Poll: Evangelical Christians’ priorities a bit “different”
posted at 6:22 pm on August 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I don’t know many evangelicals but I know a few, and I suspect they’d place national security a smidge higher than their cohorts did here. The general population’s top three priorities, per the percentages who ranked the issue as “absolutely necessary”:
- Overall care and resources devoted to children — 82%
Quality of a public school education — 82%
National security — 72%
The top three among evangelicals:
- Enhancing the health of Christian churches — 93% (general population — 44%)
Upgrading the state of marriage and families — 91% (general population — 60%)
Improving the spiritual state of the country — 88% (general population — 53%)
Like Sam Brownback says, “All for Jesus.” FYI, the gap re: enhancing Christian churches between evangelicals and respondents who said the Bible can’t be interpreted literally was 89%. Money quote: “Overall, evangelical Christians stood out as the segment that holds views that are most dissimilar from the typical perspectives of Americans.”
Now, a little something for our religious readers to torment me with. Here’s the new survey of Diggbat opinion. Scroll down to question 9 and see for yourself how the most loathsome group of far left, conspiracy theorist, Ron Paul worshipping trolls this side of YouTube breaks down by religion. Heart-ache.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Hello Allahpundit,
My name is Terry Ann and I’m an evangelical.
There you go Allahpundit now you know one more evangelical.
Good day, sir.
terryannonline on August 25, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Actually, my top priority is to get a Pres. elected who will require all to become Christians, Constantine style, bu-yah!
Weight of Glory on August 25, 2007 at 6:28 PM
On that Digg poll, I can guarantee you that the 6000 people that said that the United States/Other committed 9/11 all of them support Ron Paul.
Complete7 on August 25, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Well, their definition of “Evangelical” probably can be debated. And they ended up, if I understand their sampling correctly, talking with only 80 Evangelicals. That and the fact that the questions seemed a bit strange to begin with. “Evangelicals” have kids, want kids, or had kids. I would think that would be important for them.
For some reason, I don’t find the fact that Ron Paul supporters are atheists all that surprising.
bnelson44 on August 25, 2007 at 6:33 PM
From http://www.secular.org/constituency.html:
The website goes on to admit that this is probably on the high end of the scale due to how the Harris survey was done. >40% atheists is outragious though. Is that Digg poll in any way scientific? Or is this run by the same folks that decide who stays and goes in American Idol competitions?
HeIsSailing on August 25, 2007 at 6:52 PM
I’m more stunned that 3.2 percent believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Tennman on August 25, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Allah, I ask you please in all your infinite atheistic wisdom, please define ‘evangelical’ to me.
I know it is as popular a term as ‘progressive’ to define liberal. But it seems to me the media (you included) are trying to paint all Christians other than Catholics as ‘evangelical’. The proper term is ‘Protestant’. . . anything else would be spin.
You try to call all non-Catholic Christians a term historically tied to ‘telEVANGELISTS’ who often times only mention Biblical phrases between the hours of content dedicated to pan handling and asking for money.
Please tell me the difference between Protestant and Evangelical. And further, I ask, is it possible for a Catholic to be ‘Evangelical’ as well?
The last bastion of ‘it’s OK to discriminate against and offend’ are the WASPs.
ThackerAgency on August 25, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I think it’s a survey of people who use Digg, not of the US population.
TheBigOldDog on August 25, 2007 at 6:56 PM
ThackerAgency,
Not all non-Catholics are protestants. I am Southern Baptist and we do not consider ourselves protestant, we didn’t protest the abuses of the Catholic church in the 15th century.
I am Evangelical in the sense that I firmly believe it is the duty of each Christian to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why I am proud to be SBC because I know the emphasis my denomination has on evangelizing the world. Many churches do not focus on evangelism.
Allah,
Here’s a thought from one evangelical’s perspective on the top three. If those were all accomplished, maybe the security of America would be strengthened as well. Just sayin….
Centurion68 on August 25, 2007 at 7:06 PM
It’s not our intent to torment you, honest.
We need to consider that these poll numbers are based on what is currently exists as American Evangelicalism. If we were able to pole the global evangelical community the numbers would be a bit different.
Half (if not more than half) of U.S. evangelicals can’t tell you the difference between liberal American Heterodox evangelicalism as it currently exists, and the historical perspective held by most of the rest of the globe’s protestant Christians.
Much of your opinion of evangelicals, Allapundit, is based on current American evangelicalism. And I really can’t blame you for your skepticism, because in a lot of cases I’m more in agreement with you than against.
I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t say that most of the problems we evangelicals face in pursuit of our goals is ourselves.
Lawrence on August 25, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Don’t worry, AP…That’s not the kind of Church I grew up with/attend now. I have tremendous respect for you and your beliefs, and appreciate how even-handed you are when it comes to your coverage of religious content.
As for me, I think those kinds of issues need to be divided into two separate categories: The micro, and the macro; the former relating to how we can personally impact the lives of those around us through day-to-day relationships, and the latter having to do with the things of government. For me personally, I think that raising a strong family and growing the church and strengthening our faith is incredibly important, but isn’t anything that the government needs to worry about. On the other hand, if you asked me what my “issues” are as a voter, national security is at the top right now.
