Religious Americans: My faith isn't the only way

WASHINGTON - America remains a deeply religious nation, but a new survey finds most Americans don't believe their tradition is the only way to eternal life -- even if the denomination's teachings say otherwise. The findings, revealed Monday in a survey of 35,000 adults, can either be taken as a positive sign of growing religious tolerance, or disturbing evidence that Americans dismiss or don't know fundamental teachings of their own faiths.

Among the more startling numbers in the survey, conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attenders said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching. In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.

"The survey shows religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles wide and only three inches deep," said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion. "There's a growing pluralistic impulse toward tolerance and that is having theological consequences," he said.

Earlier data from the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, released in February, highlighted how often Americans switch religious affiliation. The newly released material looks at religious belief and practice as well as the impact of religion on society, including how faith shapes political views. The report argues that while relatively few people -- 14 percent -- cite religious beliefs as the main influence on their political thinking, religion still plays a powerful indirect role.

The study confirmed some well-known political dynamics, including stark divisions over abortion and same-sex "marriage," with the more religiously committed taking conservative views on the issues. But it also showed support across religious lines for greater governmental aid for the poor, even if it means more debt and stricter environmental laws and regulations.

By many measures, Americans are strongly religious: 92 percent believe in God, 74 percent believe in life after death, and 63 percent say their respective scriptures are the word of God. But deeper investigation found that more than one in four Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Orthodox Christians expressed some doubts about God's existence, as did six in ten Jews. Another finding almost defies explanation: 21 percent of self-identified atheists said they believe in God or a universal spirit, with eight percent "absolutely certain" of it.

"Look, this shows the limits of a survey approach to religion," said Peter Berger, a theology and sociology professor at Boston University. "What do people really mean when they say that many religions lead to eternal life? It might mean they don't believe their particular truth at all. Others might be saying, 'We believe a truth but respect other people, and they are not necessarily going to hell.'" Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum, said that more research is planned to answer those kinds of questions, but that earlier, smaller surveys found similar results.

Nearly across the board, the majority of religious Americans believe many religions can lead to eternal life: mainline Protestants (83 percent), members of historic black Protestant churches (59 percent), Roman Catholics (79 percent), Jews (82 percent) and Muslims (56 percent). By similar margins, people in those faith groups believe in multiple interpretations of their own traditions' teachings. Yet 44 percent of the religiously affiliated also said their religion should preserve its traditional beliefs and practices.

"What most people are saying is, 'Hey, we don't have a hammer-lock on God or salvation, and God's bigger than us and we should respect that and respect other people,'" said the Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "Some people are like butterflies that go from flower to flower, going from religion to religion -- and frankly they don't get that deep into any of them," he said.

Beliefs about eternal life vary greatly, even within a religious tradition. Some Christians hold strongly to Jesus' words as described in John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Others emphasize the wideness of God's grace. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the "one church of Christ ... subsists in the Catholic Church" alone and that Protestant churches, while defective, can be "instruments of salvation."

Roger Oldham, a vice president with the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, bristled at using the word "tolerance" in the analysis. "If by tolerance we mean we're willing to engage or embrace a multitude of ways to salvation, that's no longer evangelical belief," he said. "The word 'evangelical' has been stretched so broadly, it's almost an elastic term."

Others welcomed the findings. "It shows increased religious security. People are comfortable with other traditions even if they're different," said the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance. "It indicates a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone."

More than most groups, Catholics break with their church, and not just on issues like abortion and homosexuality. Only six in ten Catholics described God as "a person with whom people can have a relationship" -- which the church teaches -- while three in ten described God as an "impersonal force."

"The statistics show, more than anything else, that many who describe themselves as Catholics do not know or understand the teachings of their church," said Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput. "Being Catholic means believing what the Catholic church teaches. It is a communion of faith, not simply of ancestry and family tradition. It also means that the church ought to work harder at evangelizing its own members."

