Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


The Truth about Conservatives 1

posted by xscot mcknight

Andrew Greeley and Michael Hout, both professors of sociology and geared up with all kinds of statistics, are convinced that the public perception of “conservative Christians” (CC) is off base in the media. So, they set about to discover what CCs are really like — at least to discover what the statistics show. Their study is called The Truth about Conservative Christians.
What strikes you about the percentages and conclusions listed below?
The Elmer Gantry image lives on, but these two authors are suggesting the image often used of CCs is wildly stereotyped and frequently inaccurate. So, they want to know what CCs are really like. They look at beliefs, politics, ethnic relations, freedom, social status, church membership, sexuality, feminism, lifestyle, and then two chps look at Pentecostals and Catholics. I look today at the beliefs of CCs.
Note: CCs are comprised of CPs (Conservative Protestants) and AfrAms (African American Protestants). There is an overwhelming similiarity between CPs and AfrAms; but, the AfrAms are more conservative theologically. [See bottom for more details.]
CC “is a biblical religion in the tradition of the Reformation not only at the leadership level but also within the ranks of the faithful” (11). But, and this needs to be observed: “only a minority of CCs embrace all of Cons Christianity’s essential elements” (11).
Now to the beliefs:
1. Bible: 54% of CPs and 59% of AfrAms believe the Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” (15). (26% Mainliners, 21% Catholics.)
2. Born again: 65% CPs, 64% AfrAms have this experience. “CPs are even more likely to be ‘born again’ than they are likely to believe in word-for-word inspiration of the Bible by God” (17).
3. 3 solas (scripture, faith, grace): 40% CPs, 35% AfrAms affirm all three; 15% of CCs reject all three; 15% Mainliners embrace all three; 4% Catholics. Only 18% of the American populace affirms the three solas (25% is CC). The majority of CPs does not affirm the three solas.
4. Worldview: CCs have a harsher image of God, human nature, and world. God is more involved in the lives of CCs (by perception) than with Mainliners and RCs.
5. Influence of Church: strikingly, CCs think the church’s views should influence them (the authors find tension here with a Bible-centered faith). “Indeed the CPs are more likely to consider following the teachings of the Church more important than following their own consciences” (31).
6. Evolution: 25% of CPs believe this; 50% of Mainliners. Higher education does not change this.
Note:
Conservative Protestants include Southern Baptists, other Baptists, Missouri/Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, Churches of God/Assemblies of God, Pentecost, ….
Afro-American Protestants include American Baptists, National Baptists, African Methodist Episcopal, ….
Mainline Protestant … United Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterians, Episcopal, UCC, ….



Advertisement
Comments read comments(44)
post a comment
Ted Gossard

posted March 26, 2007 at 5:42 am


This reminds me of the thought that I need to put less confidence in my own individual thinking in regard to a matter and more on the collective thinking, consensus, belief of the church. This must begin with my own local church, and then it must work its way out in general to the church at large. Of course taking into consideration differences between churches.
I’m getting at that we need to deemphasize to a significant degree our confidence in the individual and the Spirit apart from the fellowship of believers. All three must be held together much better.
Though it’s funny that in kind of a backward sort of way, I think extra conservative Christians from “fundamentalist” churches often just approve of what their church says and really hardly enter into the equation of participating in that thought and belief.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted March 26, 2007 at 7:08 am


Interesting that only little more than half of those polled believe literally in the Bible word-for-word. The stereotype is that all conservative Christians do.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 26, 2007 at 7:13 am


Diane,
I’ve tried to e-mail you, but the letter bounces back immediately. Can you e-mail me separately?



report abuse
 

Allan R. Bevere

posted March 26, 2007 at 7:24 am


Scot:
Interesting study. I will have to check it out.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted March 26, 2007 at 7:34 am


Words – » Blogs in Review 3/26/07

Surveys
A survey on”conservative” Christians noted at Jesus Creed….—–
[...] Scot McKnight (http://www.jesuscreed.org) starts his series on on the Truth on Conservatives and weighs in on the discussion on “Emergent False Dichotomy”. [...]



report abuse
 

Barb

posted March 26, 2007 at 7:57 am


Hmm, mainstream media gets it wrong. Why am I not surprised. Although some of the statistics contain surprising numbers (#3 mostly), it’s nice to see stats supporting the understanding that the media prefers to stereotype rather than delve deeper into diversity of thought among Christians.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:05 am


Barb,
It’s not just that the media misrepresent but that those they choose to represent CCs don’t represent the span and depth of the CCs themselves.



