Pastor problems

Gallup’s 2025 “Honesty and Ethics Survey” finds that the perceived “honesty and ethics” of clergy has dropped 40 points since its 1985 poll – 67% in 1985 versus 27% in 2025. I think that view combines actual problems created by clergy for themselves, and the perception of their honesty and ethics created by other factors. The latter can be seen as part of the equation because this perception varies in different demographics – for example older folks have a better perception of the honesty and ethics of clergy than younger folks do, and people with higher incomes trust clergy more than those with lower incomes.

Not that it should give much comfort, but clergy is still a more trusted group than journalists, lawyers, members of Congress, and telemarketers.

See Americans’ Trust in Pastors Hits Historic Low and Nurses Continue to Lead in Honesty and Ethics Ratings.

Taking the Bible “literally”

Mark Wingfield of Baptist News Global reports on a Gallup poll that shows Belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible at all-time low among Americans. He seemed a bit giddy that the “conservative evangelical view of the Bible” might be is out of step with the U.S. population. Those who hold the Bible is the “actual word of God, to be taken literally” dropped from 24% in 2017 to 20% in 2022. 49% of the people polled say that the Bible is “inspired by God, not all to be taken literally” (a gain of 2% since 2017). Those who believe it is “fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man” are at 29% – up from 26% in the 2017 poll.

It struck me as a bit odd that Wingfield did not link to the Gallup poll. I went searching and found a Gallup story about the poll HERE. At the bottom of that report is a link to a PDF download of “complete question responses and trends.” On the second page of that download, one can see how the question was asked:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man?

The question wording is a bit suspect in how well it represents the way conservative Bible believers would express their view. I suppose an upside is that Gallup has apparently been asking the same question since 1976, making a direct comparison over the years possible. However, the wording of the question can skew the answer and introduce error into the findings of the poll. For example, I believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God, preserved pure in all ages. I believe it is the Christian’s sole rule of faith and practice. Nevertheless, though I believe and teach that we can believe and trust every word, I do not think all of it is to be taken “literally.” The normal grammatical-historical method of interpretation understands the use of figures, allegory, and such like are not taken interpreted literally in the sense many people are likely to understand the word literally. This distinction may cause a number of strong Bible believers who hold inspiration and inerrancy to choose the second option since they do not take everything “literally.”

The 1st and 2nd options can send a mixed message, turning on how the respondents take the word “literally.” On the other hand, it seems the third question sends a clear message to all those who would agree on denying the authority of the Bible. And I doubt any of us would disagree this is a rising trend among U.S. residents.

Proverbs 30:5 - Every word of God is pure…

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 

Taking the Bible literally?

An interesting read, by Glenn T. Stanton. Check it out.

I Don't Take The Bible Literally, And Neither Does Anyone Else

A recent report from Pew tells us that only 39 percent of Christians take the Bible literally.

Why? It’s quite simple: Literally no one takes the Bible literally. NO ONE. But otherwise intelligent pollsters and journalists continue to ask the question as a gauge for who really takes the Bible seriously—or too seriously. And Christians continue to play along.

Of course, when we answer “Do you take the Bible literally?” we are simply taking it as short-hand for “Do you take the Bible as truth?” But the faithful student should have long ago dispelled such misinformed assumptions, correcting the questioner with, “You don’t really understand much about Christianity or the Bible, do you?” The serious student of Dante or Shakespeare wouldn’t tolerate such ignorance of their beloved texts. We shouldn’t either.

Pro-choice politics

A Gallup survey of combined polls on abortion shows that the views on abortion trend back and forth. Currently there is only about a 1% favor toward pro-abortion/pro-choice.

Last week I read with interest Marist Poll National Adults, based on interviews conducted December 12th through December 18th, 2016.

The question was asked, “On the issue of abortion, do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice?” Nation-wide 42% were pro-life, while 52% were pro-choice and 6% were unsure. When the detailed questions are brought out, the details get interesting.

Though 52% answered as being pro-choice, when asked, “In the long run, do you believe having an abortion improves a woman’s life or in the long run do you believe abortion does more harm than good to a woman,” only 31% thought it improved a woman’s life, while 50% thought it does more harm.

When it comes to using tax dollars to pay for a woman’s abortion, the majority opposes it – 28% oppose and 33% strongly oppose. Only 9% strongly support it. When it comes to using tax dollars to support abortion in other countries, 83% oppose or strongly oppose it. 30%, a plurality, believe that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

60% of the nation-wide respondents thought those who have moral objections to abortion should not be legally required to perform or provide insurance coverage for abortions.

When asked, “Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, do you believe that, in general, or morally wrong,” 59% said they thought it was morally wrong. Interestingly, the majority of American women (59 percent) say abortion is morally wrong, the same percentage of all Americans who agree it is morally wrong.

A Double Standard?

Muslims held to double standard in cases of faith-based violence -- "Three-quarters (75 percent) of the public say that self-described Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity aren’t really Christian, while half (50 percent) of the public say the same about people who claim to be Muslim and commit religiously-motivated violence."

