Posted on 06/23/2008 11:51:24 AM PDT by Sopater
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."
Jesus said there was one way - Him. I think I'll believe Him over the beliefs of man caused by itching ears.
So — you’re not criticizing the beliefs, because you don’t know the beliefs. You’re just criticizing the “system of beliefs.” Still semantics.
I think that is a faulty definition of Theology, and Wikipedia agrees with me. Now, I try to shy away from Wikipedia as a source, but in defining the common meanings of terms, it is helpful.
The Wikipedia entry states that Theology is reasoned discourse about religion. Essentially, it is the justification of one's religious beliefs. The justification of some branches of Protestantism's beliefs have more to do with fuzzy feelings than reason, Scripture, logic, etc. Thus, it is shallow.
Regarding Rick Warren, I picked his book mostly because it is prominent and known to most people. I never said that it is representative of the whole of Protestant theology - please stop accusing me of such. Go back and read my post 12. I never claimed all of Protestantism is encompassed by Rick Warren, nor did I say all Protestant theology is shallow.
Those that need to seek converts, that need to persuade others, that find different views threatening and insidiously dangerous, are people of very weak faith. More and more of us should see them for what they are: Tyrants demanding that everyone affirm them and their beliefs, lest they flounder in fearful doubt.
Is God glorified by men’s error of any kind?
>> care to throw some parameters on that comment ?
Not particularly. The precise parameters of Salvation are not for me to define, but for God himself.
>> or do jehovahs and Mormons fall in there too?
Perhaps, perhaps not. I don’t know. That’s really between them and God.
I’ll admit to some ignorance on this particular subject. Personally, I am not clear enough on what Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses believe to definitively determine their Salvation. (I am fully aware of what gets attributed to Mormons and JW’s on this forum, but I remain unclear on whether those are genuine beliefs of the faith).
Ultimately, even if I generically knew what they believed, it simply isn’t my place to judge their individual Salvation — for I cannot know the individual hearts, minds and lives of each Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness. People do not stand before God as groups (Catholics, Protestants, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.), they stand as individuals.
To the extent that they accept the essential tenets of Christianity — virgin birth, Son of God, trinity, crucifixion, resurrection, salvation, etc. — I believe they can enjoy Salvation with other believers. To the extent they are wrong, but still believe the essentials — I believe it is possible that those are among the forgiven sins that we all accumulate. Thus the joy of Salvation. To the extent they depart from the essentials — again, its between them and the Almighty.
I am not arrogant enough to believe I have all the answers theologically. I do the best I can with what I have, and thank God for Salvation in those areas where I am mistaken.
H
This is the product of postmodernism on our society. No exclusive truth. Truth is whatever you make of it.
Utterly disgusting.
>> Go back and read my post 12.
I’ve read it. Thanks. I stand by my posts.
>> I never claimed all of Protestantism is encompassed by Rick Warren, nor did I say all Protestant theology is shallow.
I never said you said “all” Protestant theology is shallow. I’m arguing with the assertion that ANY Protestant theology, or any fraction of the set of beliefs generally subscribed to by Protestants, is shallow.
Rick Warren is the only example you’ve given of this shallow Protestant theology. I assert that Rick Warren does not encompass the entirety of Protestant theology (the entire system of belief), but only a small sliver of Protestant theology.
Perhaps his book is shallow, again, I don’t know. The fact is, his book is not “Protestant Theology” — its a book. It is a mere single message within a HUGE complex theology. If he has a simplistic message, fine by me. Whatever. To extrapolate his singular message to define any segment of Protestantism is simply ridiculous.
H
Religious Americans: My faith isn’t the only way
WRONG!
It’s all about FAITH!
Read the Book of Hebrews in the NEW Testament.
It is faith/belief that saved them.
"Generally subscribed to by Protestants"? The only common factor which differentiates "Protestants" from the rest of Christianity is the fact they departed from Rome. Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, "Purpose Driven" seekers, are all very distinct from each other. As I have said. Again, my post 12 said that SOME BRANCHES of Protestantism have shallow theology.
Now, you are arguing the assertion that "ANY Protestant theology, or any fraction of the set of beliefs..." As I stated above, I believe "set of beliefs" is a faulty way to define Theology. A set of beliefs is a confession of faith, or doctrine, or dogma. Theology is reasoned discourse supporting beliefs. You can have correct beliefs with no rational support. It may be that we are just talking past each other with the term "theology."
Perhaps his book is shallow, again, I don’t know. The fact is, his book is not “Protestant Theology” — its a book. It is a mere single message within a HUGE complex theology. If he has a simplistic message, fine by me. Whatever. To extrapolate his singular message to define any segment of Protestantism is simply ridiculous.
