One of the most enjoyable books I’ve read lately is Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…and Other Lies You’ve Been Told: A Sociologist Shatters Myths From the Secular and Christian Media
Now, I guess I’m a little odd in that I enjoy books about and filled with statistics. But I do. And in this case, I think most readers will agree, because Wright does an excellent job of avoiding the jargon and equations, resulting in a very accessible, understandable book.
In his first chapter, Wright asks why there’s so much bad news about Christians in the press. Part of the reason is the many bad statistics put out by Christians to further an agenda. He gives as an example a statistic published by George Barna. In 2002, Barna conducted a survey and found that while “born again Christians” had a good image, “evangelicals” had a very poor image.
One reason why evangelical churches across the nation are not growing is due to the image that non-Christian adults have of evangelical individuals. In a nationwide survey released by the Barna Research Group of Ventura, California among a representative sample of people who do not consider themselves to be Christian, the image of “evangelicals” rated tenth out of eleven groups evaluated, beating out only prostitutes. The non-Christian population was not as dismissive of all Christians or religious people, however, as ministers and “born again Christians” were among the three highest-rated segments evaluated.
The secular media picked this up and gladly trumpeted the fact that evangelicals have an image nearly as bad as prostitutes. But Wright concludes that the results are bogus.
* Wright notes that respondents were twice as likely to respond “don’t know” to the question about evangelicals vs. born-again Christians. It’s quite likely that secular respondents were unfamiliar with the term, as Barna asked about “evangelicals” not “evangelical Christians.” Born-again Christian were third-highest in the group. How many among us can cogently define the difference? Is there a difference? Lots of people use the terms interchangeably.
The first time I heard “evangelical” as a category of Christians — well after graduated from college — I thought the term meant “evangelistic.” And Wright suspects many respondents may have thought they were being asked about people who knock on their door and stick tracts in their faces.
* Barna treated the “don’t know” respondents the same as those with negative impressions. He compared evangelicals to prostitutes based solely on the raw number of favorable responses, ignoring the fact that nearly everyone has an opinion on prostitution and far fewer had an opinion on evangelicals. If you back out the “don’t know” responses, evangelicals jump to the middle of pack — far from next to last.
* Once you back out the “don’t know” responses, most responses cluster very tightly around 23% to 25% favorable. They’re too close to each other to rank because of the uncertainty inherent in such a small sample.
Wright found that web sites that reported the statistics frequently subtly distorted the results to make this look even worse — and this was often at the hands of Christian web sites!
Wright offers this example because it illustrates several problems —
* Much of the negative “news” about Christians comes from the Christian community — often due to poor methods or simply a desire to pursue an agenda. If a pastor or preacher wants the church to do better, maybe he needs to announce a statistic about how terrible things are!
* The blogosphere, even the Christian blogosphere, is capable of distorting the message — to gain shock value, to pursue an agenda, or just due to sloppy work.
* The secular press will always pursue the “man bites dog” story first. So the corrupt pastor, the promiscuous priest, etc. will always be reported long before the many good and noble works of the church…
Wright is concerned, as we all should be, that all this negative publicity is bad for the church and bad for Christianity. It surely hurts evangelistic work, and it surely takes away some of the motivation of members to volunteer and donate. And yet much of the bad “news” is from the church itself. We are a self-destructive people.
There is no shortage of irony here. Christian teachers and leaders might focus on the failures of the church to motivate their members to do better; but in taking a negative approach, they might actually hinder the success of the church. These well-intentioned might do more harm than good. Just imagine if we used this kind of fear appeal in our everyday lives. Let’s say that you didn’t like your wife’s cooking. You could say, “Honey, tonight you served us jarringly inedible tofu again, and if this continues, we will cease to function as a family unit. However, I have truly good news, for I have prepared a series of menus centered on steak and pork chops. …
Well, that family unit will be in trouble from the husband’s tactics long before it falls apart from the tofu. People quickly tire of such tactics and either leave or tune them out.
Did Jesus start the socialist party.
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control – a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society… where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future – to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives. We strive for democratic revolutions – radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations – to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members
Christians should be prepared to be misunderstood and insulted for simply trying to follow Jesus.
"If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name…Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good" (1 Peter 4:14-16, 19).