Viewtifulgare on August 25, 2007 at 7:12 PM
He’s not really spinning. Strictly speaking, a denomination is considered “evangelical” if they profess that man is redeemed solely by the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ (the gospel = euangellion = evangel). This would include all mainline Protestant denominations since it was soteriological issues that caused Luther to nail the theses on the Church door at Wittenberg in protest of the Roman Catholic church that was teaching that certain sins, which resulted in longer stays in purgatory, could be covered if you were to give money to the Roman Catholic church. (when the coin in the cup rings, the soul in purgatory springs). Thus, everything from Episcopalian to Baptists can be understood as “Evangelical.” In terms of “pop-communication”, however, Evangelical has simply been reduced to a conservative who is also NOT a Catholic.
Weight of Glory on August 25, 2007 at 7:12 PM
What is suprising is question 5. They beleive al-Qaeda did it, wow.
Theworldisnotenough on August 25, 2007 at 7:13 PM
I know a lot of ‘evalgelicals’, as a lot live in my region. Without a doubt, the evangelicals around here are far closer to the perspective of mainstream Americans than 90% of major media journalists.
petefrt on August 25, 2007 at 7:14 PM
This idiocy isn’t even worthy of a response… first of all, polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of the country are creationists… they don’t use that word, but when asked about where we came from, it’s creationist belief all the way.
That said, we’re expected to believe evangelicals are out on the fringe? Please. I just can’t even begin to express just how stupid I feel this poll has to be. I’m not sure what sort of oddball group they polled to come to their conclusions, but the fact that national security/immigration/jobs don’t show up as priorities is completely ridiculous, and reveals the poll to be bullsh**.
Folks, perhaps the media has lead you to believe that “evangelicals” are some whacked out fringe group, but they aren’t… they’re your neighbors and coworkers and people you are surrounded by every day, and they are the only thing that keeps an ounce of conservatism in the Republican Party.
I suppose one would have to know what the pollsters consider “evangelical”. Did they go to a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness’s church? Or did they go talk to any chunk of the tens upon tens of millions of Americans?
RightWinged on August 25, 2007 at 7:15 PM
That same half (if not more than half) most likely couldn’t give you 10 correct quotes from the bible or at the least name 10 books from the bible.
frreal on August 25, 2007 at 7:16 PM
The point is that Protestant is a term that means all Christians not Catholic
It is in the Bible that Christians are to be ‘fishers of men’ regardless of what any individual Church claims to say. The Bible says that Jesus won’t return until the Gospel is proclaimed in the four corners of the Earth, and everyone is given the opportunity to hear and accept Jesus.
So the idea that you are a Christian, you are not a Catholic, and you are ‘not Protestant’ is impossible. There are no non-Catholic Christians who are not Protestant.
I believe the definition Allah would come back with (or any media outlet) would be that Evangelicals believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and no Catholics are ‘Evangelical Christians’. To which I would reply that I would hope that the Pope believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
But all Christians not Catholic are Protestant by definition. I don’t know the exact definition of ‘Evangelical’ which is why I asked for clarification of whether or not Catholics could also be Evangelical.
ThackerAgency on August 25, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Hate to break it to you but, you are protestant, both historically speaking and in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. And in fact, as a Southern Baptist, you should be familiar with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. That is where I got my theological training and that institution has moved decidedly in the direction of the reformation. To the extant that many of the Baptist Churched in Louisville have renamed themselves “Reformed Baptists”. This means that they hold to the same five Solas of Luther (Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.). In fact, the only dif. between Southern Baptists and Presbyterians now is a different ecclesiastical formation, and infant baptism.
Weight of Glory on August 25, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Like giving to non-profit charities, we are no doubt different from the mainstream. We feed more poor, take in more abused family members, help in more disasters, build more hospitals, feed more homeless, give more time to hospitals, support Boy and Girl Scouts, help families build a new life, yep, we are different.
right2bright on August 25, 2007 at 7:24 PM
What surprises me is, that there are atheists on conservative blogs!
Even Paul (Saul,Bible) said,
If the dead are not raised,”Let us eat and drink,for tomorrow we die.”
.
Why would you hold conservative values dear (morals, truth, honor, honesty, etc.) when there’s no consequence for bad behavior, according to atheism? And do you atheists really TRUST HUMAN NATURE that much, to believe anything you hear from others who have no fear of God?
.
Atheists could/SHOULD have a lot more fun than Christians, because if we (Christians) are wrong, there’s no point in not partying! (otoh, big “Whoops!” if we’re right!…LOL)
.
About the “Christian” element in Digg surveys….I know lots of people who call themselves Christians, but can’t tell you which end of the Bible has Jesus.
.
You could just as easily draw the conclusion that heavy WII use is repsonsible for developing support for Barack Obama.
Keith_Z on August 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM
What the hell is pastafarian??
DakRoland on August 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM
hey digg is awesome…yea the commenters and such are far left wackos, but still, digg’s awesome for killing boredom at work among other things
ernesto on August 25, 2007 at 7:35 PM
As Gomer Pile would say: “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”
Christians have known for a VERY long time that their priorities are fundamentally different from mainstream America. It is laughable that secular people are only NOW discovering this. If they had bothered to ask some Christians a few questions, they’d have known this long ago.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
The Eastern Orthodox Churches might be inclined to disagree.
