Evangelicals and God

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published a major survey on religious life in America. The survey, U. S. Religious Landscape Survey, was an attempt at understanding the beliefs and practices of religious and non-religious people in the USA. The Pew Forum surveyed 35,000 Americans and compiled the results. A Summary of Key Findings is available free online in PDF format.

In a previous post I looked at a section of the survey and commented on how atheists, agnostics, and secular people responded to the questions about God. In the present post I will discuss evangelicals and their views about God. The survey also deals with the beliefs of mainline churches, black churches, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Orthodox churches. In this post I will only discuss the evangelical churches because of my interest in the evangelical movement in the USA.

The survey provides the following information about evangelicals:

1. Evangelicals view other religions

57% believe that many religions can lead to eternal life
53% believe that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion

2. Evangelicals and God

99% believe in God. Of these:
79% believe in a personal God
13% believe in an impersonal God
7% don’t know

3. Certainty about believing in God

99% believe in God. Of these:
90% absolutely certain
9% less certain

4. Belief in Heaven and Hell

86% believe in heaven
82% believe in hell

5. Prayer and Meditation

92% pray at least weekly
46% meditate at least weekly

The results of the Pew survey deserve careful consideration. Any committed evangelical will look at these numbers and conclude that something is wrong with the conclusions of the survey. As I mentioned in my previous post, these numbers may indicate that the survey was poorly designed and that the results are distorted and do not really reflect the views of those surveyed. It is also possible that questions, methodology in polling, and the sample size of those surveyed also skewed the results. It is even possible that many people misunderstood the intent of the questions.

Take the case of universalism. The survey reports that 57% of evangelicals believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. But, as the Baptist Press reports, many American Protestants believe that the word “religion” can also mean “denominational affiliation.” Thus, Scott McConnell, in the new release published by Baptist Press, said: “But the way they worded their question may have had some impact; many people think of ‘denomination’ when they hear ‘religion,’ so it isn’t that surprising that a Lutheran could think a Methodist would also go to heaven or a Catholic could think that a Protestant would go to heaven.”

The numbers of evangelicals who don’t believe in heaven or hell or in a personal God or who have a tendency toward universalism may reflect a problem in the evangelical movement in the United States: the problem of identity.

Northern Seminary’s Mission Statement says: “Northern Baptist Theological Seminary affirms its evangelical heritage through its commitments to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the authority of Scripture.” So, several years ago, Northern Baptist Seminary adopted a slogan to place the seminary within the evangelical community. Northern Seminary adopted the “Boldly Evangelical” slogan to position the seminary theologically. However, the slogan raised a number of questions. What does it mean to be “boldly evangelical”? Who is an evangelical?

The last question generated a lot of discussion. The late Bob Webber, my colleague here a Northern Seminary, conducted a study to discover what is meant by the word “evangelical.” In what follows, I quote a portion of Bob Webber’s observation on evangelicalism. Webber wrote:

Evangelicalism is characterized by unity and diversity. All evangelicals are unified in their commitment to the Lordship of Christ and to the authority of scripture. But within evangelicalism there is a great diversity. Dallas [Seminary] is dispensational, Calvin [Seminary] is Reformed, Asbury [Seminary] is Wesleyan, Fuller [Seminary] is Church Growth, Associates Biblical Seminary is Mennonite and so on. Then, beyond this denominational diversity, we can identify different streams of evangelicals – the intellectual stream, the mega-church stream, the emergent church stream, the Pentecostal stream and so on.

That is the problem the Pew survey probably never addressed. Who were these evangelicals Pew surveyed? Evangelicals can be Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Reformed, and so on. I even know some Catholics who identify themselves as evangelicals.

Within this diversity of denominational affiliation many people can call themselves evangelicals without standing for basic evangelical principles.

The members of the Evangelical Theological Society is a group which calls themselves evangelicals. To join the society, members must subscribe annually to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society. Among the doctrinal statements members must accept, one deals with the Bible and another with the doctrine of God:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

Members also must accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I doubt that anyone who signs this doctrinal statement or accepts the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy would deny the existence of God or deny that God is a personal being.

The variety of denominational affiliations within the evangelical movement will certainly skew the results of the survey. Members of the Church of Christ and of the Baptist, Lutheran, and Pentecostal churches may classify themselves as evangelicals but they believe different things and these differences in beliefs probably influenced how the questions in the survey were answered.

One thing about the survey deserves close consideration. According to the survey, 99% of evangelicals believe in God. Although the report emphasizes that the numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding, the survey says that 1% of evangelical do not believe in God. This means that 1% of evangelicals are atheists. This is alarming. Who are these wolves in sheep’s clothing who call themselves evangelicals and yet do not believe in God?

Can an evangelical be an atheist? According to U. S. Religious Landscape Survey, the answer is yes. Amazing!

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Evangelicals, God, Pew Survey

David, History, and Evangelicals: A Response to Chris Heard

My fellow blogger Chris Heard has written a post, "David’s sons and the history of biblical ideas," in which he addresses some of the issues I raised in my post on the priesthood of David’s sons, Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests.” Some of the issues Chris raised deserve some kind of response. It is impossible to provide a detailed response to every one of these issues, but I hope with this response to Chris’ post, to clarify some of my views and address some of Chris’ concerns.

