Olivet prof barred because of belief in evolution

[Randy McRoberts]

A Nazarene professor was barred from teaching general biology at Olivet because he believes it is possible to believe in God and accept evolution. (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/10/evolution)

But the groups arguing for freedom of expression of evolution deniers have not been heard agitating for the rights of Richard Colling. He’s a professor at Olivet Nazarene University, in Illinois, who has been barred from teaching general biology or having his book taught at the university that is his alma mater and the place where he has taught for 27 years. A biologist who is very much a person of faith, these punishments followed anger by some religious supporters of the college over the publication of his book in which he argues that it is possible to believe in God and still accept evolution

Have you heard about this case? I just heard it today. I must say, I'm shocked.

I agree that it is entirely possible that God created via evolution. I don't understand how one could be closed-minded enough to not accept that as a possibility. Are we fundamentalists or something? What's going on here?

[Ryan Scott]

We had like nine dozens threads on this last year when it happened.

[Randy McRoberts]

Oops, sorry. That must have been before my NazNet days. I'll drop it.

[Gary Creely]

A Nazarene professor was barred from teaching general biology at Olivet because he believes it is possible to believe in God and accept evolution. (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/10/evolution)

But the groups arguing for freedom of expression of evolution deniers have not been heard agitating for the rights of Richard Colling. He’s a professor at Olivet Nazarene University, in Illinois, who has been barred from teaching general biology or having his book taught at the university that is his alma mater and the place where he has taught for 27 years. A biologist who is very much a person of faith, these punishments followed anger by some religious supporters of the college over the publication of his book in which he argues that it is possible to believe in God and still accept evolution

Have you heard about this case? I just heard it today. I must say, I'm shocked.

I agree that it is entirely possible that God created via evolution. I don't understand how one could be closed-minded enough to not accept that as a possibility. Are we fundamentalists or something? What's going on here?

I am really glad I went to ENC, where teaching theistic evolution was part of the core curriculum.

[Jon Twitchell]

I am really glad I went to ENC, where teaching theistic evolution was part of the core curriculum.

Shhh....

It's a secret....

;)

[Ryan Scott]

I still hate that term. The very nature of science means it can't be theistic or atheistic. If people would understand that fact, they could move on and yell at each other about something else.

[David Pettigrew]

Interesting this coming back up now in light of Ben Stein's movie or whatever it is.

[Gary Creely]

To me, the science is not there yet for ID. I just don't think ID is yet at the place where they can convincingly make the claims they are currently making.


When you say ID do you mean anything from 7 literal days to Theistic evolution? It seems the ID crowd is more interested in a literal (or close to it) interpretation of the creation story. What do you mean when you say ID?

[Ryan Scott]

The basic definition of ID that I have heard is simply that the scientific data we have fits better with a theory involving an intelligent designer than with a random evolutionary process. ID hits on generally accepted weaknesses in evolutionary theory as grounds for this belief. My main problem is substituting something immeasurable and untestable in place of weak science is not an improvement, but a step backward.

I too have met a lot of literal, young Earth proponents who are quite vocal about ID. I don't think they've examined the science all that closely. It seems ID in the scientific community is quite a different thing than ID in the popular culture.

[John Martin]

Hmm, to Randy's question, "Are we fundamentalists or something?' I would say theologically no we are not, but unfortunately there are many among us -- more influenced by protestant pop culture than by Wesleyanism -- who are quite fundamentalist in their thinking, largely without even realizing it! It may be a question that threatens the long-term health of our denomination. I hope not.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Hmm, to Randy's question, "Are we fundamentalists or something?' I would say theologically no we are not, but unfortunately there are many among us -- more influenced by protestant pop culture than by Wesleyanism -- who are quite fundamentalist in their thinking, largely without even realizing it! It may be a question that threatens the long-term health of our denomination. I hope not.

I think I'd go so far as to say that fundamentalism threatens the long term health of evangelical Christianity.

[Billy Cox]

I think I'd go so far as to say that fundamentalism threatens the long term health of evangelical Christianity.

Would it be so bad if we were to wake up tomorrow and evangelical Christianity was suddenly gone? I don't see much of a downside except that I would have to find a new church to attend.

Christianity somehow managed to stumble along for centuries, just barely clinging to life, hoping and praying that the evangelical millennium would soon start. :rolleyes:

[Dennis Bratcher]

Would it be so bad if we were to wake up tomorrow and evangelical Christianity was suddenly gone? I don't see much of a downside except that I would have to find a new church to attend.

Christianity somehow managed to stumble along for centuries, just barely clinging to life, hoping and praying that the evangelical millennium would soon start. :rolleyes:

Well, we could go back and redo the Inquisition. Or the forced conversion of the Gauls. Or the Hundred Years’ War. Or the Crusades. Or the attempted Spanish conquest of England to wipe out Protestantism. Or the persecution of the Anabaptists. Or Puritans. Or recreate the Holy Roman Empire. Or relive the wars between competing Popes. Or. . .. Taking the long look at history for all those centuries, there was more than once and in more ways than one that Christianity was, in fact, just barely clinging to life.

So, the answer to your question is "yes," something of Christianity would be lost. Remember that part of the Catholic Spirit of Christianity is be able to criticize what is wrong while at the same time embracing the brother and sister who are wrong. As Wesley noted, that may just be ourselves in ways that we do not realize. Very postmodern of Wesley!

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems that people spend more time analyzing things, and making predictions of what dire results are going to occur, than they do bombarding heaven for revival in our midst, and the salvation of souls. If as much time was spent in prayer, as is spent in "philosophying"and predicting the dire results that the COTN is coming to, we would see much more accomplished for the Kingdom of God. What has all of this,-that I mentioned, done for the advancement of the salvation of lost and dying souls? It is possible for God to lead each person indvidually, as , and go forward--resulting in souls being saved. This is my opinion.

[Randy McRoberts]

Anne, I really don't think it is good for you to hang out on the theology board. Analyzing and jawing is what people who are interested in theology do. I know you don't care for it, but it is probably going to continue.

But you should know that people who are analyzing and talking are usually also praying. It doesn't have anything to do with how much time we spend in prayer; it's all about the God we are praying to. We can't earn favor by praying long and hard and using flowery speech. We can only ask for mercy.

[Charles W Christian]

It seems that people spend more time analyzing things, and making predictions of what dire results are going to occur, than they do bombarding heaven for revival in our midst, and the salvation of souls. If as much time was spent in prayer, as is spent in "philosophying"and predicting the dire results that the COTN is coming to, we would see much more accomplished for the Kingdom of God. What has all of this,-that I mentioned, done for the advancement of the salvation of lost and dying souls? It is possible for God to lead each person indvidually, as , and go forward--resulting in souls being saved. This is my opinion.

Anne-
I see your point in a way. Empty talk can lead nowhere. However, ignoring the problems and pretending that they don't exist is denial, and your counselor husband can tell you (and as you probably already know), there's a counseling saying: "We're only as sick as our secrets."

Furthermore, God can and does leads individuals, but He always (at least biblically speaking) leads them in and through Community. So, we are not a bunch of individuals all getting together every once in awhile. Instead, we are a Community (God's Community) from which individuals are shaped and formed. There is a difference, and it's not just empty words or philosophy here, it's biblical truth.

Blessings,
Charles

[Linda Schroller]

Anne, thank you for your post! Your words struck a chord with me that the Lord is (I believe) teaching me, or trying to. (How's that for messed up grammar and a run on sentence?)

Point is, we spend so much of our lives debating religion.

We are not called to religion. We are called to a relationship with Jesus Christ. And we are called to call others to relationship. Not to give them religion, but lead them into relationship with Him.

So thanks!

[Greg Farra]

Anne, I really don't think it is good for you to hang out on the theology board. Analyzing and jawing is what people who are interested in theology do. I know you don't care for it, but it is probably going to continue.

But you should know that people who are analyzing and talking are usually also praying. It doesn't have anything to do with how much time we spend in prayer; it's all about the God we are praying to. We can't earn favor by praying long and hard and using flowery speech. We can only ask for mercy.

Actually, she has every right to come here. You can disagree with what she says, but to tell her she shouldn't be here is out of line. If I were you, I'd apologize.

[Barbara Moulton]

Actually, she has every right to come here. You can disagree with what she says, but to tell her she shouldn't be here is out of line. If I were you, I'd apologize.

You are right Greg. Nobody has a right to tell anyone that they shouldn't come to a board.

Having said that, I read through the pertinent posts carefully. I THINK what Randy was saying (he can correct me if I am wrong) was that the Theology board is, by its very nature, is a discussion of theological issues. That if you don't like that kind of thing then this is probably not a good board to come to because you probably will get frustrated.

I don't think he meant to say that anyone shouldn't come to this board. However, I can see how his words could be taken that way.

Just another example of how we can be sitting in our homes, typing away, thinking we are expressing ourselves with the greatest clarity.