When we are misunderstood and maligned, we just need to trust God and keep on doing whatever good we can. Our reputations in the world may or may not improve, but we can continue to love Christ and the people around us.
I find it a bit suspicious that immediately this post demonizes the secular media, as if they were out destroy Christianity, But I think the most damning statistic I've read is that societies without god are more benevolent. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/20…
Lucas,
Interesting post. I read the link you referenced. There are several flawed statistics referenced the article.
First, the World Health Organization, World Trade Organization and others who might report benevolence typically only report funds given specifically from that country's government. They specifically do not include personal donations by the general populace. The U.S. has historically been on top or near top in that category (researched before but don't have the references available). Combining these significantly raises U.S. ranking.
Secondly, the article tries to blame murder rates on religiousness. Well, the absolute highest murder rate area is where our nation's politicians live (DC).
In all seriousness, the article chose to pick a couple of sample states to make a false point rather than looking for trend across the entire U.S. In reality, there is virtually zero statistical correlation between U.S. murder rates and that state's church attendance rate. There is a correlation (although not great) based on percentage of the state's population that live under the poverty line. I'm sure there are many other factors as well. But it is very safe to conclude religion (at least Christianity) is not one of them.
For those interested, below is the data I used to draw these conclusions. I will add the source of the data in three separate posts so the links don't throw me into the blog's spam filter.
State poverty Church attendance Urban density Total Violent Crime Rate Murder Rape Robbery property crime
Ala. 16.10% 58.00% 1,386 448 8.9 33.4 159.9 3,971.60
Alaska 8.20% 1,579 661.2 6.4 77.4 85.3 3,379.50
Ariz. 14.20% 35.00% 2,699 482.7 7.4 29.3 151.7 4,414.00
Ark. 17.90% 55% 1,550 529.4 6.7 44.7 106.7 3,953.10
Calif. 13.30% 32.00% 4,041 522.6 6.2 24.7 193 3,033.00
Colo. 11.10% 35.00% 2,879 347.8 3.1 41.1 71 3,006.10
Conn. 7.60% 37.00% 1,701 256 3 18.8 103 2,399.90
DC 2 18.90% 33.00% 2,079 1,414.30 30.8 32.6 724.3 4,913.90
Del. 9.90% 43.00% 9,378 689.2 4.3 38.9 197.3 3,370.10
Fla. 12.20% 39.00% 2,328 722.6 6.6 33.7 209.1 4,089.30
Ga. 14.80% 52.00% 1,574 493.2 7.5 22.8 181.7 3,901.00
Hawaii 10.60% 3,118 272.8 1.7 25.4 86.1 4,225.40
Idaho 14.50% 43.00% 2,108 239.4 3.3 38.5 15.5 2,246.60
Ill. 11.90% 42.00% 3,053 533.2 5.9 31.9 179.7 2,935.80
Ind. 10.80% 46.00% 1,951 333.6 5.6 27.5 124.1 3,396.60
Iowa 9.90% 46.00% 2,192 294.7 1.2 30.3 43.9 2,615.60
Kans. 10.50% 47.00% 2,229 452.7 3.9 44.3 72.6 3,678.70
Ky. 17.40% 48.00% 1,856 295 4.8 32.6 95.9 2,518.30
La. 19.40% 58.00% 1,954 729.5 14.2 32.4 141.7 4,076.00
Maine 12.30% 31.00% 1,438 118 1.6 29.7 26.5 2,428.80
Mass. 9.20% 31.00% 2,529 431.5 2.9 25.3 108.6 2,391.50
Md. 8.80% 41.00% 2,069 641.9 9.8 21 236 3,431.50
Mich. 12.30% 42.00% 2,221 536 6.7 45.5 133.2 3,065.70
Minn. 8.30% 44.00% 2,313 288.7 2.2 36 91.8 3,036.60
Miss. 21.60% 57.00% 1,490 291.3 7.1 35.6 98.2 3,200.80
Mo. 11.80% 46.00% 2,135 504.9 6.5 29.2 121.9 3,738.40
Mont. 14.20% 34.00% 1,874 287.5 1.5 30.3 19.9 2,765.40
N.C. 15.20% 53.00% 2,625 466.4 6.5 26.3 149.5 4,087.30
