Are evangelicals as unified as most people believe they are?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Belly Bionic
Jul 15, 2008, 2:37:39 PM7/15/08
to Debate.Religion
There's already been one discussion here about the recent study that
found that many Christians believe that there are many paths to god.
The following is another article about a different aspect of the same
study. I found it quite interesting, and wondered what others think
of the author's conclusions. Personally, I've found nearly everything
I've read about the study in question to be quite encouraging.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/evangelical-sheep-dont-co_b_112746.html
by Christine Wicker
Don't believe everything you read in the papers. Didn't your mama tell
you that?
I'm going to give you one more reason to listen to her.
One out of four Americans says he or she is an evangelical.
In the next four months, you're going to see that number cited in
countless political stories. It will invariably be paired with the
idea that evangelicals are a Republican bloc that John McCain must
placate and Barack Obama has scant chance of winning.
Reader beware.
Reporters glean from surveys what they think is important. A new
national survey of the religious landscape from the Pew Forum on
Religion and Public Life shows that those one in four Americans are
not the sheep they've been made out to be. But don't look for that in
most stories about the survey. It's not there.
There's no conspiracy to keep anything from anybody. The Pew study
offers a mass of data, enough to keep scholars arguing for years.
What you already know does affect what you look for. And what you look
for shapes what you see. I just wrote a book about evangelicals with
findings that astonished even me. So let me tell you what I saw when I
looked at what American evangelicals told the Pew researchers about
their own beliefs. It was astonishing in light of what most people
believe about evangelicals.
*Only 28 percent say that religion most influences their political
thinking.
*Half are not Republicans or even leaning toward Republican candidates
and policies.
*Half don't consider themselves conservatives.
*Fewer than half want to shrink big government.
*41 percent want government to be bigger and do more
*41 percent think government is too involved in issues of morality.
Are you getting a picture here that sounds a lot more like mainstream
America than most of us thought it would?
Evangelicals also have some surprisingly untraditional Christian
views.
* 53 percent think there is more than one way to interpret the
teachings of Christianity.
* 57 percent think many religions can lead to eternal life. Many?
That's what they said.
On the hot button issues of abortion and homosexuality, evangelicals
surveyed by Pew in the summer of 2007 seem to be running true to
stereotype. Sixty-one percent say abortion should be illegal in most
or all cases and 64 percent say homosexuality should be discouraged.
But flip those statistics. They mean that more than one out of three
evangelicals believes abortion should be legal in most cases. Most
cases. Partial-birth? Late term? Sounds kinda pro-choice. Kinda like
the mother ought to have rights. Who knew?
With regard to homosexuality, the Pew question is so tentatively put
that it's hard to know exactly what the answers mean. The researchers
asked whether homosexuality ought to be discouraged by society. Not
whether it is an abomination or a sin or a sickness. Not even whether
gays and lesbians should or shouldn't have equal rights. But whether
it should be discouraged. Could they have come up with a more wimpy
word?
It's no surprise that 64 percent of evangelicals said homosexuality
ought to be discouraged. What's astonishing, considering evangelical
stereotypes, is that one out of ten wasn't clear enough on the issue
to even give an answer and one out of four said homosexuality ought to
be accepted. Period. No quibbles at all.
One out of four of the most conservative group in America accepts
homosexuality. Did we know this? I didn't.
Make no mistake, a high number of evangelicals are among the most
conservative of Americans. Fifty-eight percent of evangelicals who say
they go to church once a week are far more conservative than the ones
who say they attend less frequently. That's true in almost all
Christian categories.
But reader beware of church attendance statistics, too. The Pew survey
and almost all other religious surveys tell us what people say, not
what they do.
Researchers who count people actually in church find half the number
who say they are there.
People aren't exactly lying. They're thinking that they should have
gone to church last week, or they intended to go to church or they do
go to church every week except during the summer or baseball season or
the Christmas holidays. This tendency could be even more pronounced
among evangelicals because of the type of faith they have.
A faith featuring a God who watches everyone closely and punishes
people when they aren't doing right gives its adherents good reason to
fool themselves -- and pollsters -- about what they're actually doing
and maybe even what they actually are thinking.
Why does it matter that we be so skeptical?
Because evangelical pastors and leaders have been credited with being
so effective at mobilizing their troops to vote in certain ways. They
gained great power from that reputation. Some have gotten rich from
it. Understandably. There's hardly any organization on earth as good
at molding opinion as a church.