Found this "double standard" article in the Baptist New Global feed. I don't think there's anything unexpected here. A poll taken in a country that is nominally Christian and of predominantly Christian heritage will normally expect (yes, know) that Christians who commit acts of violence are not following what they have been taught in churches. It is not unusual then that they would question their Christian faith. On the other hand, the same folks, generally, don't know or understand as much about what is taught in mosques and have at least heard that some do support violence against "infidels."

Boo - Commission on Presidential Debates

What do you know about the Commission on Presidential Debates? What do you think of the Commission on Presidential Debates? The Commission on Presidential Debates describes itself as nonpartisan and non-profit. On the other hand Wikipedia says the Commission is "a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties," as well as that it is "headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former [Democratic] White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry."[1] That doesn't sound at all "non-partisan" to me!

I've never paid too much attention to who set up and controlled the debates -- until this year, following some of the debate flap regarding Gary Johnson & William Weld. The Libertarian ticket has made it on the ballot IN ALL 50 states, and is polling fairly well (according to whom you ask).[2] Yet the Commission on Presidential Debates seemed determined to shut them out.[3] They say debate participants must be "Constitutionally eligible...must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations..." The Libertarian Party cleared the first two hurdles, but the last part is where the rub comes in. In the article Conflict of Interest: Debate Commission’s ‘Nonpartisan’ Poll Actually Run by Top Party Consultants, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan writes, "The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) claims that it uses “nonpartisan criteria” to select participants for the presidential debates. However, publicly available information shows that one of the polls used to determine participants, the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, is run by Democratic and Republican pollsters." He further claims, "Nonpartisan voters are systematically under-sampled. And, importantly, the documentation provided by NBC shows that Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies made no effort to use statistical means to correct for the under-representation of independents."

Possibly most people are satisfied with a Democratic/Republican two-party system that we have, but this year is a year of great discontent. It would be great to see that discontent played out in a three or four party struggle for the White House. And giving voice to these other two parties would allow American voters to see what their choices really are! We call on the Commission to fulfill their mission statement to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners."[4]

[1] While Wikipedia is not always considered the most reliable source, it is not the only source for this information -- just the simplest and easiest to find for my purposes.
[2] Also, the Green Party is on the ballots of 45 states and are qualified for write-in status in three other states. These two parties receiving this kind of ballot access surely must represent high disaffection of voters this year. When polled on just the fact of whether the Libertarian and Green parties should be allowed in the presidential debates, a high percentage of Democrats and Republicans, and the majority of Independents support Gary Johnson's and Jill Stein’s presence in the presidential debates.
[3] Every dog and pony show that gets on the ballot in a state or two doesn't need to be in the debates. But shutting parties out of the debates is an effective way of being sure they don't have a realistic chance of winning. I can well imagine why Trump and Clinton don't want Johnson or Jill Stein in the debates -- right now each has an ugly looking alternative. They wouldn't want folks to think there might be some other more pleasing alternative.
[4] In their mission statement, the Commission on Presidential Debates claims they were established in 1987 to ensure that debates...provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners."
[5] Totally unrelated, I saw a political cartoon that described our current choices as "the evil of two lessers."

God of Earth and Outer Space

“God of Earth and Outer Space” was written by Thad Roberts Jr. in 1970, and included in the 1975 Baptist Hymnal. Here is the hymn.

God of earth and outer space,
God of love and God of grace,
Bless the astronauts who fly,
As they soar beyond the sky.
God who flung the stars in space,
God who set the sun ablaze,
Fling the spacecraft thru the air,
Let man know your presence there.

God of atmosphere and air,
God of life and planets bare,
Use man’s courage and his skill
As he seeks your holy will.
God of depth and God of height,
God of darkness, God of light,
As man walks in outer space,
Teach him how to walk in grace.

God of man’s exploring mind,
God of wisdom, God of time,
Launch us from complacency
To a world in need of thee.
God of power, God of might,
God of rockets firing bright.
Hearts ignite and thrust within,
Love for Christ to share with men.

God of earth and outer space,
God who guides the human race,
Guide the lives of seeking youth
In their search for heav'nly truth.
God who reigns below, above,
God of universal love,
Love that gave Nativity,
Love that gave us Calvary.

This hymn has been "nominated" by several people as "the worst" or "the stupidest" hymn ever. Greg Adkins makes fun of it in his post The Baptist Hymnal, Hymn #20, All 4 verses, standing as we sing, writing "it is pretty amazing that someone was able to write a worship song including the words 'spacecraft', 'rocket', 'astronauts', 'outerspace', and 'thrust'." David Bruce Murray, author of Murray's Encyclopedia of Southern Gospel Music, calls it the Worst…Hymn…Ever….* He writes, "For me, the clear winner is hymn #20 from the 1975 version of the Baptist Hymnal...'God Of Earth And Outer Space'." It is apparent from some comments at David Murray's blog that the problem is not just with the words, but that they clearly have a distaste for minor music. The tune is Aberystwyth written by Joseph Parry in 1879.

