PDA

View Full Version : Strength of US evangelicals big myth



GenX
07-19-2008, 09:40 AM
"The biggest media story about numbers of Christians over the past decade has actually been about the various evangelical churches, their booming numbers and their political influence. We have been told often that a quarter of all Americans are evangelicals, and that the support of this enormous number of ultra conservatives has kept George Bush in office.

A book recently published in America casts doubt on both claims, particularly the first, suggesting that they comprise one of the big myths of our time. It's a myth that has flourished because it suits the interests of both evangelical leaders and those on the political left who have been so worried about evangelicalism.

Christine Wicker is a former religious reporter for the Dallas Morning News. She was "saved" at the age of nine in an Oklahoma City Southern Baptist Church, and these days she's a Christian, but not an evangelical. In The Fall Of The Evangelical Nation (HarperOne), she set out to count America's evangelicals. What she found surprised even her.

The standard story is that there are 54million adult and 21million child evangelicals. They are, in Wicker's words, "people who have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour and as the only way to heaven, [and] who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God".

In political terms they are sometimes known as "the religious right" or "value voters". Their leaders have the capacity and the will to tell them how to vote and get them to the polling booths (important in a country with voluntary voting). The leaders have used this influence to affect government policy on matters such as abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of creationism in schools.

There is some truth in this picture, but not nearly as much as has been claimed. First, the numbers. The figure of 25 per cent comes from people identifying themselves as evangelicals in opinion polls.

But once you dig further you find the figure has little significance, either religiously or politically. The respected pollster George Barna found that when you start to ask these people if they agree with specific evangelical beliefs (such as the literal accuracy of the Bible), the numbers drop away. A large proportion of evangelicals are not conservative or fundamentalist. They're so-called "progressive" evangelicals such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Evangelicals are supposed to attend church. Part of the myth, after all, is that their pastors have the ability to "deliver" the vote of their congregation. But when you start to count the number of people who actually attend church, the number of evangelicals shrinks further.

But even attending church is no indicator that a person is a hard-core evangelical. Wicker points out that many people go for social reasons: the big, well-funded churches provide an astonishing range of amenities and services, especially appealing to people such as young families and migrants.

When you look at behaviour, you find the average member of a congregation is far more typical of the average American than of any fundamentalist bogy figure. Various polls and studies have found there is no - or almost no - difference between the moral behaviour of Americans who say they are born-again Christians and those who say they are not when it comes to issues such as premarital sex, adultery and abortion.

Wicker says attendance at some sort of prayer group is necessary before a person can be categorised as a fervent conservative of the sort conjured up in the lurid stories of the evangelical dominance of politics. After many pages of searching and calculating, she concludes this number makes up just 7 per cent of Americans."

"A big part of the myth has been that the number of evangelicals has been growing. In fact, the movement is in decline. That figure of 7 per cent is down from 12 per cent in 1991. Wicker tells stories of the failure of evangelicals to attract new members in recent times. Individual churches that have grown rapidly have often done so by attracting members from other churches.

In other words, while the media have been telling us that core evangelicalism has been booming, it has actually shrunk almost by half.

Why did we get the story so wrong? One reason is that many evangelical leaders constantly exaggerated the numbers to increase their own importance. This got them a lot of publicity in the media, which was important given the entrepreneurial nature of much of their professional activity. In some cases they were able to persuade politicians to introduce policies they wanted, which further increased the profiles of the leaders involved"

LINK (http://www.smh.com.au/news/michael-duffy/strength-of-us-evangelicals-is-one-of-the-big-myths-of-our-time/2008/07/18/1216163153159.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

Soundbear
07-19-2008, 09:47 AM
An unbiased report, no doubt.

And I really don't get "It's a myth that has flourished because it suits the interests ....those on the political left who have been so worried about evangelicalism."

Seems to me that, IF it was a myth, the left would be happy.

Whatever. Sheep and goats.

GenX
07-19-2008, 09:49 AM
The Left is happy because they then can make the Evangelicals out to be some scary monster who will destroy the political process and democracy in its wake. It also makes it look like they are fighting a much larger foe than they really are.

Soundbear
07-19-2008, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Left is happy because they then can make the Evangelicals out to be some scary monster who will destroy the political process and democracy in its wake. ..... </div></div>

How interesting. That seems to be YOUR reason for attacking evangelicals. How bizarre is that??