So would I. I’m a non-denominational evangelical Christian, and I do not define my beliefs in terms of protesting the Catholic Church.
Nosferightu on August 25, 2007 at 7:39 PM
The original definition of Evangelical is translated as either “Good News” or “Gospel”, in context of a literal interpretation of the Bible. At least this is what Martin Luther intended when he started using the word Evangelical in context of what we now call Protestant Christianity. Except that Martin Luther wasn’t trying to create a separate protestant church, but simply to reform Roman Catholicism.
Most Protestants here in American using the term Evangelical do not understand that it originated as a term to identify between orthodox Roman Catholics or the 17th century and the early Catholics attempting to reform Catholicism.
So, effectively, what it really means when we identify ourselves as Evangelical is that we identify with the catholic (universal) Christian church as defined by the Apostles according to the Gospel.
The irony is that whenever we attach the term evangelical in context of American Evangelical Protestantism we create a logical contradiction between the term Evangelical (as in universal apostolic catholicism) and current day Protestant (as in other than Catholic).
Can we really be Apostolic Catholics (Evangelical) while at the same time not be Catholic (Protestant)?
So:
Am I Evangelical? Yes.
Am I Roman Catholic? No.
Do I consider myself Protestant? Not really.
Herein the problem with American Christianity and how we influence American culture. We do not have two factions, we actually have three.
Think about it folks. Until we Christians come to grips with this we can’t really expect our non-Christian and secular friends to take our views with all that much seriousness.
Lawrence on August 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I’m an evangelical in seminary, so now you know another.
Hening on August 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM
After thinking about it, I oversimplified the differences between So. Baptists and Prezbies. In addition to form of church govt. and infant baptism, Baptists also don’t adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, nor the Heidelberg Catechism. The differences are big, but my underlying point that So. Baptists are rediscovering their protestant roots in the Reformation still stands.
Weight of Glory on August 25, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Well, I consider myself to be an evangelical and understand the term to have come from the Greek word for gospel or good news.
I’ll take the five solas Weight of Glory mentioned above and use them to define the term.
Solus Christus: Salvation is found in Christ alone,
Sola gratia: Salvation is by the grace of God alone
Sola fide: Salvation is received through faith alone (works do not save).
Sola scriptura: Scripture alone is the infallible Word of God and alone the authority for doctrine and life of the Christian.
Soli Deo gloria: Finally, glory is given to God alone.
That said, I looked at Barna’s survey and I was appalled at some of the priorities. I would have put the health of Christian churches at the top of the list instead of at the bottom, because I believe this is the main improvement that would be the tipping point for everything else. I don’t consider the church at large in American to be in a real healthy state. As Christians, we truly need to live what we profess to believe, and then I think the ripple effect would be profound.
INC on August 25, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Sorry, I didn’t pull things together. I would say that in my understanding, an evangelical adheres to the five Solas.
INC on August 25, 2007 at 8:00 PM
You misunderstand. PROTESTANT has nothing to do with how you orient your Christian faith with regard to the Catholic Church. Before the reformation, you could not be Christian and not be Catholic. All Christians were Catholic.
AFTER the reformation, the term Protestant was given to Christians other than Catholics BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Protestant isn’t how you orient YOUR faith with regards to the Catholic Church, Protestant is how the Catholic Church considers your non-Catholic Christianity to be.
By your post, you are making me look like an Anti-Catholic bigot – which I am not. I consider Catholics to be Christians even though I know they don’t consider me as a NON-DENOMINATIONAL PROTESTANT to be a Chrstian.
I’m sure you define your beliefs based on the Bible as do I. The Catholic Church can say or do whatever and I don’t care. I don’t watch the Catholic Church just to ‘Protest’ what they say as a Christian. I don’t care what the Pope or the Catholic Church has to say about Christianity – makes me a Protestant.
THIS IS WHY I AM A HERMIT AND ASSOCIATE WITH PEOPLE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. I HATE BEING MISUNDERSTOOD SO I’LL JUST SHUT UP AND MAKE SURE THAT THE MEDIA CAN CONTINUE TO BASH AWAY AT SOME MYTHICAL ‘EVANGELICAL’ WITHOUT DEFINING WHO EXACTLY THIS POPULATION OF PEOPLE ARE.
‘EVANGELICALS’ are becoming the ‘jihadis’ of the Christian world because of the media, and people seem to be proud of it. This is my point. I am not ‘evangelical’. I am Christian #1, and I am a Protestant #2.
Enjoy being vilified as an evangelical. I’m just the messenger trying to point this out. It’s been getting more prevalant as time goes by and I’m trying to make good Christians aware of it.
ThackerAgency on August 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Evangelical, Southern Baptist, seminary grad, and Theistic Evolutionist. Now you know an Evangelical Theistic Evolutionist.
jediwebdude on August 25, 2007 at 8:03 PM
This is why I love it when AP provides us with these types of posts. I learn more about each commenter, and it is really neat.
Weight of Glory on August 25, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Here’s one more. Woohoo!
GoodBoy on August 25, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Money quote: “Overall, evangelical Christians stood out as the segment that holds views that are most dissimilar from the typical perspectives of Americans.”