Only to find we are not. :)

Just thought I should post this before anyone gets too offended.

Blessings,
Barbara

[Greg Farra]

Thanks, Barbara.

Randy, if I took your comments wrong, then I apologize to you. I have been on sites where if you disagree, you are made to feel unwelcome, or you're just not smart enough to add anything. There were people there who thought 'you just don't get it'. They had no concept of the idea that, yes, I get it. I just don't agree.That is one reason I left BeliefNet. This is usually a pretty ccivil place, so I get a bit defensive if I perceive that someone is being told that they don't belong. So if I misunderstood you, then I'm sorry.

[Randy McRoberts]

No offense taken, Greg.

I certainly did not mean that Anne should not feel welcome. Of course, anyone who wants to participate and who can do so in an appropriate manner is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. I guess we are all here by the grace of our host, and I definitely do not have any authority to prescribe who is welcome and who is not.

Barbara has correctly divined my intention, clumsily stated though it was. I get the sense that Anne is continually frustrated by some of the conversations here on this segment of the forum and could avoid it by just reading the other stuff that wouldn't frustrate her so. I mean, that's what I do.

I am not interested in lots of things, but I don't try to tell the people who like to talk about those things that they shouldn't talk about them. I just get involved elsewhere. That was my advice to Anne.

I was too blunt. For that, Anne and all, I apologize. I hope that my motives can be seen through the bluntness.

I've had to write too many apologies on this forum. Maybe I'll get the message eventually.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I THINK what Randy was saying (he can correct me if I am wrong) was that the Theology board is, by its very nature, is a discussion of theological issues. That if you don't like that kind of thing then this is probably not a good board to come to because you probably will get frustrated.

That was my take too. It would be similar to someone going to the joke forum and commenting that everyone who posts there needs to quit being silly and take life more seriously.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I've had to write too many apologies on this forum.

It's a large and non-exclusive club that you have joined in doing so. :)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Mike Killingsworth]

I'm a person who enjoys using the search engine to look for different subjects to read about. Awhile back I did a search on communion and in doing so came across a thread on being re-baptised and didn't pay any attention to what board it was posted on and I wrote my own personal experience with being re-baptised and posted it. Well later on sometime I got a e-mail stating a reply had been posted so I read the next post and really felt like I was being attacked and couldn't understand why. I guess I read my post and the next post who knows how many times trying to figure what this person named Jamie(I hope I got the name right) :) had aganist me. So after doing this for a little while I finally looked up and took note of the fact I had posted on the theology board and a peace came over me because I felt then that I wasn't being attacked or picked on at all. I guess the best way to put it is it came to me that Jamie wasn't puting me down in any way, the fact of the matter was that He was talking Theology and as for myself, well I was just talking.:basic01

[John Kennedy]

It really gets confusing when you realize that some who are 'just talking' are actually talking theology and some who are 'talking theology' are really 'just talking'. Trying to figure out who's doing what can take a big chunk out of your day.

[John Kennedy]

Mike -

While posting on the theology board and sensing peace are not always that closely associated, it reminds us that ours is a God of limitless possibilities.

Seriously, glad you're finding that Naznet offers an opportunity to simultaneously express honest and sometimes differing opinions, and still be 'one in the bond of love'.

[Houston Thomas]

Dr. Colling Responds to the "Olivet Controversy"

LINK (http://www.randomdesigner.com/OlivetControversy.pdf)

[Ryan Scott]

That was a good response. Probably better than I would have expected, given the difficult situation.

[Ken Pell]

That was a good response. Probably better than I would have expected, given the difficult situation.

I'm not sure I think it was a good response. I have mixed feelings about it. I want to (and do) side with Colling but he did call Dr. Bowling out and I somehow doubt he knew all that was going on in John Bowling's world in relation to the issue.

My thoughts as I read it were ... "How sad that it had to come to this."

Even though I agree with him on the issue and on the need for academia to explore evolution from a posture of faith, the fact that he felt he had to respond and defend himself is sad.

I hope, as Colling does, that God is honored in the end.

I loved this paragraph:
Some people view the current situation as a negative for the university, but I think that depends on us and our responses. There is a rich history in scripture of God working in the lives of his people to right wrongs and accomplish great good for the Kingdom. Perhaps this is actually a golden opportunity for Olivet and the Church of the Nazarene to publicly reaffirm its core statements - to insistently hold out education, truth, and transparency as foundations for a brighter future. I believe if we are faithful to this commitment - willing to openly and honestly talk, teach, and learn together, God will bless our efforts. As a result, perhaps we can emerge stronger and even better-equipped to accomplish the truly important tasks to which He has called us in a world yearning for honest, credible answers to their deepest heartfelt questions.

[Ryan Scott]

Yeah, the paragraph on the top of the 4th page where he implied that ONU was not a genuine institution of higher learning because of this issue, was a little too much. Then again, if my career had been called into question like this, I would definitely have said worse.

I don't think he impugned anyone by name. The only person he mentioned was Dr. Bowling, but all he said there was that he received no warning when the book was published and something different when questions were raised.

I'm willing to admit there could have been a mistaken perception, but I thought it well-stated his experience and was not angry or bitter. Dr. Colling seems willing and ready to address the issue with respect.

[David Pettigrew]

I'd say that, finally, a professor that got the wrong end of the screwdriver from one of our schools decided not to just ride off quietly into the sunset.

[Billy Cox]

I'd say that, finally, a professor that got the wrong end of the screwdriver from one of our schools decided not to just ride off quietly into the sunset.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. Other professors who have been targeted by the nazarene fundamentalist lynch mob have been told to turn in their resignation. Colling is still at Olivet. That says something, but I'm not sure what that is.

[Marsha Lynn]

I have to confess that my support still leans toward the university. Dr. Colling can make whatever statements he pleases and has made several. The administration's lips are sealed on the matter. Thus, we may never know "the rest of the story".

I remember only a couple of the "like nine dozen threads" referenced by Ryan on the subject. In one of them I made the point that Olivet did not reject evolution when this change was made. I don't suppose there's any real point in repeating myself, but I hope you'll forgive me for giving in to the urge to try again.

It's not as though Dr. Colling's book replaced and was replaced by a "creation science" biology text. This is an accredited science course in an institution that has been using standard biology texts for years on end. Dr. Colling's book would have been actually a more "religious" view than that presented in standard texts during the years before and after it was used. I'm quite confident that the current text for that class presents the standard scientific treatment of the origin of man and the universe. And I highly doubt that the current professor of the class is a proponent of "creation science." Rather than rejecting a book about evolution, the university decided to no longer use a privately published text presenting one person's (religious) interpretation of the evolutionary process.

Whatever the controversy involved, evolution was not the primary issue. Any discussion of what happened that puts evolution at the center of the controversy is missing something in my opinion.

I may be really blind here, but it seems to me that many participants in this discussion would side with the professor regardless of the facts, simply because of a deep mistrust for the administration of our schools, a mistrust which finds its roots more in ongoing theology issues than science. I'm pretty sure there are two sides to this story and only one is being voiced by those directly involved in the controversy.

Marsha

[Randy McRoberts]

Or it could be that (reading between the lines of the letter linked to) some trustees of the university had a knee-jerk reaction to the news of a Nazarene prof publishing a book in support of theistic evolution and put pressure on the president to remove him without looking into further than that. Marsha, you know as well as I do that some of the districts on the Olivet zone have a strong almost fundamentalist contingent that could do such a thing if in position to do so. Dr. Bowling was probably trying to assuage people like that without doing more damage than he had to do.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I may be really blind here, but it seems to me that many participants in this discussion would side with the professor regardless of the facts, simply because of a deep mistrust for the administration of our schools, a mistrust which finds its roots more in ongoing theology issues than science. I'm pretty sure there are two sides to this story and only one is being voiced by those directly involved in the controversy.

I’m not trying to change your mind, just to add a perspective. Having been involved directly in one of these “controversies,” and indirectly involved in five or six others, I would generally say that “deep mistrust for the administration of our schools” has some basis in history and fact (I could give a lot of gratuitous details!). I understand the pressures under which administrators often find themselves. And I also know that not all administration decisions are biased or have ulterior motives. But I also know enough about the issues and particular cases to know that there is often less honesty and less theological and religious consideration given these issues than ought to be for institutions that in some way represent the Church. That does not translate into condemnation of ONU’s decisions; but it addresses the mistrust that you mentioned.

For example, it is often the case (I could cite several examples) that a person, whether faculty or administrative cabinet, is summarily fired by a college president and then the public statements are issued that the person voluntarily resigned the position to pursue other interests. The reasons given for their leaving have little or nothing to do with the actual reasons for the firing (as if people close to the situation really do not know the circumstances!).

That recently happened at one of our colleges with a decades-long member of the administrative cabinet because he disagreed with some practices (that were themselves questionable). There have been cases where faculty were fired or forced to resign because they were outspoken in challenging financial dealings conducted in the name of the school by the president.