The Historical Issue

Chris wrote: As Claude wrote, the Chronicler apparently found it unacceptable for non-Levites to be priests, but, in Claude’s words, “Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.” Claude apparently means this as a historical point about David, which I judge a tenuous point to make.

There is much debate about the historicity of David and some events related to his kingdom. Those who are familiar with the history of the debate also know that scholars on both sides of the issue cannot come to a definite conclusion.

Notwithstanding the unwillingness of scholars and archaeologists to accept the reality that David is mentioned in extra-biblical sources, archaeological discoveries make references to the “house of David,” clearly indicating that David was a historical figure. The name of David appears in the Tell Dan stela, in the Mesha stela, and possibly in the Karnak monument commemorating Shishak’s conquest of cities in Canaan.

If David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his city, and even if Jerusalem was a small city, it is possible that he would become king or leader of the Jebusite city and assume some of the duties associated with the religious life of the city. I have no problem in accepting the historical reality of “the house of David.

"From “Priests" to "First Ministers"

Chris wrote: we are basically presented with the dilemma that either the author of the smallest original unit containing 2 Sam 8:18, as well as (presumably) the tradents who preserved that unit through to canonical expression, either (a) did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests, or (b) were not bothered enough by David’s flouting of these commandments to rewrite the text or to insert an editorial comment on the impropriety, or (c) they themselves were not happy with this situation but thought it represented historical reality, and they were historically sensitive enough to realize that times change.

Chris’ statement may reflect a lack of understanding of the theology behind the Deuteronomistic history (even though I doubt it). The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are part of what is known as the Deuteronomistic history and were probably the work of the people involved in Josiah’s reform c. 622 B.C.

In their book The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman wrote (p. 14) that “archeology has provided enough evidence to support a new contention that the historical core of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History was substantially shaped in the seventh century B.C.E.”

Finkelstein and Silberman also wrote (p. 14): “And we shall side with the scholars who argue that the Deuteronomistic History was compiled, in the main, in the time of King Josiah, aiming to provide an ideological validation for particular political ambition and religious reforms.”

The book of Deuteronomy, which is the initial chapter of the Deuteronomistic History, makes a clear distinction between the Levitical Priests and the Levites. The writers of the Deuteronomic History were well aware that there were priests who were not Levites. In fact, at the instigation of the reformers, Josiah “deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places of Judah and round about Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:5).

So, the historian knew about priests who were not Levites. It is the Deuteronomist who insisted that all priests be Levitical priests. Chris’ statement, that the writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 “did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests” is incorrect because it was the writer or writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 and the whole Deuteronomistic history who insisted that all priests must be Levitical Priests.

The tradition initiated in the seventh century continued in the post-exilic period and the Chronicler was very adamant that only descendants from the tribe of Levi could become priests. In saying this, I am avoiding the controversy between the Zadokites and the Aaronites, an issue that, I believe, is very evident in the book of Chronicles.

The Dictation Theory

Chris wrote: Many on the conservative/evangelical end of Christendom apply to the Bible a Qur’anic model of inspiration, resulting in the idea that God basically wrote the Bible by means of dictation to human secretaries.

I am surprised that Chris could make such a statement. His statement that evangelicals believe in the dictation theory is mind-boggling. The statement shows that Chris may not have a clear understanding of the evangelical movement. The fact is that only a minority of fundamentalist Christians would accept dictation theory. Many conservatives and evangelicals are not fundamentalists and they reject the dictation theory.

I hope he is not including me among those who believe in the dictation theory. If Chris has been reading some of my posts, he should know by now that I reject any view that can be classified as dictation theory. I believe in the inspiration of Scriptures but I reject any aspect of the dictation theory.

Chris’ Conclusions

At the end of his post, Chris wrote: By implication, it seems that the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites did not occur in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience, real or imagined, but sometime relatively late in the monarchy or after it. The whole thing has implications for the authorship and provenance of the Torah and of the book of Samuel.

First, I never said that “the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites occurred in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience.” To the contrary, I inferred in my post that the restriction was the work of the Chronicler. What I did not say in the post was that I believe the restriction originated at the time of Josiah’s reform.

Second, I never implied in my post that the Torah was the work of Moses or that the book of Samuel was written by Samuel himself or even written in the early monarchy. Maybe if I had given more detailed information in my post, Chris would have had a better understanding of my own position.

Now, let me clarify what I tried to convey in my post. First, I believe that David and his sons exercised some form of priestly duties by virtue of having conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Yes, I believe in a historical David and I believe that there was a “house of David.”

Second, I believe that with the Deuteronomic reform the cultus was centralized in Jerusalem and that all non-Levitical priests were removed from official duty and that in the seventh century, restrictions were established on who could serve as priests.

Third, in the post-exilic period, the Chronicler made an attempt at eliminating the reference that David’s sons served as priests in Jerusalem because during his days only Levites could serve as priests.

I hope these clarifications will give Chris a better understanding on where I stand on these issues.

Reference: Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Deuteronomic History, Evangelicals, Priests

Who Is An Evangelical?

The old question has returned again: Who is an evangelical?

A recent report has several things to say about evangelicals:

1. 25% of those people who call themselves evangelicals are not born-again Christians.

2. Some evangelicals do not believe in Satan.

3. Democratic evangelicals are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

4. Many Catholics consider themselves to be evangelicals.

5. An evangelical defined evangelicals as “people who believe in the Nicene Creed.”

So, who is an evangelical?

Read the report by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Evangelicals