No. But I do believe that Faith should be grounded in reason, not feelings, and the whole of the book is based upon warm fuzzies.

There are plenty of books on the rational basis for Christianity. PDL was meant to address the emotional longings of people rather than address the intellect. I think it is an important endeavor because people today have been trained to respond primarily to emotion, and must therefore be reached at that level first and be given an emotional call for faith to drive a rational one. Just because a pastor has written a book addressing one facet of faith to a broad audience does not mean he excludes all other more weighty theological tomes.

But I do believe it is evidence that Saddleback Church is a distinct branch under the Protestant umbrella.

The "What we believe" points listed on the website does not exclude doctrine of many branches of Protestant belief. It is a very broad set of statements with which very many churches would agree.

If someone at Warren's church sought serious intellectual treatment of a given topic, he would have to go towards Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy...something with a deep theological reserve.

I am sure Saddleback draws from sources older than itself and it seems like they would lean Calvinist from their site. Just because a church is nondenominational does not mean they have a shallow faith. Reading their outreach materials also does not give one a good basis for judging their theology.

The Baptist Churches I was raised in were fairly formal -- suits, hymnals, etc. But, even then, Baptist Churches have been the churches with the least pomp & circumstance. They're simple services -- worship, communion, ministry and teaching, personalized prayer, Sunday School, Bible Study, etc. Personally, that's why I like them -- they're not pretentious.

We split our time between Second Baptist Church (a Houston mega-church) and a small Vineyard (non-denominational) Christian Fellowship. Both use somewhat contemporary music -- ranging from classic hymns to Christian rock, and neither is particularly formal dress -- "come as you are to worship the Lord" type churches.

But, we've been quite careful to avoid "social club" type secular "prosperity" churches. For instance, Joel Osteen's church (Lakewood Church, where the slogan is literally "Discover the Champion in You" ...) -- where there isn't even a cross on the stage, and there is a big globe behind the preacher (yikes). Osteen never went to divinity school, inherited the church from his father. And there is a big "O" (for Osteen) around the church emblem ... which has the traditional Methodist flame, but no cross whatsoever.

The teachings at both of our churches are heavily Biblical, and Sunday School classes are quite intensive. Dr. Ed Young, the Pastor at 2nd Baptist, isn't afraid to make the generally white upper-middle-class congregation uncomfortable (as he did with a recent sermon on tithing ... a touchy subject).

He isn't afraid to take a political stand, either (as with the upcoming July 4th celebration of God and Country, and accompanying salute to the military).

Polls on religious issues are notoriously misleading. One of the constant problems is that people are allowed to self-identify, which results in largely useless data.

One big difference between Protestants and Catholics when it comes to polling is that there are no “ethnic” Baptists, or Presbyterians, or whatever. There are many people who identify themselves as Catholic, out of a sense of ethnic or cultural affinity, but who have not attended a Mass since childhood, and know little about what the Church teaches. Including these people in the “Catholic” category results in skewed poll results.

Anyhow, I think one thing this poll shows is that indifferentism is popular. Doesn’t make it right, though. Truth is not determined by polling.

With that in mind, I'd have to answer your question, "Yes." GOD is glorified not by the perfection of man, but in man's seeking of perfection...and in that quest, many errors are made.

Certainly many errors are made in "that quest." But I don't believe God is glorified by those errors. He is, however, glorified by the condemnation that He pronounces on those errors, and the mercy He shows in spite of those errors, as Paul tells us...

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" -- Romans 9:22-23

However, as Paul also tells us, even heresies serve the purpose of God...

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corinthians 11:19

To somehow believe God is glorified by the errors of our stumbling efforts is to confuse God with our P.E. teacher.

God is glorified when the truth is spoken about Him which is Christ, and only Christ.

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples." -- John 15:1-7

I'm not saying he excludes serious intellectual work in his book. However, ALL of his books that I've come across (maybe there are some I don't know of) are based in emotion.

The "What we believe" points listed on the website does not exclude doctrine of many branches of Protestant belief. It is a very broad set of statements with which very many churches would agree.

