A new Pew survey had made headlines recently:
A new map of faith in the USA shows a nation constantly shifting amid religious choices, unaware or unconcerned with doctrinal distinctions. Unbelief is on the rise. And immigration is introducing new faces in the pews, new cultural concerns, new forces in the public square.The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, documents new peaks, deepening valleys and fast-running rivers of change in American religiosity.
The findings are being presented in two segments. One looks at religious affiliation (here used to mean identity) and demographic characteristics. The other, to be released in late spring, delves into beliefs, behavior and political views.
I’m looking forward to the second segment, because this one doesn’t seem that newsworthy. In my experience, people check boxes such as “Christian,” “Baptist,” “Buddhist,” etc. based as much on cultural / family history as anything else.
When sharing the Gospel with a guy recently, he explained how he was baptized Catholic as an infant then baptized again as a Baptist when he was a teen, and that he hadn’t attended church for years. As with many people, his basic belief was that “good people go to Heaven.”
After a fairly thorough explanation of the Gospel and how we are saved by grace/faith and not by works we asked if that was different than he expected. He said it was completely different.
This isn’t a judgment on him either way. But he could have checked “Catholic” or “Baptist” on this survey and it would have skewed the data.
I’ve also read about surveys where lots of people who claim to be Christian hold foundationally non-Christian beliefs (i.e., reincarnation). These folks are either “saved and confused” or are checking the wrong box.
Eternity Matters 
Here in the south, everyone claims to be a member of a church, but a lot don’t even go. When I volunteered for the pregnancy care center here, many of the girls said they went to church, but after talking to them, showed no signs of faith. “Being a good person” is what got them into heaven.
I think that so many ministries and churches are so afraid that people won’t come back, that they’ve softened the message of the Gospel so very much to where we “cannot judge” and anyone can believe anything and it will somehow, mysteriously get them a free ride to heaven. Churches fall into the trap of numbers and people are left in a dangerous position.
The truth of the matter is that we all need to know the position we are in before the Lord without Christ. Believers need the reminder. Unbelievers must hear the Gospel. Without Christ in their lives, it truly is “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” An awful, awful spot. Without telling them about the wrath of the Lord, His AWESOME grace and mercy almost seems a valuable and stable as jell-o to the unbeliever. We pander to their donations, whims and vanity and forget about their souls. Not a very loving thing to do.
LikeLike
How about we create two new categories for these types of studies:
1. Doesn’t agree with Neil’s take on scripture and theology.
2. Does agree with Neil on scripture, theology, religion, etc.
I think the results would be much more like what you are looking for.
LikeLike
I would go with confused.
We are handling a staggering amount of information these days, which seems to go with the bible:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ” Romans 1:22
LikeLike
Elisa & Barbara – Yep.
Michael – cute dig, but I’m really quite liberal on most church topics. I am just keen on the essentials – Jesus is God, He is the only way to salvation, the Trinity, etc. You know, the things that are clearly taught in the Bible and that the church was founded on. And I reckon that you think your views on church are right and mine are wrong – unless you think I’m right, of course, in which case we agree.
LikeLike
There are some interesting correlations between educational standards and religious traditions:
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons
I am not going to comment on it, just see for yourselves.
LikeLike
Pew did a survey a number of years ago that demonstrated that many people simply check or say”Christian” and/or their denomination of choice simply because they think that’s what the survey/surveyor wants. In other words, here was a survey demonstrating inherent flaws of other surveys done by the same group. Ah, the perils of polling, religious and otherwise.
LikeLike
It was actually refreshing last week when preparing for a funeral, the daughter of the deceased just came right out and said she wasn’t a Christian. She wasn’t trying to hide it at all. Fortunately, I could not grant her her wish concerning her mother’s funeral. The gospel came through loud and clear.
As for much of the problem that we face, it comes from this idea that theology isn’t important, combined with our relativistic views. Both views are damningly wrong. We need to teach absolutes concerning our theology, because that is what Christ did.
LikeLike
I don’t put a lot of confidence in these kind of surveys. Every generation needs to hear the Gospel, no matter what their faith or geographical backgrounds are.
The death rate on earth is still 100%, so our work continues until the Lord returns.
LikeLike
Survey and poll data is easily distorted. It’s ridiculous to listen to most of the time. Wording is important, too. Terms mean different things to different people.
Like “believe.”
“Do you believe in Jesus?”
Jew- Yes. A good man. A prophet.
Muslim- Yes. A good man. A prophet.
Christian Scientist- Yes. A good man who led the ideal life.
Mormon- Yes. A good man. A Prophet. The Son of God. The brother of the devil.
Basic Unbeliever- Yes. A good man.
Hindu- Yes. One of many gods to worship and appease.
Atheist- Yes. A man Christians created in their need to find a way to explain the unexplainable.
