Born Again And Democratic? -- An Interview With George Barna

Posted February 20, 2008 | 03:57 AM (EST)




There's been a lot of talk of born again and evangelical Christian voters being up for grabs in 2008. All bets are off if Barack Obama (with his own conversion story as well as moral stands on poverty that connect with born agains) goes up against John McCain. But before jumping to any conclusions, one must understand some basic facts and definitions about this massive chunk of the U.S. population. For that, George Barna is the man to go to. He is the founder of the research and polling firm The Barna Group and an author of many books, including "Revolution," in which he argues that 20,000,000 American Christians are in the midst of radically redefining their their faith to bring it back to the original radicalism of Jesus and the earliest Christian communities.

2008-02-20-rev.jpgIn your latest research project, you report that 2/5th of registered Democrats are Born Again Christians. I think this will surprise a lot of people. Before we get into that, can you explain how that category is defined? Who are born again Christians? And what's the difference between Evangelical and Born Again Christians?

The Barna Group is the only survey research organization I know of that does not rely upon self-report to be classified as "born again" or "evangelical." We classify people as "born again" based on their answers to two questions about what they believe, rather than the label they choose for themselves. The questions are whether they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, and if so, we ask what they think will happen to them after they die. We offer seven possibilities to choose from, one of which is that they believe they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

We do not rely upon people calling themselves born again because we did some research on the people who choose such a label and found two interesting results. First, about one-third of those who call themselves born again also admit that they have no kind of relationship with Jesus Christ, which the Bible describes as being a central facet of becoming a person who is born anew - transformed by the grace of God into a new being. Second, we also learned that roughly one-quarter of the people who meet the two theological criteria we pose - regarding the personal commitment as well as the confession of sins and reliance upon Christ for forgiveness - appear to be born again but refuse to adopt that label for themselves. The major reason is that it carries such negative cultural connotations.

Evangelicals, in our way of measuring things, are a subset of born again Christians. The term "evangelical" is not in the Bible, so to figure out what this man-made category meant, we studied the belief statement of the National Association of Evangelicals and drew out seven particular elements that seemed most central to their perspective. Those include the accuracy and reliability of the Bible, the sinless life of Christ, the existence of Satan as an influential spiritual being, the importance of sharing one's faith in Christ with others, that a person cannot earn their way into Heaven, religious faith is very important in the person's life, and that God is the omnipotent and omniscient creator and ruler of the universe. The NAE has more components in their statement, but these seemed pivotal, and would give us a good grip on where a person was coming from, theologically.

So, using this approach, it is possible to be evangelical and born again, possible to be born again without being evangelical, but impossible to be evangelical without being born again. But I have to note that only God knows who is or is not truly born again. Surveys simply provide an estimate of what's happening in people's lives.


So - what percent of America is Born Again or Evangelical?

About 44% are born again, and about 7% are evangelical.


Has the number of Born Again + Evangelical Christians grown dramatically over recent decades or has it always been this way?

The proportion of evangelicals has remained constant for the past 20 years that we've been measuring it. The percentage of born again Christians has risen and fallen to some extent, but it generally hovers within a few percentage points of the 40% mark.


OK - so born again Christians believe that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick and rose from the dead; they mostly believe Adam, Eve, Noah and Satan are real. They believe prayer works. In the current DC conventional wisdom, those kinds of beliefs are associated with right wing stands on economics, law & order, foreign policy, social welfare and other policy areas. Is the DC conventional wisdom wrong?

In this case, it is wrong. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs within the born again constituency. There are segments on both sides of the arguments related to immigration reform, responses to poverty, the Iraq war, and so forth. Much of this relates to the worldview of factions within the born again community. Some, especially younger born agains, tend to have a postmodern view of the world, which leads them to conclude that there are no absolute moral truths, that relationships and dialogue are of the ultimate importance, and that tolerance of diverse opinions and lifestyles is appropriate.

As you alluded to earlier, our research shows that a plurality of born again adults who are registered to vote are Democrats. Among the born agains, more than four out of 10 are registered Democrats, three out of ten are registered Republicans, and the remaining two out of 10 are independent. Things look very different among the evangelicals, though, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats almost three-to-one. Maybe the insight to draw from all of this is that the mainstream media constantly try to simplify complex realities so that people can quickly understand the world. The problem is that some things get oversimplified, and understanding the faith community is one of those dimensions that gets misunderstood.

