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 gay 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 8 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). Continue >>
RSS
Comments
And feelfine at least from prophets writtings he is bearing fruit I would dare say that you sir are lacking in that area all togeather with you denying of the truth of scripture and the twisting thereof. Where still praying for you tho. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
wbmoore,
That is so true...and sad. It's a constant struggle to keep false teachings from entering into the church. Especially when it comes under the guise of "tolerance".
When Satan brings a misguiding doctrine to the church, he whispers in the ears of God's people the same thing that he said to Eve:
You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Today he says "You won't die. If you learn and teach this doctrine you will be even more like God." And since we are in a state of trying to attain to the image of Christ, this becomes very tempting....
Prophet, I agree. My issue is not with unbliblical traditions. However, I do have problems with that are counter biblical, or those churches that do not teach the bible.
I've seen Sunday school classes teach Native American religion, instead of the Bible. I've seen Wednesday evening children's group being absolutely nothing more than baby sitting, teaching arts and crafts but no Bible. I've seen youth groups be nothing more than party-time. I've seen preaching that teaches the opposite of what the Bible teaches. THESE sorts of things irritate me. It is the parent's responsibility to teach the word to their children, but its the church's job to help grow disciples.
If a practice is scriptural, I have no problem with it. And there are things that Christians do that aren't found in the Scriptures, but they don't build tenets and doctrines on them.
For example...many churches utilize Sunday School. Is it scriptural. No. Is it a doctrine? No. It is merely a tool in attaining knowledge. Same as many churches have mid-week services. Although they are not found in the scriptures, they are not doctrine, but they are simply another chance to grow in Christ.
The Bible doesn't say how often we should get together. In Acts, they church got together everyday. But they didn't make it a doctrine or requirement. Sometimes I wish we'd still do that. By the time Saturday rolls around I am already becoming spritually depleted and exhausted by the onslaught of sin thrown at me all week. Having a church meeting every night would certainly keep me stronger.
This is the point. If it becomes a doctrine, and it's not in the Scriptures then you might want to think about a change of churches. If wearing a particular colored robe is a doctrine or requirement, then it is not the church for me. It is bondage.
Luther had a word for such traditions.(It's a word I have forgotten, in my old age.) Unlike Calvin, who wanted to "purify" every aspect of the church, Luther did not object to leaving some Catholic practices, if they were not expressly forbidden by scripture.
Man-made, I think.
Do the colors in anyway affect the spiritual life of the parishioners? Or are they merely man-made traditions?
Not sure exactly. It has to do with the liturgical church calendar, which is ancient. These colors were decided a thousand years ago, I guess. In the Episcopal Church, it always looks sort of "un-American" to me. The colors (especially the purples and scarlets and deep reds) are a Romish holdover from Catholicism. (But that's just my own prejudice showing.)
Why does the episcopal church use purple or scarlet robes?
I think the Episcopal Church uses scarlet and purple robes sometimes, both of them, but I don't think they are arguing about the color. Lots of my ancestors were Episcopalians. Maybe that is the church for me and my house. From another article:
"A Primates Council which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion, he [the Archbishop of Canterbury] stated. 'And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical.'
I say, he's right.
"U.S. Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori lamented the GAFCON statement. 'Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers.'"
I say, she's right.
Scarlet or purple? Both.
Take heed, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2Pe 3:16).
ifeelfine, please note that the word, INTERPRETED, in the definition of inerrancy refers to the correct interpretation from a language point of view as opposed to one's personal interpretation of those autographs.
ifeelfine, please don't ever accuse me of interpreting the Scriptures like you do, because here you are trying to use a totally irrelavant issue with regards to the color of a robe and try to equate that to justfying sexual practices that are clearly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments alike. Let me first off define for you inerrancy. It means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs, properly interpreted, will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether this has to do with DOCTRINE, or MORALITY, or with the SOCIAL, PHYSICAL, or LIFE SCIENCES. The bottomline is that the Bible has been breathed by God. He used men to write out exactly what He wanted them to write. He kept them free from error but at the same time used their unique personalities and styles to convey exactly what He wanted. There are several reasons why the color of the robe may differ. The robe was old and worn, the robe was blood stained, the dye for the robe was not distinct and scarlet and purple are both similar colors, but the difference of opinion of the writers has no impact on the inerrancy of the Scriptures because the color of the robe has nothing to do with biblical truth.
I believe that the Scriptures are factually inerrant when the Bible said that the walls of Jericho fell.
I believe that the Scriptures are fatually inerrant when it says that Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by fire.
I believe the Scriptures are inerrant when they say that Jesus healed the leper, raised the dead, cast the demons out.
I believe the Scriptures are inerrant when they say that adultery is a sin. And lying, murder, homosexuality, greed, deceit, etc.
believer: Now we are getting somewhere. You're right, the color of the robe has no bearing on the truths taught in the Bible. But then you cannot claim A) factual inerrency (red or purple - it was one color or the other - the Bible doesn't say both) and B) a literal translation of the Bible (it was literally one or the other). Now, you're right, the truths of the Bible still hold. When you claim factual inerrency (which you are now saying you don't claim), it makes a position of holding literal stronger - but you cannot make that claim anymore. Therefore, you're expert's hermenuetic is no better than my expert's hermenuetic.
Prophet: If you can judge a man by his fruits, yours are starting to smell a little rotten.