Christian- Yes. Son of God, Savior, Third Person of the Trinity, Imputed His righteousness to me, etc.
So, if I worded the survey correctly, I can prove that even atheists believe in Jesus. 100% of those polled would be “believers.”
LikeLike
Elisa,
Good point, I “believe” you are right! 🙂
LikeLike
I am another Christian with some ‘unchristian’ beliefs.
I wish Heaven is true and I have decided that I will know it when my time has come.
I follow the rules not because of what are promised but because I believe I simply must.
A Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit – I find that funny. To me He must be a Spirit. The unfathomable mystery.
He is the unfathomable power so that I don’t even believe in devils or other spirits because my God is the Ultimate.
LikeLike
rltjs,
That is quite a bit to hear. We believe in heaven because He says it is so. Jesus is the one that tells us about it over and over again. Read the gospels and look at the number of times He brings up the subject.
AS for the Trinity, that is an entire lesson that one must be willing to go through. It would probably worth your time to study the subject.
Blessings
LikeLike
Interesting educational correlations indeed. Other than the fact that a lot of people with post graduate degrees are Hindus and Bhuddists (which of course make so much more sense than Christianity, and have been proven repeatedly to be true) I didn’t see much to get too worked up over. I do have to ask, what in the world happens in grad school?
LikeLike
Man sometimes is creative when it comes to imparting ideas or driving ideas to others. Christ was MAN same as you and me. Though I have a right to call myself a son of God, I don’t.
[Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) is the second largest Christian Church in the Philippines. They believe in Christ as man. I am not its member though I think there is sense to that.]
Like I said, I follow what I believe is good not because of threat of pain nor because of promise of reward, but because there is sense to them – towards a better world. That’s what HE wishes of us, I guess.
LikeLike
Christ is fully a man. He is also the Son of God and hence, fully divine. He has both of these attributes at the same time.
He has to be fully man so that He can represent us to the Father, be tempted as we are, and live the perfect, sinless life as we were supposed to. He can fully identify with us in all our struggles.
He is the Second Adam and fulfills the covenant as Adam and all his descendants are not able to.
He is divine and eternal. It is this perfection that keeps Him obedient to the Lord, even unto death. He has to be perfect , because God requires a perfect sacrifice for our sins. We have to have a perfect, eternal being to stand in our stead, for we sinned against an Eternal Being (God). This is the reason why Jesus is called The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.
If you are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, believing in Christ unto salvation, you have been adopted into the family of God. True, you are not THE SON of God, the only begotten of the Father. You are A son of God, engrafted into the Kingdom. You have the right to be called a Child of God.
What good news this is! That God would send for us a Sacrifice for sin, perfect- something no barnyard animal could attain for us. That this Sacrifice was His only Son, beloved. How much He loves us! That He’s done all this for us even though we were still in sin and His enemies, who hated Him. He called us and changed us, adopted us! His mercy, grace, love, power and justice are awesome.
LikeLike
Elisa, wasn’t “Son of God” the title for the high priest of a jewish sect around the 1st century? It was also a title given to the Roman emperor.
It also appears to be an open question in scholarly (both christian and secular) circles as to whether Jesus had actually claimed to be the incarnate divine word (son) of God.
The rest of your comment seems to be lots of rationalisation and conjecture based upon assertions which may be false.
Neil said: Any “scholarly Christian” who denied the deity of Christ would be one of those oxymoronic “theologically liberal Christians” who deny the essentials of the faith. The discussion is only “open” in the sense that every discussion is “open” until there is complete unanimity around the world on it.
There are many resources on the deity of Christ and his claims to be so. Study John 8, for example. Here are a couple.
http://www.crossandthrone.com/2006/07/28/10-claims-in-the-bible-on-the-deity-of-christ/
http://www.whatthebibleteaches.com/wbt_130.htm
LikeLike
Neil said: Any “scholarly Christian” who denied the deity of Christ would be one of those oxymoronic “theologically liberal Christians” who deny the essentials of the faith
So, why was it something which was voted upon at the council of Nicea (sp?). If it’s so plainly visible in scripture, why was it even a question?
Neil said: I think it was Edgar or Dan who said, “another DaVinci school graduate.” Study your history. The Gnostic heresy was that Jesus was not a man. They thought He was only God.
LikeLike
Neil said: I think it was Edgar or Dan who said, “another DaVinci school graduate.” Study your history. The Gnostic heresy was that Jesus was not a man. They thought He was only God.
That doesn’t explain why it was put to the vote in the council. Seems it was called the “Arian controversy”.
“Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation.” Seems we both need to study our history.
Neil said: I didn’t say there wasn’t a controversy. The Bible acknowledges that there have always been and always will be false teachers. That is why we have the Bible as the truth to compare other claims to.
