages as hymns and theological poetry, not scientific treatises.”

And then the height of arrogance in the following:

“For instance, evolution tells us that it took millions of years for creatures to evolve into the complex forms we now see. But if God gives freedom and/or agency to all creatures and they act as created co-creators, it would make sense that creating complex creatures takes time.”

Yes, for Tom Oord, it does not make sense that God can create anything in a short amount of time.  For him and his colleagues, it only makes sense that God needs millions and millions of years to create life.  Perhaps Dr. Oord believes that God made some mistakes over those years, and had to try several times before He got it right. After all, that is what process theology teaches, does it not?

This is total foolishness, and this is only a small part of what is destroying the Church of the Nazarene from within.  Tom Oord is a lover of wisdom, not a lover of God’s holy and pure and inerrant word.  The doctrines which he conjures up are senseless and speculative, and in the general sense of how the word “fool” is used often in Scripture, it means void of understanding or any moral sense.  This aptly describes Dr. Oord and all those who are teaching this philosophy.  They are devoid of understanding of God’s word, notwithstanding all of their training and degrees.  They are corrupt shepherds leading the flock to destruction.

And the rest of the leaders in the church?  What about them?  Silent as usual.

Prominent Nazarenes Reject God’s Word And Promote Ungodly Evolution

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  Rom 1:21-22

There has been a movement for quite some time now to serve up evolution as a viable alternative for Christians as to how God created man.  That movement is trying to gain momentum in the Nazarene denomination, as part of a “big tent” philosophy.  But if you accept evolution, you also must accept certain ideas that come with it.  And in accepting them, you have no choice but to reject what Holy Scripture has to say about it.  You cannot believe in the Bible, and also believe in evolution.  It is an oxymoron.

Believing in evolution means you must accept that, among other things:

-Adam and Eve were not real historical figures as described in Genesis;

-Jesus was not truthful when he talked about Adam and Eve in a historical context;

-You reject God’s account in Genesis that He created everything in six days;

-You reject the ​truthfulness of the​ genealogical account of the Lord in Matthew, which includes Adam;

-The account of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is only allegory;

-You accept that death came into the world many years before any Adam and Eve, contradicting Romans 5:12 and its explanation of how sin and death came into the world;

-You pick and choose what you want to believe, instead of accepting God’s historical account at face value;

-You choose to use your own intellect and human reasoning and philosophy to validate the Bible, instead of letting the Bible validate itself;

-You reject the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture as the sole and final written authority for our faith and practice, and instead accept that the Bible has errors and is written deceptively.

We could list more things from the Bible that require someone to suspend belief in it, when they say they adhere to “theistic evolution.”  These people in the end pick and choose what they want to believe, to satisfy their intellectual snobbery and their disbelief in God’s word.  What is not literal about the following account, as one example?

Gen 2:7 “And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.”

They just cannot accept such accounts as fact.  They twist the word of God, and insist that there is no way it could have happened that way, because “science” disproves it.  Of course, we know how flawed science has been in the past, and evolution is a prime example.  The entire concept of original sin falls apart if Adam and Eve were not created by God as is said in Genesis.

The fossil record actually shows an abrupt appearance of human life, and there is no evidence whatsoever of gradual evolution.  And so, the evolutionists had to come up with something called “Punctuated Equilibrium”  to explain away that problem.  The fact is that Darwin’s theory (really a hypothesis) has been clearly refuted many times by the evidence of science, yet the deniers continue to insist on this fairy tale as being fact, when it is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on humankind.

The Leadership of The Evolution Movement In The Church

Nazarenes Exploring Evolution is composed of a group of Nazarene theologians, pastors and scientists.  Here are two of the more familiar people (to me) who are on the leadership:

Tom Oord: open theist and professor of theology and philosophy at Northwest Nazarene, who rejected my biblical answer to him several years ago at a lecture where he seemed to miss the point of Romans 5:12 and its explanation of sin and death.  He is first on the list of leadership of this group, and that is no surprise.  He is probably the number one prime mover of this unbiblical agenda.

Scott Daniels: pastor of Pasadena First Church and dean of Azuza Pacific University’s School of Theology.  In 2009 at General Assembly, Rev. Daniels teamed up with Jon Middendorf to hold a workshop where they promoted the emergent church, and such mystics as Richard Foster and Thomas Merton.  Rev. Daniels has made the ridiculous claim, against all evidence,  that not only is the emergent church movement dead, but that he is not a part of it as well.

