The Myth of Evangelical Decline

Much recent research into American religious trends has concluded that evangelical Protestantism is in the decline, perhaps not as much as is mainline Protestantism, but in decline nonetheless. Leading evangelicals have greeted this news with dismay and calls for the need to evangelize the unchurched and those who have fallen away from the faith. By contrast many secularists and liberal Christians have reacted to the news with undisguised glee, the latter because they see evangelicalism as distorting the faith proclaimed by Jesus, and secularists because they view religious belief in general, but evangelicalism in particular, as a sign of societal ignorance (although they often tolerate liberal Christians because at least they are "right" on the issues).

The research is wrong, however.  Evangelicalism is not dying, nor is it fading away. The reason why many researchers have concluded that evangelicalism is in decline is because of how and what questions surveys ask or don't ask. What researchers at Baylor University have found is that many evangelicals who attend nondenominational churches often identify themselves on surveys as "unaffiliated" or (amazingly) "having no religion." As Byron Johnson, a professor of social science at Baylor University notes,

Because traditional surveys do not provide categories that adequately describe those who attend nondenominational congregations, their members often check "unaffiliated" in typical surveys and questionnaires" (Johnson, "The Good News About Evangelicalism," First Things, February 2011: 12). 

However, when surveys ask respondents to not only identify themselves by their religious family (e.g., Baptist) and denomination (e.g., Southern Baptist) but also by their local congregation (as the Baylor Religious Surveys do), the supposed evangelical decline disappears (the same cannot be said about mainline Protestantism, however). In particular, researchers at Baylor found that:

1. American churchgoers feel more connected to local congregations than to denominations (e.g., United Church of Christ) and religious families (The Reformed Tradition)
2. Currently 10.8% of Americans are unaffiliated, which is much less than the 14-16% reported in a lot of other surveys 
3. Many of those who identify themselves as unaffiliated are affiliated with congregations and of those who are, most attend evangelical churches 
4. America is more evangelical than previously reported in other surveys. "Fully one-third of Americans... affiliate with an evangelical Protestant congregation. Indeed, evangelicals remain the numerically dominant religious tradition in the United States" (Johnson, First Things) 

Why evangelicalism remains such a potent force in America is a topic I'll take up in a future post ("Why Evangelical Churches Thrive"). For now it is suffice to say that reports of evangelicalism's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

The Super Bowl and Violence Against Women (The Myth of)

Many of you are probably familiar with the claim made in 1993 that on Super Bowl Sunday violence against women jumps by as much as 40%. This was first noted by a coalition of women’s groups at a news conference a few days before the 1993 Super Bowl and followed up with an article in the Boston Globe a couple of days later. Also, a psychologist from Denver appeared on “Good Morning America”, claiming that she had gathered 10 years worth of data backing up this claim.

What you may not know is that there are no data supporting this claim. An investigative reporter from the Washington Post found that the Denver psychologist had never shown her data to anyone (and still hasn’t), and the other studies cited by the women’s groups in the original news conference did not support the claims that they made. Consequently, the Boston Globe retracted the story a few days later.

A blow-by-blow account of what happened can be found in Christina Sommers book, “Who Stole Feminism?”, and the citations to the articles, etc. can be found in the book's endnotes. Here are a few pertinent facts:

• January 28, 1993 (Thursday) – News conference called by a coalition of women's groups announcing that anecdotal evidence suggests that Super Bowl Sunday is "the biggest day of the year for violence against women." It was also reported that Old Dominion University had conducted a study that had found that police reports of beatings and hospital admissions in northern Virginia rose 40% after games won by the Redskins during the 1988-1989 season. 
• January 29, 1993 (Friday) – A Denver psychologist named Lenore Walker claimed on "Good Morning America" to have compiled 10 years worth of data showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays. 
• January 30, 1993 (Saturday) – Article in the Boston Globe reports that women's shelters and hotlines are "flooded with more calls from victims on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year." She noted that one study of women's shelters in the West showed a 40% increase in calls on Super Bowl Sundays. 
• January 31, 1993 (Super Bowl Sunday) – NBC broadcasts Super Bowl game and makes a special plea for men to remain calm, broadcasting a public service spot reminding men that domestic violence is a crime. CBS and Associated Press called Super Bowl Sunday a "day of dread." 
• January 31, 1993 (Super Bowl Sunday) – While most newspapers and other media outlets picked up the story at face value, Ken Ringle of the Washington Post actually called around to check on the sources of he story and exposed the claims as a myth. He asked Janet Katz, professor of sociology at Old Dominion who was one of the principal investigators of the study about the connection between violence and football, and she said “That's not what we found at all.” Instead, they found that an increase in emergency room admissions “was not associated with the occurrence of football games in general.”
• Ringle also called the reporter of the Boston Globe article to find out where she got her information. She said she never saw the study but had been told of it by a representative from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting – a media watchdog group that fell down on the job in this case). FAIR then told Ringle that the authority for the 40% figure was Lenore Walker (see above) who in turn referred him to Michael Lindsay, another Denver psychologist, who admitted that he had never seen any data supporting the 40% figure. More to the point, Lenore Walker refused to release the data on which she based her claim, saying she doesn't use data for public consumption.
• February 2, 1993 – The Boston Globe retracts its January 30th article in a story by Bob Hohler, who quotes several psychologists/counselors who said they didn’t believe the 40% figure when they heard it. He concluded, “Despite their dramatic claims, none of the activists appears to have any evidence that a link actually exists between football and wife-beating.”
• May 1993 – A separate investigation by the American Journalism Review also concluded that there was no data to support the 40% figure although it did take exception to Ringle’s selective use of quotes out of context. 