Wait a second, don’t evangelical Christians still make up a very large part of the people of this country? This would be like saying that Hindus hold views most dissimilar from the typical perspectives of Indians, simply because there also happens to be a greater than statistically significant number of Muslims and other faiths also residing there.
CR UVa on August 25, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Wrong… Orthodox, Anabapists, etc..
If you’re this unhinged then it’s probably best that you’re a hermit.
Oh my, you’re also a hyperbolic drama queen.
VinceP1974 on August 25, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Please know that that was never my intention, and that I do acknowledge that I am in fact a Protestant. My discomfort with the term stems from its association with the sort of mainline, left-wing, anti-America, pro-Communist, pro-Soviet sort of Protestant church that I grew up in (ELCA). Even though I believe in the basic teachings of Protestantist, I have trouble identifying with it in general when you see churches like the ELCA and Presbyterian Church USA (for example) supporting Palestinian Fascism and condemning Israel.
Nosferightu on August 25, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Not according to this poll:
“Currently, evangelicals represent 8% of the national adult population.”
Whatever their definition of “evangelical” is, it must be an extremely narrow one.
Emilie H. on August 25, 2007 at 9:09 PM
I grew up a Lutheran, the original Protestants, and I never heard the word evangelical. It seems to be a US phenomenon. An evangelical is traditionally someone who strongly supports, or proselytizes, his religion. Catholic evangelicals do the same.
jihadwatcher on August 25, 2007 at 9:16 PM
As a practicing Lutheran I do not consider myself an evangelical, in the current sense of the word. I do not believe that one can make a decision to embrace Christ (only the work of the Holy Spirit), I believe in the presence of the True Body and Blood in the Eucharist, in infant Baptism, and in the separation of two kingdoms.
Kimmer on August 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Wow.. who-da thunk it. That’s almost as shocking as the sun coming up in the morning. Goofy poll.
Maxx on August 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM
23% of Americans want to vote for Ron Paul? HA!
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 9:57 PM
FYI, they define “evangelical” at the end of the poll.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2007 at 10:01 PM
at least I’m not the only one who doesn’t know what a pastafarian is
drmanyee on August 25, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Every time I read it I get a little choked up, honestly. Thanks for doing it.
Thanks for pointing it out, AP. As you can imagine, I was the kid who didn’t read all the directions on the hand out before beginning the assignment. By the time I got to the last direction it read, “don’t do any of the other tasks, put you head on you desk, and wait for the teacher to take your handout.” I would then look up and see that all but me and the kid who wets his pants had their heads down. Thanks for that 2nd grade flashback.
Having finally read how they defined “evangelical,” I am very surprised as to how thorough they were. Their definition was very reasonable and would certainly capture the target group. This makes the results even more interesting. Gonna’ think about it some more.
Weight of Glory on August 25, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I’ve been a faithful reader of Barna’s stuff for many years now. While a majority of the country calls itself Christian, to qualify as “evangelical” according to Barna, you have to believe a number of things that apparently not all Christians believe. Among them: That Satan is real, salvation by grace not works, The Bible is accurate in all it teaches, “Faith is very important to me today”, a personal responsibility to share the Gospel with non-believers… and there is more. According to Barna, only 8% of Americans are “evangelical.” The Bible says we are a peculiar people indeed! (some of us more than others :-)
BTW, I work at a Christian Radio Network.
Ordinary1 on August 25, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Sorry ’bout that, bro. Hey, look at the bright side … uh … never mind.
Jaibones on August 25, 2007 at 10:59 PM
s
A pastafarian is someone who whose dreadlocks resemble rotini.
jihadwatcher on August 25, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Great…now how do they plan on doing this? If its wielding the government like their own personal hammer, I’m out. If its through the principles of conservatism and they plan to reap the benefits, fine. If the plan becomes to create the Morality Police, I’m out too. I dunno what I’ll do, but I’m not gonna be under the thumb of a big gov’t Nanny State, from the left or right.
Bad Candy on August 25, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Here it is:
I still don’t buy it. I have no evidence of misleading, so I’m not going to claim to… but common sense says their conclusions are BS. I don’t know if it’s who they chose to poll, the multiple choice options they were given, etc. but something just doesn’t fit.
RightWinged on August 25, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Wait. Where’s the “Establishing a theocratic government headed by Pastor Bush” priority? It should be #1 (if you listen to the evangelical-haters on DU and DK).
JinxMcHue on August 25, 2007 at 11:21 PM
You know what disturbs me most? Not one mention of reducing the size of government, not one mention of reducing taxes, not one mention of protection of personal liberties. God friggin’ help us.
Oh, and investment in environmental protection, moral content in entertainment? The hell is that?
Bad Candy on August 25, 2007 at 11:23 PM
No one wants a nanny state or theocracy. I’m thinkin’ evangelicals want America to stay free so that all walks of life can stand up for what they believe in. A lot of us see marriage being undermined, so we favor marriage as defined by one man and one woman. We believe abortion is the killing of unborn children, so we fight against abortion in our courthouses and statehouses. Having said that, there are just as many divorces in the church as in the “world.” I think the three concerns listed are more a matter of personal belief and choice. Those thoughts and actions are best achieved through a close personal relationship with Jesus. The more people there are walking closely with Him, the more the country will change from the inside.