LikeLike
Neil,
Really great responses to Havok. There are so many that are ignorant of church history, people like Havok have a free ride most of the time. I’m glad that is not the case here.
Blessings
LikeLike
Actually there are some people who doubt Christ exististed and some who questio the morality of his teachings. To be fair, when you compare him with his contemporaries he comes out ahead.
LikeLike
Samuel, I don’t think Neil or anyone else denies that there are people who doubt that Jesus really lived or question the morality of His teachings. It’s just that it seems a gross abuse of language for some of these people to describe themselves as Christians.
LikeLike
Havok,
I like how you’re “questions” aren’t really questions. It makes responding back so very fun!
My comments were taken from Biblical teachings/Christian core beliefs. If you want the Scriptural text, I’ll be glad to give them to you. But you have yet to really read the Bible, nor do you accept it as true, so that would be an exersize in futility for me (unless some one else would honestly like to see them.)
Other people claim to be someone/something they clearly are not. The Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, The Word, Emmanuel, God With Us, The Great I Am, Messiah, Savior, The Lamb of God – very true, very real, and verily not an assertion or an opinion.
One Day, in one way or the other, you’ll find this out.
The Nicene creed was adopted to battle the heresy (the Gnostic heresy that Neil mentioned above) that was going on at that time. The creed states quite clearly what the Christian church at time (and currently as well) believed(s). Come on, study a little more church history instead of inventing your take on history/facts!
I am attaching a copy of the creed for you to read. There are Scriptural texts to support it as well.
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
**The Holy Catholic and Apostolic church is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic, in this context, means universal, and we are professing that there is one true church made up of the elect throughout the ages. There are those who are elect within the RCC, but the elect are not bound by that man-made institution. The Apostolic church is simply the church that was founded upon the teaching and doctrines of the apostles (Ephesians 2:22).
LikeLike
Elisa, I posted a comment which corrected Neil’s assertion. The question which came up at the council of Nicea was to do with the Arian Controversy.
“Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation. A third group (now known as homoiousians) tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.”
Obviously the first group, pushing the father and son being of the same substance won the day.
LikeLike
I realize this is a radical concept, but maybe (just maybe) the Arians and the homoiousians were wrong. That presupposes the existance of right and wrong, truth and falsehood etc. but you never know.
LikeLike
“Interesting educational correlations indeed. Other than the fact that a lot of people with post graduate degrees are Hindus and Bhuddists (which of course make so much more sense than Christianity, and have been proven repeatedly to be true) I didn’t see much to get too worked up over. I do have to ask, what in the world happens in grad school?”
The thought of the number of Hindus and Buddhists surprised me as well, but actually, Indians and Asians comprise a large percentage of grad students, at least in the sciences. Although, a large number of Ph.Ds among the white population due seem to tend towards atheism.
LikeLike
Craig said: I realize this is a radical concept, but maybe (just maybe) the Arians and the homoiousians were wrong.
Maybe there were more of Alexander’s supporters there. Maybe Constantine supported Alexander’s proposal. I’m not sure if there are “meeting minutes” available which could provide details.
Of course we could just assume that God influenced the decision towards the “truth” 🙂
LikeLike
Ah: the post-modern denial of objective truth — note the scare-quotes — and the subsequent view that events are nothing more than the result of power struggles. The early Christian council didn’t reach its decision because it collectively realized what is objectively true, or because it had compelling evidence about what the earliest Christian leaders actually taught, heavens no: the decision was merely the result of a power play, and those who won simply had more numbers or Constantine’s support. (Never mind that this punts the issue, never theorizing much less offering evidence about why a certain position may have had a broader base of support.)
Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Like so many other facets of post-modern thought, this approach of truth-as-power-struggles doesn’t withstand its own scrutiny. Why should we apply this approach when — according to its own theory — the reasons this approach has been popularized has nothing to do with objective truth and everything to do with petty political games?
Havok, I for one wouldn’t ask you to assume that God influence that council’s decision, but I would ask you to be less glib in your scoffing at that possibility.
The mere existence of controversy isn’t evidence that truth is unknowable or even that truth is not known. The quality of evidence supporting each position does matter.
LikeLike
So I’m a bit confused. When it comes to issues of science, usually the majority vote of scientists determine “truth”, and many people are okay with that.
However, when a bunch of theologians and church folk get together to determine “truth”, it’s all about a power play?
I’m not saying the majority always knows the “truth”, I just wonder why majority of scientists ==truth, majority of the church council == power play?
LikeLike
when science talk about “truth” they mean facts, factual, reality.
When religion speak about “truth” they mean sensible, metaphysics, virtual reality.
LikeLike
Maybe other religions, but not Christianity. It is historical and evidential. Check it out.
Truth is what corresponds to reality. The evidence is persuasive that Jesus really lived, died and rose again. That is the truth.
LikeLike