Secularization Within the Church of the Nazarene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
results indicate that a majority of Nazarene lay members (53%) and pastors (61%) agree with the statement, “The Church of the Nazarene in the U.S. and Canada is becoming more secular. ” Similar proportions of lay members (53%) and pastors (60%) agree with the statement, “Most Nazarenes I know are becoming more secular.” Nazarene leaders worry that the church is no longer the vital spiritual force that it was a few decades ago. We allow culturally conditioned adaptations of the Special Rules. We revised the rule on movies. It was difficult to find an evening worship service on Super Bowl Sunday, at least in some areas of Colorado in 1999. But, perhaps most telling is the fact that the denomination now tolerates both a seminary and an association of sociologists. There is a general pessimistic mood among us. In fact, both Nazarenes and Americans seem to believe most things are getting worse. At the close of this century the idea of continual deterioration is much easier to accept than the idea of continual progress. We live in a culture that likes to describes itself in terms of aftermath: post-Vietnam, post–Watergate, post– industrial, post–literate, post–denominational, post–intellectual, post–Christian, and post– modern. While we recognize the importance of hope, we are inclined to despair. We still talk
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".