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:07 am


I hope this isn’t a diversion, but when we have right wing, fundamentalist CP TV “stars” going on Larry King Live (or wherever) speaking for *all of us,* no wonder the national media thinks and writes what it does.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:17 am


Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Morning Highlights

Friday Finds – A week late!
As I was out of contact for last week and just catching up on the rss feeds though the week, I thought I would do last weeks Friday finds today!:
1) Be a low maintanance person, Jim Martin’s tip of the week – Well worth a read to re-centre…—–
[...] A survey on”conservative” Christians noted at Jesus Creed. [...]



report abuse
 

Chad

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:23 am


The word “literally” would have thrown me. The Bible should be taken literally unless it doesn’t make any sense. The Bible has lots of idioms and symbolism especially in prophecy. I can see how you’d get only near %50.
“1. Bible: 54% of CPs and 59% of AfrAms believe the Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” (15). (26% Mainliners, 21% Catholics.)”



report abuse
 

schizo

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:37 am


mr mc knight could you PLEASE provide full content in your feeds.Those who wish to comment will come to the blog from the feed. I would.
thanks
phil



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:42 am


Schizo,
I have no idea what this means, but I suspect my blogmaster knows what it means and has considered it.



report abuse
 

schizo

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:51 am


:-) sorry thought you maintained it and just discovered that a full feed is available, my mistake.
god bless.
PS i have been reading Jesus creed, its been an eye opener. been reading/rereading it for six months now. hope your books will be made available in india soon.
ciao
schizo



report abuse
 

Marcia

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:54 am


I’m glad I’m not the only blogger who doesn’t understand feeds. Right over my head.
Ted–I had the exact opposite thought than what you did; it makes me realize that one any one group believes, or is represented to believe, isn’t as important to me as what’s in my own heart.
This study just goes to show that labels are pretty much useless, and what’s more, it’s always a bad idea to get ideas about faith from the media.
I just got a writer from the Chicago Tribune in trouble with a reader because she (the writer) quoted, in the actual newspaper, a blog comment I had made about beer-drinking Catholics. The reader was afraid that since this was printed in the Tribune, people would believe it to be true.
Um, hello, how about not taking random blog comments from strangers as gospel was my reply. I mean, duh.



report abuse
 

Marcia

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:56 am


Oops, that should have said “what any one group believes.” Sorry.



report abuse
 

Winston

posted March 26, 2007 at 10:00 am


Chad #11,
I agree with you. I think that the statement “the Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” is so restrictive that nobody, including those who claim to do so, actually does. For example in Psalm 17:8, the psalmist asks God to “Hide me in the shadow of your wings!” but no Christians I know believe that God is an enormous cosmic Bird.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 26, 2007 at 10:10 am


Chad and Winston,
The study in question comes from the use of the GSS: General Social Survey. What I have heard is that it is a solid, reliable, and sophisticated survey. Here are the questions on the Bible:
Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible:
a. The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.
b. The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word.
c. The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.
Lots and lots prefer a even if they are bothered by the language; lots think b opens the door to problems. The sociologist doesn’t care; they study how those who answer “a” correlate with other answers.