N.D. 12.10% 43.00% 3,364 142.4 1.9 32.4 10.9 1,889.60
N.H. 7.60% 24.00% 1,313 137.3 1.1 25.3 32.8 1,892.00
N.J. 8.50% 34.00% 2,846 329.3 4.4 12.1 144.5 2,213.10
N.M. 19.30% 41.00% 1,814 664.2 8.2 52.4 117.8 3,725.70
N.Y. 14.20% 33.00% 4,215 414.1 4.2 15.2 161.1 1,978.60
Nebr. 11% 58.00% 1,367 302.4 3.8 29.7 62.4 3,161.40
Nev. 12.60% 27.00% 2,467 750.6 7.5 42.7 270.2 3,777.80
Ohio 12.50% 43% 2,199 343.2 4.5 38.8 159.2 3,455.20
Okla. 15.30% 50.00% 1,956 499.6 6.1 43.1 93.2 3,526.40
Ore. 14.10% 32.00% 2,626 287.6 1.9 33.5 76.4 3,526.20
Pa. 11.70% 43.00% 2,224 416.5 5.8 27.7 156.5 2,361.30
R.I. 12.80% 28.00% 2,453 227.3 1.8 24.2 71 2,622.60
S.C. 15.70% 58% 1,306 788.3 8 39.5 144 4,271.70
S.D. 11% 45.00% 2,330 169.2 2.1 38.7 114.3 1,652.30
Tenn. 14.50% 52.00% 1,490 753.3 6.4 35.3 179 4,088.60
Tex. 16.60% 49.00% 2,415 510.6 5.9 35.3 162.2 4,121.20
Utah 10.90% 55.00% 2,855 234.8 2.2 34.3 53.7 3,500.30
Va. 9.50% 44.00% 1,577 269.7 5.3 22.6 99.2 2,466.40
Vt. 9% 24.00% 2,184 124.3 1.9 19.8 12.9 2,322.70
W. Va. 17.90% 46.00% 2,281 275.2 3.5 20.4 47 2,525.00
Wash. 13.10% 32.00% 1,478 333.1 2.7 40.6 93.6 4,030.80
Wis. 10.70% 43.00% 2,240 290.9 3.3 21.8 97.7 2,837.70
Wyo. 10.30% 36.00% 1,904 239.3 3.1 30.6 16.1 2,865.90
Crime rates:
http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rat…
Church attendance:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/22579/church-attendanc…
Poverty levels:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_…
Out of curiosity I looked at murder rates as a function of state population density. No correlation here either.
http://www.demographia.com/db-urban2000state.htm
I've been going to church all my life and I can't tell you what the media's definition of an evangelical is (nor fundamentalist, nor born again). Sure I've read the definitions, but the definitions are so vague and overlapping that I still don't know what is meant.
Anyone care to enlighten me?
I think all this falls under the heading "Figures don't lie, but Liars do figure".
Somewhere in my dim dark past I saw a cartoon (Bloom County I think) that had a sign "Statics Generated to Your Specifications". Very similar to the one in this article.
I am an engineer and yes, I am very suspicious of statistics and statisticians.
Glad to see a good review of that book — it's a recent addition to my overfllowing to-read backlog.
I can't comment on the book itself, but I do know for sure that its title is wrong. Some Christians are hate-filled hypocrites. And it's not because the "media" said so. It's because they really do exist, and they really do have a very loud message and a broad influence. I sit at coffee shops with students who have been burned by Christians and who listen to Christians spew ignorance and hate in their own world. I spend a lot of time trying to make up for lost ground.
It only worsens the cause for other Christians, even if they are genuine, to say it is a lie that some Christians are hate-filled hypocrites. The best thing that can happen in the church is to honestly examine the failures of the Christian world and how that truly influences non-believers about the validity of Christianity.
If Christians were a little more honest about themselves, I'd be less likely to be reading a handwritten two page note from a non-believing student entitled "I'd Like to be a Christian, but in Good Conscience I Can't."
I tell people I don't go to church because I'm perfect. In fact, I go to church because I'm far from perfect and I need Jesus.