His singular message *is* his own segment of Protestantism. It absolutely defines "Purpose Driven" Protestantism, because he founded it! His book is "Protestant Theology" because 1) he is a Protestant, and 2) it is the "reasoning" (in his case, feelings) behind his beliefs.
I was in Kansas twice, and I can verify you are correct. There was a sign up saying He had left.
Liberals = socialism = moral relativity = death and hell
Jesus is the TRUTH! And He will conquer!!(meaning, He wins in the end!!)
TruthConquers!!!!!
>> Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, “Purpose Driven” seekers, are all very distinct from each other.
As a Baptist with a Methodist wife, I assure you the distinctions aren’t that impressive. Honestly, other than Baptists dunking and Methodists sprinkling during Baptism — I couldn’t tell you the difference. There are greater distinctions among others, but they are all rooted in the same basic theology (in the traditional, “set of beliefs” definition of the term).
>> As I have said. Again, my post 12 said that SOME BRANCHES of Protestantism have shallow theology
And then you invented a branch to use as an example. “Purpose Driven” is not a distinct branch of Protestantism. People from most denominations read the book, but failed to convert from Baptism, Methodism, Lutheranism, etc.
>> Theology is reasoned discourse supporting beliefs. You can have correct beliefs with no rational support. It may be that we are just talking past each other with the term “theology.”
Perhaps so. So, you don’t like Warren’s arguments — and that causes you to claim some Protestant debaters (theologians?) are shallow? By that logic, any religion’s theology is only as good as its worst proponent.
There are also quite a few illogical and weakly-supported Catholic “theologians” defending your faith. Do they define Catholic theology? Could we not equally say some Catholic theology is weak, liberal, and poorly contrived? I dare say Catholic “theologians” are more prone to condoning homosexuality, abortion, and various other unsupportable behavior than Protestant theologians. Nevermind good conclusions with poor reasoning — those are poor conclusions. I don’t get where this criticism, under your definition of theology, makes Catholicism and Protestantism distinct.
Perhaps your criticism stems from the fact that Catholicism is centralized while Protestantism is localized. We have no hierarchy to organize “theology” (by your definition). We have the Southern Baptist Convention, etc. — but nothing with true controlling authority to hand down edicts.
>> His singular message *is* his own segment of Protestantism. It absolutely defines “Purpose Driven” Protestantism, because he founded it!
“Purpose Driven” Protestantism isn’t a denomination of Protestantism. I don’t know any Warrenians — though I do know several people that read the book. A couple are Baptists, a couple are Methodists, and one is non-denominational Protestant. None are shallow Christians.
You’re arguing against a denomination that doesn’t exist.
H
Indeed, B16 himself stated that Jesus is a person with whom we must have a personal relationship with. So, while many Catholics don’t get it, this one does!
There are also quite a few illogical and weakly-supported Catholic “theologians” defending your faith. Do they define Catholic theology? Could we not equally say some Catholic theology is weak, liberal, and poorly contrived?
I don't think that it follows that a theology is only as strong as its weakest advocate. First, Catholic theology is very much defined and falls within a tradition and a given structure. As does Calvinism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc. A weak theologian simply does not add to the well. Second, I never said Protestant theologians are shallow - I said the theology is shallow.
“Purpose Driven” Protestantism isn’t a denomination of Protestantism. I don’t know any Warrenians — though I do know several people that read the book. A couple are Baptists, a couple are Methodists, and one is non-denominational Protestant. None are shallow Christians.
I've read his book. I've checked out the What We Believe section of his church's website. A Christian group with a set of beliefs *is* a Christian denomination. Now, it isn't Methodist, Calvinist, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist...but it has to be something. Whatever his denomination is, as expounded by his book, has a shallow theology. Again, I've never claimed he was a shallow person, or a shallow Christian, or any such ad hominem.
Thanks for the correction. I don’t know why I read that backwards.
Do you think a Purpose Driven Life is meant to be a tome of theology? Do you think a "what we believe" section of a church website is meant to represent every facet of a church's theology? Do you think there is any reason why there should be a set of basic principles listed by a church before going into church doctrine and deeper theological issues?
Maybe you believe that before someone sets foot in a church, they should read the enire Bible, and throw in a couple of commentaries on each passage while you're at it?
How about the idea that "religion" is generally orthogonal to being saved? Maybe many of these Evangelicals treat "religion" differently from the pollsters. To them, Jesus was just another founder of a religion, like Abraham, Mohommed, Joseph Smith, etc.
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.