report abuse
 

chris williams

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:01 am


#17 Your last line was great; made me LOL. I’m definitely going to use that in my next new members class.
The question that keeps coming up in my mind: Is it really the fault of the CC’s the media interviews? These people believe what they believe and yes, we cringe that the media picks them to study/interview. Yet, therein lies the problem for me. The media, predominantly fueled by capitalism and the bottom line, does not want to offer a complex survey of the CC landscape. They want to offer tantalizing snippetts that put CCs over and against mainstream secular thought. Why put a “rational” orthodox CC/moderate who spouts things with which most people will agree? That is boring stuff. We have to put the “crazies” up there (read: media’s viewpoint, not mine), because that sells magazines and makes for more shocking programming.
Peace,
chris



report abuse
 

Ted Gossard

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:18 am


Sorry for my original comment. It is rather beside the point.
I think alot of this points to the air that is drifting along in our secular society and culture. Some churches breathe in more deeply from that air. And we’re all affected by it, even if it means a reaction to another extreme.



report abuse
 

Jennifer

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:24 am


#5 Was interesting to me (5. Influence of Church: strikingly, CCs think the church’s views should influence them (the authors find tension here with a Bible-centered faith). “Indeed the CPs are more likely to consider following the teachings of the Church more important than following their own consciences”)
Is this saying that CC would follow the church’s teaching when it conflicts with their own conscious? If that’s true, I think it’s very odd…and not all that healthy.



report abuse
 

ChrisB

posted March 26, 2007 at 12:07 pm


I guess I need to read the book, but my first thought regarding this was over how they define “conservative protestant” etc. Is it someone who claims adherence without any kind of membership? Is this someone who is a member of some church they haven’t entered in 15 years? Is it an active member?
Last year Christianity Today ran a couple of articles dealing with, among other things, the fact that the statistics that show that “evangelical Christians” have the same divorce rate, etc, as the rest of the country were based on surveys that defined one as evangelical based on how they answered a few questions; ask whether they attend church, however, and the numbers look very different.
The point is, it would be useful to know whether those CPs who don’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture actually open their Bible on occasion or if they use it as a coaster. It would also be useful to know how these folks define “literally” — I back peddle at that too; I’d want to know if they mean you take figures of speach woodenly literal or if you’re allowed to determine what it meant.
In short (or is it too late?) this study has potential but we need plenty of contextualizing information.



report abuse
 

Benjamin Bush Jr

posted March 26, 2007 at 1:04 pm


Chris,
Maybe they should consult the CCs to see if the CCs consider themselves CCs.
Having come from a Fundamental Baptist background in my early years, Baptists, as a whole (including most Southern Baptists), would not consider themselves Protestants. They trace their heritage to John the Baptist and show their separation from mainline denominations, especially Protestants.
There are still a number of these folk around now. How many is another question.
As far as literal/allegorical. Most literalists will tell you that the Word is to be translated from the original languages literally. Only then can there be the allegorical meaning when the intent of Scripture is to do so. W/O the accuracy of the literal, there can be no accurate allegory.
Contextualizing information, as Scot points out, is not the strength of modern sociology, as much as they would shout otherwise. Studies and their conclusions have become as diverse as the society they pretend to study.



report abuse
 

Michael Kruse

posted March 26, 2007 at 1:50 pm


Scot! A post with stats? You aren’t going all sociologist on us are you? :)
Seriously, I will be interested in looking at the study. Been a while since I played with the GSS database but I don’t find much suprising here. It would be interesting to see if some of these numbers have shifted in recent years.
One recent study by the Church of the Nazarene members showed a massive shift within a ten year period from a realitve disregard for social justice to a holding social justice on a par with evangelism. I would be curious if that is indicative of broader trend or something more specific to Nazarenes.
Thanks for the post.



report abuse
 

Matt Stephens

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm


Very interesting, although not terribly surprising. I have spent the better part of my life in the United Methodist Church, for the last few years, the SBC, and currently, non-denom. The interesting thing to me is that rarely, if ever, have I heard a pastor or small group leader provide church members with thorough training on tenets which distinguish stereotypical CC’s from moderates and mainliners. Oh, I heard the occasional sermon about why the Bible must be inerrant, but even though I hold that the original writings were inerrant, I’ve never heard a good case made for inerrancy either in a small group, Sunday school classroom, or sermon. It wasn’t until my university Bible courses until I was taught the basis for this. So, due to the lack of significant “training” on many of the fundamental tenets of CC, I am not surprised that so few congregants actually hold to them.
And “ditto” on the literalist thing. I don’t know a single person who believes the entire Bible, Gen-Rev. is to be taken literally.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm


Michael,
Thanks. I don’t recall anything like this in the book — they do study stuff over time, but the GSS is just loaded with all kinds of data that are more than useful.
The CCs — for those who seem to be wondering — are defined by denomination and they’ve got all kinds of data about how often such folks read the Bible. So, when they speak about word-for-word and correlate beliefs etc they have a solid idea of actual practice.



report abuse
 

Marcia

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm


they’ve got all kinds of data about how often such folks read the Bible.
But do they have data on how honest the people are who say that?
I’m not being flip; I would guess that most people think they spend more time in the word than they actually do.
Matt, absolutely; I would guess a lot of Sunday morning churchgoers don’t even recognize the differences in denominations. It’s all God; it’s all good.
So: does the study address (or do any posts here at Jesus Creed address) whether one can be sociologically/politically conservative (in an old-fashioned Republican conservative way, not in the current administration arrogant conservative way) but religiously emergent?
‘Cause I’m feeling pretty much left out of all camps.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:26 pm


Tune in tomorrow, Marcia, because politics is next … and yes, it shows a significant minority who are moderates or progressive.



report abuse
 

Marcia

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:27 pm


Thanks….I’ll bring some popcorn.



report abuse
 

Jennifer

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:36 pm


Maria,
My husband (who is a frequent Jesus Creed reader, but never comments – Hi Sweetie!!) identifies himself as both emerging and Republican. So, you’re not alone, but, I gotta say, I think it’s a tough road to walk. Once you move past the abortion issue, its hard to see how the voice of the marginalized is valued in republican politics because they believe the right thing to do is protect the rich and powerful because those people will then turn around and help the poor (creating jobs, etc). Not only do you have to take an extra step of valuing the marginalized through valuing the rich, you have to trust that the rich will act in the best interest of people who need what they can provide. And that’s harder to do, but I know people like my husband reason it out in such a way that they believe it works. (And yes, we do tippy-toe through these issues at home :-) )



report abuse
 

Jeremy Pierce

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:52 pm


Isn’t there something funny about a survey that defines a group and then says that most of its members don’t hold all the beliefs that are essential to that group? It’s one thing for a group to have lots of people on the margins, who don’t count as clear cases. It’s another to have people counted as part of a group if their views don’t match up with what’s essential to that group. It’s tantamount to saying that most of the people in the group aren’t really in the group. If they had defined the groups such that the people who they’re treating as in it actually hold to the views required for being in the group, I’m sure you’d get much higher numbers for some of these. They haven’t just included some people who aren’t Conservative Christians by their definition. They’ve outright stated that a majority of Conservative Christians aren’t Conservative Christians by their definition! That’s like selecting a bunch of triangles as close enough to squares and then adding a few squares (but not as many), concluding in the end that, surprise surprise, most squares only have three sides.



report abuse
 

Michael Kruse

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:11 pm


Marcia #27
I am a politically right of center kind of guy and I hang out in these settings. We have had this conversation more than once at our Kansas City Emergent cohort.
At the risk of generalizing too much, I get a sense that many in emerging church conversations are coming from contexts that were almost monolithically Christian Right politically oriented. As they have sought to break free from that they have too often defined themselves by contra what they were before. So if it has conservative or Republican written on it, then that is the clue to be the opposite. Clearly there are others who have given considerable care to working out their political engagement but I think there is a heavy dose of being reactive. We need of view of engaging the world politically that is beyond simple oscillations of one group reacting against what has come before. If the church is to come to some new insights about how to more effectively engage the political arena, then the conversation needs you as a part of the dialog.