Others on this team include: Bob Branson, graduate of Southern Nazarene and Nazarene Theological Seminary, who has written for several Sunday School handbooks; Jennifer Chase, another product of Northwest Nazarene University who specializes in biology; Kerry Fulcher from Point Loma Nazarene University, another school that along with Northwest promotes emergent ideology and contemplative mysticism; Mark Mann, also a teacher at Point Loma who is a contributor to The BioLogos Forum, which heavily promotes theistic evolution; Sherri Walker, another product of Northwest Nazarene; and Mark Winslow, who teaches at Southern Nazarene and whose interests include  “understanding how college students accommodate evolution and religious beliefs.”

Then there are the various article contributors, which includes some from the extremely liberal and emergent-embracing NazNet blog, an “unofficial” Nazarene site for conversations amongst Nazarenes.  Most notable of these contributors is Dr. Karl Giberson, formerly a science professor at Eastern Nazarene College, author of the book Saving Darwin, and I cannot think of any other science teacher who has caused more damage to students with his open theism and evolution teaching.  The “toxic-ness” is compounded by the utter arrogance of this man, who has been known to rip into the reputation and character of anyone who dares to disagree with his ungodly teachings.  I do not hate him, but I do hate what he has done, and continues to do.  Sadly, his colleague Dr. Randall Stephens is carrying on the same philosophy to the detriment of more ENC students.

Far From Loving And Humble

The final paragraph of their statement describing this project says “In a loving, constructive, and humble endeavor, the Nazarenes Exploring Evolution project seeks to help the Church of the Nazarene consider how evolution can complement rather than contradict Wesleyan-holiness theology.”  This is quite laughable, because it is not believable, when you read the way some of these hold a disdain for those who dare to believe God’s word instead of theirs!  In fact, in the words preceding that statement, the less than charitable Dan Boone, president of Trevecca Nazarene University, says this:

“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?”

This type of rhetoric is typical of Dr. Boone and others.  First, they elevate philosophy and human reasoning to a level that is so important that man must turn to it first, in order to then confirm what the Bible says.  Then he throws up a red herring, and paints Bible believers as “fearful of science,” instead of just admitting that we vigorously disagree with what these people promote.  This is the same old way they talk amongst themselves, congratulating themselves for their intellect, and parading their degrees in front of us.  Just read their Leadership page and you will understand what I mean by how much they are so impressed with themselves.  It is, to paraphrase a friend’s comment, more like a mutual admiration society.

Follow The Money

In funding evolution, it takes money to push forth anti-biblical views.  So, what group or person is behind all this?  Enter the John Templeton Foundation.  And what does it have to do with Nazarenes Exploring Evolution, you ask?  First, here is a quote from one of John Templeton’s writings:

 “No one should say that God can be reached by only one path” (The Humble Approach pp. 46,55). Templeton writes in his book Discovering the Laws of Life: “[T]he basic principles for leading a ‘sublime life’… may be derived from any religious tradition, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and others, as well as Christian”

(Discovering the Laws of Life pp. 6-7).  Source: http://www.letusreason.org/Curren40.htm

Then, there is the BioLogos Foundation, which was/is heavily funded by the John Templeton Foundation.http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/the-language-of-god-biologos-website-and-workshop

And now, the connection. The Biologos Foundation has recently granted a significant amount of money to Tom Oord to push forth John Templeton’s philosophical (anti-biblical) views further into the Nazarene denomination via a new website:
http://biologos.org/ecf/grantees

And now, enter: NAZARENES EXPLORING EVOLUTION  http://exploringevolution.com/

By the way, this word “exploring” is very deceptive.  They are not exploring evolution; they are promoting it, plain and simple.  There is no other agenda.

 

At his own blog, Dr. Oord introduces the birth of this new website:
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/nazarenes_exploring_evolution/#.USJt-_KneKI

So, you just need to follow the money BEHIND these people and their projects to understand how and why these philosophies are being implemented.  It takes money and well networked groups to assault the basic tenets of scripture.  And as always, the best place to start is with the youth in the schools.  This follows happily along with the Brian McClaren philosophy of getting to the children and grandchildren first.

Most parents have no idea how the foundations that they thought they have established with their children will be under assault by a well-funded liberal machine.