Given the drum beat by so many high profile Christian leaders around anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion campaigns, what does it say that those issues are so far down the list for most born again Christians? Aren't they listening to their leaders? Or is it that those people we see on TV are not actually regarded as leaders by most born agains?

There are several dimensions to consider in this. First, there is an important distinction to be made between someone being a leader and a teacher. Some of the people who have the media platforms have their greatest influence as teachers of biblical principles rather than as sociopolitical leaders. Second, every issue I have ever studied - and I've been involved in political research for more than 30 years - suffers from constituency burnout at some point. Remember, Americans live in a fast-paced, immediate gratification culture, anchored by the postmodern view that moral values are situational rather absolute. Consequently, while many born again Christians are personally pro-life, they have lost some of the energy to fight that battle, and now say they are personally pro-life but are more galvanized by other issues and concerns. Third, the fact that many born again voters rank abortion and gay rights lower on their agenda does not so much indicate that those issues are unimportant to them as it reflects the increasing sophistication of many born again voters. They have morphed from single-issue voters to being more educated about a wider variety of national and global concerns. In that context, they may see other matters as possessing more immediate significance for our nation. Finally, realize that the younger generation of born again Christians tends to be less drawn to the "culture wars" and more drawn toward conversation and reconciliation. For better or worse, many of them express an interest in influencing the culture through their relationships and lifestyle choices rather than through political engagement.

Perhaps that biggest, last point of division between born again progressives and...er...born once progressives is homosexuality. I have met a number of born again Christians who believe in "gay rights" -- i.e. that gays should have the same rights as everyone else -- even while they believe that homosexuality is un-biblical and a sin. To most people reading this, that will seem a huge contradiction -- can you shed any light on what Christians like that are thinking.

This is a great example of the "new" thinking that is gaining ground among Christians. While it is true that you can legislate morality - after all, what laws do is define what is right and wrong, which is the essence of morality - a growing number of born again people are not staking their entire realm of influence on the legal and political systems. Instead, they desire to offer a theologically honest but emotionally compassionate reaction to proponents of homosexuality. In other words, they cannot ignore the fact that homosexuality is a sin from a biblical perspective, but also realize that Jesus' primary exhortation was to love other people into a different way of understanding and living their lives. So, on the one hand, you'll find some born again adults who strongly reject homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, who at the same time have a number of homosexual friends and are comfortable discussing that lifestyle with those friends in a non-hysterical, non-hostile manner. Their view is that God, alone, is called to judge people. We're simply called to love them.


 

Comments
88
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

You lost me with the 44% born again stat.

As someone who has thankfully escaped fundamental Christianity, I know that it's tempting to overinflate the segment's numbers. However, as consuming as that world was, I never got the sense that a whopping 44% of Americans are born-again Christians.

I am so happy that a new day is dawning where the oppressive, judgmental (and therefore also hypocritical), anti-intellectual, fundamentalist thought is coming to an end. If there is some movement to create a kinder, more gentle Christianity, then so be it. Just keep it out of government.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 AM on 02/23/2008


research: "Let he is without sin cast the first stone:
Jesus would be anti abortion and pro choice."

From the tone I guess research is a born-again/evangelical Christian, and he demonstrates admirably the danger of such groups.

As far as I know Jesus said nothing to the point one way or the other, but once people start deciding they know what he would have said had he been asked we move on to their deciding that Jesus if asked would have insisted that women deliver babies that will kill them or care for the children of rape, &tc, true believers should murder doctors who perform abortions, would have insisted on the stoning of homosexuals and would most definitely have voted Republican.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 AM on 02/21/2008

