I would hesitate to suggest that something different is at work re: the views of evangelical conservatives with respect to those of the biblical Jesus, compared to the views of those Christians whose views align better with those of the biblical Jesus.  Differences require evidence, and I don't think that such evidence is present here.

That evidence would have to show that the fact that the more liberal Christians have beliefs closer to those of the biblical Jesus is actually due to their following the biblical Jesus's views more accurately.  Until more evidence comes in, a more parsimonious interpretation is the following:

- Those conservative evangelicals cited in the article create gods in their images, holding their views.  Being Christians, they tend to name these gods "Jesus".  These gods hold views that diverge greatly from those of the Biblical Jesus, because they are moulded as conservative gods.

- The more liberal sorts of Christians create gods in their images, holding their views.  Being Christians, they tend to name these gods "Jesus".  These gods hold views that diverge minimally from those of the Biblical Jesus, because they are moulded as more liberal gods.

This way, we only have to posit one phenomenon at work, instead of two (or more).

Hi InannaWhimsey,

Thanks for sharing the Huff Post article and the source survey that helps take us to the source data.

I find the title of the article to be deliberately inflammatory.  

While the article may point to a disparity between belief and praxis I think "hatred" is a misrepresentation more than it is a fair critique.

I also think that the findings may be more contextual (to the United States) than they are universal (to all conservatives everwhere).  The United States of America has a peculiar understanding of their own import and this nationalism shapes how they receive and use anything.  The doctrine of manifest destiny though postulating that American expansion is under God appears to make America an idol that competes with God.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Let's be clear about this IannaWhimsey. The article that you have linked to both in this forum and on the Religion and Philosophy forum is simply entitled "Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus." It is my belief that the article is akin to hate speech, and it is my opinion that it only serves to reinforce negative stereotypes of evangelicals. Therefore, I feel that I have no choice but to flag your R&P post and the one above as being offensive. Please understand that this is nothing personal, I just do not want to see such material as the article propagated.

In the spirit of the last two responses, I would just like to add that I agree - the title is both inflamatory and inaccurate.  Even the article itself admits as much:

They admit to lying in their title just to be provocative (read: to offend people and thus get attention).  Hrrmm.

Hi Azdgari,

Not the best way to engage in discussion is it?

Grace and peace to you.

John

No, it really isn't.  Having said that though, the study they've used is worthy of discussion, if we can ignore the offending blog that cited it.

Yes, however the writer then goes on to say, "...But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him."

This notion that the only reason we evangelicals love Jesus is because he frees us from hell is something that I personally find quite offensive. The author seems to be striving to depict us as selfish individuals out merely to serve our own interests. The evangelicals who I know personally are loving gracious people who love Jesus for saving them, for teaching them, for guiding them through life, for protecting them from evil, and just because of who we believe Jesus is: the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Inanna,

In view if the response, it looks like Mike and I did you a disservice in requesting this thread.

Jae,

Just so you know,  back here in Oz I have a very good friend who is an evangelical Christian. He is a wonderrful man who has been an immense help since my husband died.

I've even got round to thinking it's nice that he's worried about my soul - if only he wouldn't go on about it quite so much. His wife  is more diplomatic - she just says, "Isn't it good that we're both Christians?". (but then, women are such sensible chaps!) 

IMO this article doesn't require flagging, just consideration on its merits or otherwise.

In can be a damaging precedent to silence what one personally finds offensive.

Hi Azdgari,

I tried that in my first response.

I think that there are layers and layers of culture involved in the phenomenon that was studied.  Stuff that just doesn't fit the Evangelical context once some borders are crossed.  

While I do not have studies to back up this suspicion I would think that evangelicals in the UK would not see themselves reflected in the character the author lazily sketches.  I think that evangelicals in Canada would also feel misrepresented.