At the very least (and there are certainly other ethical issues), that suggests a larger problem than simply the politicizing of management decisions, and raises larger questions about the integrity of the process. Certainly, many administrative decisions are made honestly and with integrity by good people genuinely struggling to do the right thing. But the cloud of suspicion arises from a series of highly politicized and questionable decisions by administrators in cases similar to ONU’s going back several decades.

You are right that the issue is not scientific but religious, as have been all the other controversies I have witnessed. But those religious issues come out in a variety of areas ranging from sociology (teaching homosexuality), to philosophy (too much human logic), to science. I’ve even seen a mathematics professor come under fire for supporting the “big bang” theory. In other words, the problem in this case is the attempt to make all topics a subset of religious dogma as defined by a very narrow but vocal constituency that understands the Church in terms of power and control.

Ultimately, given the precarious financial and student base of many of our colleges, the issue boils down to money and constituent support on the side of the college, while the issues remains religious on the side of the constituency. That leaves the administration between a rock and a hard place when the issue involves a choice between that support and supporting the kind of academic integrity that the institution is supposed to represent.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Scott]

It's not as though Dr. Colling's book replaced and was replaced by a "creation science" biology text. This is an accredited science course in an institution that has been using standard biology texts for years on end. Dr. Colling's book would have been actually a more "religious" view than that presented in standard texts during the years before and after it was used. I'm quite confident that the current text for that class presents the standard scientific treatment of the origin of man and the universe. And I highly doubt that the current professor of the class is a proponent of "creation science." Rather than rejecting a book about evolution, the university decided to no longer use a privately published text presenting one person's (religious) interpretation of the evolutionary process.

I do agree with this statement, although his book was not a text, it was one of many options for an extra credit assignment dealing with science and religion. But, you are correct, replacing it doesn't necessarily mean they don't like the book.

However, not allowing the professor to teach the course anymore is troubling and maybe this was just rumor, but I thought they had removed the book in question from the bookstore, which would be a much harsher reaction than simply taking it out of the curriculum.

[Michael B. Ross]

Marsha, I have avoided posting on this thread, but I have expended my will-power and probably my good judgment.

I think you are right: there are two sides to this story. Before I comment further, here are two factors affecting my opinions:


I live on the ONU zone and hear much about this issue from sources that I consider reliable.
As an adjunct instructor at AU, I have one foot in the higher education arena. I have biases.

We have to wonder why this relatively minor issue continues to stay in the forefront of the church's attention. This became most public over a year ago when ONU was reprimanded (?) by a strong letter from the American Association of University Professors for its lack of commitment to academic freedom. By the way, the AAUP is not an unusually politically motivated association.

The reason it seems to have a life of its own is because it is being fed mostly by a mid-level denominational leader who continues to suggest that if the situation is not handled properly, there might be financial ramifications for ONU.

This is not about truth. It is about power.

I have respect for both Drs. Bowling and Colling. I don't agree with all they have done. The issue to me is why we tolerate those who see their role in the Kingdom to be defenders of what they think is truth.

I am not sure what we are afraid of. Is it truth? Are we threatened by an idea that God is still creating life? Regardless, I feel university students should be introduced to more ideas than those endorsed and sometimes developed by the less informed.


I have to confess that my support still leans toward the university. Dr. Colling can make whatever statements he pleases and has made several. The administration's lips are sealed on the matter. Thus, we may never know "the rest of the story".

I remember only a couple of the "like nine dozen threads" referenced by Ryan on the subject. In one of them I made the point that Olivet did not reject evolution when this change was made. I don't suppose there's any real point in repeating myself, but I hope you'll forgive me for giving in to the urge to try again.

It's not as though Dr. Colling's book replaced and was replaced by a "creation science" biology text. This is an accredited science course in an institution that has been using standard biology texts for years on end. Dr. Colling's book would have been actually a more "religious" view than that presented in standard texts during the years before and after it was used. I'm quite confident that the current text for that class presents the standard scientific treatment of the origin of man and the universe. And I highly doubt that the current professor of the class is a proponent of "creation science." Rather than rejecting a book about evolution, the university decided to no longer use a privately published text presenting one person's (religious) interpretation of the evolutionary process.

Whatever the controversy involved, evolution was not the primary issue. Any discussion of what happened that puts evolution at the center of the controversy is missing something in my opinion.

I may be really blind here, but it seems to me that many participants in this discussion would side with the professor regardless of the facts, simply because of a deep mistrust for the administration of our schools, a mistrust which finds its roots more in ongoing theology issues than science. I'm pretty sure there are two sides to this story and only one is being voiced by those directly involved in the controversy.

Marsha

[Dennis Bratcher]

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. Other professors who have been targeted by the nazarene fundamentalist lynch mob have been told to turn in their resignation.

I agree. I know several in similar circumstances who wrote similar letters, but they simply did not have the platform that Colling has, primarily because they no longer had a job. And I know of at least one several years ago who suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of the process. Those who get fired often do not have the physical or mental energy after such an ordeal (and it is usually the culmination of a long process) to do much but look for another job and move on with their life. For some to whom I have talked, it is a matter of shaking off the dust of their feet and moving on. (What is really sad is that the number is much larger than one might imagine!)

As for resignations; they are not always what they appear to be. I have in my files a copy of a severance contract signed by college administration. It was offered to a professor who was directly fired, personally and unilaterally, by the college president. Yet, the contract contained a clause related to an agreement not to sue the college that called for the professor to testify in that legal document that s/he had resigned voluntarily. I am no lawyer, but my sense is that this is an example of subornation of perjury. It is not only unethical, but if it is subornation of perjury it is illegal. The professor refused to sign it. [Disclaimer: this statement is not intended to identify or offer hints to identify any party involved or accuse anyone of anything; it is only offered here as an example related to the topic of resignations.]

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[David Pettigrew]

I'd say that, finally, a professor that got the wrong end of the screwdriver from one of our schools decided not to just ride off quietly into the sunset.

I guess my point was that, though I had heard of many of our school employees facing the kind of situation Dr. Collins finds himself in, I'd never heard one defend him or herself publicly in this manner, most especially while still being employed by the school. By taking his fight public, it seems to me, there will be increased pressure NOT to fire him - an advantage he would not have had if he had just played nice.

[Marsha Lynn]

Or it could be that (reading between the lines of the letter linked to) some trustees of the university had a knee-jerk reaction to the news of a Nazarene prof publishing a book in support of theistic evolution and put pressure on the president to remove him without looking into further than that. Marsha, you know as well as I do that some of the districts on the Olivet zone have a strong almost fundamentalist contingent that could do such a thing if in position to do so. Dr. Bowling was probably trying to assuage people like that without doing more damage than he had to do.

So then, instead of "Olivet prof barred because of belief in evolution," shouldn't the title of this thread be something like, "Olivet prof wounded in battle between school and fundamentalists"? Sacrificing the prof may be a response to the beliefs of the "fundamentalist contingent" you mention concerning evolution, but it's not a rejection of evolution, as it seems to be portrayed.

I still maintain that, in "winning," the "fundamentalist contingent" actually lost. They succeeded in removing a prof and text that brought God into the evolutionary picture from one course at Olivet. In essence, they took God out of the classroom and left evolution as a science without divine involvement. And they think they won. Hopefully, no one will tell them the truth. :rolleyes:

So if the decision were yours to make and you knew that the "fundamentalist contingent" could be assuaged by such a move -- reassigning a professor and changing the reading material for the class to exclude a book he wrote that brings God into the evolution picture -- would you be tempted to do so? Would you consider it wrong/weak/sinful/unkind/cruel to give in to such a temptation?

Just curious.

Marsha

[Dennis Bratcher]

I guess my point was that, though I had heard of many of our school employees facing the kind of situation Dr. Collins finds himself in, I'd never heard one defend him or herself publicly in this manner, most especially while still being employed by the school. By taking his fight public, it seems to me, there will be increased pressure NOT to fire him - an advantage he would not have had if he had just played nice.

It sounds like it ought to work that way but it doesn't, for a couple of reasons.

1) The pressures that can be brought to bear on a professor’s behalf cannot come close to the pressures exerted by powerful constituency, especially since some of those are Board of Trustee members or significant financial backers, not to mention how all of that affects the potential student pool.

2) Dr. Collings has the advantage now of shifting attitudes in the Church. Because of several factors, including faster and better communication, the declining influence of fundamentalist views across the denomination, and shifting cultural perspectives that are not as tolerant of control by power, more people are more willing to evaluate the merits of the issues rather than simply “defending the faith.”

I know of several cases in the past where letters were written by besieged professors in similar situations, yet they attracted little attention beyond very small circles. I think there have been changes both in society and in the church that have allowed such issues to become a more open topic now. I think that is a good thing.