Here is another quote:

 “Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton’s optimism about the possibility of acquiring “new spiritual information” and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship.” (end of quote)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation

New spiritual information???  A new revelation from God?  Does not the Nazarene denomination believe in the closed canon of Scripture, and that what God has revealed in His word is our only authority, not some so-called new spiritual information?

It’s no coincidence that Answers In Genesis, run by Ken Ham, has come under attack by groups that hate the biblical account of creation. This ministry serves to equip our youth and to stand strong against the wiles of the devil who goes about like a roaring lion seeking to devour and tear down the foundations of our faith.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/.  Dr. Ham has been at the forefront of fighting back and refuting Karl Giberson and others who are promoting the Bible denying man’s religion called evolution, and he is not even a Nazarene.

The Real Force Behind The Movement

In commenting on an article from Dr. Oord’s blog, a good friend and pastor described it well:

“Just reading this article by Oord – An Alternative Doctrine of Creation.

It’s interesting how he labels his own view of creation, “my alternative doctrine.” That’s exactly what it is! These people have become their own god! It’s the deception of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “You shall be as God”, with your own alternative doctrine.”

He is exactly right.  These people have been blinded to the truth, and satan is using them for his ends. These people cannot see that if Adam and Eve were not literal, then we could not have been born in sin, and the Lord Jesus died for nothing.  The message of evolution opposes the message of the Bible.  You cannot believe in both.

Every ungodly movement has its leader, sitting in the back unnoticed.  That leader is satan, and he is using men and women like these to deceive countless Christians.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.  Col. 2:8

(By Manny Silva and contributors)

 

For further reference:

Articles by Ken Ham Refuting Karl Giberson and Others:

Nazarene Professor Misrepresents-Again

Is Jesus An Evolutionist?

New Book By Nazarene Scholars Slams Biblical Creationists

What Are Nazarene Students Being Taught?

Why Not Edit The Bible?

Exposing The Anointed (review of book by Goberson and Randall Stephens)

It Is Not “Religion” Versus “Science”

Same Old, Same Old

Maligned By Ken Ham?

What the Bible Says About the Origin of Death and Suffering (Answers in Genesis)

Evolution of Darwin: His Life (video, Answers in Genesis)

 

They Just Won’t Believe God’s Word

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Col. 2:8

The following are quotes from a NazNet thread called “The Search For Adam and Eve.”  Some of these comments are from ordained pastors.  After being on that site for a few years now, my jaw still drops when I occasionally visit and read what they are writing.  If I am the only one disturbed by their discussion, perhaps I’m in serious need of re-visiting what I trust from Scripture.

If on the other hand, there is something terribly wrong there, we need to pray for these folks.

When I read Genesis, God tells us how He created the first man and woman.  He tells us it was two people named Adam and Eve.  Paul referenced Eve and how she was deceived by the serpent, and Jesus  quoted Genesis in regards to divorce, in Luke 10, when He said, “and God made them.”  Paul plainly wrote that sin and death came into the world through one man: Adam.  I have no reason to doubt what God said in His word.  If I did, why would that not lead me eventually to doubt other things He has said in Scripture as being true and historical?  If I need empirical proof of a literal Adam and Eve, then perhaps I should demand empirical proof of Christ’s resurrection!  Yet, these people at NazNet write as if they are members of the heretical Jesus Seminar, who got together and voted one at a time as to what words Jesus said were really His words, or not.

Having read much of what these folks have written in the past, they seem to have the mindset of those from the modernist movement, whose proponents claimed that we can know the truth, but that we would find the truth via man’s intellectual endeavors and reasoning, not by simply believing the truth of the Bible as plainly written.  They have a hard time believing in the supernatural power of God to do what He wants, in the way He says He did, if it does not fit their pet theories.  They reject Jesus Himself when he made a clear statement of Adam’s actual existence.  Yet they have no problem accepting the absurd, poorly devised explanation of our origins, the theory (really a hypothesis at best) called evolution.  They will readily embrace the big-bang, but will also quickly and selectively reject the Bible.  They readily accept the elitist musings of evolutionary high priest Karl Giberson, who rejects Holy Scripture’s teaching, including the fact that it plainly tells us that homosexuality is a sin (see recent post).  And they then proceed to call him a man of strong faith!  Yes, strong faith in his science and his intellect, but not in the Bible.

So here are some highlighted quotes, including from a couple of prominent professors from Nazarene universities who have been causing much damage in our Christian institutions, but few seem to care.  But those who do care will continue to warn others, and expose them, as Scripture requires us to do.  I’ve said in the past that NazNet is a breeding ground for emergent heresy and false teaching, and this proves it again.