What amazed me was to hear what I will call "off-the-wall Christians" talk about not being concerned about your sins because Jesus
died to take their sins away. And they are talking about the sins they have committed and the sins they haven't even thought of yet. No problem -- just say "I accept Jesus as my savior" and they will go to heaven. They go on to say that "good works" are not part of Christianity. You don't need good works. Just accept Jesus as your savior and you'll go to heaven. You can see where that leads. First of all the "off-the-wall Christians" never quote anything Jesus is supposed to have said, like the sermon on the mount. It works out that you can lie, cheat, and steal and go to heaven because your sins have all been forgiven, even the ones you are planning to commit in the next hour or so. Doesn't matter. And the business about the rapture is really scary. It's the biggest thing that can happen for these people. They want it to happen. It has to happen in their lifetime, so a war that wipes out the entire planet is fine, can't come soon enough.
They aren't just strange; they're dangerous. They don't think God is working fast enough to bring the rapture, so these people are trying to make it happen. They don't even seen the arrogance of tricking God or wonder what Jesus would want with them in heaven for all eternity.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 PM on 02/20/2008

Excellent summarisation of USA Christianity. I believe that Jesus surely lived a stellar life, but I will not join a Christian group in the USA. I do attend church from time to time when I at my home in Europe. They, Europeans have a different sense about religion that is comprehendable.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 02/21/2008

What about the secret societys fronted and financed by Sung Yung Moon ...Tim Lahaye...yeah LaHaye who duped the masses into buy a very badly written book series stolen from the bible and made 100's of million of dollars...what about these two tricky dicks who meet with bush administration in secret who hold a coronation in a federal building...where is the media ..the investigative reporting??? they hurt our nation and insult Jesus Christ.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 02/20/2008

George Barna is one of the most knowledgeable, as well as unbiased, people in America regarding his subject matter. I highly encourage anyone who seriously wants to know what people in the Christian community in the US actually think, as opposed to what others believe they think, to read some of the reports on his web site.

I've followed his surveys and reports for almost 10 years. The results are sometimes quite surprising and certainly objective rather than subjective. I would rank the Barna Group in the same category as Rasmussen Reports for the quality of their work. http://barna.org

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 02/20/2008

Ditto everything you said. This is really a very interseting subject discussed in an intellectually curious way, and is tremendously relevant. Spiritual diversity and tolerance is, after all, one of the most American of cultural contributions.

One could argue that what we're witnessing this election cycle isn't just Politics 2.0, but a kind of spiritual nexus, as well.

GObama!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 AM on 02/23/2008

Thanks for this blog. I am a Christian, although not evangelical, but have always been a Democrat. I have never understood why people always associated Christianity with the Republicans. I always thought that much of the Republican platform contradicted Jesus' teachings. I mentioned in another post elsewhere that some older members of our church vote Republican because of the abortion debate, but they really feel torn this election because they oppose most of the Republican policies. They want to see healthcare reform, better policies for the poor, better education, the war to end, just like everyone, but they believe to vote for someone pro-choice would be a sin. I think some will sit this election out. I also agree with another poster who said that not all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. I certainly do not, and my last church is open and affirming, and half our congregation is gay. I believe that a few Bible verses discussing homosexuality or something akin to it were taken out of context and reinforced existing cultural beliefs. I think most mainline churches will change their minds about this over time, as they did with feminism. Look at how interpretions of verses about the inferior status of women have changed from a 100 or even 50 years ago.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 02/20/2008

Good poste, thank you. You are correct, the republican platform counters the words and works of Jesus, nearly 100% !

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 AM on 02/21/2008

While I respect the scholarly work that went into this piece and the updated look at Christians, I can't quite suspend disbelief on the conclusion.

My problem stems from the fact that the author and his source essentially relabel a huge swath (44%) of middle America and proclaim a widely different perspective.

I'll accept that this 44% of Americans they're speaking of have wildly divergent views and are mor progressive than those who we're accustomed to considering as born-agains and Evangelicals.

Unfortunately, that old group still exists in relatively consistent numbers and still wields power over policy. You can blend away their consistency of opinion by lumping them in with others based on any set of attributes, but they don't become the mean.