These controversies in the past have been kept quiet, but they have been around with just as much intensity for 30 or more years (some go back much further; A.M. Hills was constantly under fire at both Olivet, Illinois Holiness University, and Pasadena from 1910 on for his millennial views). One of my theology professors along with a fellow student who was a religion/philosophy adjunct was fired from BNC/SNU in the 1970s. Not long after that they tried to get Rob Staples fired. He ended up going to NTS, where some of the same people nearly succeeded in getting him fired from there in the late 1970s. They did succeed in getting the OT prof Charles Isbell fired.

The controversies have moved out of strictly religious topics in the last couple of decades not only because the colleges have been willing to hire people representing more diverse perspectives in the sciences, but also because profs in the sciences have felt more freedom and more responsibility to speak to the interface of science and religion openly apart from certain religious dogma. That has put them on the front lines of the culture/religion wars that formerly were manned mostly by theology and Bible profs.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Marsha Lynn]

However, not allowing the professor to teach the course anymore is troubling and maybe this was just rumor, but I thought they had removed the book in question from the bookstore, which would be a much harsher reaction than simply taking it out of the curriculum.

It is available both from the bookstore (http://www.bkstr.com/CategoryDisplay/10001-9602-10063-1?demoKey=d) (search for Random Designer) and at the library (https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/onu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SAB1=random+designer&BOOL1=all+of+these&FLD1=Any+Words+%28GKEY%29&GRP1=AND+with+next+set&SAB2=&BOOL2=as+a+phrase&FLD2=Any+Words+%28GKEY%29&GRP2=AND+with+next+set&SAB3=&BOOL3=any+of+these&FLD3=Any+Words+%28GKEY%29&PID=zWHVs-hInYm0VWW0mYiPg&SEQ=20080613110529&CNT=20&HIST=1). Apparently, it was indeed just rumor. Kind of makes you wonder about some of the other information circulating.

[Randy McRoberts]

So if the decision were yours to make and you knew that the "fundamentalist contingent" could be assuaged by such a move -- reassigning a professor and changing the reading material for the class to exclude a book he wrote that brings God into the evolution picture -- would you be tempted to do so? Would you consider it wrong/weak/sinful/unkind/cruel to give in to such a temptation?


OK. The original post title/headline was a bit sensationalist. I guess I'm not above that. Gotta grab the eyeballs. I'm a blogger, ya know.

So, what would I do?

To answer your first question, I would probably be tempted to assuage. The forces are powerful. There are many around these here parts that already think ONU is just too liberal and prefer sending their kids somewhere else. If those folks become trustees, they could have a powerful influence over my career. I would be tempted. I can understand the temptation.

If -- and I say IF -- that is what happened here, maybe Dr. Bowling found the best middle ground he could find. I could imagine a conversation in which there was pressure to fire the professor and Dr. Bowling held out for a lesser punishment.

But I guess I do consider it wrong to give in to the temptation. Or at least it would be wrong for me. I can't speak to Dr. Bowling's personal beliefs, and what he did may have been perfectly in line with what he thought was right.

As for me, I hope I would support my professor even if my job were at stake, as long as he had behaved properly. I don't disagree with what I know of his point of view, and even if I did, he should be heard.

There could be way more to the story that I don't know about. In fact, I'm sure there is. I'd love to have a personal conversation with Mike Ross about what he knows. Then again, I am not personally invested in this. I'm just a scientist who never understood the problem some Christians have with science.

So, my answers are "yes" and "yes". That's biblical, isn't it?

[Ryan Scott]

I wonder how this will affect whether or not the GA gives Dr. Bowling another vote for GS?

[Randy McRoberts]

I wonder how this will affect whether or not the GA gives Dr. Bowling another vote for GS?

It will probably be seen as favorable to Dr. Bowling, but not as favorable as if he had fired the professor outright.

That's cynical, isn't it?

[Ryan Scott]

We'll see. The ultra-conservative US voting block is getting smaller and smaller each time.

[Houston Thomas]

I have to confess that my support still leans toward the university. Dr. Colling can make whatever statements he pleases and has made several. The administration's lips are sealed on the matter. Thus, we may never know "the rest of the story".

I remember only a couple of the "like nine dozen threads" referenced by Ryan on the subject. In one of them I made the point that Olivet did not reject evolution when this change was made. I don't suppose there's any real point in repeating myself, but I hope you'll forgive me for giving in to the urge to try again.

It's not as though Dr. Colling's book replaced and was replaced by a "creation science" biology text. This is an accredited science course in an institution that has been using standard biology texts for years on end. Dr. Colling's book would have been actually a more "religious" view than that presented in standard texts during the years before and after it was used. I'm quite confident that the current text for that class presents the standard scientific treatment of the origin of man and the universe. And I highly doubt that the current professor of the class is a proponent of "creation science." Rather than rejecting a book about evolution, the university decided to no longer use a privately published text presenting one person's (religious) interpretation of the evolutionary process.

Whatever the controversy involved, evolution was not the primary issue. Any discussion of what happened that puts evolution at the center of the controversy is missing something in my opinion.

I may be really blind here, but it seems to me that many participants in this discussion would side with the professor regardless of the facts, simply because of a deep mistrust for the administration of our schools, a mistrust which finds its roots more in ongoing theology issues than science. I'm pretty sure there are two sides to this story and only one is being voiced by those directly involved in the controversy.

Marsha

Marsha -

I'm having difficulty understanding what exactly you are saying. Are you implying that since this is not about evolution that there must be other reasons for the actions taken against Dr. Colling?

I think this is completely about evolution and money. Yes, ONU has been teaching this for years but with the publishing of the book Dr. Colling became positioned as a figure-head (NY Times interviews, articles in Newsweek, etc.) and that was not received well.

If ONU replaces Dr. Colling with another professor who teaches the same science but does not write a book, that professor will be fine.

It just so happens that ONU is attempting to build a very expensive building and the threat of a decreasing financial base at this time is very damaging to the university. (Everyone on the ONU region knows about the proposed increase in Educational budget).

That is the threat that has been leveraged against ONU. Remove this guy or else we'll stop funding and you won't see any money pledged for ONU's new building.

Michael Ross is spot-on. This is definitely being fueled by a mid-level denominational leader. And, that mid-level denominational leader has personal reasons for his actions.

[Dave McClung]

Or it could be that (reading between the lines of the letter linked to) some trustees of the university had a knee-jerk reaction to the news of a Nazarene prof publishing a book in support of theistic evolution and put pressure on the president to remove him without looking into further than that. Marsha, you know as well as I do that some of the districts on the Olivet zone have a strong almost fundamentalist contingent that could do such a thing if in position to do so. Dr. Bowling was probably trying to assuage people like that without doing more damage than he had to do.

It seems to me that the thing that is missing in this discussion is what is best for the students. When a professor becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she can't be an effective teacher, the University administration needs to take action. After all, the University exists for the students, not for the faculty.

I have not talked to Dr. Bowling or to the professor concerning what happened, but from my observation the professor allowed his personal agenda to negatively impact the students. When he did, the proper thing for him to do would have been to step down - for the benefit of the students.

Just before I went to ENC, one of the science professors published a book that was just as controversial as the one published by the Olivet professor. From my point of view, the difference was that the ENC professor made it clear that he was exercising his rights of academic freedom and that his publication was his own. There was never any implication that ENC was responsible for the book or for his positions.

Had the professor become involved in such controversy that he couldn't effectively teach, I would have taken action -- not because of his beliefs or because of the book, but because he couldn't perform the role for which he was employed.

My guess is that Dr. Bowling took the action he did to prevent the students from getting caught up in the controversy.

[Billy Cox]

Michael Ross is spot-on. This is definitely being fueled by a mid-level denominational leader. And, that mid-level denominational leader has personal reasons for his actions.

Why not just say 'DS'? It seems silly to say 'mid-level' denominational leader as if those who really care wouldn't be able to figure it out. :rolleyes:

[Billy Cox]

I wonder how this will affect whether or not the GA gives Dr. Bowling another vote for GS?

I sincerely hope that we do not give him another chance to say that he has a more accurate 'read' of God's will than the General Assembly.

[David Pettigrew]

I sincerely hope that we do not give him another chance to say that he has a more accurate 'read' of God's will than the General Assembly.

Of all the Billy Cox statements I've ever heard, that one was the Billy Coxiest.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'd say that, finally, a professor that got the wrong end of the screwdriver from one of our schools decided not to just ride off quietly into the sunset.

I've been thinking about this statement the last couple of days... and I finally figured out why it wasn't sitting well with me...

Question: Is there a right end of the screwdriver?

[Houston Thomas]

It seems to me that the thing that is missing in this discussion is what is best for the students. When a professor becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she can't be an effective teacher, the University administration needs to take action. After all, the University exists for the students, not for the faculty.


I agree that the controversy was unfortunate. Certainly the media attention surrounding his book helped to fuel the controversy and Dr. Colling did not refuse the media coverage.