Ordinary1 on August 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Read on RightWinged…
Ordinary1 on August 25, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Yeah, maybe, except that morality in entertainment and protecting the environment bit. Beyond that, there is the whole poverty thing? What does that mean? Do they mean using the gov’t to do it, or reducing gov’t and doing it themselves. Cuz if its the former, I’m not gonna handle it well.
I’ll be honest, I don’t even know why religious get bugged out about gay marriage, which is what I assume the marriage point is in the poll was. Gays and religious are giving the gov’t way too much power on that one.
Bad Candy on August 25, 2007 at 11:37 PM
I’m thinkin’ “evangelicals” are more concerned about Spiritual things. The war on terror is important, but what can compare to strong families and churches that come from a strong Faith and contribute to others coming to faith! Jesus is more concerned about where people spend eternity than anything else!
Ordinary1 on August 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Absolutely true. This is just another case of the secular community trying to understand evangelical Christians from a secular standpoint. It just doesn’t work that way.
JinxMcHue on August 25, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Did anybody even read the ground rules of the poll before just skipping to the results? He did not ask that each one of those issues be ranked in overall importance, but asked they be ranked by how much each person thinks changes need to made relating to each one of the issues.
If after 6 years with no terrorist attack Christians feel issues closer to home like taking care of children need more attention than increased focus on national security, I don’t see the problem. I’m not what I’d call an evangelical Christian and I’ve been to church one time in 25 years, but I’d rather see school vouchers made universal than have the government do more for security. That doesn’t mean I don’t want both, but I absolutely believe that universal vouchers for parents and destroying the teacher’s union would do more for America than putting more attention and resources into increased focus on national security.
Patrick H on August 26, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Islam is dysangelical.
(From the root that includes dyspepsia, dysmenorrhea and dysentery.)
Mohammadism: Spread the dread.
profitsbeard on August 26, 2007 at 3:48 AM
Martin Luther is the person who made the term Evangelical a common descriptor for modern Christian identity. Virtually every Lutheran church in Europe, and most of the Lutheran churches in America and other nations, have Evangelical either in their name or identify as evangelical on their documents and lawn signs.
This is because the Americanized version of Evangelical has been redefined (eg: jihadwatchers, notes above). What we in North American debate regarding Evangelical, is definitely a unique North American phenomenon. The rest of Christendom do not have this identity problem. (and BTW, Kimmer, I’m on your side on this.)
As I said before, if we Christians can’t sort this out for ourselves we can’t expect our non-Christian friends to get it right for us.
Lawrence on August 26, 2007 at 8:36 AM
Thanks for the Reminder, Allah.
Quoted from the Article:
“Evangelicals” are people who meet the born again criteria (described below) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.”
This definition of Evangelical, the ‘conditions’ noted above, correctly reflect the uniquely North American version. This does not, however, reflect the original Greek definition of the term, nor does it reflect how the early 17th century Christians used the term. In the original sense the only condition on being Evangelical was to embrace Christ (Christ’s Gospel, Christ’s Good News message) as the true and exclusive fulfillment of the Hebrew/Jewish Messianic prophecy.
So… what’s the difference between the new and old definitions? It is a matter of understanding the following context.
Evangelical in the original sense was used to focus on what Christ does for us in gifting salvation regardless of what we first do. What we have redefined Evangelical to mean in North America reflects that we must first do something for Christ before salvation can be granted. It puts the onus or our salvation on ourselves rather than on Christ, and we end up completely missing the point of the Gospel in the first place.
The temptation to embrace this new North American definition of evangelical is a very sneaky temptation to use our uniquely American cultural ideology of self-determination to subvert or perspective on the Gospel. While self-determination is great in context of the world, it reflects just the opposite of what Christ actually taught in context of spiritual salvation. The end result is Christians who are trying to make their religion look like their world, rather than making their world look like their religion. A pretty sneaky and obvious temptation for Satan to trap us in, but effective none-the-less.
Lawrence on August 26, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Keith_Z on August 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Um, I’m not technically an atheist, but I dispute the notion that one needs faith in a god to be conservative. I consider myself a nontheist, and I am pulled strongly towards many Taoist beliefs. That being said, I also consider myself a conservative. I have morals and honesty. I just don’t need a deity to dictate these concepts to me… it’s come to me without the benefit of God.
As to my background, for any curious, my family is predominately Catholic, with a few Jewish relatives left (who didn’t convert) living in the Old Country. My mother, who raised me, is liberal, lesbian, and residually religious. My husband and his family are Lutherin.
the goddess anna on August 26, 2007 at 10:16 AM
The digg poll is complete crap.
Mitt! understands this and is the only viable candidate (along with Huckabee) that has the standing to speak to this issue. fred? has a history of womanizing and is on his second marriage. Rudy is even worse. McCain is the same. Thus the third leg of the stool which is Mitts! plan for this country. Expect Mitt! to address the #1 issue eventually with a promise to help strengthen and protect Christian churches from the “progressives” and the “cults”, even though in their eyes, he is a “cultist”.
As far as the definition of evangelicals are concerned, I have no problem with most of what they believe until we get to this….