In contrast Jonathan Pritchett writes In defense of “God of Earth and Outer Space”. He says "Not only should this song be sang more often, but we need more songs that combine themes of faith and science, creation, the sovereignty of God and His love revealed in Jesus Christ."

David Music notes that “God of Earth and Outer Space” and two other "space" hymns were written in the late 60 and early 70s -- "the most vigorous period of America's space exploration program" and that after "manned space flight began to be de-emphasized" these "hymns about space and its exploration quickly fell out of favor." ("I Will Sing the Wondrous Story": A History of Baptist Hymnody in North America, p. 473)

While a few things about the hymn strike me as a little odd, I suspect Music's observation best captures what happened. The song seemed relevant in the early 1970s, but after that it seemed a little weird to glorify God in the realm of space exploration. But the overall tenor of the hymn doesn't strike me as anywhere near hilarious, as is portrayed by some writers on the web.

Is this the "worst hymn ever" (as Murray)? Or does it combine themes that should be sung more often (as Pritchett)? Or does it fall somewhere in the middle? What do you think? 

* Murray qualifies his selection as a "worst" category choosing from hymns that made it into a popular hymnal.

Do Christians make the least faithful spouses?

This morning I linked the Huff Post article, Christians Make The Least Faithful Spouses, According To A New Survey.

The survey was conducted by Ashley Madison. Ashley Madison is a dating website "for people already in relationships." According to Wikipedia, "Ashley Madison is an online dating service and social networking service marketed to people who are already in a relationship with the slogan 'Life is short. Have an affair'."  It further states that the service has over 21 million members in 30 countries.  Supposedly they "sought to discover the link between religion and infidelity by asking 105,000 of its members about their religious affiliation."

I fear that the article is far too accurate to be simply be cast off by Christians, but far too "messy" to yield up any quickly consumed conclusions.

First of all, many Christians are unfaithful to their spouses.

But, second, the very nature of the website makes the answers of those surveyed suspect. They are unfaithful and probably lying to their spouses, so whether we can get much accurate and faithful data from them is questionable.

Third, where were most of the people polled located? For example, are they in primarily "Christian" countries?

Finally, it does not take into account self-reporting and the "definition" of what a Christian really is. If the respondents are in primarily "Christian" there is a likelihood of nominal attachment to a religion. IOW, they say they are Christians because they aren't atheists or Muslims or Buddhists, their parents were Christians and so on. This survey may tell us a lot about all the sorts of people who claim the Christian name, but little about those who are actively trying to live out their faith. There are (at least in the United States & western world) lots of nominal Christians. On the other hand, there are not likely many "nominal" atheists.

Just something to think about.

13 hours to prepare a sermon?

Thom Rainer, president and CEO of the SBC's LifeWay Resources, surveyed* pastors on How Much Time Do Pastors Spend Preparing a Sermon?

The question Rainer asked was about the amount of preparation time for one sermon. He gives a breakdown of the poll by three-hour increments (see above link). He states that in this poll the median time for sermon preparation is 13 hours.** He also broke it down this way -- "70% of pastors’ sermon preparation time is the narrow range of 10 to 18 hours per sermon."

The point of Rainer's post is that pastors spend many hours, often unknown to their congregations, in sermon preparation and that this is a very important job. I took something a little different away from it.

If a preacher takes 13 hours to prepare one sermon, does he take 39 hours to prepare three sermons? Or does the prep time for other sermons decrease in length and importance? Is there any reason to spend 13 hours on one sermon? Does this really suggest their great importance? Or does it suggest American pastors have a weird concept of what a sermon is? If a pastor spends 39 hours preparing sermons, how much time does he spend otherwise studying the Bible and praying for his own learning and edification?

I am afraid that much of what this reveals is that the average pastor really views sermonizing as mostly an academic and oratorical pursuit. He must primp and paint and polish his sermon until he gets it "just right". Maybe if we spent 40 hours just studying the Bible instead of preparing sermons, we'd actually have more to preach!

*Rainer calls his poll "an unscientific Twitter poll."
**"That means that half of the respondents gave a number under 13 hours; the other half gave a number greater than 13 hours."

Folks don't trust our government

Pew Research Center: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America's ills, a survey found.

At the polls

Some of you may have gone to the polls on Tuesday, April 13 (at least for Texans). Here are some more polls:

The AP-GfK Poll "found that people who identify themselves as tea party backers — nearly one in five Americans...tend to be Republican, but more conservative than Republicans in general, the poll found. They tend to see Obama as 'very liberal' and are 'angry' rather than merely dissatisfied with Washington."

"Though former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin draws raucous cheers at tea party rallies, a plurality of tea party supporters see her as unqualified to be president, according to the poll." [The AP-GfK Poll was conducted April 7-12, 2010 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media]

Rasmussen: Ron Paul Polls Even With Obama for 2012

"Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42 percent support and Paul with 41 percent of the vote. Eleven percent prefer some other candidate, and 6 percent are undecided.

"35 percent of voters now think Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people."

Don't forget the "Baptist origins straw poll"!

"Baptist origins straw poll"