That being said by both the University's and the students' account, Dr. Colling was a very effective teacher.

It seems to me that it was Dr. Bowling's actions (removing the book from extra credit option, removing the professor from teaching a class) that furthered the controversy.

In my opinion, the best way for Dr Bowling to have handled this issue was to simply state that the book is within the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene and that any issue with the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene should not be handled within the context of ONU but should be addressed through the General Assembly.

[Charles W Christian]

It seems to me that the thing that is missing in this discussion is what is best for the students. When a professor becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she can't be an effective teacher, the University administration needs to take action. After all, the University exists for the students, not for the faculty.

I have not talked to Dr. Bowling or to the professor concerning what happened, but from my observation the professor allowed his personal agenda to negatively impact the students. When he did, the proper thing for him to do would have been to step down - for the benefit of the students.

Just before I went to ENC, one of the science professors published a book that was just as controversial as the one published by the Olivet professor. From my point of view, the difference was that the ENC professor made it clear that he was exercising his rights of academic freedom and that his publication was his own. There was never any implication that ENC was responsible for the book or for his positions.

Had the professor become involved in such controversy that he couldn't effectively teach, I would have taken action -- not because of his beliefs or because of the book, but because he couldn't perform the role for which he was employed.

My guess is that Dr. Bowling took the action he did to prevent the students from getting caught up in the controversy.



With all due respect, Dave. I think you are not looking at the administration side enough, and maybe this is due to your experience on the other side of this issue. If someone was falsely accusing one of your professors of NOT holding to Nazarene doctrine when you knew darn well he/she WAS, I would hope you would stand for him/her on behalf of the students. Many of the students in this case were disappointed at the reaction of the administration, so if it's really about the students, why isn't the admin. being a voice for them? It sounds more to me like Admin. covering its behind for financial reasons and dumping on a prof (easy targets in the Church of the Nazarene, by the way, which is why we lose A LOT of great scholars to the Methodists and other groups). If Dr Bowling was trying to NOT let the students get caught up in the controversy, then he failed at this task and should be held accountable. He won't be, though, most likely. The prof, meanwhile, will now NOT have the support of the admin. and he will be made to look like the "rebel" to the district that he grew up on and served faithfully his whole life. You tell me: does that sound right?

DS's and School admins. (with all due respect) have cost us some great scholars. Not all our DS's and School admins.... but some. What if Dr Bowling would have said something like: "Look, I understand the controversy. Dr Colling has not violated the Manual or the school's academic policies. He is a scholar with an opinion and with credentials and he is not forcing his opinion upon the students. Until he violates one of the two policies mentioned, I see no action to be taken....etc." That, to me, would have been less like a political waffling that I see here, and I would be that Dr. Colling would have found a way to work with that to tone things down. Instead, Dr Bowling and a couple of trustees tried to appease and they apparently waffled in their support, allowing Dr Colling and his reputation to be expendible. If you do that in your business, you lose business. If you do that in Nazarene academic admin., as long you don't offend the "right people" you're applauded. Again, that just isn't right, in my opinion....

In fairness, I think in general what you're saying is true, but I don't think this specific situation is what you're describing in your post at all....

Thanks,
Charles

[David Pettigrew]

I've been thinking about this statement the last couple of days... and I finally figured out why it wasn't sitting well with me...

Question: Is there a right end of the screwdriver?

Perhaps I should have phrased it "the BUSINESS end of the screwdriver."

[Ryan Scott]

Question: Is there a right end of the screwdriver?


It seems like the "wrong" end of the screwdriver would actually hurt less than the "right" end.

[Michael B. Ross]

There is one significant factor that has not been mentioned in this discussion. I should have included it my earlier post.

Does Dr. Colling have tenure? If he does, (and he most probably does having been at ONU for many years) it would be very difficult for him to be removed from his faculty position. Nothing I have heard or read would come even close to being a grievance so serious that it would warrant his removal.


A Nazarene professor was barred from teaching general biology at Olivet because he believes it is possible to believe in God and accept evolution. (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/10/evolution)
But the groups arguing for freedom of expression of evolution deniers have not been heard agitating for the rights of Richard Colling. He’s a professor at Olivet Nazarene University, in Illinois, who has been barred from teaching general biology or having his book taught at the university that is his alma mater and the place where he has taught for 27 years. A biologist who is very much a person of faith, these punishments followed anger by some religious supporters of the college over the publication of his book in which he argues that it is possible to believe in God and still accept evolutionHave you heard about this case? I just heard it today. I must say, I'm shocked.

I agree that it is entirely possible that God created via evolution. I don't understand how one could be closed-minded enough to not accept that as a possibility. Are we fundamentalists or something? What's going on here?

[Houston Thomas]

There is one significant factor that has not been mentioned in this discussion. I should have included it my earlier post.

Does Dr. Colling have tenure? If he does, (and he most probably does having been at ONU for many years) it would be very difficult for him to be removed from his faculty position. Nothing I have heard or read would come even close to being a grievance so serious that it would warrant his removal.

Yes he does.

Yes it has been and will continue to be for the University to remove him. In fact, I don't believe they will be able to without legal ramifications.

[Billy Cox]

It seems to me that the thing that is missing in this discussion is what is best for the students. When a professor becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she can't be an effective teacher, the University administration needs to take action. After all, the University exists for the students, not for the faculty.


There are two conflicting concepts of what is best for students.

Dr. Colling apparently believes that academic integrity is best for students of an accredited liberal arts college. Apparently there is a group of well-connected people who believe that soft-pedaling hot button issues is best for students at a conservative holiness college that on paper is a liberal arts college.

I have great difficulty seeing those holding the university hostage in any better light than a professor that pushes the academic integrity envelope a bit too far.

[Dennis Bratcher]

There is one significant factor that has not been mentioned in this discussion. I should have included it my earlier post.

Does Dr. Colling have tenure? If he does, (and he most probably does having been at ONU for many years) it would be very difficult for him to be removed from his faculty position. Nothing I have heard or read would come even close to being a grievance so serious that it would warrant his removal.

This potentially sticky problem was solved at SNU in 1985, after the firing of a couple of tenured professors, by simply suspending the process of granting tenure to any professors. As far as I know it has never been resumed.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dave, I appreciate the administration perspective here. But honestly I don’t think this really gets to the heart of the issue. Two things.

1) As has already been mentioned, “what is best for students” is a very subjective criterion that is often dictated by factors unrelated to education. The same is true for “what is best for the university.” I understand the need to consider factors like financial viability, student pool, constituent support, and (for lack of a better term) the reputation of the university. Those factors are not always considered by professors who are focused on students and academic specialties (which itself takes increasing amounts of time and energy). Sometimes they forget that there is a larger picture to consider.

On the other hand, to suggest that professors do not really have the interests of students at heart is, perhaps, to be so preoccupied with managing the forest that it does not give enough consideration to the trees. Most any professor I know (with two or three exceptions!) not only teaches a subject and classes but spends considerable time with students. They hear about problems at home, spiritual struggles, career decisions, personal crises, and educational struggles. I spent far more time with students than I did in the classroom and grading papers combined. In that environment, everything that is done in the classroom or related to an educational topic is directly related to what is best for students, in terms of building and nurturing responsible Christian adults. To assume that an academic field or personal research or agenda is the only focus of professors, even when they are writing and publishing books, does not adequately consider what professors actually do besides stand in a classroom.

2) Of all the professors I have known across a lot of years and a lot of controversies I have witnessed, with only a couple of exceptions, the professor did not set out to create a controversy. If they became “embroiled in controversy” it was due to external agitators outside the university who either did not understand the issues well, relied on false information, or had personal agendas that they wanted to push (in one high profile example, the president of the Board of Trustees in a power struggle with the college President).

And from my own experience, and a couple of documented cases, the controversy is often generated through rumor and gossip that substantially misrepresented both what the professor taught or had said and how the issue related to Nazarene doctrines and beliefs. In such cases the effectiveness of a professor’s teaching is not related to the professor’s teaching at all, but to the pressures brought to bear on the university by those from outside.

And in some cases, “ineffective” really translates into “very effective, but not in the direction I want or believe.” Some of the best and most popular professors (Rob Staples, for example) tend to be the ones who attract the most fire precisely because they challenge students to think and integrate new ideas with established belief systems (Piaget’s or Fowler’s cognitive development stages are helpful here).

It is easy for administration in such cases to tell the professor to solve the problem. But if the problem does not lie with the professor there is not much s/he can do to solve it.

One quick example (for which I have a large file of letters and know the sources). I was called in and asked to explain to the college president why I was teaching that there was no literal devil. My response was that I had never taught that in a classroom. I was shown several letters from a couple of DS’s and pastors of large churches on the zone that claimed that I had.

To make a long story short, I tracked down the origin of the rumor. I had mentioned in a class on Historical Books (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles), in talking about 1 Chronicles 21:1 (and its parallel in 2 Samuel 24:1) that there is no devil in the OT; there is only the figure of the Satan and that figure in the OT is not the same as the NT idea of the Devil. I never addressed the NT concept of the devil, precisely because I did not want to open that can of worms.

One graduate student (now a pastor in a large church) came in and talked to me later about the whole concept, especially the four passages in the OT where the Satan occurs. In the process of the next semester, he concluded that there was no literal devil. He then mentioned to a few of his friends his conclusion and connected his own intellectual journey with my class. Those friends told their pastors, who told other pastors, who told some DSs, who wrote to some GSs, etc., who all wrote back to the college president. And a controversy was born.

The president’s instruction to me was that I had to stop teaching that there was no devil (we might note that the devil is never mentioned in the Manual). In other words, I had to fix the problem. My response was that it would be difficult to do since I had never taught that in the first place. The issue led to an ongoing controversy as the rumor spread throughout the educational zone (and is still circulated).

None of that affected what I did in the classroom and did not directly impact students. But it certainly affected those areas about which administration was concerned (fund raising, student pool, constituent support, etc.). So, I think that your criteria for “effective teaching” or concerns about being “embroiled in controversy” to the point that a professor cannot “perform the role for which he was employed” is far too narrow and places too much of the onus of such controversies on the professor.

In such cases, it seems to me that the responsibility is on the college president to be presidential and address the issues of church relations, academic (and theological) integrity, and the role of a liberal arts educational institution within the context of the church and the Church. Of course, there is responsibility on the part of professors to be prudent in how they deal with topics, as well as to consider the developmental stages at which students are (it is interesting that the same kinds of issues arise at seminary, again with some of the same external people agitating, so the issue is not always and directly related to where students are developmentally).

But finally, if the problem is external, the professor cannot solve it by tweaking things internally. I think to assume that such externally generated controversy directly relates to how effective a professor is in the classroom, how s/he relates to students, or how well s/he performs the task of being a professor is to apply the wrong criteria to the role of professor. This makes the professor far too responsible for the President’s job. A professor simply cannot do that, any more than a college president can teach microbiology or spend six hours a day talking to students.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.



It seems to me that the thing that is missing in this discussion is what is best for the students. When a professor becomes so embroiled in controversy that he or she can't be an effective teacher, the University administration needs to take action. After all, the University exists for the students, not for the faculty.

I have not talked to Dr. Bowling or to the professor concerning what happened, but from my observation the professor allowed his personal agenda to negatively impact the students. When he did, the proper thing for him to do would have been to step down - for the benefit of the students.

Just before I went to ENC, one of the science professors published a book that was just as controversial as the one published by the Olivet professor. From my point of view, the difference was that the ENC professor made it clear that he was exercising his rights of academic freedom and that his publication was his own. There was never any implication that ENC was responsible for the book or for his positions.

Had the professor become involved in such controversy that he couldn't effectively teach, I would have taken action -- not because of his beliefs or because of the book, but because he couldn't perform the role for which he was employed.

My guess is that Dr. Bowling took the action he did to prevent the students from getting caught up in the controversy.

[Eric Vail]

I have not talked to Dr. Bowling or to the professor concerning what happened, but from my observation the professor allowed his personal agenda to negatively impact the students. When he did, the proper thing for him to do would have been to step down - for the benefit of the students.

Dave, it is clear from this comment that you neither know Dr. Colling, nor the situation. I personally watched Dr. Colling while growing up in College Church; he is a model of integrity and sincere desire to know and serve God. His interest in this matter was his students (and any other Christians) struggling with the union between honest scientific inquiry and their Christian beliefs. If you've read his book, it is very pastoral toward those going through that struggle and open about his own struggles between scientific integrity and faith. He has helped generations of students not walk away from their faith in the midst of their career pursuits. For that, many feel a great deal of gratitude toward him and are sick that he is being attacked.

Dr. Colling knew that he was a scientist and not a theologian. He sought out input from theologians on the manuscripts of his book and received not even a single comment of feedback from them. To make sure he was not going astray, he gave a copy of the book to Dr. Bowling before publishing it. Dr. Bowling read it and not only assured Dr. Colling that he was well within bounds of Nazarene beliefs, but that Dr. Colling also had his full support in proceeding with publication.

It was only after a very small constituent of fundamentalist students complained to their parents, and their parents to their DS, that Dr. Bowling changed his position. Nowhere in there was Dr. Colling trying to stir up trouble or push his personal agenda. He was trying to do everything in his power to submit to the authority of church teaching and his school administration. That demonstrates an immense amount of integrity and concern for those who would come in contact with his work. He only had the best intentions in mind for his students and the welfare of the university.

He did not need to step down because he was negatively impacting his students. The administration should have stepped up with the same support they told him he had from them prior to publication. There were only a small handful who were complaining, to the frustration of the vast majority of other students of Dr. Colling who love him and know him. In this case a big institution cowered to a tiny portion of its constituency (to the frustration and detriment of the rest) and a DS who made financial threats on their behalf.

[Jon Twitchell]

So... here's my question...

Who is exerting pressure on the mid-level manager (DS?) who stirred up this controversy to resign his post?

Because if no one has, perhaps that should be done. For it certainly appears to me that s/he does not have the best interests of his district/region/college/students/denomination in mind.

From a polity standpoint, DS's are probably the least accountable individuals within our church structure.

[Darren Joyce]

So... here's my question...

Who is exerting pressure on the mid-level manager (DS?) who stirred up this controversy to resign his post?

Because if no one has, perhaps that should be done. For it certainly appears to me that s/he does not have the best interests of his district/region/college/students/denomination in mind.

From a polity standpoint, DS's are probably the least accountable individuals within our church structure.

I was wondering the same thing but wasn't sure I could word it very smooth. I think anytime a DS wants to hold money back from one of our denominational agreements seems rather extreme and pushing an agenda that is divisive to the body. Whether the grievance is warranted or not the DS should not be threatening to handicap either the education zone, NMI, NYI or whatever just because they disagree with whats going on. I understand on an individualistc reason why one wouldn't feel comfortable giving money but on a corporate level it seems abusive. Shouldn't they be able to appeal to the General level to sort such a circumstance out?

[Jon Twitchell]

I was wondering the same thing but wasn't sure I could word it very smooth. I think anytime a DS wants to hold money back from one of our denominational agreements seems rather extreme and pushing an agenda that is divisive to the body. Whether the grievance is warranted or not the DS should not be threatening to handicap either the education zone, NMI, NYI or whatever just because they disagree with whats going on. I understand on an individualistc reason why one wouldn't feel comfortable giving money but on a corporate level it seems abusive. Shouldn't they be able to appeal to the General level to sort such a circumstance out?

Let me just say... I'm not sure I worded it smooth... :)

[Jon Twitchell]

Let me add to Darren's thoughts about withholding funding...

I think that the same is true for pastors and local churches. I'm sympathetic with churches who are unable to meet all of their assessments. (Goodness, I went bivocational in order to help us do a better job of paying assessments!)

However, I don't think that pastors and church boards should hold anyone hostage with the threat of withholding money. Frankly, I have a hard time reconciling that attitude with the attitude of Christ Jesus who considered himself nothing and was obedient, even to death on a cross.

[Martijn van Beveren]

Dave, it is clear from this comment that you neither know Dr. Colling, nor the situation. I personally watched Dr. Colling while growing up in College Church; he is a model of integrity and sincere desire to know and serve God. His interest in this matter was his students (and any other Christians) struggling with the union between honest scientific inquiry and their Christian beliefs. If you've read his book, it is very pastoral toward those going through that struggle and open about his own struggles between scientific integrity and faith. He has helped generations of students not walk away from their faith in the midst of their career pursuits. For that, many feel a great deal of gratitude toward him and are sick that he is being attacked.

Dr. Colling knew that he was a scientist and not a theologian. He sought out input from theologians on the manuscripts of his book and received not even a single comment of feedback from them. To make sure he was not going astray, he gave a copy of the book to Dr. Bowling before publishing it. Dr. Bowling read it and not only assured Dr. Colling that he was well within bounds of Nazarene beliefs, but that Dr. Colling also had his full support in proceeding with publication.

It was only after a very small constituent of fundamentalist students complained to their parents, and their parents to their DS, that Dr. Bowling changed his position. Nowhere in there was Dr. Colling trying to stir up trouble or push his personal agenda. He was trying to do everything in his power to submit to the authority of church teaching and his school administration. That demonstrates an immense amount of integrity and concern for those who would come in contact with his work. He only had the best intentions in mind for his students and the welfare of the university.

He did not need to step down because he was negatively impacting his students. The administration should have stepped up with the same support they told him he had from them prior to publication. There were only a small handful who were complaining, to the frustration of the vast majority of other students of Dr. Colling who love him and know him. In this case a big institution cowered to a tiny portion of its constituency (to the frustration and detriment of the rest) and a DS who made financial threats on their behalf.