Quotes from NazNet Discussion:

“I welcome what Karl Giberson and others in the Church of the Nazarene are doing in the area of life science.”

 “Giberson is a person of strong faith, and I am grateful for his involvement in the discussion. He is not “the enemy.”

“I still think its important we focus people on what scripture intends to teach us with these stories (which has little, if anything, to do with historical details).”

“Archaeology tells us there’s no evidence for anything in the biblical timeline before the Sinai wanderings.”

“I am still comfortable with the idea that God’s word isn’t resistant to truth.”

 “Yea… as far as I know, all signs point to no Sinai wondering, no Exodus..

“somehow it would strengthen my faith in the creator were we to learn that when he made man in His Own image, He did it many places, times and cases, rather than what I have understood as a one time, one case, one pile of dust only.”

“As for ‘Adam’ being one man or representative of all humankind or even both, my hope is that people who desire to grow spiritually will leave room for these interpretations.”

“I can live with Adam and Eve being idealised representations of something that really happened beyond the reach of human awareness…”

“I fully believe there was a first sin – I just don’t think we can believe the writers of Genesis knew exactly how it came about any more than we do. Maybe they did, I just haven’t seen any evidence yet to support it.

“Thankfully, I do believe that God inspired the Bible, so although it’s a cultural mythology, it is the cultural mythology which God selected to tell humans about the relationship between them and God.”

“I didn’t say they don’t exist. [Adam and Eve]  I don’t know….  I just said there’s no evidence to support the claim.”

“I don’t think there were two people named Adam and Eve, but there were people who first understood their relationship to God and those people sinned in a way that has real consequences for the world hereafter. There’s a real difference between the theological position of “first people” and the biological/historical consequences of Adam and Eve.”

“I have come to the place where I find it spiritual strengthening to allow God to have created man however He wanted, and to have described it to man also however He felt it was best for man to hear/discover it. It’s miraculous, however one looks at it.”

 “How does the genealogies given to us in the Bible give us a real connection. They are not exactly verified by empirical data. They have to be taken on some measure of faith.”… I think it is safer to say that Luke is writing that Jesus is in fact a human being, rather than making any statement about Adam.”

“Why does it have to be factually consistent? It was written in a time frame that facts are not really considered the same as facts are today. They would mix in political as well as mythological aspects into their historical writings so to look at something that traces a genealogy of a historic person in this time period you might run into some very complicated problems…”

Response to ‘so Adam was not the first man?’

“I do not know, I was not there. My position in regards to this question is that I simply hold no stock in it. If God reveals to me that there was some guy named Adam who was the very first person I doubt it would change my understanding of Christian Theology.”

This is from a prominent ordained pastor/professor from NNU, Dr. Tom Oord:

“… I think some of you will be interested in Michael Ruse’s June 10 Huffington Post essay, “Adam and Eve Didn’t Exist. Get Over It!” He wrote it in light of the Christianity Today article.  Although his rhetoric can be a bit harsh, I agree with the main point Michael is making…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae…_b_874982.htm

“I’m not buying the theory that in order for Jesus to fulfill the role of the Second Adam, we’d need an historical first one.”

“So my point was that though the story is about individuals, we might very well interpret it more broadly since it doesn’t appear to be historical.”

From another prominent Nazarene professor at PLNU, Dennis Bratcher:

“…this narrative [Adam and Eve]  is not an historical account about ultimate origins (in spite of the Greek name of the book, Genesis). Rather it focuses on a representative couple as a way to talk about humanity in general, and the story of God and humanity…. to try to read this story as a historical account leaves us with questions for which the only answers are speculation and guesses, some of which drift into the ludicrous.”

“According to the scientific evidence, the genre of the story, and the worldview of the Ancient Near East, Adam doesn’t appear to be the first man.”