GenX
07-19-2008, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Left is happy because they then can make the Evangelicals out to be some scary monster who will destroy the political process and democracy in its wake. ..... </div></div>

How interesting. That seems to be YOUR reason for attacking evangelicals. How bizarre is that?? </div></div>

Not at all. I am against Evangelicals who are ignorant of Catholicism. No shortage of them in here.

However, overall I vote in tandem with many Evangelicals. I agree with them politically, the Left, obviously, does not.

Soundbear
07-19-2008, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...However, overall I vote in tandem with many Evangelicals. I agree with them politically, the Left, obviously, does not. </div></div>

One of the few catholics who does apparently.

GenX
07-19-2008, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...However, overall I vote in tandem with many Evangelicals. I agree with them politically, the Left, obviously, does not. </div></div>

One of the few catholics who does apparently. </div></div>

Catholics voted in a majority for Republicans last election.

GenX
07-19-2008, 09:58 AM
So, no comment on the article? Just attack the source, and move on?

That's the Soonet you'd create, if you were a Mod?

Soundbear
07-19-2008, 11:34 AM
I suppose a sarcastic "an unbiased report" might seem like an attack on the source. I hope that might be softened by the fact that the source is biased.

But it took you a while to mention that, so I really don't think it's your primary concern.

As to the rest, you didn't seem to have too many concerns about off topic or anything else.

As to ignorance of Catholicism, I have been exercising restraint. Anybody at all curious can find hundreds of sites explaining any number of topics regarding the denomination. And I have learned a lot. But not one single thing to make me bow to Rome.

Comment on the report?? Since I don't believe that membership in ANT denomination makes one a member of the Body of Christ, the dwindling numbers (or not) really don't matter. Those who will be saved will be (sheep) Those who won't be won't (goats).
Political considerations mean little in the light of eternity.

BlueSky
07-19-2008, 11:54 AM
Yeah, AINT that ANT denomination something else?

Soundbear
07-19-2008, 12:01 PM
Dang, I wish the T wasn't beside the Y!!!

GenX
07-19-2008, 07:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to ignorance of Catholicism, I have been exercising restraint. Anybody at all curious can find hundreds of sites explaining any number of topics regarding the denomination. And I have learned a lot. But not one single thing to make me bow to Rome. </div></div>

And there is a perfect example of your ignorance of Catholicism. No one "bows to Rome".

And if any of your links are representative of what "sites" you go to to "learn" about Catholicism, then it's pretty safe to say you are not the least bit interested in learning, but are quite taken with the option of being exonerated of such ignorance by fellow anti-Catholics.

You don't need to run to the nearest Protestant website that "explains" Catholicism to you. All you need to do is go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (online version available), and there you will find all She believes.

But you won't do that, just as Werner would not do so.

And that is telling.

Soundbear
07-19-2008, 08:44 PM
Where can I find a concordance for the catechism??

I haven't read them extensively. I'm sure Werner did, so you would be wrong there.

Re: bows to Rome. IMO authority is what it's all about, from everything I read,and many of your arguments.

Let's let this go for now. Perhaps in the future.

GenX
07-20-2008, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read them extensively. I'm sure Werner did, so you would be wrong there. </div></div>

Oh, yes...twice, once in German! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

That's when he lost me.

KDawg
07-20-2008, 08:52 AM
I remember him saying that too.

From what I remember, Werner was a truthful, straight-talking man and if he said he read the Catechism in different languages, I have no reason to doubt it. Why do you, RWGR? Did you catch him in a lie before?

GenX
07-20-2008, 08:56 AM
He all but admitted he lied about the "two languages" comment. And when pressed, I think he'd admit he didn't so much read the C of the RCC, but actually perused it, looking at points of interest.

When I see a preacher doing that, I cannot help but try to picture my priest saying that, and I just cannot see him doing something like that just to score a 'gotcha' point on some BBS. Preachers and priests are supposed to be above the fray, and exemplary. Werner was, a lot of the time. But just that one instance made me wonder what else he'd stretch the truth for, just to score an online point.

Soundbear
07-27-2008, 10:03 PM
Where can I find a concordance for the catechism??

Soundbear
07-27-2008, 10:04 PM
"But just that one instance made me wonder what else he'd stretch the truth for, just to score an online point."

Today's chuckle. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soundbear
07-27-2008, 10:04 PM
Where can I find a concordance for the catechism??

BlueSky
07-28-2008, 07:03 AM
Hers the table of contents
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This SAYS concoradances, but I have no idea how it works
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_AIUTO.HTM#concordanze

Soundbear
07-28-2008, 09:41 AM
An interesting read:

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/9-10-98/Article6.html