This and Kinnaman and Lyons' Unchristian have provided a strong reminder to me of a friend of mine who spent hours ranting about the failures of churches and Christianity.
And after listening for hours (he was waiting to see if I would shut him up; just let him get it all out), finally asked him a single question. So, please tell me what of the Scriptures you have read. After a few minutes of questions he acknowledged that he had never opened and read Scripture. And then we read some together.
Spiritual war has more facets than hypocrisy.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
After a few minutes of questions he acknowledged that he had never opened and read Scripture. And then we read some together.
Nice anecdote. If only the solution was actually this simple. In fact, many of the people who struggle most with identifying themselves with Christianity are also those who have honestly and genuinely read scripture. The true and pure picture it paints of real faithful living, and especially the life of Jesus, only fuels the reasons they have to reject modern institutionalized Christianity. What they see and experience of the Christian world around them does not add up to what they have read.
It's sadly ironic that many Christians who will (rightly) claim that there are genuine, love-filled humble Christians and be shocked by other characterizations will refuse to believe that there are moderate, peace-loving, agenda-free Muslims.
Even "genuine, love-filled humble Christians" fall short of perfection. There are legitimate problems within churches, but as Bruce points out sometimes you cannot always take at face value some people's complaints with Christianity. No, it's not simple, but it's not that simple on the other side of the track either. There are those who want to live the way they want and rather than submit to the will of God there is instead something wrong with Christianity.
It's easy to write off people who have legitimate hesitations about institutionalized Christianity as selfish people who simply don't want to submit to the will of God. Until you meet with some of these people every week for months or years and you actually learn their hearts and their real desire to find truth, but have decided that institutional Christianity has strayed far from it. And it's not because Christians fall short of perfection, it's because they obviously do but then condemn the world for its sins. They understandably distance themselves from such a hypocritical system.
Emerging culture is showing that people are just as much or more spiritually interested as ever. But they are longing for something that is genuine and honest about itself. They are not finding that in institutionalized Christianity and organized churches.
Dan Kimball's They Like Jesus But Not the Church is a great resource for understanding this phenomenon. That and intentionally spending time with young non-believers.
Obviously Christians don't want to be written off with unfair characterizations. We should be careful not to do the same to those who have decided that the church is not where they want to express their spirituality.
Did they miss the Corinthian letters? Philippians? 2 Timothy? The letters to the seven churches?
I wish I knew where (outside of Jesus Himself) "the true and pure picture of real faithful living" in Scripture appears…
Were these not largely rebukes on these churches for losing the essence of pure and faithful living?
Read Acts.
Which part of Acts, Cary?
The part where the Hellenistic Jewish widows are being ignored in the daily distribution?
The part where the apostles won't even preach to Gentiles at all?
The part where the church in Jerusalem won't even listen to Paul until Barnabas takes him by the hand and lays his own reputation on the line to support him?
Shall I go on? How many sad episodes does Luke have to record before we will see that there was never a time when the church lived out "the essence of pure and faithful living"?
ONLY Jesus did that – and even if Luke didn't make it so painfully obvious, it would be quite clear from the track record of Christians that leave the "modern institutionalized church" for patterns of their own creation.
Let me be clear: the "modern institutionalized church" is deeply flawed, but as an ancient Celtic Christian wrote: if you go to Rome to see God, you'll only see the God you take with you. Leaving a particular institution might be the right way for a particular believer or group of believers to live out their salvation in their own locale, but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that they're creating a holier expression of Christianity than the one they're leaving. That's the arrogance that underlies so much of the writing of Frank Viola and the other "house church is the only church!" writers.
I'm afraid we may be missing each other's points.
I think we can all agree that the church has never been perfect. That's obvious, and scripture makes that clear. But it also describes a church and a way of living that has been real and genuine. Acts 2 and 4. The point is that so much of the modern church is overlooking that reality, and the call the humble admission of its imperfection, in its quest to call the world out on its moral failures, establish social agendas, and politic the nation. This is the church that so many see and rightfully want to stay away from.
I'm not advocating leaving the institutional church. I'm not even talking about what believers should do. I'm talking about what non-believers see and experience and how they respond to it. One problem that many well-meaning Christians have is that they don't truly know many or any non-believers. Non-believers have built perceptions based on real experiences, whether we think those perceptions are fair or not, and its our job to understand them. The greatest thing that Christians can do to build credibility is not say "you are a liar," it's to say "we're sorry."