The idea that the bible has survived two thousand years in the hands of those who are not ordained of God (starting with the death of the last apostle and it’s most egregious attack on the original teachings: The Council at Nicaea) is a stretch and is an underlying cause for the results of this poll. Evangelicals have a different focus than those who place their future in their own hands instead of pre-ordained scripture teaching.
Here is a little tidbit that will give some insight into the weight given by evangelicals to the health of their churches.
Many evangelical churches have moved away from straight proselytizing towards attacking those churches they arrogantly judge as “cults”. These pastors have a legitimate fear of losing their membership because people are turning away from them towards other faiths (and taking their tithes with them). They create bad guys (Harry Potter, Mormons, Catholics, etc) in the minds of their congregations and insist that they are under attack by them. When you add those imagined bad guys to the real bad guys (progressives, corrupt pastors, etc), it’s understandable that a lot of evangelicals will seek to protect the basic foundation of their lives. Their church.
csdeven on August 26, 2007 at 10:38 AM
.
That’s not what I said, Anna. I asked the question, “Why would you be conservative, if you don’t believe in God? Paul asked the early Christians, why NOT drink and party as if there’s no tomorrow, because, if there’s no God, there’s certainly no heaven or hell to anticipate. You die…that’s it.
.
With all due respect, Anna, turn on the TV and watch the “goodness” of human nature at work. We all sin and consider ourselves “moral” and “honest”, but the TRUTH is that we all lie and deceive and do things we know aren’t right. I met a DRUG DEALER one time who considered himself “moral”!…lol
.
The difference between you and Christians is that we believe that we are held ACCOUNTABLE to God, and you are accountable to …….who?……yourself?
.
I’m not being critical….just pointing out the fallacy of trusting something like the “goodness” of human nature with your eternal destiny.
.
Please re-read what I wrote in my first note. I really wasn’t trying to say that atheists couldn’t be conservative…justing asking why they would want to saddle themselves with limiting behavior while not believing in consequences hereafter.
Keith_Z on August 26, 2007 at 11:35 AM
A polls ability to accurately determine any meaningful information is predicated upon the presuppositions inherent in the questions asked.
doriangrey on August 26, 2007 at 12:07 PM
I totally disagree with that statement. You seem to be equating sin with fun, as if all fun is sinful. Baloney. We as Christians should be having plenty of fun, because we are living in the freedom and forgiveness of salvation, rather than under the condemnation of the law of sin and death.
Not only does this type of erroneous assumption give non-believers a distorted picture of what Christianity is all about, it holds Christians back from living in the freedom we’ve been given.
infidel4life on August 26, 2007 at 12:14 PM
WoW, csdeven! You took two swipes at historical orthodox Christianity in that statement: one having to do with the scholarly discipline of Textual Criticism (studying the preservation of the NT in its transmission from the original texts), and the other the confessional statements that arose from Nicaea in 325. You comments fascinate me, and I would love to have you explain them in detail. This probably isn’t the place to do it so just email me your thoughts if you want: ckdewitt2@yahoo.com. I will just say this, as a student of textual criticism, the Old and New Testaments are the most accurate ancient writings that the world possesses, in terms of their accuracy to the originals. Of the Papri texts we have the entire gospels at the early third century A.D. This places that copy just over 200 years from the writing of the originals, and in terms of copies to originals, that proximity is unheard of. That proximity happens with several Papri texts:P1, P4, P22, etc. In terms of the entire New Testament we have four complete codices: codex Siniaticus, codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. All date no later than the 400’s A.D. Not only in terms of chronological proximity, but also in geographical proximity the NT stands in a class all its own. Another criteria is number of copies of the NT and parts of the NT we have. This allows scholars to compare back and forth to see where copies differ and determine why the differed. There is a whole classification of transcribal mistakes that account for most of the copying errors. So again please, please, write me why you thought that it is unreasonable to assume that the text of the NT has not been preserved. For, if you can say that the NT hasn’t been preserved, then there is no room to even begin to think that the Odyssey and the Iliad, or Virgil, or Plato, or Aristotle, represent what the original authors wrote.
I hope you’re still out there. If you want grab the book. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism by J. Harold Greenlee.
Weight of Glory on August 26, 2007 at 12:14 PM
I checked out question #9 in the Digg survey and looked at the “other” religions that people had picked – you’d be surprised at how many people picked “jedi” as their religion.
pullingmyhairout on August 26, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Define “evangelical”? Do they mean the guys on TV pointing their bony fingers at me telling me how to be a “real Christian”? Then I’m not an “evangelical”… I am, however, a Christian!
sabbott on August 26, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I read some posts above and now understand. I too am a practicing Lutheran. I do not believe sinful man capable of “making a decision for Christ”. This is a terrible doctrine! I also believe in infant babtism and the means of Grace through the Sacrements of Babtism and Holy Communion. TV Christianity is presenting a very law based religion that the Bible does not teach. The Law was given to show man that he is utterly helpless to obey God’s Holy standard and must reach for the Cross at Calvary for his salvation. It was never intended to beat Christians over the head!
sabbott on August 26, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Keith_Z on August 26, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I would think the answer to that would be incredibly obvious. While a atheist does not believe in God that does not mean they believe that their actions are free of consequences.
Morality is for the atheist an acceptance of reality and the consequences that their actions have on their lives and the lives of those that they care about.