That is fine - but you could say the same thing about the Catholic Church's statements of belief. Many points of Catholic doctrine are the same as many points of Protestant doctrine. However, Catholicism and Protestantism are certainly distinct.

Two things here. First, I never said they have a shallow faith. I said they have a shallow theology. Second, as far as I see it, "nondenominational" Christians are the same as people who say they are "registered Independents." There is no such thing. If you are a Christian who belongs to a Church with a set of beliefs, you are a member of a denomination. The fact that they do not identify with any of the major branches of Protestantism is indicative of shallow theology. I don't doubt they draw some of their beliefs from other Protestant schools of thought, but it seems piecemeal and justified through "feelings."

I'm not saying that Rick Warren is a bad man, or teaches false doctrine (although, as a Catholic, I do think so), or that they are damned, or anything. I just said it seems like a "Jesus loves you" Gospel to the exclusion of everything else, and they gloss over the challenges of Christianity. Further, I think their message does not have strong intellectual underpinnings. None of this is per se bad, and I've seen many Protestant posters on this forum argue the same thing.

Maybe you don't understand the rationale behind the "What we believe" statement. There are many Protestant "churches" that have pretty much done away with Christianity entirely: the Bible is considered man-made with plenty of errors, Jesus may or may not have existed, and if He did, he was a man only--not God. The statements are written so that potential members know that they are not walking into a post-modern humanistic "church" that uses a name as window dressing. I believe some so-called "Catholic" churches have slipped into humanism as well.

The point of being non-denominational is similar to the point of citizens to have the right to bear arms. A centralized authority can become corrupt much easier than thousands can, and thousands can keep the authorities in check. Look at the corruption in the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian churches in the last few decades. Look at the corruption in the Catholic church over the centuries. And look at which ones gain membership and which ones lose.

When Christians have the option to go to a Biblically grounded church or a feel-good humanistic corrupt church, then they tend to choose the Biblical one--that's a fact that I have seen over and over. If a non-denominational church's leadership becomes corrupt, then it dies and its members go to other churches. A denomination will siphon money from the less corrupt churches to uphold the corrupt church.

I don't think you have a correct view in this case, which is probably distorted by the outreach documents you have read. Take a look at the other side (barf alert) criticizing Warren for his conservative beliefs. A "Jesus loves you" church wouldn't take the cultural stands listed in the article.

Okay...but it is still an outline of beliefs. Just because their outline of beliefs is more correct than a lot of the secular "churches" doesn't really negate my previous point. You're absolutely right that some Catholic Priests have fallen into that pit - but I would wager most people already know quite a bit (either truth or lies) about Catholicism long before they step through the threshhold.

I can understand the point you're trying to get at, but Rick Warren is the Pastor-in-Chief of his church (I dunno his exact position, but you know what I'm getting at.). He teaches his beliefs, and if members disagree, they get to leave. I agree with you on all those points, but the very nature of having specific beliefs makes you a denomination, regardless of what you identify yourself as.

Agreed. Makes me glad my Church has been around for 2000 years despite all the stuff that should've brought it down ;-)

I didn't know Warren supported Harriet Myers - that was a bonehead move for anyone, IMHO. And he may very well take those cultural stands, but every single time I've seen him on TV, seen videos of his sermons, or read something by him, I've never seen him touch on any of those topics. And even if he does touch on them, it doesn't mean he has a well-developed theology. I fully recognize people can get the right beliefs without intellectual grounding - I said that in an earlier post.

Others might be saying, 'We believe a truth but respect other people, and they are not necessarily going to hell.'" Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum, said that more research is planned to answer those kinds of questions

We believe a truth but respect other people not going to hell because they don't believe in that truth??? People who call themselves "Christians" but believe in multiple ways to heaven are no Christians at all.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.

BTW-One has to wonder what kind of research they plan on doing to truly answer whether Jesus is the only way to heaven?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.