report abuse
 

Jennifer

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:35 pm


Michael,
I saw that Scot said tomorrow’s discussion is on politics, so I don’t want to jump too far ahead. But just wanted to quickly respond to you here…
I do have respect for conservative beliefs, that’s where my roots were, and a lot of people I love still live there.
But, when you say, “Clearly there are others who have given considerable care to working out their political engagement but I think there is a heavy dose of being reactive.”
I could easily respond with…
Clearly there are others who have given considerable care to staying in the political understanding they grew up with, but I think there is a heavy dose of simply hanging on to what one knows without thinking through the issues.
I think in a conversation about politics a lot of care needs to be taken so that both sides are given the benefit of the doubt that they are thoughtful Christians and they have arrived at their position after careful consideration.



report abuse
 

Wayne Leman

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:47 pm


Scot, you noted:
“Here are the questions on the Bible:
Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible:
a. The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.
b. The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word.
c. The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.
Lots and lots prefer a even if they are bothered by the language; lots think b opens the door to problems. The sociologist doesn’t care; they study how those who answer “a” correlate with other answers.”
Hmm, if someone surveyed me with just these three options, I would have a difficult choice. These options are too limited for where many of us CCs are at, I suspect. I basically believe in a literal approach to the Bible, but as someone else pointed out in a comment here, I fully recognize how figurative (non-literal) the language of the Bible is. In fact, I often blog about this myself. I have always considered that a basically literal approach to the Bible fully allows for not taking the figurative language of the Bible literally. In fact, I seem to remember that that was one of the points emphasized in our hermeneutics class at Moody many years ago.
Now, if I were asked if I believed in a literal, historical crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, that there “literally” was a flood (of whatever kind) as recorded in Genesis, that Abraham, Moses, David, Rahab, Paul, et al were historical figures, my answer would be a clear yes.
When it comes to polls, the stats are heavily influenced by how the questions are worded.
I wish that this section of the CC survey could be redone with better questions.



report abuse
 

Ted Gossard

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:35 pm


Michael, I think you have a true point (as usual) in #32 about people reacting so as to move to a position that is is more protest than anything else.
But I don’t think that just because I myself was raised staunch Republican, came from a staunch Republican part of Ohio, and voted that way for years….just because I’m now left of center doesn’t mean I don’t base that on values that I consider inherently a part of the kingdom of God in Jesus. And that I think some of what Republicans stand for and do not stand for are both troublesome in light of that kingdom vision…..
I don’t see my move as a purely reactive one. And this is a case where Christians disagree. I know you’re well informed and have thought through so many things so very well. And we need good Christian thought on all sides politically, and everywhere else, to be sure.



report abuse
 

Ted Gossard

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm


I hate saying left and right. These are worldly labels, uh, aren’t they? I really don’t care how they label having a passion for the poor and social justice. Or wanting to end abortion. I’m just saying that from our Christian point of view we ought to take “left” and “right” with more than a grain of salt. While at the same time, I admit, it does give you a sense where one might be politically. But too often it puts people in categories so that they’re written off too easily.



report abuse
 

Marcia

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:39 pm


Hey, cut it out. The political talk is supposed to be tomorrow.



report abuse
 

Michael Kruse

posted March 26, 2007 at 7:59 pm


Jennifer #34 and Ted #35.
My remarks were about participants in the emerging conversation, not about about people with less Republican/conservative/right (whatever) leanings in general. I did’t say that someone who comes down on issues differently than I do has not thought through the issues. I come from a mainline Presbyterian context. I know all about religious left politics and I am fully aware of the related rationales and theology. My observation is about the coherence in the rationales for the positions many emerging types use for their positions. I very often get the sense that it is driven by being contra-Evangelical, not by a coherent philosophy of engaging public policy.
We will see where Scot’s next post goes and maybe we can discuss more then.



report abuse
 

Mike Mangold

posted March 26, 2007 at 8:35 pm


Some of you bloggers are too funny!
I’m Libertarian Protestant, Pentecostal, too. So where does that put me? Depends on the issue I s’pose.
And Scot, I’m at “B”: I believe the bible is fundamentally true but not literally. I really don’t think Jesus is a door or a flashlight but I find truths in it every time we get together.



report abuse
 

Rob Dunbar

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:19 pm


When I first read about Greeley and Hout’s book and read the Amazon.com summary, I thought: “Hasn’t George Barna been pointing these things out for the last few years?” The trends are well-documented and conveniently ignored. Some of them I like, some I worry about; but the point is that none of this is really new information. It’s just information that doesn’t fit stereotypes. Or incite donors to give more funds. . . .



report abuse
 

Mike Mangold

posted March 27, 2007 at 12:12 am


HWJV?
How would Jesus vote?
In the Pentecostal tradition, we are very biblically conservative, just about “sola everything.” Which also means we cast jaundiced eyes at someone who utters “tradition says…”
But since we believe the spirit of God catches you wherever you stand, we also are harder to pindown politically. In our church, the gothic-looking anarchist stands next to the short-haired older Republican in praise and worship. In this case, income undoubtedly determines politics. Yet the older tattoo-laden, jean-wearing dude with the tee shirt that says “body piercing saved my life” hugs and loves on the Marine just back from Iraq. Marcia, you can always come with your popcorn…



report abuse
 

Marcia

posted March 27, 2007 at 7:07 am


First of all, what Jeremy said. #31 A rather broad range of beliefs is being lumped into one group.
Second, if this needs to move to the new thread, it’s fine, but I’m going to bed after I write this. : ) I worked all night and will check back later today.
Third, did anyone remember the butter?
Okay. Seriously. Jennifer: #30–who you callin’ rich? One can have conservative values that have nothing to do with income and everything to do with personal responsibility.
Michael: #32 Thanks for outing yourself as right of center. There is where we part ways, though; I am not at all interested in seeing the church have a political presence. I think the church needs to engage the world in a less political way, not more of one.
Jennifer: #33 You said, “I think in a conversation about politics a lot of care needs to be taken so that both sides are given the benefit of the doubt that they are thoughtful Christians and they have arrived at their position after careful consideration.” Yeah, dream on. I would again be oppositional and say that a great many Christians simply parrot what they’ve been told.
Mike,#41: thanks; interesting. I’ve done some reading about the 1906 revival and the things that went on there such as folks being led by the Spirit to bark, roll on the floor, laugh hysterically, etc. Let me just tell you right now that if you ever find my conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran raised self doing any of those things during a worship service, it’s definitely the work of some sort of spirit.
Scot–am I breaking rules by responding to so many comments in only one of my own, and if so, can I get a pass based on the fact that I stayed up all night taking care of sick babies while the rest of y’all were sleeping? Thx.



report abuse
 

Mike Mangold

posted March 27, 2007 at 10:53 am


Marcia,
first things first: how are the babies doing?
Secondly, your thoughts do matter here.
Thirdly, it took a very sick baby of my own for me to break my Missouri Synod ways and raise my hands to the Lord. I haven’t barked in church yet, though!



report abuse
 

Marcia

posted March 27, 2007 at 2:09 pm


Hey Mike–the babies are my job; I’m a NICU nurse. My own babies are old enough to be into cars, music, and the opposite sex, and this is certainly making me raise my hands to Him!
I have to admit to a little bit of fascination with Pentecostals, probably because I am so uptight.
: )
It’s also interesting that you feel the members can’t be put into a box politically. (And hopefully that makes this comment on topic.)



report abuse
 

Michael Kruse

posted March 27, 2007 at 3:46 pm


Marcia #42
“Thanks for outing yourself as right of center. There is where we part ways, though; I am not at all interested in seeing the church have a political presence. I think the church needs to engage the world in a less political way, not more of one.”
Marcia, I am not advocating that the institutions of the church should establish a political presence. The body of Christ in the world is going to engage the world politically in our various contexts. I think the church ought to be a place where we can come together to truly wrestle with public policy questions. Therefore, it is good to have a variety of voices in the conversation. I am not sure why you thought I was advocating political doctrine, as it were, for the church but that is not what I am saying.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.