Their lack of belief in god does not mean that they believe they can do anything they want and never suffer any consequences.
On the contrary they often have a stronger sense of justice because their lack of belief in god means that they do not have a safety net. In other words, god isn’t going to come to their rescue, he wont ensure that their children are protected. He wont protect their rights or property.
For the atheist their lack of belief means god isn’t going to settle accounts and make the evil pay for their evil deeds. And if god doesn’t exist to do those things that only leaves them to do it.
Dont make the mistake of believing that atheists are incapable of falling in love or caring about people or even being offended by injustice. They are human beings who simply do not believe that god exists, not soulless automatons.
doriangrey on August 26, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Amen! All men (and women) are created in God’s imagine (whether they acknowledge it or not). God is justice. Non-believer’s seek justice. It’s God’s imagine in them. God is creative. Non-believer’s are creative. God has emotions… well, you get the idea. Since all people are created in God’s imagine, they are ALL to be given the proper respect. (sometimes we respectfully disagree :-) God loves them the same as everyone else! That’s why He wants them to become His children by accepting His Son!
Ordinary1 on August 26, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I forgot to mention that scholars have thousands of manuscripts of the NT that allow for and incredibly high level of certainty in determining whether a text is accurate. Other ancient texts only have a few dozen manuscripts and date to the 11th century or further.
Weight of Glory on August 26, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Keith,
I’d respond, but I do believe that doriangrey put it much better than me.
I personally don’t find being conservative to be limiting, but maybe that’s just me. : )
the goddess anna on August 26, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Gee, I guess a whole lotta Orthodox Christians are gonna be suprised to learn they’re Protestants.
corona on August 26, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Pastafarian – Bald Rastafarian man that relies on un-cooked Ronzoni Tortalini for dreadlocks.
Hening on August 26, 2007 at 3:40 PM
O.K., revealing details here just because the issue’s been raised: I’m a Catholic. I also hold most if not all the same opinions for the same perspectives as does M. Malkin on illegal immigration. And I’m a Conservative (read, non-Liberal, non-Socialist) Catholic. I also am dedicated to the Bible, the Old AND the New Testament (thus, a Christian, as I said).
I have received my share of nasty denigrations on the internet from others — calling me affiliated with various ethnic-supremacy and/or racial-supremacy groups (none of which I am). I’ve never even visited nor do I read any websites that are so affiliated; thus, my opinions are my own and are not affiliated with groups, anti-this or anti-that, other than I’m not keen on many Liberal demands (and, therefore, like I said, I’m a Conservative), due to (mostly) my own moral and theological beliefs.
Anyway, after being called various You’reANazi/You’reAFascist/You’reAStoneMountainManiac/whatevers, I went over to one of the most often named sites that is used by most Liberals to denigrate Conservatives as to most things socio-political, and, what did I find there, but, Ron Paul supporters. A LOT of Ron Paul supporters. Fund raisers for Paul. Propogandaists for Paul. You name it, they’re there.
So, after hearing a lot of the denigrations and nasties from Nameless Anonymous on the internet as to me and my type of Conservative (who are not supporting Ron Paul), by Paul supporters (who allege to be “conservatives” though they do tend to display a lot of denigration of anyone who doesn’t support Paul), I’ve come to this conclusion: Ron Paul is a Liberal construct.
His supporters are Liberals, they’re trying to re-phrase or re-position (or, “own”) the term and it’s meaning, “Conservative” for counter-purposes.
By “counter-purposes” I mean that they represent politics that aren’t Conservative, beliefs that are not necessarily faith-based so much as they are dogma intense (they quote the Bible a lot and lay claim to that, too, but they don’t appear to live much as to Christian principle, as to how they behave on the internet), they aren’t even enforcement-first as to immigration so much as they are Libertarian Open-Borders people: do away with restrictions and thus, do away with problematic conditions.
I can’t say that applies to all Ron Paul supporters I’ve encountered but the one grain that runs consistently through all that I have is that they all support various 9/11 conspiracies (that blame the U.S. and/or Israel for the terrorist events of 9/11 and also disbelieve that the Pentagon was impacted by a jet plane), and, they all seem oddly anti-everyone else, as if all of America was their enemy (but Bush certainly is their enemy, what with the worst cases of BDS I’ve ever seen being among Paul supporters), and, they ALL consistently use the very same language (terms, expressions) as can be found on any given day or night on places such as DU and HuffPo.
Thus, I conclude, they’re all Liberals. It’s a role-playing game for them, as to them as “conservatives” and Paul as their “Republican” candidate. Role-playing, as in, theatrical behavior to create and indulge staging event.
S on August 26, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Haven’t read all the previous comments yet but to ThackerAgency, yes, Evangelicals can be Catholics and Catholics can be (and some have been and still are) Evangelicals.
Evangilizing is an action. Christianity and Catholicism (and Protestantism) are not actions, per se, but are beliefs, beliefs all as to the Holy Divinity of Jesus Christ as God’s only son who was born a man, lived a man, was resurrected as Divine and lives today as God’s only son, our Savior — the rest that separate the divisions among Christians are various beliefs other than that primary one, which is the defining belief that defines a Christian).
For example, Bishop Fulton Sheen (a Catholic Bishop) was most certainly an Evangelical. But he was a Catholic. A Catholic who evangelized.