I mean the fact that Tea-Party membership is part of the survey should be enough to indicate that there is a strong cultural bias at play even in determining what it was that Jesus taught.  Apart from the cultural bias there is political bias at play (I suspect that the notion of manifest destiny combined with the more blatant patriotism of our American neighbours might be a stronger influence theologically there more than it is anywhere else.

Without having the whole of the survey I also wonder if the authors are building a case for causation rather than correlation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

One thing I've found is that Evangelical/Conservatives are as adamant about not liking how they are percieved, as they are about having the only right theology.

While it certainly is true that stereotypes are often wrong in depth, it is also true that one often gets the reputation one works for.

In other words, if the world thinks you're a jerk, it's possible it is because Satan hates you for your walk with God. Possible.....

However, chances are if everyone thinks you're a jerk, it's because you're a jerk.

The religious right has often well earned the criticisms levelled at it.

quote "Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world."

Ah yes, the evangelicals are the enemy. If it weren't for them there would be no death penalty, draconian sentences, punitive punishment and gov't torture.

The outrage from other denominations is ...............well........very quiet. Can I safely say then that silence is equally "hating jesus"? Capital punishment was brought over  with the Mayflower. Where is the voice of change? America continues to aggressively widen it's "empire", how does this continue to happen with so many liberal voices?

Fact is, we'd rather point fingers and blame others for our own short comings.  I can name at least 20 "evangelical preachers" that continue to preach this diarrhea, but for the life of me, I can't think of one mainline minister that speaks out against it on a national scale.

Yeah, I read that part and decided not to comment on it in order to keep the post brief.  But what you've said is why I called it a "blog".  The stuff in that quote isn't evidenced in general, let alone by the study being cited.

Again the article is trying to draw a sharp dividing line between the psychology of "evangelicals" (not an accurate term for the group described, that) and other Christians.  I suppose it's convenient to try to do that, for the reasons given by Waterfall above.

Hi Witch,

I would think that the same would hold true for Progressive/Liberals.  The only exception being that they are generally pleased if how they are perceived is negative if that perception is held by those they react against and while they generally do not put on airs about having the only right theology they don't appear to be squeamish about looking down their noses at others while they dismiss the theology held by others.

It seems that the only requirement for being a jerk is having strong feelings about an issue.  It really doesn't matter what side is championed.

No argument.  Again, I would say the same holds true for the religious left.

My observation of the divide is that we (wherever anyone wants to slot me) are happy to think of the others as completely other and more often than not we are able to rationalize our dislike for the other based on their complete and utter otherness.

Recognizing the other is not automatically a bad thing.  

The bad thing, I would even go so far as to say the evil thing, is how we set about treating that other.

With respect to the article in question.  There is research.  There are conclusions drawn from that research and then there is communication of those conclusions.  It is the communication piece that separates the Huff-Post article from the Pew Research article.

The Pew Research article takes a pretty dispassionate approach to the findings while the Huff-Post does not.  Are both saying the same thing?  Yes and no.

Yes, both are pointing to a connection to political affiliation and moral orders.

No, the huff-Post article flavours the points with the assertion that certain Christians are actively traitors to the God they claim to serve.

One provides an issue which can be discussed while the other appears only to be interested in the discussion as a pretext to thrash their ideological counterparts.

Being critical of a particular point should not be seen as permission to treat others who hold that point with contempt.  The Huff-Post article gets to close to the contempt line for my comfort.  I can cross the line because even though I would identify myself with the Christian right based on my theological forebears and influences I don't see myself as filling out this ugly stereotype.

In this thread we have, so far, seen two who take a strong dislike to the article and in their indignation refused to engage the allegations (which I think is fair--the piece is a bit of a hatchet job) and others who note that the title is provocative (and Adzgari pointed out that the writer of the piece knew that at the time of writing the article) and makes no effort to actually engage in dialogue.

It is a jockeying for position that seems to be somewhat contrary to the command to love one's neighbour.