Why a handful of people thought it necessary to make all this up is a question for another time. For now, enjoy the game.

OMG! A Center for Theological Conversation

Here's a story that is both tragic and inspirational that recently appeared in the Christian Century ("Freelance Theologian"). In 2004, Anna Madsen and her husband were studying theology in Regensburg, Germany, and just before she and her family were to move to Augustana College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to take a teaching post, Anna's husband and (nearly) three-year-old son, Karl, were hit by a car. Her husband died, and her son Karl suffered a traumatic brain injury.  Her daughter, Else, who was not in the car, was only eight months old at the time. In spite of all this, she still moved to South Dakota to take the job at Augustana College.

2009 turned out to be a year of change for Anna. She remarried (Reynold) and, with the encouragement of her husband, she left her tenure-track job at Augustana and started a business as a "freelance" theologian. Her venture is called OMG: Center for Theological Conversation through which she works with individuals and churches to address theological concerns. OMG has a website where several theological conversations are on-going, and Anna has a regular blog (far more developed than mine). You can find it here (OMG: Center for Theological Conversation). A couple of recent articles some of you might find interesting are ("An Epiphany about Metabolized Theology") ("Injustice in Health Care") and ("MLK, Jr., Crosshairs, Amygdalae, and Agape").

Do You Trust Your Real Estate Agent?

While running this afternoon, I was once again struck by how many real estate signs were out. It made me wonder if we were in the market to sell our house (we're not), who we'd pick as a real estate agent. We have so many friends and acquaintances who are, it would be difficult.  My guess is that in order not to offend our friends and acquaintances who are agents, we would probably pick someone whom we didn't know.

Of course, this raises other issues, in particular, issues of trust. How do you know your real estate agent is looking out for your best interests? As Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner note in their book Freakanomics ("How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?"), they usually aren't. Instead, they are typically (and understandably) looking out for their own interests. In other words, they want to make money.  Now, you might think that their interests always coincide with those of their clients, and while that is often the case because their commission is tied to the sales price of the houses they sell, that is not always true. Real estate agents are also interested in moving (i.e., selling) as many houses as possible, which means that sometimes they will price a house lower than the market will bear just so that they can get it "out the door" (so to speak).

If you're wondering whether your agent is looking out for your interests, you may pay attention to the terms that they use to describe your house. Levitt and Dubner found that certain terms are correlated with higher prices, while others are correlated with lower ones. Terms that they found correlated with higher prices were:

• Granite
• State-of-the-Art
• Corian
• Maple
• Gourmet

Terms that they found correlated with lower prices were:

• Fantastic
• Spacious
• !
• Charming
• Great Neighborhood

To learn more about Levitt and Dubner's findings, click here ("How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?") or purchase their book, Freakanomics.  Seller beware!

Should We Repeal Obamacare?

As most of you know, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to repeal President Obama’s health-care overhaul.  The measure passed 245-189. All of the House’s 242 Republicans were joined by three Democrats to support overturning the measure passed by the previous Congress and signed into law by Obama last March. While there is little or no chance that the measure will pass the Senate (or that President Obama would even sign the repeal), it does highlight a debate that has been going on in American society for some time now. My sense is that it shouldn't be repealed, but that it does need a lot of "tweaking."

The question of whether "Obamacare" should be repealed was the subject of a recent debate on Intelligence Squared US (it is also available through iTunes), which I have posted information on before (see e.g., "Should US Airports US Racial and Religious Profiling?"). Intelligence Squared US is affiliated with Intelligence Squared, a UK based organisation that stages debates around the world. The debates are held in the traditional Oxford Style. Those attending vote prior to and after a debate, and the winning debate team is decided by which way the vote swings. So, for instance, if prior to the debate the audience favors the propositions by 55% but after only 51% favor it, then the opposing team is considered to have won the debate.

I suspect that most of us read and listen to media that confirm rather than challenge our positions on various issues. What's great about listening to debates such as these is that it "forces" us to listen to the arguments of the "other side." We may not agree with the other side, but I've found that even if I remain unconvinced, many of my stereotypes of the other side have been called into question.

Those arguing on behalf of the motion that "Obamacare should be repealed" are Douglas Holtz-Eakin and John Shadegg. Those arguing against the motion are Jonathan Cohn and Paul Starr.  Their respective biographies are as follows (from the Intelligence Squared US website):

Douglas Holtz-Eakin has a distinguished record as an academic, policy adviser, and strategist. He is currently the president of the American Action Forum and a commissioner on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He was the 6th director of the Congressional Budget Office and served as chief economist of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (2001-2002). He recently served as the director of domestic and economic policy for the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign.