End Quotes

For further reference:  The Gospel- Evidence For Creation

Arrogance, Intellectual Elitism, Rejection of Scripture, Karl Giberson

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Cor. 1:19

The four items above go together.  Dr. Karl Giberson is no longer a professor at my old school, Eastern Nazarene College, but he now has a colleague there who is apparently carrying on the Giberson tradition.  What would that tradition be?  The Giberson tradition is to disparage, insult, and otherwise look down on anyone- anyone at all- who…

- Dares to believe in the Christian fundamentals (especially biblical inerrancy)

- Dares to challenge the myth of evolution and the global warming religion

- Dares to accept the biblical account of a historical Adam and Eve

- Dares to believe homosexuality is sin, or opposes homosexual “marriage”

- Dares to disagree with him in any way in regards to science and the Bible

I am not criticizing his right to have an opinion, or in making an honest argument to support his opinion.  But frankly, I am sick and tired of Dr. Giberson’s continually belittling attitude towards those who believe that God created Adam and Eve as He said he did; that God did create the world as He said he did; and that the sin of homosexuality is clearly condemned by God’s word.  He looks down on evangelicals that do not match his brand of “evangelicalism”, which is the type that insists that we verify the Bible with our intellectual reasoning and scientific theories, instead of believing the Bible for what it actually says is true.  He “professes to be wise”, but…

So last week, he and Dr. Randall J. Stephens, a professor at ENC, wrote a piece that rips apart anyone who apparently does not have the level of elitist understanding that they have.  Dr. Giberson clearly is one of the most arrogant people on this planet, and I am thankful he is no longer associated with ENC.  Only God knows how many students have had their faith shaken or shipwrecked because of his unbiblical teachings.  Sadly, it seems Dr. Stephens has taken up his mantle at the school and will continue to propagate false notions of the Bible to our students there.  Since they co-wrote this attack on fundamental Bible believers, it goes without saying that they share the same basic contempt for us.  It is a piece brimming with intellectual snobbery, in my opinion.

You can read the entire article and come to your own conclusions here: The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.  Just reading the title got things off on the wrong foot.  When man cannot to his own satisfaction explain facts that are stated plainly in Scripture, he then often resorts to his own reason and intellect to fit his preferred worldview.

Following are a few of the comments they made, and my reaction:

 “The two candidates who espouse the greatest support for science, Mitt Romney and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., happen to be Mormons, a faith regarded with mistrust by many Christians.”

Dr Giberson, you don’t believe that the Mormon faith is actually part of true Christianity, do you?  I would think ANY discerning, Bible believing Christian would not only distrust Mormonism altogether, but would not consider a professing Mormon to be a brother in Christ!  Do you feel the same way about those who “mistrust” the Jehovah’s Witness religion?  Or perhaps the Buddhist or Muslim religions?

And then there are the examples of the amazingly condescending, arrogant, elitist attitude towards Christian fundamentalists who dare to trust what Holy Scripture says:

“unyielding ignorance on the part of the religious”

“evangelical Christianity need not be defined by the simplistic theology, cultural isolationism and stubborn anti-intellectualism”

“fundamentalism is literalistic, overconfident and reactionary.”

“Fundamentalism appeals to evangelicals who have become convinced that their country has been overrun by a vast secular conspiracy; denial is the simplest and most attractive response to change.”

 “They have been scarred by the elimination of prayer in schools; the removal of nativity scenes from public places; the increasing legitimacy of abortion and homosexuality; the persistence of pornography and drug abuse; and acceptance of other religions and of atheism.”

Again, no substantive argument, nothing legitimate to say, just false assumptions.

Here are a few more quotes:

“Mr. Ham built his organization, Answers in Genesis, on the premise that biblical truth trumps all other knowledge.”

I believe the difference with your statement is that Dr. Ham would say, as I would, that it is a fact that biblical truth trumps all other knowledge- not a premise.  Since God is the only source of truth, then my conclusion is that all of God’s truth trumps man’s knowledge, including yours.

In an NPR interview on Oct. 20 related to the same article, Giberson said:  “I mean, there’s just a handful of proof text scattered throughout the Bible about homosexuality. Jesus said absolutely nothing about it.”

Dr. Giberson apparently disagrees with the orthodox Christian and current Nazarene stance on homosexuality, and rejects or chooses to ignore what the Bible teaches.  It’s quite interesting that with this kind of view, he taught at a Nazarene university for years, yet Bible believing ministers in the denomination are denied ordination.  I guess if you are an academic,you’re allowed to teach heresy with impunity and indoctrinate impressionable students with it.   How the Christian world is turned upside down!

Dr. Giberson is a member of Evolutionary Christianity, a group filled with heretics such as Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Richard Rohr, Matthew Fox, and John Shelby Spong, who believes that our Lord was buried in a shallow grave and was eaten by wild dogs!  He is also a big promoter of Open Theism, the teaching that God does not know the future.  To me, this is in indication of his ignorance, not mine or anyone else who can read the Bible for what it plainly teaches, in spite of not having the many degrees he has.  This is intellectual snobbery.  I guess if he does not like it, it can’t be true, or it can’t really mean what it says, can it?