I agree people can be jerks.  Confronting a jerk with jerkiness of our own is an escalation of jerkiness in general.  Fire can be fought with fire.  It typically cannot be fought by adding more fuel.

This thread will most likely play out with those, who will be identified as other and inferior Christians (if we are lucky enough to be allowed to wear the label) talking among themselves and agreeing with themselves while our potential dialogical partners withdraw convinced that Progressives/Liberals are not to be trusted.

I read that as lose-lose.

Grace and peace to you.

John

It's true revjohn that I find other conservative evangelicals immediately easier to trust. I suppose it's because I see us more as operating on the same page. I imagine that I'm not alone in this, that it's easiest for most to trust those most like us. At the same time, I would not agree that the other cannot be trusted at all.

While I do not wish to entertain what I consider to be the cheap shots of the Huffington writer, I am agreeable to discuss issues regarding the conservative evangelicals I know and love and myself.

Politically, the vast majority of my friends, if not all of them, are Conservatives. I imagine that a lot of them would have been supporters of the Reform party when it was around. Most think that Mr. Harper is not a perfect prime minister, but is doing the best that he can with the government that he has. In Sunday morning worship services we regularly pray for he and his team. At the time of the last municipal election most supported conservative candidate Rob Ford. Personally, I'm slightly more to the left than most of my friends. I would best be described as being a red Tory or a blue Grit (if I've understood those terms correctly). Federally I vote Conservative. Provincially I vote Green. Municipally last time I voted for George Smitherman.

Now I would like to discuss the conservatives I know and social issues. The majority of my personal friends are opposed to same-sex marriage, opposed to abortion on any grounds (a few would allow it when the life of the mother is at risk), welcoming to new immigrants, and believing in gun control. I'm all over the map on the subjects of same-sex marriage, abortion, and euthenasia. My head (by which I mean my logical understanding of the Scriptures) tells me one thing, my heart tells me another. I'm really in favor of immigration. I issue no comment here on gun control.

Most of my conservative evangelical friends are Canadians, and most are Baptist. Some are Korean. Some belong to Korean churches. They are of many nationalities, many ages, both sexes, and have differing degrees of physical and mental abilities.

Most support the death penalty for cases of murder, I personally do not. I honestly don't know anyone who is in favor of torture.

What I've offered above is, I hope, more of a sincere picture of a real conservative evangelical and his associates. I trust all can see the difference between that and what seem to be the smear tactics of the Huffington writer.

 Morning Calm and everyone else,

 I think it might be prudent to at least point out that the survey this article is based on is not pertaining to evangelcals as a whole (as in global) or even conservative evangelicals as whole (as in global) but American versions.   A while there are some general patterns that could be similar in the case of the US context needs to be considered because of the differences in general relgious culture and politcs as it currently stands.      I would not take a US survey of Amercian evangelcals as some sort of interchangeable snapshot Canadian ones.   For one 'conservative' in the current poltical context of US vs Canadian is different.  They just don't interchange that easily or at least not in a binary fashion.    The basics of 'what we believe' in might sound the same on paper but practice is a whole other ballgame.     I know a good many who consider themselves 'conservative' here in Canada who would fail the current state of what is considered 'conservative' in the noisy US right wing at the moment.    Paul Frum is a real world example.  In the Canadian context Frum is a 'conservative'.  In the American context he's been pushed into RINO (Republican In Name Only)  and even conservative traitor territory in political speak world.  Heck even GWB gets the RINO treatment now.     I know right wing 'conservitves' in the US who consider our conservatives and Harper himself to be nothing but a 'Liberals' in sheeps clothing.   Our conservatives are even considered to be commies to some. 

So Morning Calm's anecdotal experience may very well hold true in the Canadian context.   Doesn't mean that it necessarily translates into the current American one though.