But if large numbers of evangelicals aren't in church, they aren't as
likely to have their opinions molded. They aren't as likely to have
their voting mobilized.
Participation in church matters because it means that if evangelical
kingmakers were put to the test, they would not have as much power as
they claim. Focus on the Family's James Dobson found his limits
earlier this year when he vowed to sit out the election if John McCain
became the front-running nominee.
Republicans will nominate McCain anyway. And Dobson did not take his
toys and go home. He's stirring the pot just as vigorously as ever.
What all this means is that, contrary to expectations, McCain may have
scored big points with many evangelicals when he spurned extremists
John Hagee and Ron Parsley. Why?
Because many evangelicals are not like the ones you see on TV. Not
just a few who've recently emerged. Many.
And Barack Obama may win the hearts of at least two out of four
American evangelicals with a lot less effort than most of us ever
imagined. For the same reason.
found that many Christians believe that there are many paths to god.
The following is another article about a different aspect of the same
study. I found it quite interesting, and wondered what others think
of the author's conclusions. Personally, I've found nearly everything
I've read about the study in question to be quite encouraging.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/evangelical-sheep-dont-co_b_112746.html
by Christine Wicker
Don't believe everything you read in the papers. Didn't your mama tell
you that?
I'm going to give you one more reason to listen to her.
One out of four Americans says he or she is an evangelical.
In the next four months, you're going to see that number cited in
countless political stories. It will invariably be paired with the
idea that evangelicals are a Republican bloc that John McCain must
placate and Barack Obama has scant chance of winning.
Reader beware.
Reporters glean from surveys what they think is important. A new
national survey of the religious landscape from the Pew Forum on
Religion and Public Life shows that those one in four Americans are
not the sheep they've been made out to be. But don't look for that in
most stories about the survey. It's not there.
There's no conspiracy to keep anything from anybody. The Pew study
offers a mass of data, enough to keep scholars arguing for years.
What you already know does affect what you look for. And what you look
for shapes what you see. I just wrote a book about evangelicals with
findings that astonished even me. So let me tell you what I saw when I
looked at what American evangelicals told the Pew researchers about
their own beliefs. It was astonishing in light of what most people
believe about evangelicals.
*Only 28 percent say that religion most influences their political
thinking.
*Half are not Republicans or even leaning toward Republican candidates
and policies.
*Half don't consider themselves conservatives.
*Fewer than half want to shrink big government.
*41 percent want government to be bigger and do more
*41 percent think government is too involved in issues of morality.
Are you getting a picture here that sounds a lot more like mainstream
America than most of us thought it would?
Evangelicals also have some surprisingly untraditional Christian
views.
* 53 percent think there is more than one way to interpret the
teachings of Christianity.
* 57 percent think many religions can lead to eternal life. Many?
That's what they said.
On the hot button issues of abortion and homosexuality, evangelicals
surveyed by Pew in the summer of 2007 seem to be running true to
stereotype. Sixty-one percent say abortion should be illegal in most
or all cases and 64 percent say homosexuality should be discouraged.
But flip those statistics. They mean that more than one out of three
evangelicals believes abortion should be legal in most cases. Most
cases. Partial-birth? Late term? Sounds kinda pro-choice. Kinda like
the mother ought to have rights. Who knew?
With regard to homosexuality, the Pew question is so tentatively put
that it's hard to know exactly what the answers mean. The researchers
asked whether homosexuality ought to be discouraged by society. Not
whether it is an abomination or a sin or a sickness. Not even whether
gays and lesbians should or shouldn't have equal rights. But whether
it should be discouraged. Could they have come up with a more wimpy
word?
It's no surprise that 64 percent of evangelicals said homosexuality
ought to be discouraged. What's astonishing, considering evangelical
stereotypes, is that one out of ten wasn't clear enough on the issue
to even give an answer and one out of four said homosexuality ought to
be accepted. Period. No quibbles at all.
One out of four of the most conservative group in America accepts
homosexuality. Did we know this? I didn't.
Make no mistake, a high number of evangelicals are among the most
conservative of Americans. Fifty-eight percent of evangelicals who say
they go to church once a week are far more conservative than the ones
who say they attend less frequently. That's true in almost all
Christian categories.
But reader beware of church attendance statistics, too. The Pew survey
and almost all other religious surveys tell us what people say, not
what they do.
Researchers who count people actually in church find half the number
who say they are there.