Finally, Dr. Giberson points this out about Ken Ham:  “(In a recent blog post, Mr. Ham called us “wolves” in sheep’s clothing, masquerading as Christians while secretly trying to destroy faith in the Bible.)”

 Yes, Dr. Giberson, I completely agree with Ken Ham, who has also commented on your article (Shot Taken at Aig by Nazarene Professor in New York Times Op-ed).  You sir, are truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and I join with Dr. Ham, Dr. Al Mohler, and any other Bible believing Christian who is willing to stand up against those who dare to say that human intellect can trump the Bible, which we know to be God’s word- all of it.  Sadly you do not.  You may be a nice guy in person, but I pray that you never teach in another Christian school again, spreading the kind of Bible doubting evolutionary faith that you call Christian faith.  However, I will continue to pray for you and that you will come to truly trust all of God’s word.

The following email response to Dr. Stephens is from Dr. David A. Reagan of Lamb & Lion Ministries:

Oct. 21, 2011

Dr. Stephens:

Your recent opinion article in the New York Times about the Evangelical rejection of reason is a perfect example of why the term, Evangelical, has completely lost its meaning. How can it have any meaning when you claim to be an Evangelical and yet reject what the Bible teaches about Creation, the origin of Man, and homosexuality?

I was also turned off by your arrogance in dismissing those who disagree with you as being persons who have rejected reason. I happen to have a doctorate in International Law and Politics from a Harvard graduate school. The vice chairman of the board of trustees of the ministry I represent is a research scientist who is a graduate of Cal Tech and holds a doctorate in nuclear physics from Stanford. Yet, he believes in a 6,000 year earth and totally rejects the concept of evolution. In fact, he was an atheist when he entered Stanford University and became a Christian because he concluded that the best explanation of what he could observe in the natural universe was special creation.

I do not understand how anyone who claims to operate from reason could conclude that life evolved. It’s like standing in front of Mount Rushmore and exclaiming, “Wow! Isn’t it amazing what can be created accidentally from erosion!”

You are welcome to your unbiblical viewpoints, but don’t have the audacity to call yourself an “Evangelical.” And don’t be so arrogant as to write-off those who disagree with you as being Neanderthals who have rejected reason.

Yours in Jesus,

Dave Reagan

Dr. David R. Reagan
Lamb & Lion Ministries

Additional Resources:  “Evangelicals” Despising Evangelicals (Denny Burk)

The New Evangelism: Michael Dowd’s Evolutionary Christianity

SFT Note: Dr. Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene College has announced his resignation effective this year to “pursue several professional scholarship and writing opportunities”, according to an ENC news article.  He had been the subject of several posts by me, as well as others such as Ken Ham and Dr. Albert Mohler.  Although I wish him well in his future endeavors, I am honestly happy that he will no longer be teaching his unbiblical theistic evolution and open theism ideas to more young students.  Please pray that ENC will seek to hire professors who uphold the biblical view of creationism, who reject open theism, and who hold to the full authority and infallibility of God’s word.  I urge all who are concerned to keep holding our Christian schools accountable for what they teach, who they allow to teach, and to make sure they uphold the truth of scripture above all else.

Gailon Totheroh April 22, 2011
(originally posted at www.evolutionnews.org)

BACKGROUND

Who is Michael Dowd? He calls himself an evangelist. Not surprisingly, he can be found in churches preaching. But Dowd’s gospel is not one where sin is rebellion against God, but rejection of Darwin.

Likewise, salvation doesn’t come from Jesus on a Roman crucifix, but merely embracing the emergent Universe. Thus, we should Thank God for Evolution, the title of his 2008 magnus opus. Subtitled “The Marriage of Science and Religion,” the popular book-endorsed by no less than six Nobel Laureates-unfolds a central theme that standard Darwinism is scientifically accurate and religiously inspiring.

With faith-evolution controversies running unabated, Dowd’s Darwin-for-all-occasions may seem a hard sell. Yet Dowd’s effusive friendliness and seeming openness are swaying many his direction. His sales technique even wins over atheists and Christian evangelicals.

Still, Dowd is a mover-and- shaker who doesn’t move everybody to awe. The unwilling might include those who question Neo-Darwinism in whole or part, those who are uncomfortable with religion, and conservative adherents of traditional religions.