John Shadegg is a former Republican representative for the 3rd Congressional District of Arizona. He has introduced legislation to promote patient choice, individual ownership and portability in health insurance. His two bills – the Patients Health Care Reform Act and the Health Care Choice Act – offer comprehensive, free-market solutions to health care by allowing individuals to choose a health care plan that best meets their needs.

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at New Republic, a columnist at Kaiser Health News, and the author of "Sick." He has been called “one of the nation’s leading experts on health care policy” (Washington Post) and “one of the best health care writers out there” (New York Times); he has also won the Sidney Hillman and Harry Chapin media awards. A graduate of Harvard, he is a senior fellow at Demos and member of the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Paul Starr is professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University and co-founder and co-editor of the American Prospect magazine, a quarterly about politics, policy, and ideas. He received the 1984 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction and Bancroft Prize in American history for "The Social Transformation of American Medicine," which is credited for helping to shape the debate about health care reform. He also received the 2005 Goldsmith Book Prize for "The Creation of the Media." During 1993 he served as a senior advisor at the White House in the formulation of the Clinton health plan.

The debate can be viewed or listened to here ("Repeal Obamacare?"). The transcripts are also available at this website.

Does He or Doesn't He? Stress and the Presidency, Part II

Recently I wrote about how the stress of being President (Stress and the Presidency) often causes President's hair to turn prematurely gray.  To illustrate my point I posted a picture of President Obama. Now, it appears that the President Obama is doing something about it (could it have been my post - yea, right). His hair appears to no longer be gray -- or, at least, less gray. Compare the following two pictures, the one on the left was taken the morning of January 19th; the one on the right was taken in the evening of the same day. Maybe the strategy is working. His approval rating has been increasingly lately...

Just War and the War in Afghanistan

Last November the National Council of Churches (NCC) sponsored an event to celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the 1910 World Mission Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland. Four hundred people gathered in New Orleans to mark the event regarded by many as the birth of the modern ecumenical movement. The fact that only 400 people showed up probably reflects the sorry state of the ecumenical movement, at least among mainline Protestant churches in the United States, but that is a topic for another time.

In a meeting before the gathering the NCC's governing board issued "A Call to End the War in Afghanistan," which urged President Obama to "negotiate a withdrawal of U.S. and NATAO forces from Afghanistan to be completed as soon as possible without further endangerment to the lives and welfare" of troops and civilians.

This statement implicitly raises an important question: Just because a war is unjust (and I'm not arguing that that the war in Afghanistan is unjust although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many on the NCC's governing board believe that it is), does that mean we can leave a war unjustly? Put differently, even if we are engaged in an unjust war in a particular country, can we in good conscience leave before we have secured the safety and livelihood of that country's people?  I think not. As political theorist (and editor of Dissent magazine) Michael Walzer noted about the most recent war in a Iraq (a war that he opposed and considered unjust):

The American debate about whether to fight doesn't seem particularly relevant to the critical issues in the debate about the occupation: how long to stay, how much to spend, when to begin the transfer of power... The positions we took before the war don't determine the positions we take, or should take, on the occupation. Some people who opposed the war demand that we immediately "bring the troops home." But others argue, rightly, it seems to me, that having fought the war, we are now responsible for the well-being of the Iraqi people; we have to provide the resources -- soldiers and dollars -- necessary to guarantee their security and begin the political and economic reconstruction of their country (Arguing About War, pp. 163-164; you can find the entire article as it originally appeared in Dissent magazine before it appeared in book form here: Just and Unjust Occupations).

What Walzer is arguing for here is jus post bellum or "justice after war," a topic I have written about earlier (Christians and War, Part III: Justice After War). As Walzer puts it

[T]he debate... requires an account of postwar justice. Democratic political theory, which plays a relatively small part in our arguments about jus ad bellum and in bello, provides the central principles of this account. They include self-determination, popular legitimacy, civil rights, and the idea of a common good. We want wars to end with governments in power in the defeated states that are chosen by the people they rule-or, at least, recognized by them as legitimate-and that are visibly committed to the welfare of those same people (all of them). We want minorities protected against persecution, neighboring states protected against aggression, the poorest of the people protected against destitution and starvation (Arguing About War, p. 164; you can find the entire article as it originally appeared in Dissent magazine before it appeared in book form here: Just and Unjust Occupations).

And so it must be with Afghanistan. To leave Afghanistan before we have secured the well-being of the Afghan people would be unjust. I think this point may have been lost on the NCC's governing board. Maybe not. But my sense is that they think that withdrawal can happen sooner rather than later without endangering the lives and welfare of the Afghan citizens. Unfortunately, I think they are wrong. I think it could take a very long time before we reach a state where the ordinary Afghans will be able to flourish. I hope I am wrong.