People aren't exactly lying. They're thinking that they should have
gone to church last week, or they intended to go to church or they do
go to church every week except during the summer or baseball season or
the Christmas holidays. This tendency could be even more pronounced
among evangelicals because of the type of faith they have.
A faith featuring a God who watches everyone closely and punishes
people when they aren't doing right gives its adherents good reason to
fool themselves -- and pollsters -- about what they're actually doing
and maybe even what they actually are thinking.
Why does it matter that we be so skeptical?
Because evangelical pastors and leaders have been credited with being
so effective at mobilizing their troops to vote in certain ways. They
gained great power from that reputation. Some have gotten rich from
it. Understandably. There's hardly any organization on earth as good
at molding opinion as a church.
But if large numbers of evangelicals aren't in church, they aren't as
likely to have their opinions molded. They aren't as likely to have
their voting mobilized.
Participation in church matters because it means that if evangelical
kingmakers were put to the test, they would not have as much power as
they claim. Focus on the Family's James Dobson found his limits
earlier this year when he vowed to sit out the election if John McCain
became the front-running nominee.
Republicans will nominate McCain anyway. And Dobson did not take his
toys and go home. He's stirring the pot just as vigorously as ever.
What all this means is that, contrary to expectations, McCain may have
scored big points with many evangelicals when he spurned extremists
John Hagee and Ron Parsley. Why?
Because many evangelicals are not like the ones you see on TV. Not
just a few who've recently emerged. Many.
And Barack Obama may win the hearts of at least two out of four
American evangelicals with a lot less effort than most of us ever
imagined. For the same reason.
Drafterman
Jul 15, 2008, 3:04:05 PM7/15/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 15, 2:37 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's already been one discussion here about the recent study that
> found that many Christians believe that there are many paths to god.
> The following is another article about a different aspect of the same
> study. I found it quite interesting, and wondered what others think
> of the author's conclusions. Personally, I've found nearly everything
> I've read about the study in question to be quite encouraging.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/evangelical-sheep-dont...
> There's already been one discussion here about the recent study that
> found that many Christians believe that there are many paths to god.
> The following is another article about a different aspect of the same
> study. I found it quite interesting, and wondered what others think
> of the author's conclusions. Personally, I've found nearly everything
> I've read about the study in question to be quite encouraging.
>
essentially, politicians. It's their job to be liked, that way people
will listen to what they say. It's a trade off for not having anything
worth saying in the first place.
Belly Bionic
Jul 15, 2008, 3:45:01 PM7/15/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 15, 12:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure how to put stock in these statistics. Evangelicals are,
> essentially, politicians. It's their job to be liked, that way people
> will listen to what they say. It's a trade off for not having anything
> worth saying in the first place.
My feeling is that these statistics are a result of what's been seen
> I'm not sure how to put stock in these statistics. Evangelicals are,
> essentially, politicians. It's their job to be liked, that way people
> will listen to what they say. It's a trade off for not having anything
> worth saying in the first place.
in quite a few other religious movements. When the Evangelical
movement was new, the people who joined it were all fired up about it
and absolutely sure that they were God's Chosen People and they knew
exactly what God wanted. Then they raised their children in the same
movement, and their children were just a little less fired up, and a
little less positive, but they still raised their children the same
way because they were sure enough. Their children were even less
positive, and even less fired up, but continued with the practice
because it's what their families had taught them. Now what we're
seeing in this study is the result of "Evangelical" becoming just
another denomination that doesn't really mean much. There are still
True Believers, and they're the ones who get the press, but a good
number of the people who get counted as part of their group just don't
care that much. They're just going through the motions because it's
what they're "supposed" to do.
Dag Yo
Jul 15, 2008, 5:43:27 PM7/15/08
to Debate.Religion
And I don't put too much stock in these figures either, probably
because i'm all too ready to think the worst of such people, but also
because the statistics really don't finish the picture.
I'd like to comment a bit more about some of my thoughts on this. I
know to assume the actual worst cases for each of these instances is
undoubtedly incorrect, but likewise assuming the absolute best is
undoubted incorrect and that leaves a great deal of information that
we don't know and isn't even terribly useful for which we can't even
really guess where the real figures might lie. So here it goes:
thinking at all. It just means that it's not #`1 on the list.
> *Half are not Republicans or even leaning toward Republican candidates
> and policies.