I hardly can believe that this is the church that I support... it angers me. A DS threatening with financials... I would ask for a vote for resignation. A DS should know better than to be led (or pressured) by just one oppinion. He/She should be going for creating understanding, freedom of thought. Search for a middleground, point to essentials and virtues. The more I learn of this, or as several pointed out, these issues. The more I feel let down by my own "family". How black and white can you think?
Is this still recently happening? I surely hope not.:basic04

[Susan Unger]

However, I don't think that pastors and church boards should hold anyone hostage with the threat of withholding money. Frankly, I have a hard time reconciling that attitude with the attitude of Christ Jesus who considered himself nothing and was obedient, even to death on a cross.

:amen preach it brotha! :preach

[Billy Cox]

I hardly can believe that this is the church that I support... it angers me. A DS threatening with financials... I would ask for a vote for resignation. A DS should know better than to be led (or pressured) by just one oppinion. He/She should be going for creating understanding, freedom of thought. Search for a middleground, point to essentials and virtues. The more I learn of this, or as several pointed out, these issues. The more I feel let down by my own "family". How black and white can you think?
Is this still recently happening? I surely hope not.:basic04

Perhaps you have also noticed that we are freely using the names of victimized individuals, but those responsible for this divisive conflict are safely anonymous.

[Martijn van Beveren]

Perhaps you have also noticed that we are freely using the names of victimized individuals, but those responsible for this divisive conflict are safely anonymous.

Is this something that could be adressed in a GA? Is there a way to stop this financial terrorism? Or at least to stop ministers abusing their power?

[Michael B. Ross]

I was not aware of that, Dennis. Sadly, I am not surprised.

This potentially sticky problem was solved at SNU in 1985, after the firing of a couple of tenured professors, by simply suspending the process of granting tenure to any professors. As far as I know it has never been resumed.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Is this something that could be adressed in a GA? Is there a way to stop this financial terrorism? Or at least to stop ministers abusing their power?

The problem is that it is not a political issue that can be addressed legally, but a spiritual issue. As long as some see the church in terms of power and control, even when it is couched in terms of "defending the Faith," it will remain a problem.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[David Pettigrew]

Is this something that could be adressed in a GA? Is there a way to stop this financial terrorism? Or at least to stop ministers abusing their power?

If a "tithe" system was adopted, as has been proposed, it would essentially solve the problem. Churches would have no control over how their budget payments were distributed once they sent them in.

[Kevin Rector]

Perhaps you have also noticed that we are freely using the names of victimized individuals, but those responsible for this divisive conflict are safely anonymous.

I have remained quite even though I know the names of those who initiated this fiasco because all of my information is second hand and I would not want to engage in gossip about information that is not first hand knowledge. Although if you know the ONU region it's not too hard to figure out who's involved.

The problem is that it is not a political issue that can be addressed legally, but a spiritual issue.

This is so true Dennis and it saddens me. But I would warn us to be cautious as we are walking fine line between gossip/judgment and exposing the works of darkness in our midst.

Ephesians 5:11:

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

1 Corinthians 4:5:

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

[Marsha Lynn]

If a "tithe" system was adopted, as has been proposed, it would essentially solve the problem. Churches would have no control over how their budget payments were distributed once they sent them in.

Already happening in SW Indiana. We send 14% of adjusted income to the district. District funds, P & B, and the Olivet apportionment are divvied up by the district. As far as I know (which isn't far), SWID isn't making any threats to withhold funds from Olivet, but if the primary place to wield influence over such matters is at the district level, how is it better to put all the money in the hands of the district?

[Dennis Bratcher]

This is so true Dennis and it saddens me. But I would warn us to be cautious as we are walking fine line between gossip/judgment and exposing the works of darkness in our midst.

Which is exactly why I have not and will not publicly name the persons involved (I could conceive of a couple of specific but likely rare scenarios in which I might be compelled to do so in cases where I have first-hand documentation of actions).

I think there is a prophetic responsibility for the church and the Church in which we need to identify what is wrong in our midst in order to repent and facilitate redemption and healing (the Ephesians passage). Still, I believe in God's grace strongly enough to understand that some of these very people who are acting in such un-Christian ways are my brothers and sisters in Christ. No one has appointed me to be their judge, not only because I am not qualified but because I am no more perfect in actions than they are (the Corinthians passage). I know all too well that "God's still workin' on me," so I need to let Him be working on my brothers and sisters as well.

I must believe that grace is stronger than sin, and that, if we are willing (good Arminians that we are!), God will redeem and preserve His people in spite of our sins and failures. That is the essence of the biblical promise “I will be with you.” Sadly, in the meantime, we all have to do a lot of spiritual triage as well as long term care for some of those hurt by such actions. But then, that is really the nature of a community anyway.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Eric Vail]

Which is exactly why I have not and will not publicly name the persons involved (I could conceive of a couple of specific but likely rare scenarios in which I might be compelled to do so in cases where I have first-hand documentation of actions).

I think there is a prophetic responsibility for the church and the Church in which we need to identify what is wrong in our midst in order to repent and facilitate redemption and healing (the Ephesians passage). Still, I believe in God's grace strongly enough to understand that some of these very people who are acting in such un-Christian ways are my brothers and sisters in Christ. No one has appointed me to be their judge, not only because I am not qualified but because I am no more perfect in actions than they are (the Corinthians passage). I know all too well that "God's still workin' on me," so I need to let Him be working on my brothers and sisters as well.

I must believe that grace is stronger than sin, and that, if we are willing (good Arminians that we are!), God will redeem and preserve His people in spite of our sins and failures. That is the essence of the biblical promise “I will be with you.” Sadly, in the meantime, we all have to do a lot of spiritual triage as well as long term care for some of those hurt by such actions. But then, that is really the nature of a community anyway.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Kevin and Dennis,

Thanks to you both for your comments of caution and Christian love. As I reflect about this I must confess my first response is to want "justice" (in this case defined as punishment against those "misbehaving"). The longer I reflect, however, I'm struck by the conviction that my reaction is no different than those who called for action to be taken against a professor whom they thought was "misbehaving." We want to retaliate against the other, all in the name of doing what we (from our vantage point) feel is a service to the church.

Thanks for your comments. I am once again reminded of the need to embrace my neighbor--to seek truly to know and love the other. I also am reminded that raising arms against each other or casting one another away eliminates chances for our mutual growth.

[Greg Farra]

Perhaps you have also noticed that we are freely using the names of victimized individuals, but those responsible for this divisive conflict are safely anonymous.

Hey, got to avoid lawsuits! :eek:

[Ryan Scott]

Perhaps you have also noticed that we are freely using the names of victimized individuals, but those responsible for this divisive conflict are safely anonymous.


Perhaps because victims have done nothing wrong. If we were to name those with whom we have issue for perceived wrong action, we would be no different than those we accuse. That would be one heck of a vicious cycle and a quick march to war.

[David Pettigrew]

Already happening in SW Indiana. We send 14% of adjusted income to the district. District funds, P & B, and the Olivet apportionment are divvied up by the district. As far as I know (which isn't far), SWID isn't making any threats to withhold funds from Olivet, but if the primary place to wield influence over such matters is at the district level, how is it better to put all the money in the hands of the district?

Because I don't believe for a second that a district would actually follow through with such a threat. As we say in Texas, it's all hat and no cattle.

[John Kennedy]

Because I don't believe for a second that a district would actually follow through with such a threat. As we say in Texas, it's all hat and no cattle.

Well, about 50 years (+or-) a district decided to withhold ed budgets because the college board of trustees voted to allow male students to wear shorts while playing basketball. That same district had, a few years earlier, attempted to transfer to the ed zone of a purportedly more conservative Naz college. That was not allowed.

In the 'shorts' issue situation, the board of the largest church on the college zone reportedly voted to replace any funds withheld by the unhappy district. So maybe the threat wasn't all that empty.

[David Pettigrew]

Well, about 50 years (+or-) a district decided to withhold ed budgets because the college board of trustees voted to allow male students to wear shorts while playing basketball. That same district had, a few years earlier, attempted to transfer to the ed zone of a purportedly more conservative Naz college. That was not allowed.

In the 'shorts' issue situation, the board of the largest church on the college zone reportedly voted to replace any funds withheld by the unhappy district. So maybe the threat wasn't all that empty.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I just don't believe the board of general superintendents would allow a DS or district advisory board to withhold educational monies in this day and age.

This is NOT to say those in leadership can't use their influence to ensure our schools lose money and students.

I know of several churches in Arkansas (a couple of them larger) who still refuse to pay the SNU budget or send students because "they're over there teaching our kids there is no devil." I tried to correct this error when I encountered it, but I have sadly discovered that once a Christian's mind is made up, there's no use trying to confuse us with the facts.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I know of several churches in Arkansas (a couple of them larger) who still refuse to pay the SNU budget or send students because "they're over there teaching our kids there is no devil." I tried to correct this error when I encountered it, but I have sadly discovered that once a Christian's mind is made up, there's no use trying to confuse us with the facts.