A good example would be opinions on healthcare.  Although view do run the spectrum surveys have shown over and over that even though some self identified conservatives, in Canada believe in various levels of privitization in our healthcare system, most still believe in and support the importance of some sort of publically funded healthcare system at a foundational level.   In current conservative US world this sort of thinking would pin you as a socialist, lberal thinker.   Might sound crazy but go ahead and try it out on any of the current right wing blogging sites.  

Hi MorningCalm,

I find your response to be a typical representation of pretty much everyone no matter which spectrum they find themselves on and no matter where they would place themselves or be placed by others.

All of us have an instinctual trust of those who think like us.  I suspect that is a natural characteristic of social/herd animals.  All of us have an instinctual distrust of those who are different from us in any immediately discernable way.  The level of distrust is, I suspect, directly proportional to the distinctions we are able to make between ourselves and the other.  I don't think that there is anything surprising or alarming about that.

Of course, I don't think that we are meant to simply accept that this is the way that things should be and not make any attempt to understand the other (and thus ourselves) better.

Well there are a number of ways one can respond when one perceives themselves to be unfairly targetted.  One way is to be reactive, to jump down in the gutter we feel we are attacked from and start slinging crap of our own.  The other is to consider whether the criticism, no matter how crudely presented, has any merit.

Along the way it is probably wise to try and get a grip on how the individual who has used the language that offends understands the language that has given offence.  Sometimes the intent that is sent out is not at all the intent that is received.  Communication failures from either end get the war drums beating.  If cooler heads are allowed to prevail there may not be a need to go to war.

While that is neither here nor there when the context of the article is specifically American it does lead to interesting thoughts.  Such as, If the unite the right campaign had failed and the Progressive Conservative and the Reform Party were still separate entities would either be today, what they were then?

The same question can be asked of the parties allegedly on the left.

Things change, even political things change, the real concern is who is driving that change and to what end.  While the Conservative Party of Canada is the child of Reform and Progressive Conservative traditions it is not the same creature.  Personally, I feel it is a monster and I lament that there are no political heros with the apparent ability to behead it.

It isn't that I distrust individual members who were either PC or Reform.  It is that I have difficulty trusting them when they draw the wagons and cut themselves off from the world.  And to be fair I distrust any politician or political party willing to do the same.

I am not a fan of partisanship.

I agree, at least that far.  Mr. Harper like any politician needs to count the cost.  He can say what he wants and do as he wishes.  He does not get to determine what the consequences will be.  he is having difficulty generating enough support for a majority government because he is not considered trustworthy by enough Canadians.

I am personally of the opinion that were he to win a majority and feel no need to be as cautious as he currently is he would only last one term and that voter backlash would do to the Canadian Progressive Conservative party what voter backlash aimed at the Progressive Conservative Party has done Federally and in Ontario.

But that is politics only.

Theologically speaking we are dealing with a different kettle of fish though there are often enough similarities.

I'm not going to argue with who's belief is best because the issue in the Huff-Post piece is not actually about what is believed.

The issue is integrity.  How what is believed jives with how one lives and the decisions that one makes.

Jesus says, "those who live by the sword, die by the sword."  I'm confident that you could substitute sword with "right to bear arms" and not lose anything.

Jesus says, "my kingdom is not of this world."  I'm even more confident that the United States of America is of this world.

I fail to see how any reasonable Christian be they liberal or conservative in their theology or politics can reconcile either of those theological statements with opposition to gun control or protectionism.  If any reasonable Christian cares to teach me in that regard I'm prepared to be the student.

And, while Mr. Zuckerman, could have used more respectful language in making his point, I believe that this is his point.  This point will not prick all who are labelled conservative or Evangelical.  It should prick some.  If it does and they do not feel the prick then their hearts are dead.

I never fail to pray for the governments of this world during our pastoral prayer.  I never fail to pray that they be blessed with wisdom and discernment from the God who is author of each and I never fail to remind God that every government is under his foot.  I have never advocated that because a government exists God must be pleased for it to exist.

Biblically God has used nations as scourges to cleanse Israel and then tossed the scourge aside as soon as its work is done.

I don't find any of this surprising.  Part of that, I suspect, is the Canadian culture which establishes a context somewhat different from that which appears in the United States.  I think most human beings are more complex that always on the left or always on the right.  I also think that positions shift on any issue depending upon how important the issue becomes to us.

Which throws further layers of culture into the mix further muddying the waters and making terms like liberal and conservative effectively useless.

I have shared elsewhere that in my home congregation I was considered to be theologically conservative.  Too conservative more my clergy who wrote me a nice letter suggesting I'd be happier elsewhere.  Then I went to Redeemer for my undergrad and I was considered by many, because of my UCCAN pedigree, to be responsible for the destruction of Christendom.

When it was time to apply for seminary I was called for an interview to Emmanuel ( I'm still waiting to hear if any of my colleagues were submitted to the same process) and deemed unfit to attend.  VST welcomed me with open arms which means that either VST has much lower standards for admission to their degree programs or I wasn't welcome at Emmanuel.

At VST I was once again back in familiar territory as the conservative.

At any point in time I could have played to the stereotype.  I could have said, why bother being who I really am when nobody will let me.  Why not just be what they expect?  Again, that's an integrity issue and while I could swallow my integrity for a while I wouldn't put up with trying to keep it down for long.

Those who made the effort to look past the stereotypes found that I was not greatly different than they were themselves.  I have good days and I have bad days.  Sometimes I make my points well and other times I'm quite sloppy.

Those friendships did not come about because we shared theological or political positions.  It came about because we all decided first and foremost that we were not enemies to conquer but teammates to work with.

I find that perspective sadly lacking among many Christians of all flavours.

I flip and flop on the death penalty.  Knowing that people could have been executed who were later found to be innocent makes me uneasy about having the death penalty readily accessible.  Knowing that folk like Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo and Robert Picton are still alive in the world makes me uneasy that it is not an option.

Like yourself I know nobody who condones the use of torture.  I also know a fair number who are not above bullying and I think the only difference between the two is a matter of scale.

Well, in all fairness, it is just a picture of a conservative evangelical that you know.  It is not a portrait of all conservative evangelicals be they real or imagined.

While Zuckerman does smear the portrait he paints I don't think he has completely ruined the picture when one remembers that his portrait is of the American Evangelical and not the Canadian one.  Until we get a better look at the American Evangelical we cannot assess with any real certainty just how smeared the portrait is.

I do think that his generalization is unhelpful.  One of the unfortunate things about any stereotype is that for somebody it is a bull's eye.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think it's disappointing when a minister of religion says, I flip and flop on the death penalty. 

Makes your Grace and peace to you seem rather hollow, IMO.

Hi Pilgrim's Progress,

Well that is not the first time I've faced that charge and I expect it won't be the last.

Grace is not easy.  It also doesn't exist apart from justice.

I understand the rationale for individuals who reject completely the death penalty.  Ihave also seen what some, whose crimes would warrant it do when they cannot rehabilitate or reform and they spend the rest of their lives in isolation.  I don't think that prolonged imprisonment is always the most gracious option.

Whether or not I am capable of showing grace consistently it doesn't mean that I wouldn't wish it for anyone.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Interesting articles, though the Huffingtpn Post article severely stretched the data in the Pew article.  While the title was provocative, I hope it got a lot of people to check out the issue.  Since it was written in an American context, it automatically is only dealing with American Evangelicals.  Most troublesome was the translation of large minority opinions into majority opinions, and the lack of direct survey data for the claim made in the Huffington Post.

While I am a liberal to most conservative Christians, most of my colleagues in  UCC ministry probably regard me as Conservative.  I have found participation in ministerial association which were almost all conservative Christians more rewarding than participation in most United Church ministerial groups, mainly because the conservatives take their faith more seriously, and are more eager to make a difference for individuals in the community.