I'm sorry 🙂
Seriously – we definitely agree that the testimony of confession and submission is far more effective in sinner-to-sinner communication than the testimony of, "If you'd just read the book like I have, you'd know how much more than you I know."
For the perceiver, perception is reality. If they fail to perceive what we know to be real, whose fault is it? Theirs, with their perceptions darkened by reality or ours, with our faithful-but-stumbling attempts to live out salvation? If my foot injures someone, my mouth should apologize – not tell the person to read the Foot Avoidance Manual.
Brilliant. 🙂
Nick,
You said:
"Leaving a particular institution might be the right way for a particular believer or group of believers to live out their salvation in their own locale, but they shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that they’re creating a holier expression of Christianity than the one they’re leaving."
Is religious progress impossible? (Or at least impossible by way of leaving an institution?)
–guy
I don't mean to speak for Bruce, but I think all we were trying to point out is sometimes the surface is not always the whole picture. And we're not writing all people off as selfish as the only cause for them not accepting an "institutionalized church". And as you put in your post that mass generalization can go both ways.
This is one of the many reasons why I'm not impressed with the sensationalism built up about Muslim vs. Christian birthrates. It's mostly just to build up paranoia and direct money towards those spreading it rather than actually encouraging Christians to build families and convert Muslims.
Cary:
The Emerging Church movement has indeed well-described the failures of the "institutions" — albeit without always seeing the root cause.
For example, try to find the word "Satan" in Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy. Andrew Delbanco points out in his The Death of Satan what the US (and the West) faces. Folks typically do not believe a spiritual war even exists. As a result they see the answers as social — feed the poor. And that is indeed part of the answer. What they do not see is the urgency Jesus reveals in a desert war: "It is written." The Son of God revealed that the Word of God is our ONLY answer in the face of spiritual war. It is how we begin to show our love to God — by listening to Him (John 14:30ff.). And it is how we overcome "institutions."
Hosea 4:1ff. sums up all too well the current situation of the West. And when we see and respond with truth in love, we overcome the evil of hypocrisy.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jenny,
You said:
"This is one of the many reasons why I’m not impressed with the sensationalism built up about Muslim vs. Christian birthrates. It’s mostly just to build up paranoia and direct money towards those spreading it rather than actually encouraging Christians to build families and convert Muslims."
Kind of like using Mosque-construction news to make Christians think the sky is falling? =o)
–guy
Looking forward to reading more.
I would guess most of us have experienced Christians no matter the identifier behaving badly and most of us have been those Christians at some point.
My concern about the efforts pointing out the problems in the Christian world is that it often times focuses us not on sharing Jesus in the right way but instead on trying to somehow fix or overcome the perceived Christians behaving badly.
I can be salt and light in a way that honors the name of Jesus pointing towards him as I do my best. Beyond that all bets are off.
I think to many people who get how we should act end up worrying to much about getting others to behave instead of doing what we are called to do hoping others will want to come along side.
Lucas,
I wrote,
I believe I criticized the Christian press more severelyl than the secular press. I challenge the motives of many in the Christian media, whereas I note that the secular press is simply guilty of emphasizing the "man bites dog" story.
Eddie,
Barna has his own definition that doesn't really correspond to popular usage. The press tends to use "evangelical" for "Christians who vote Republican." I doubt many reporters could give you much of a definition — whether Christian or otherwise. After all, most Christians would struggle to give a definition.
The most useful definition I've heard is: "Christians who'd support a Billy Graham Crusade if he came to town." Hence, many progressive Churches of Christ would be evangelical. No conservative Churches of Christ would be. Some Methodists would be. Some wouldn't. Etc. Nearly all Baptists and nearly all community churches would be.
Cary,
There is a difference between "Christians are hate-filled hypocrites" and "Some Christians are hate-filled hypocrites." The first implies that the statement is generally true of the class. The second does not.
We all know plenty of Christians who are hate-filled hypocrites. And they do hugely disproportionate damage to the cause of Christ. But I wouldn't suggest this is generally true of Christians.