The large number of "wrong" responses is because, for conservative Evangelicals, this is almost a trick question.
The statement is a conciliatory stock phrase used by Jewish people to explain their stance on Jesus to Christians in a diplomatic way. The reaction they're hoping for is "respectful disagreement", or, if you like, the reaction they're hoping to avoid is "hostile disagreement". I don't hold it against anyone for trying to head-off antisemitism, but the situation where it's most likely to be used is between right-wing Jews and frequently-less-than-tolerant right-wing Christians. It's an important stance to take for right-wing unity, and any Evangelical who listens to or watches a lot of right-wing media will have heard it.
The takeaway from these responses isn't "40% of American Evangelicals reject the Council of Nikea", it's "40% of American Evangelicals soyfaced when they saw something the smart conservative man on the radio said". Being Evangelicals, everyone gave the response they thought they were supposed to give, and only 60% knew that the "correct" response to this statement is "polite disagreement" rather than "agreement". If the statement had instead been a relevant segment of the Nikean Creed, they would have received a much larger portion of "correct" responses.
Very informative. But it's still fucking wild that something so subtle could get them to ignore literally the main thing about Christianity. Some Catholic teacher would kick you down a well for saying that.
Basically every Christian west of Baghdad who studied theology would, yeah. I went to a Christian elementary school and I was taught that belief in Christ's divinity is a necessary part of being a Christian, though now that I know more about the history of the religion I would disagree with that.
Smart point. Though I wonder if we'd see a similar shift in other conservative, more established denominations: my hunch is maybe we wouldn't, as I think the evangelicals are more doctrinally flexible (as there is less established doctrine).
Evangelicalism isn't a denomination in its own right, though I imagine that could change over decades and centuries. Christians of multiple Protestant denominations identify as Evangelicals. It's not that those denominations don't have doctrine, it's that Evangelicals as a group tend to be somewhat hostile toward education so they never learn it. That's not to say that there are no Evangelicals who are interested in theology - this survey was conducted by some - they just don't realize that they're out of place in their own movement. They are salty about a bunch of the responses to the more cerebral statements, and the only thing Evangelicals seemed to almost universally agree on are the anti-sex and anti-abortion statements.
It’s not that those denominations don’t have doctrine
:doubt: I've yet to see evidence that Evangelicals have ever seen theology or are even aware that the concept exists. Their religion seems to be hating various modern culture groups and accusing random things of being Satanic, with very little complexity beyond that.
It’s not that those denominations don’t have doctrine, it’s that Evangelicals as a group tend to be somewhat hostile toward education so they never learn it.
Okay, I think my point of disagreement is that Evangelicals can be meaningfully considered part of other denominations. Everything I've seen, read, and heard about them suggests that Evangelicals and their religious leaders are wholly uninterested in theology, history, or anything else that would ground or restrict their interpretation of Christianity, and instead they just scream about culture war bullshit very loudly then yell incoherently about Jesus to given it a veneer of Christianism. Like Evangelicalism is the elevation of your own personal political and cultural :brainworms: to the position of god. Just a totally solipsistic, masturbatory adventure in self-righteous hate.
Like I cannot really put in to words how much contempt I have for Evangelicalism as a so called religious practice.
I think that Evangelicals will decide to become their own denomination sooner or later, but at present Evangelicals do nominally belong to a variety of denominations and practice differently according to those denominations, even if they refuse to learn why they do this or that ritual a certain way or why they do or don't do certain rituals at all - the point isn't to understand, the point is to do what you're supposed to. I don't think we disagree about the merits of the movement.
My father both went to and later taught at seminary. Theology is incredibly important among some groups. Not your Christmas and Easter MAGA christians but to actual believers many get very into the weeds on the theology. Gotta understand your adversary to combat them, don't just assume they're all unread morons.
The large number of "wrong" responses is because, for conservative Evangelicals, this is almost a trick question.
The statement is a conciliatory stock phrase used by Jewish people to explain their stance on Jesus to Christians in a diplomatic way. The reaction they're hoping for is "respectful disagreement", or, if you like, the reaction they're hoping to avoid is "hostile disagreement". I don't hold it against anyone for trying to head-off antisemitism, but the situation where it's most likely to be used is between right-wing Jews and frequently-less-than-tolerant right-wing Christians. It's an important stance to take for right-wing unity, and any Evangelical who listens to or watches a lot of right-wing media will have heard it.
The takeaway from these responses isn't "40% of American Evangelicals reject the Council of Nikea", it's "40% of American Evangelicals soyfaced when they saw something the smart conservative man on the radio said". Being Evangelicals, everyone gave the response they thought they were supposed to give, and only 60% knew that the "correct" response to this statement is "polite disagreement" rather than "agreement". If the statement had instead been a relevant segment of the Nikean Creed, they would have received a much larger portion of "correct" responses.
Very informative. But it's still fucking wild that something so subtle could get them to ignore literally the main thing about Christianity. Some Catholic teacher would kick you down a well for saying that.
Basically every Christian west of Baghdad who studied theology would, yeah. I went to a Christian elementary school and I was taught that belief in Christ's divinity is a necessary part of being a Christian, though now that I know more about the history of the religion I would disagree with that.
Smart point. Though I wonder if we'd see a similar shift in other conservative, more established denominations: my hunch is maybe we wouldn't, as I think the evangelicals are more doctrinally flexible (as there is less established doctrine).
Evangelicalism isn't a denomination in its own right, though I imagine that could change over decades and centuries. Christians of multiple Protestant denominations identify as Evangelicals. It's not that those denominations don't have doctrine, it's that Evangelicals as a group tend to be somewhat hostile toward education so they never learn it. That's not to say that there are no Evangelicals who are interested in theology - this survey was conducted by some - they just don't realize that they're out of place in their own movement. They are salty about a bunch of the responses to the more cerebral statements, and the only thing Evangelicals seemed to almost universally agree on are the anti-sex and anti-abortion statements.
:doubt: I've yet to see evidence that Evangelicals have ever seen theology or are even aware that the concept exists. Their religion seems to be hating various modern culture groups and accusing random things of being Satanic, with very little complexity beyond that.
Okay, I think my point of disagreement is that Evangelicals can be meaningfully considered part of other denominations. Everything I've seen, read, and heard about them suggests that Evangelicals and their religious leaders are wholly uninterested in theology, history, or anything else that would ground or restrict their interpretation of Christianity, and instead they just scream about culture war bullshit very loudly then yell incoherently about Jesus to given it a veneer of Christianism. Like Evangelicalism is the elevation of your own personal political and cultural :brainworms: to the position of god. Just a totally solipsistic, masturbatory adventure in self-righteous hate.
Like I cannot really put in to words how much contempt I have for Evangelicalism as a so called religious practice.
I think that Evangelicals will decide to become their own denomination sooner or later, but at present Evangelicals do nominally belong to a variety of denominations and practice differently according to those denominations, even if they refuse to learn why they do this or that ritual a certain way or why they do or don't do certain rituals at all - the point isn't to understand, the point is to do what you're supposed to. I don't think we disagree about the merits of the movement.
Okay, that makes sense.
My father both went to and later taught at seminary. Theology is incredibly important among some groups. Not your Christmas and Easter MAGA christians but to actual believers many get very into the weeds on the theology. Gotta understand your adversary to combat them, don't just assume they're all unread morons.
But the majority who are unread morons low-key hate the ones who aren't.
Yes on all of above; other than the lack of establishment (hierarchically, theologically), the defining characteristic is political/cultural, imo
deleted by creator