Which doesn't mean that the other half are democrats. There are some
political parties out that are a lot worse and a lot nuttier than even
the Republican party. If these statistics said "half are democrats"
that would be pretty intriguing, but "not Republicans" isn't
necessarily a good thing -- unless they just waste their votes, in
which case good, i'm glad they do (though I'm still mad that our
system of voting allows people to waste votes in the US).
> *Half don't consider themselves conservatives.
This could mean just about anything. And it certainly doesn't in any
way mean that the half that don't consider themselves conservatives,
are not what I would describe as conservatives.
> *Fewer than half want to shrink big government.
> *41 percent want government to be bigger and do more
This isn't necessarily a good thing. The government could certainly
expand what it does in ways that I would find detrimental.
> *41 percent think government is too involved in issues of morality.
Now this actually sounds good and I don't immediately see what's
potentially wrong with this, but I'm sure there is something.
> Are you getting a picture here that sounds a lot more like mainstream
> America than most of us thought it would?
I don't think that case can be made out of these stats that that is
the case. But it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. But I don't
even necessarily find that a comforting thought even if it were true.
Lets not forget that a "mainstream American" (imagining some amalgam
person rather than an individual) was ~48% in favor of voting in Bush
for a second presidential term. [and yes I know i'm blurring
demographics that shouldn't be]
> It's no surprise that 64 percent of evangelicals said homosexuality
> ought to be discouraged. What's astonishing, considering evangelical
> stereotypes, is that one out of ten wasn't clear enough on the issue
> to even give an answer and one out of four said homosexuality ought to
> be accepted. Period. No quibbles at all.
I'll quibble with that. Accepted is certainly a lot better than a
number of alternatives, but it isn't perfect. Especially in light of
the earlier statement that "With regard to homosexuality, the Pew
because i'm all too ready to think the worst of such people, but also
because the statistics really don't finish the picture.
I'd like to comment a bit more about some of my thoughts on this. I
know to assume the actual worst cases for each of these instances is
undoubtedly incorrect, but likewise assuming the absolute best is
undoubted incorrect and that leaves a great deal of information that
we don't know and isn't even terribly useful for which we can't even
really guess where the real figures might lie. So here it goes:
> *Only 28 percent say that religion most influences their political
> thinking.
Which doesn't mean that religion doesn't influence their political
> thinking.
thinking at all. It just means that it's not #`1 on the list.
> *Half are not Republicans or even leaning toward Republican candidates
> and policies.
political parties out that are a lot worse and a lot nuttier than even
the Republican party. If these statistics said "half are democrats"
that would be pretty intriguing, but "not Republicans" isn't
necessarily a good thing -- unless they just waste their votes, in
which case good, i'm glad they do (though I'm still mad that our
system of voting allows people to waste votes in the US).
> *Half don't consider themselves conservatives.
way mean that the half that don't consider themselves conservatives,
are not what I would describe as conservatives.
> *Fewer than half want to shrink big government.
> *41 percent want government to be bigger and do more
expand what it does in ways that I would find detrimental.
> *41 percent think government is too involved in issues of morality.
potentially wrong with this, but I'm sure there is something.
> Are you getting a picture here that sounds a lot more like mainstream
> America than most of us thought it would?
the case. But it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. But I don't
even necessarily find that a comforting thought even if it were true.
Lets not forget that a "mainstream American" (imagining some amalgam
person rather than an individual) was ~48% in favor of voting in Bush
for a second presidential term. [and yes I know i'm blurring
demographics that shouldn't be]
> It's no surprise that 64 percent of evangelicals said homosexuality
> ought to be discouraged. What's astonishing, considering evangelical
> stereotypes, is that one out of ten wasn't clear enough on the issue
> to even give an answer and one out of four said homosexuality ought to
> be accepted. Period. No quibbles at all.
number of alternatives, but it isn't perfect. Especially in light of
the earlier statement that "With regard to homosexuality, the Pew
random
Jul 15, 2008, 6:16:42 PM7/15/08
to Debate.Religion
There are three things that bother me here:
1) The author uses words like "only", "a lot" and "astonishing", but
it is meaningless without something to compare the numbers to.
For example, if most groups (atheists, Catholics...) were around 10%
in the question of whether or not religion most influences their
political thinking, then 28% is not "only" but a really big number.
Without the original results, it's impossible to be encouraged or
discouraged by the article.
2) I don't think "discouraged" regarding homosexuality is a wimpy
word. It actually means that not only it's immoral, but also something
that requires involvement to prevent or reduce the choice from others.
How exactly? That part is indeed missing.