Since 2002, the self-described “evolutionary evangelist” has been on the road across America in a marathon of speaking engagements held mainly at schools and church groups. In addition, Dowd has four main websites, three books, and has spoken at the United Nations for their Values Caucus, a group dedicated to provide an “open forum . . . in order to allow a new culture to emerge.”

But Dowd’s background emerges from the old culture. Growing up Roman Catholic, he says he became a born-again Christian while serving in the army in 1979. He accepted that evolution was mostly harmful bunk until a few professors at Evangel University (conservative, Pentecostal) convinced him otherwise. From there, he went to seminary and then signed on with the liberal United Church of Christ for nine years.

While still with the UCC, he fully embraced evolutionary mysticism in 1988. Within an hour of starting a course on “The New Catholic Mysticism,” Dowd says he was weeping and seeing the “scientific story of the Universe” as a “sacred epic.” “I knew I would spend the rest of my life sharing this perspective as great news,” he adds. In fact, Dowd’s worldview moved from Christian monotheism to religious naturalism.

His commitment to naturalism while retaining the language of Christianity can be glimpsed in his statements from a recent article in Skeptic magazine:

“God is not a person; God is a personification of one or more deeply significant dimensions of reality.”

“‘Getting right with God’ means coming into right relationship with our planet and all its gloriously diverse species and cultures.”

“I foresee a time when religious leaders get their guidance and inspiration from humanity’s common creation story (Darwinian evolution) and teach and preach the discoveries of science as God’s word. When that day comes, our faith traditions will thrive and many of us will look back and exclaim, ‘Thank God for the New Atheists’.”

Despite his co-option of theological language, there is little left of traditional monotheism, let alone traditional Christianity, in Dowd’s worldview. Indeed, the “supernatural” itself doesn’t exist according Dowd; it’s merely an invention of the Western mind. “Evidence suggests that the only place that the so-called supernatural realm has ever existed has been in the minds and hearts (and speech) of human beings–and only quite recently.” Accordingly, the God of the Bible is no more real than the Greek gods Poseidon or Helios, and the Bible itself is a jumble of “old mythic stories” that provides no real guidance for the challenges we face today: “Ours is a time of space telescopes, electron microscopes, supercomputers, and the worldwide web. It is also a time of smart bombs, collapsing economies, and exploding oil platforms. This is not a time for parsing the lessons given to a few goatherds, tentmakers, and camel drivers.” (emphasis added)

EVANGELICAL ASSISTANCE

Given Dowd’s turn to religious naturalism, one may find surprising the number of Christian evangelicals interviewed for his recent online series at www.EvolutionaryChristianity.com, “The Advent of Evolutionary Christianity.” Some of the evangelicals’ tacit approval of Dowd’s agenda is curious.

For instance, among the nearly 40 interviewees was Karl Giberson, professor of physics at Eastern Nazarene College, who bemoans, “Evangelical theology has not made peace with evolution.” That is, some evangelicals have not accepted Darwin’s take on evolution as is and incorporated it into their theology.

Giberson serves as vice president with the pro-Darwin BioLogos Forum, a group he helped found with the most well-known evangelical advocate of Darwinian evolution, Francis Collins. The BioLogos website states, “We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation.” But Dowd thinks God is only a metaphor for the universe and the Bible can’t be used to determine right and wrong. Science is the new Bible. This would seem to put BioLogos and Dowd at odds with one another.

Indeed, Giberson estimates that he disagrees with 60% of Dowd’s thinking. Yet Giberson objects to nothing Dowd asserts in their hour-long interview for the Advent series. Why is that?
Giberson says, “It’s fine to be working arm in arm with Michael Dowd, comfortably setting aside our differences and promoting the harmony of Christian faith and evolution.”

And Giberson also disagrees with Dowd about the New Atheists, taking them to task in his book Saving Darwin. What gives? Aren’t the Dawkins and Harris crowd the same people Dowd honors as God’s prophets? But Giberson says building a coalition to promote Darwinian evolution is more important than the gulf between their religious beliefs.

WINNING OVER THE RELUCTANT

Even apart from Dowd’s celebration of the New Atheists as prophets, he shows an ability to win over secularists. Atheist blogger Phil Ferguson originally wrote with ambivalence about Dowd’s Advent series. For Ferguson, Dowd and his cohorts’ made-up religion stuff is okay as long as they “don’t fight known science.” At the same time, “Maybe they are just abusing science to promote religion.”