It'd be nice to see Democrats actually respect people of faith and I hope Obama can do that, but there's a very motivated and political core there that is simply not up for grabs. I don't think that sort of self-delusion serves us well.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 02/20/2008

I'll start respecting people of faith as soon as they pray for a separation of church and state. As it stands now, it doesn't look good for those of us who believe in a secular government-you know, the type our founding fathers tried to establish.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 02/20/2008

I disagree completely with the basis of this theory that people are not always what they label themselves. If they are labeling themselves as born-again and voting GOP then that's what they are -- a born-again Republican. If they label themselves evangelical and vote Democratic, then they are what they say they are. It doesn't make sense to explain a new statistical theory by arguing with how people self-identify. I do agree that more of this group is Democratic than people realize but I think any box the MSM puts people into defies it's boundaries. I think what party you belong to is more about how you were raised and how you see the world and what you were taught by your parents and teachers, not what color you are, what church you go to or how much money you make. I live in Atlanta and during the election you will see as many white men driving around in expensive cars with Obama stickers as you will with McCain stickers (at least you did with Bush/Kerry in 04). There is more to your political affiliation than your demographic cues.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 02/20/2008

Most people label themselves INCORRECTLY. In my view, real christians should follow JESUS, not a political party nor their MADE BY MAN churches.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 AM on 02/21/2008

It seems to me that Jesus was a liberal as you can get. If he was here today the Republican "christian right" would blast him for his carzy ideas about feeding the poor and his lack of support for corperate greed. Compassion, tollerance, resposibilty for caring for a fellow man are all contrary to the GOP stand on everything. So those that are pro Bush Christians are clearly lost sheep.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 PM on 02/20/2008

Amen brother. He turned over the money changers table. Folks that made money from the people making sacrifices at the temple used God as a way to make themselves rich. The modern American church is blasphemous in the same darn way as the religious
elite in the time of Jesus.
Why are the religious right so easily fooled. They
following the pied piper of Bush fake Christianity
down the path of perdition. Too bad. This business
of just hating all Muslems is NOT Christ like behavior.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:48 PM on 02/24/2008

I think there's a fair argument to both of your major points.

1) While Jesus may have been liberal from a social welfare standpoint, it had more to do with his "who cares" attitude about our physical well-being. He was concerned about spiritual well-being and used poor/rich to illustrate the point. As for the conventional definition of liberal, I can't imagine that the historical Jesus would in any way support a woman's right to choose to kill her un-born child.

2) Everyday, ordinary Republicans aren't the evil monsters that you conjure up. They may have different priorities and opinions, but they're focused on the safety and well-being of Americans every bit as much as Democrats. They just believe that the path to that point is different.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 02/20/2008

Abortions were common during the time of Christ. They usually used an herb that is now extinct from so much use for abortion.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 02/20/2008

The contemporary GOP follows the anti-Christ agenda IN EVERYTHING. War. No free health care for children and expecting mothers. No efforts to secure the best educators for the young. Pro-turture. Pro-survelliance. Against the habeas corpus. Against regulations to protect environment and human health. Against the sanctity of the law and accountability from those in power. Pro-tolerance for lies and crimes when the GOP power is involved.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 02/20/2008

No they do not care about all Americans. They do not care about gay Americans.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 02/20/2008

Most of them only CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 02/21/2008

Even a casual reading of the gospels shows Jesus to have been very concerned with the physical well being of his contemporaries. I see no reason to think there is any less concern for our all aspects of our own well being. Since when did social welfare not include all human needs: physical, psychological and civil?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 02/20/2008

Let he is without sin cast the first stone:

Jesus would be anti abortion and pro choice.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 PM on 02/20/2008

McCain and supporters: How do you reconcile your party's pro war, anti welfare policies with the teachings of peace, love and charity in the gospels of Jesus Christ?

Jesus of the gospels is a liberal.

No text religious or otherwise should be taken literally.

When will the world recognize that "literalism" is a mental illness?

Everyone on Earth should see ZEITGEIST.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
The first half is a really new way of looking at the origins of religions.

The second half is a very reasonable 9/11 conspiracy theory, which may upset some people. I think Condi shopping for shoes instead of preventing 9/11 is conspiracy enough.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 02/20/2008

Everyone on Earth should see ZEITGEIST.
____________________________________________

I've seen it and sorry, but it is a piece of unadulterated crap. Poorly made, filled with dubious theology and paranoid plots worthy of both the most extreme left and right-wingers around. The organization is completely haphazzard, the arguments dubious (especially in the second half) and the direction and editing just abominable. Also, the two parts appear completely unreleated.

Other than that, though, I thought it was great :-)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 02/20/2008

Zietgeist has 2 of the top most viewed slots in the USA, and 3 of the top 20 worldwide.

See it, decide for youself.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 PM on 02/20/2008

Dubious theology? Is there any other kind?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 02/20/2008

There is by no means a consensus among theologians and other people of faith that homosexuality is a sin. Certainly, relying upon purely literal interpretations of scripture is an easy approach to theology, but it is also an immature and uninformed approach.

Thus, I take issue with the following statement of the author, which implies that there is only one biblical perspective on the nature of homosexuality:

"In other words, they cannot ignore the fact that homosexuality is a sin from a biblical perspective, but also realize that Jesus' primary exhortation was to love other people into a different way of understanding and living their lives."

Anyone interested would do well to view the film "For The Bible Tells Me So," to get a broader perspective on this compelling religious issue. As a person of faith, I'm skeptical that any real compassion can emerge from a sloppy theology that fails to takes many factors into consideration, or that love which involves one's agenda for another person is very genuine.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 PM on 02/20/2008

Isn't cherry-picking great? Isn't interpreting written-in-stone commands so that they fit your idea of morality great?
Jesus was an egotistical monster who cared as much about vengeance (which was his and only his to pursue, remember?)as he did about caring for the average CHRISTIAN individual's welfare.
Concern for non-Christians? Well, we'll see about that when he Raptures his way back to earth . . .

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 02/20/2008

Good to find out that George Barna didn't follow the lemmings off the cliff these last 7 years.

This article is spot on. And for all of the people who distrust and dislike Christians this is good news. Not because it makes Christians paletable for everyone else, but because it shows that Christians are for the most part finding everyone else paletable... as opposed to hating everyone who doesn't agree with them. This is really good news.

This is how the country unites around common beliefs and goals. By belief I don't mean religous belief. I mean the moral and social beliefs such as ending poverty, providing health care for everyone, fair taxation(not giving the breaks to just the rich), etc.

Here's the thing: Born again Christian ideals match Democratic ideals 98%.

You can divide over 2%. Or you can work with that common 98% and get things done.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 02/20/2008

I think it the evangelistic left wing of the democratic party (they call themselves progressives) and the youth who are taking over like the right wing took over the republican party in 2000. We got Bush and the Iraq War and a downward economy because of what the right wing did. I don't think it will be much different with the left wing. The center-middle ground needs to rule. Too much power in the hands of too few people backed up with moral certitude=too much danger

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 02/20/2008

For those of you bashing Christianity: you do know that being a militant athiest who condemns all Christians and spits in their beliefs...

then condemns Christians for condemning others and spitting in their beliefs is extremely hypocritical, right?

P.S. Yes, I'm a Christian who takes my faith seriously and could be considered Born Again...

and a card carrying member of the ACLU. So whatever with the stereotypes I've even seen being flung around the comments.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 02/20/2008

But your religion insists that non-Christians be killed and sent to an eternity in hell. I wonder if the ACLU will help me out of that fix when the time comes . . .

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:40 PM on 02/20/2008

With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. On a note to Oldsalt: read these boards and notice that a lot of pretty nasty smack is being flung around (aka the hypocrisy). This post is an example.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 AM on 02/21/2008

A-T-H-E-I-S-T
Atheist: n. One who denies the existence of God.
A recovered Roman Catholic, I became an Atheist long ago. Most everyone dear to me is a believing Christian and I respect their choice. I don't know anyone among my friends who could be classed as a "...militant Atheist who condemns all Christians and spits in (sic) their beliefs...". On the other hand, many Christians routinely condemn Atheists, particularly those professional Christians such as Robertson, Dobson, the Pope, the late Jerry Falwell, et al. Politicians such as George W. Bush also use this tactic when pandering to the narrow minded.
As a matter of fact, surveys list Atheists as the among most despised of any minorities. If more self-described Christians would indeed practice the teachings of Christ, this would/could be a much happier world.
PS: I'm also "a card carrying member of the ACLU".

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 02/20/2008