3) So where are they?
this "misunderstanding" wasn't created without a reason. If there is a
great diversity, then where is it?
On Jul 15, 9:37 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's already been one discussion here about the recent study that
> found that many Christians believe that there are many paths to god.
> The following is another article about a different aspect of the same
> study. I found it quite interesting, and wondered what others think
> of the author's conclusions. Personally, I've found nearly everything
> I've read about the study in question to be quite encouraging.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/evangelical-sheep-dont...
1) The author uses words like "only", "a lot" and "astonishing", but
it is meaningless without something to compare the numbers to.
For example, if most groups (atheists, Catholics...) were around 10%
in the question of whether or not religion most influences their
political thinking, then 28% is not "only" but a really big number.
Without the original results, it's impossible to be encouraged or
discouraged by the article.
2) I don't think "discouraged" regarding homosexuality is a wimpy
word. It actually means that not only it's immoral, but also something
that requires involvement to prevent or reduce the choice from others.
How exactly? That part is indeed missing.
3) So where are they?
this "misunderstanding" wasn't created without a reason. If there is a
great diversity, then where is it?
On Jul 15, 9:37 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's already been one discussion here about the recent study that
> found that many Christians believe that there are many paths to god.
> The following is another article about a different aspect of the same
> study. I found it quite interesting, and wondered what others think
> of the author's conclusions. Personally, I've found nearly everything
> I've read about the study in question to be quite encouraging.
>
rappoccio
Jul 15, 2008, 11:44:09 PM7/15/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 15, 1:37 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's already been one discussion here about the recent study that
> found that many Christians believe that there are many paths to god.
> The following is another article about a different aspect of the same
> study. I found it quite interesting, and wondered what others think
> of the author's conclusions. Personally, I've found nearly everything
> I've read about the study in question to be quite encouraging.
>
questions (say, 20) about mainstream ideas of applying it to the real
world. You'll get four different sets of answers with zero of them in
complete agreement.
The Bible is just a dodge. It's a way for people to come up with "god-
of-the-gaps" arguments for just about everything that's important to
them.
4praise
Jul 17, 2008, 2:47:51 AM7/17/08
to Debate.Religion
> Give four Christians the Bible. Tell them to answer a bunch of
> questions (say, 20) about mainstream ideas of applying it to the real
> world. You'll get four different sets of answers with zero of them in
> complete agreement.
You don't need four, two will do. Heck sometimes you just need one
> questions (say, 20) about mainstream ideas of applying it to the real
> world. You'll get four different sets of answers with zero of them in
> complete agreement.
(or haven't I shown mine MPD side lately?)
> The Bible is just a dodge.
> It's a way for people to come up with "god-
> of-the-gaps" arguments for just about everything that's important to
> them.
marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history
whatsoever.” (Isaac Newton)
Ted Goas
Jul 22, 2008, 10:50:26 AM7/22/08
to Debate.Religion
I tend to agree with this. When people look into the same Bible,
they're likely to interpret part of it in different ways. Especially
if there are pre-existing results that someone wants to reach.
-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com
they're likely to interpret part of it in different ways. Especially
if there are pre-existing results that someone wants to reach.
-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com
Jim Gunson
Jul 25, 2008, 3:16:35 AM7/25/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 17, 2:47 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > Give four Christians the Bible. Tell them to answer a bunch of
> > > questions (say, 20) about mainstream ideas of applying it to the real
> > > world. You'll get four different sets of answers with zero of them in
> > > complete agreement.
>
>
> > > Give four Christians the Bible. Tell them to answer a bunch of
> > > questions (say, 20) about mainstream ideas of applying it to the real
> > > world. You'll get four different sets of answers with zero of them in
> > > complete agreement.
>
On Jul 22, 10:50 pm, Ted Goas <t...@tedgoas.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree with this. When people look into the same Bible,
> they're likely to interpret part of it in different ways. Especially
> if there are pre-existing results that someone wants to reach.
>
I think you've hit upon an important point here that often is lost
> I tend to agree with this. When people look into the same Bible,
> they're likely to interpret part of it in different ways. Especially
> if there are pre-existing results that someone wants to reach.
>
in these groups. Being a Christian, or Theist if you like, is a
process
of self-knowledge. Through the Bible you can become more self-aware.
My priest calls it a rebirth. Any pre-existing tastes or prejudices
can
become evident in your interpretation of the Bible.
Jim Gunson
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages