Evangelical versus “Evangelical”

A Christianity Today summary of research by LifeWay, Pew, and PRRI analyses the differences between self-identification as Evangelical and attachment to certain propositions. It also shows the connection between Evangelical identity and Republican politics.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Variants of religiousness

A useful summary of variants of religiousness with reference to Christianity, although it works just as well for other systems: I is Identifies (with the religion), B is Believes, A is Attends (services), x before the letter negates that factor.
Religious Christians – IBA
Moderately or passively religious Christians – IBxA
Social or instrumental Christians – IxBA
Nominal Christians – IxBxA
Active but unaffiliated Christians – xIBA
Privately religious, or ‘spiritual but not religious,’ Christians – xIBxA
Non-religious attenders – xIxBA

Not religious – xIxBxA

Obviously, there’s more detail than this.

One can identify with, for example, a denomination and a religion, or with only one of those (e.g., “Non-denominational Christian”, or “secular Anglican”).  Similarly, one can identify with a religious group whose other members reject the identification with them (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses as part of Christianity).

Belief varies not only by strength, but by form and origin.  One believer can accept one metaphysical proposition dogmatically (because it was taught by a trusted source), another unconsciously (having never thought about it), a third emotionally (having experienced something which made belief in it important), and a fourth philosophically (reaching a conclusion based on propositions either within or without the official system).

Attendance, of course, can include High Holy Days only, services which feature one particular characteristic (e.g., when Reverend Sally is preaching), every Sunday, or every Sunday morning and Sunday evensong and Wednesday evensong and Friday prayer meeting and Saturday youth group – not all of those necessarily at one church or within one denomination.

Even the above are simplifications.  As with many other things, the closer you look, the more complex it becomes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Religion

The narrative of persecution in Christian news

The Christian Post shared an article saying that Christians were kicked out of an Australian bar for discussing their opposition to gay marriage. The bar, however, say that they asked the Christians to move their meeting – which included people using a public address system – from the beer garden to the bar’s private function space. Notably, the CP fails to mention this.
 
A couple of weeks ago, the same news service shared a story about a Christian student’s being kicked out of his university for supporting Kim Davis . That article fails to mention that publicly sharing a passage calling homosexuality an “abomination” worthy of the death penalty violates the Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics for UK social workers , and that it was the violation of professional standards, not his religious belief, for which he was expelled not from the university but from a professional training course.
 
If you want to know why so many Christians believe that they are being persecuted, you could start by looking at how much their news services are omitting.

Leave a comment

Filed under Religion, Uncategorized

Low education means you’re more likely to be religious or irreligious than spiritual.

PRRI’s latest release on the “spiritual” versus “religious” reinforces some of the usual differences, but not all of them.

There is a well-established correlation between gender and religion, and that is borne out here: about 27% more men than women are neither “spiritual” (in belief) nor “religious” (in practice); 27% more women than men are “religious”; 34% more women are “spiritual”; 44% more women are both “spiritual” and “religious”.

There is also a well-established negative correlation between religion and extent of education, but the data show some interesting things about irreligion and spirituality. For example, a person with only a secondary-level education is 3.6 times as likely as a person with a postgraduate education to be “religious”, 3.42 times as likely to be “neither spiritual nor religious”, but only 2.03 times as likely to be “spiritual”; a person with an undergraduate degree is 1.52 times as likely as the postgrad to be “religious”, 1.5 times as likely to be “neither spiritual nor religious”, but only 1.26 times as likely to be “spiritual”. In other words, there is strong correlation between low education and religiousness, almost as strong a correlation between low education and irreligiousness, but a considerably weaker correlation between low education and spirituality.

Given the typical antipathy of institutes of higher learning towards the dogmatism of traditional religion, it’s interesting to see that the same effect does not impact spirituality.

Leave a comment

Filed under Religion

The Six Commandments

A YouGov survey shows support only for six out of the ten commandments: worshipping idols, taking the Lord’s name in vain, having other gods, and keeping the Sabbath holy are – for more than half of Britons – considered obsolete. Notably, this remains true even when narrowing the responses to those of Christians only.

While conservatives might claim that this shows “a descent into sin”, what it does clearly demonstrate is the movement away from literalist dogmatism.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The rich care less about people

Science confirms rich people don’t really notice you—or your problems

Leave a comment

Filed under Social Justice

Science and gender

Seeing people who rail against others being transgender, describing that as “unnatural”, I wonder about more than just the fact that combing your hair is unnatural, wearing glasses is unnatural, and having any kind of corrective surgery is unnatural.

I also wonder what those ranters would say about people who have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome but are insensitive to androgens, or are missing the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, or have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and thus have *female* bodies. That’s right: male chromosomes, female bodies.

What about people who have two X chromosomes but one of those Xs also has an SRY gene, or who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and thus have *male* bodies? That’s right: female chromosomes, male bodies.

What about people who have conditions such as 5α-reductase deficiency, who thus have bodies which are female until puberty but then become male bodies?

What about people who are XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, XYY, or X0? What about people whose cells differ from one another, forming a mosaic of XX and XY together in one body, including those who “with more than 90 per cent XY genetic material have given birth”?

What about people who have similar conditions which are never externally, publicly apparent, who are apparently one sex but are really not that and are instead the other, or are neither?

What about the fact that human science is not an absolute knowledge of all that is or can be, and thus we cannot logically rule out the existence of conditions and situations which we cannot even identify yet?

Even if someone went so far down the reductive biological determinism route as to imagine that humans were mere organic machines, with neither free will nor reflexive and conscious thought, one would still have to face the simple fact that the machinery of biology is much, much more complex than a simplistic dichotomy of XX versus XY.

Along similar lines, those who claim that being transgender is a new, Western idea have somehow managed not only to be ignorant of fa’afafinetwo-spirit, katoey, hijra, waria, etc., but also of such ancient figures as Kaineus, Teiresias, Iphis, Hermaphroditos, and the people Philo rails against in Alexandria.

Leave a comment

Filed under Social Justice, Uncategorized