You probably read the account in another post of the origin of that rumor.

But let's be honest and spread the net of responsibility a little wider. It is no secret in the denomination that MANU was founded in the mid-1960s partly because a group of people thought that BNC was too liberal then (they had even let the girls' basketball team wear shorts!). That school has consistently billed itself as the conservative and more spiritual alternative to BNC/SNU. It is to their advantage in terms of both recruitment and support to do so and to encourage the hostility against BNC/SNU.

Honestly, I have no direct evidence that MANU fueled that particular controversy. But when a pastor of Olathe College Church only five or six years ago can launch an open attack and tirade against SNU from the pulpit while claiming that the MANU religion faculty has been more orthodox than SNU’s faculty (documentation available), it raises serious questions about the role of that rival (in the worst sense of the word) college in the ongoing hostility toward SNU.

[Note that none of this should reflect anything negative on Ed Robinson, the current president of MANU, whom I have found to be a person of impeccably integrity.]

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Well, about 50 years (+or-) a district decided to withhold ed budgets because the college board of trustees voted to allow male students to wear shorts while playing basketball. That same district had, a few years earlier, attempted to transfer to the ed zone of a purportedly more conservative Naz college. That was not allowed.

In the 'shorts' issue situation, the board of the largest church on the college zone reportedly voted to replace any funds withheld by the unhappy district. So maybe the threat wasn't all that empty.


Well, we're getting deep into Nazarene history here. I have a collection of a series of pamphlets published in the mid-1950s by an evangelist/pastor who traveled all over the BPC/BNC/SNU zone. Leo Lawrence promoted a very conservative and legalistic form of holiness, and was an outspoken and severe critic of BPC/BNC. I have one whole pamphlet that was devoted to the issue of shorts worn by the basketball team. I think he was a factor in helping establish an ethos of hostility towards BPC/BNC/SNU and the label of “liberal” on that educational zone.

Of course, the issue is far more complex. For a glimpse of the whole conservative movement and its bitter struggle to maintain “holiness standards,” often using very ungodly means, see Wallace Thornton, Jr., “The Formation of the Conservative Holiness Movement,” WTJ, p. 172ff (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/WTJ%2033-2.pdf).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Scott]

Perhaps I'm naive, but I just don't believe the board of general superintendents would allow a DS or district advisory board to withhold educational monies in this day and age.


The Board of General Superintendents has no ability to make a district do anything the advisory board or the district assembly approves - other than perhaps with the force of their personality.

All of the power in the Church of the Nazarene resides with the district.

[Jon Twitchell]

All of the power in the Church of the Nazarene resides with the district.

And when you combine that statement with my previous statement:

From a polity standpoint, DS's are probably the least accountable individuals within our church structure.

you can come to some scary conclusions...

[Dale Cozby]

A DS should know better than to be led (or pressured) by just one oppinion. He/She should be going for creating understanding, freedom of thought. Search for a middleground, point to essentials and virtues. ..... How black and white can you think?
Is this still recently happening? I surely hope not.:basic04 In other words DS's should know how to play politics well and this guy isn't playing by the accepted rules. :basic03

but if the primary place to wield influence over such matters is at the district level, how is it better to put all the money in the hands of the district? It is called collective bargaining. Unions do it all the time.:rolleyes:

these very people who are acting in such un-Christian ways are my brothers and sisters in Christ. No one has appointed me to be their judge Uh...isn't this sort of oxymoronic? You pass judgment on thier actions then say your not thier judge?
Oh and Paul does say we are to judge each other(the church) just not the world. So its OK if you are thier judge.;)

I have one whole pamphlet that was devoted to the issue of shorts worn by the basketball team. Dennis, I have a story to share on this one. My dad played for said school during the late 40's and wore his sweats in every game. He was chosen MVP and got his picture in the School paper. My mom, (his wife) was asked to give them a picture to use and she got the only picture she had of him which was taken while he was in the Navy. He was wearing a "Boston blackie" mustache in it. When the paper came out and certain folks saw it...the school took away the honor of MVP and told him it was because they didn't feel his overall character represented the school properly! He didn't even have a mustache at the time too. HE shrugged it off and said, "Oh well..." ......but it did leave a bitter taste in his mouth and although he stayed in the church he did discourage his kids from attending said school ...I am the only one of four who went there.

Seems the "good ol'days" aren't very far removed from us today as well, just the issues have changed.

I am torn between the two sides on this. On one hand where should we draw the line in the sand on what are the minimum manifestations of holiness and Christian faith and on the other hand why should we have to draw a line in the sand at all?

[Houston Thomas]

This has been one of the most honest threads I have ever read on Naznet. As someone who has seen our denomination mishandle power in many ways it is encouraging to see people speaking with honesty and integrity.

On another note, I completely agree that the District has far too much power, that District Superintendents are not made accountable, and that the denomination often crumbles over minority opinion. Any discussion of restructuring the denomination has to include and challenge these realities.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Uh...isn't this sort of oxymoronic? You pass judgment on thier actions then say your not thier judge?
Oh and Paul does say we are to judge each other(the church) just not the world. So its OK if you are thier judge.

No. I have no problem in judging actions as un-Christian or unloving or harmful or destructive, or even illegal by civil law. Scripture nowhere condemns that and, in fact, from the prophets all the way through Paul practices it. From the NT it is the motives of people we are not to judge, which is exactly what I explained in the post.

Dennis, I have a story to share on this one. My dad played for said school during the late 40's and wore his sweats in every game. He was chosen MVP and got his picture in the School paper. My mom, (his wife) was asked to give them a picture to use and she got the only picture she had of him which was taken while he was in the Navy. He was wearing a "Boston blackie" mustache in it. When the paper came out and certain folks saw it...the school took away the honor of MVP and told him it was because they didn't feel his overall character represented the school properly! He didn't even have a mustache at the time too. HE shrugged it off and said, "Oh well..." ......but it did leave a bitter taste in his mouth and although he stayed in the church he did discourage his kids from attending said school ...I am the only one of four who went there.

Seems the "good ol'days" aren't very far removed from us today as well, just the issues have changed.

I am torn between the two sides on this. On one hand where should we draw the line in the sand on what are the minimum manifestations of holiness and Christian faith and on the other hand why should we have to draw a line in the sand at all?

Jesus had no trouble drawing a line the sand, so to speak (John 8). But it was not to define sinners; it was to condemn those who would draw legal lines in the sand for others without extending grace.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Scott]

And when you combine that statement with my previous statement:



you can come to some scary conclusions...



The most profound thing I learned from working at HQ is that the DS is the most powerful position in our denomination and 95% of them are too busy to notice.

I think the system is set up with some accountability for the DS in the Advisory Board and in the District Assembly, but rarely do either of those groups assume they have authority over the DS.

[Susan Unger]

I think the system is set up with some accountability for the DS in the Advisory Board and in the District Assembly, but rarely do either of those groups assume they have authority over the DS.

I have been a delagate to DA and never knew until now that I had any authority over the DS.

[Ryan Scott]

I have been a delagate to DA and never knew until now that I had any authority over the DS.


You don't, but the assembled body of delegates does. It's important not to confuse the two.

[John Kennedy]

Well, I've seen a district assembly underscore the accountability of the DS to itself by voting him (or her) out. It's rare, but it happens.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Any discussion of restructuring the denomination has to include and challenge these realities.

You may remember that Dave's original posted list of fantasies included elimination of districts.

[Martijn van Beveren]

You don't, but the assembled body of delegates does. It's important not to confuse the two.

It's one of the reasons why a DS has to report to the district assembly, just like the other districtboards. The people of the assembly will vote (and comment if needed) on this report.

[Houston Thomas]

You may remember that Dave's original posted list of fantasies included elimination of districts.

That would help.

But unless we learn that power in the Kingdom is to be used for love we'll have a different structure but end up in the same place.

[David Pettigrew]

Well, I've seen a district assembly underscore the accountability of the DS to itself by voting him (or her) out. It's rare, but it happens.

I know of this happening once. It was in North Arkansas. Paul Cunningham was a newly elected GS, and it was his second district assembly. Once Eugene Sanders received a negative vote and left the convention, they had to get about the business of electing a new DS, plus the other business at hand, plus some semblance of worship. Of course there's always a pastor or two who think they should be elected by default since they pastor the largest church or serve as district secretary (many would speculate this was behind the negative vote in the first place), so there were a lot of politics involved. It was an incredibly painful experience for everyone, with no winners. The assembly elected Tim Stearman as its new DS, who declined. Dave Roland was later appointed, and led the district through an incredible time of growth and healing. Today, it's one of the closest and most unified districts on which I've ever served.