After Dowd responds online by saying that he’s a “religious naturalist” in which God doesn’t mean what it used to mean, Ferguson is on board. He applauds Dowd’s “intentions and efforts”-and his pragmatism in “reaching people that would run screaming from this blog, so keep up the good work.”

EVANGELICAL OPPOSITION

Not everyone has hopped onto Dowd’s bandwagon. New Testament scholar Peter Jones has described Dowd’s worldview (“One-ism”) in his book One or Two: Seeing a World of Difference (2010). Jones finds Dowd’s use of Christian and Biblical language deceptive; he rejects establishing common cause with someone who engages in “worship of creation.”

Stanford scientist Richard Bube, whom both Dowd and Giberson greatly respect, was extremely critical of Dowd’s first book written in 1990, The Meaning of Life in the 1990s. Bube was once president of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), an organization of devout Christians in science-and a pioneer in efforts to put science and faith in harmony.

Dowd says Bube’s writing were his “lifeline” during college. Yet Bube calls false Dowd’s assertions that “every atom of the universe has an inner intelligence which is non-material and ultimately unknowable” and “the earth is alive and we are the Earth’s reflexive consciousness.” Bube also criticized Dowd for taking liberties with the Bible and Christian theology, concluding that “we must not let the idea take root in the Christian community that these aberrations on Christianity are the prescribed way to go.”

A COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY?

Dowd frames all he does in terms of openness and diversity. After all, he says, “Just like a forest or a pond eco-system, variety and different diversity of species makes for the health of an eco-system. I think that’s true in consciousness and culture as well.”

But the range of diversity he is willing to embrace seems to have sharp limits. For one thing, by endorsing and heaping fulsome praise on the New Atheists and their bashing of what he calls “superstitious, other-wordly religiosity,” Dowd certainly appears to encourage the exclusion of traditional monotheists from being part of any discussion about Darwinian evolution. After all, one of the driving goals of the New Atheists is to so debunk traditional religion that its adherents will be driven out of the public square entirely.

In his own series at EvolutionaryChristianity.com, meanwhile, don’t expect to find any supporters of intelligent design in biology as part of the conversation.

When asked why he didn’t include someone from the intelligent design movement among the nearly 40 interviews in his “Advent of Evolutionary Christianity” series, he replied, “If I were to do it again, I would probably include one, two, or three people from that perspective . . . I certainly anticipate interviewing and occasionally featuring some of the work of a more ID perspective.”

However, Dowd added pre-conditions for interviewing an ID proponent. Candidates would have to subscribe to four concepts Dowd says were held by the Advent interviewees: “We’re all committed Christians, we all value evidence as divine communication and divine guidance, we all have deep-time eyes, and we all have a global heart.”

But how can this group of interviewees truly have these four points of common ground when they obviously don’t agree on what being a Christian means? Or what “divine communication” signifies? What serves as evidence? Are “deep-time eyes” a reference to an old earth chronology or more about “one’s communion with the powers of the earth” as Dowd’s website states? Does “global heart” mean any animal is just as good as a human because people are only a part of “the larger body of life”?

While Dowd’s stated commitment to many voices matches his assertion that his is just one voice among many — his lone voice dominates the Advent series. By interjecting stories and commentary during the interviews, Dowd exerts far more influence than that of any other individual.

DOWD’S WORLDVIEW AND ITS IMPACT

What is true of Dowd is that he has held a worldview of religious atheism for over 20 years. The difference is that today there are millions of people who have switched to Dowd’s faith in the Universe. In fact, analysts have estimated that there are 50 million Americans and 100 million Europeans who fit what used to be called New Agers, but now want to be known as Cultural Creatives, Progressives, Brights, or Integral Spiritualists.

So what wins out in the end for Dowd, the advocate of blending Christianity and evolution? Party-line evolution-with mysticism in tow-or is it vice versa?

And what true blue evolutionist might not welcome Dowd? Dowd himself finds even the atheist evolutionary biologist PZ Myers a kindred spirit: “There is very little about which PZ and I disagree, other than perhaps the fact that I’m working to evolve religion and he’s working to free society of it.”

In the process, well-reasoned scientific objections to macroevolution and alternatives to Neo-Darwinism like intelligent design are cast aside. The other casualty is well-considered traditional religion – thrown under the bus for the latest mystical fad that is nothing more than recycled paganism.