Among sects among Christians, there are some Protestants who call themselves “Evangelicals” as a denomination. But MOST Christians use the term, “Evangelical” to describe a behavior, an act of evangelizing before men.
Now I’ll go read the rest of the comments here…
S on August 26, 2007 at 3:53 PM
And, another example of a Catholic who was most decidedly an Evangelical is/was Saint Patrick. Look how he Evangelized Ireland, if not the British Isles, all, by way of his work.
S on August 26, 2007 at 3:55 PM
ThackerAgency, what you wrote there (^^) is exactly right.
Christians are defined by belief in the Divinity (and human birth and life of Christ while also Divine, as also his death and resurrection and through belief in Him, welcome to eternal life) of Jesus Christ. After that, there are denominations and conditions and also other beliefs that modify one’s situation and faith, but, the primary defining belief by which one is a Christian or not is belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Him as Lamb of God, sacrifice for the sins of Man through his life and death and resurrection.
To be an Evangelist, is to Evangelize. Saint Paul was an Evangelist, an Evangelical, as were most if not all the Disciples in the New Testament. Certainly Saint Peter was. I just learned yesterday that even King Louis of France (or, Saint Louis) was an Evangelical Christian (also a Catholic).
S on August 26, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Lawrence, exactly (^^). Evangelicals spread the Gospel, or, rather, more specifically, share the Good News, the Word of God.
S on August 26, 2007 at 4:10 PM
By your post, you are making me look like an Anti-Catholic bigot – which I am not. I consider Catholics to be Christians even though I know they don’t consider me as a NON-DENOMINATIONAL PROTESTANT to be a Christian.
ThackerAgency on August 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Uh-uh. No Catholic who knows anything about their faith would say that. All ‘Protestants’ (I always call them ‘non-Catholic Christians’ for the very reasons listed by the non-Catholic Christians above) and all Evangelicals are Christians, the Catholic Church (and Catholics) say.
In fact, as a Catholic Christian myself, I usually get it the other way around. Not all, but MANY non-denominational Christians have said I’m not Christian because I’m Catholic. Just sayin’.
inviolet on August 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM
That is really sad and frustrating. I’m sorry that happens.
Weight of Glory on August 26, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Yes, it is really sad and frustrating but it does happen and happens quite often. I read a lot of “voodoo” level denigration of Catholics and the Catholic Church online, written by allegedly “non-denominational Christians…”
Yes, it’s really sad and frustrating. We should all pray for one another, and often.
S on August 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM
We should all pray for one another, and often.
Amen to that. And I do, often. Jesus wants us all to be one; it’s one of the last things He prayed for before He was crucified (John 17:20-21).
inviolet on August 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I think some of us non-denominational Christians take slight offense to the proclamations of “God’s One True Church” ™ on occasion. Not me, though.
I repeated a joke I heard recently to my brothers in a local church men’s group, and it went something like this:
A young Italian man is worrying; he’s invited his girlfriend home to dinner with his extended family. She African-American, and he’s worried that his Grandmother will be upset because she’s not Italian. Grandma assures him he should bring her.
But the day comes, and his grandmother is gracious and loving and treats her like a daughter.
Some months later, he has a new girlfriend – a Jewish girl – and the scenario plays out again, the same way. Not to worry, Grandma treats her like a daughter and they all laugh and have a wonderful meal.
It’s a year later, and the young man is proudly announcing to his family that he has a new girlfriend – a beautiful Italian girl! – and he wants to have her home for dinner. He tells Grandma about her, and she looks closely at him, unsmiling — “what part of Italy?” she demands.
This is how Christians seem to relate to the other world. The Jews are our ancestors and brothers, the Muslims are distant cousins with strange beliefs, but welcome, the atheists, we pray for their awakening. The Methodists? Good Lord, no!
Jaibones on August 26, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Jaibones on August 26, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Yea, kind of reminds me of a self-deprecating joke we have here in California, (nondenominational christian here)”The Christian Army…The only army on earth that kills its own wounded…before they even get wounded…”
doriangrey on August 26, 2007 at 6:12 PM
LOL–how true!
How I wish we Christians would accept each other: “In fundamentals, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.”
C.S. Lewis (one of my top 10 favorite writers, and BTW a former atheist and Anglican Christian) says [I'm totally paraphrasing] “those Christians who are the most committed to Christ and the most orthodox within their own denomination, are in fact closer to one another than those who are at the fringes of their denomination, willing to trade a false ‘unity’ for fidelity to their conscience.” (Blast it, I can’t locate the quote just now – anyone have it handy?)
Fear not, fellow Christians. It is for us to be faithful to Christ first, committed to that expression of fidelity within the denomination, or non-denomination, we are persuaded He wants us in, and to pray for our unity. Discussion and apologetics are wonderful, and needed, but it’s not our job to change our fellow Christians. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job, not ours, to bring about the eventual unity for which Christ prayed and which therefore WILL come to pass. And I suspect there will be some surprises on all sides when this happens. :)
inviolet on August 26, 2007 at 6:30 PM
It seems many Americans’ thinking about politics would be improved if they were to ponder the useful distinction between problems that are national and problems that are nationwide.
Kralizec on August 26, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Comment pages: