Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites...and Other Lies You've Been Told
Page 11
Not only did Protestants commit less crime, but also the Protestants who attended church on a weekly basis did so far less than other Protestants. Figure 6.5 plots these differences, and the weekly attendees had crime levels that were about half as high as the other, less-frequently-attending Protestants. For example, 4% of the weekly attendees had been arrested, compared to 8% of the monthly attendees, 12% of the yearly attendees, and 15% of those who never attend. Among the three specific types of crime—damaging property, stealing more than $50, and hurting someone in a fight—there wasn’t much difference between the monthly, yearly, and never-attending groups, but all three of them had crime rates that were about double that of the weekly attendees.
Figure 6.5: Have You Been Arrested? Have You Committed These Crimes? (Protestant Young Adults Only)
Substance Abuse
Closely related to crime is the topic of substance abuse, and I’ll examine three types: alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs. Overall, I find that Christians in general, especially those who attend church, experience lower levels of substance abuse. The data for this section come from the 2002 National Comorbidity Study, a study of the physical and mental well-being of thousands of Americans.
The alcohol question that I looked at asks respondents if on the days that they drink, they typically have five drinks or more—a number chosen for its link with binge drinking. About 7% of Protestant respondents averaged five or more drinks when they drank, which was about the same as Catholics and members of other religions, but it was significantly lower—less than half—of the religiously unaffiliated. Fourteen percent of them reported five drinks or more. The marijuana question asks if respondents have used marijuana in the previous year. Just over 8% of Protestants had smoked marijuana, similar to Catholics (10%), but less than members of other religions (14%) and much less than the religiously unaffiliated (21%). With harder drugs, we see a similar pattern as with alcohol and marijuana. The question asks respondents if they had used illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, or LSD in the previous year. Two to 3% of Protestants, Catholics, and members of other religions had used these illegal drugs in the previous year, compared to nearly 6% of the religiously unaffiliated.[11]
Turning to attendance data, we see very large differences. Among Protestants, about 10 to 12% of the monthly, yearly, or rarely attending respondents averaged five drinks or more on the days they drank. In contrast, only 3% of the weekly attendees did. With marijuana, only 3% of the weekly attendees had smoked in the previous year, compared to 9% of the monthly attendees, 11% of the yearly, and 15% of those who rarely attend. A similar pattern is seen with hard drugs. Six percent of Protestants who rarely attend church had used illegal drugs in the previous year, but this drops to 1% for the weekly attendees.
Figure 6.6: You Usually Have 5 Alcoholic Drinks or More, on Days That You Drink? Have You Used Marijuana This Year? Have You Used Hard Drugs? (Protestant Respondents)
You’ve probably started to detect several patterns so far in this chapter. Christians are in fact more likely to follow Christian teachings about sexuality and morality than the religiously unaffiliated. The Bible makes certain statements about proper conduct for Christians, both for the sake of society as a whole as well as for personal health and wellness. Christians are certainly not perfect in following what the Bible teaches (in fact, one of the strongest claims that the Good Book makes is that no one is perfect), but the differences between Christian actions and those of the unaffiliated are not insubstantial. And what’s more, the more committed Christians are to their faith, as measured by attending services, the more likely they are to “practice what they preach.”
What does all this mean? Well, the white powder on the church pew is probably just baby formula. Also, this appears to be an area in which Christians are aware of and adhering to the church’s teaching on morality. As discussed in chapter 1, this book makes no attempt to explain differences among religious groups—it simply tries to accurately report the differences. However, one interpretation of these findings is that the church has influence when it comes to changing behavior.[12]
Let’s keep exploring this topic of morality with some questions that fall a little more into the gray areas of life.
Everyday Honesty
So far in this chapter, I’ve analyzed big wrongs—actions that many people in society disapprove of. But what about the smaller expressions of morality—those that occur in everyday life? Sociologists have speculated that religion matters even more with everyday morality than it does with crime.[13] Various social institutions, such as the criminal justice system, exist to enforce criminal laws; in contrast, very few support everyday honesty, and so this is an area in which religious teachings can have an especially significant impact.
I actually had trouble finding suitable measures of everyday honesty, though I did find three in the General Social Survey that roughly fit into this concept. The first measure was collected in 1998, and it uses what sociologists call a “vignette question.” This kind of question describes a hypothetical situation, and then asks respondents how they think they would respond in the situation. In this vignette, respondents are told to imagine that they are riding in a car driven by a close friend. The friend is speeding and hits a pedestrian, and then asks you to tell the police that he was in fact obeying the speed limit. Would you lie for your friend?[14] The second measure, collected in 2004, asks respondents if it’s very important for American citizens not to evade paying their taxes. While this question measures attitudes about paying taxes rather than actual payment, we can assume reasonably that there is some link between attitudes and behavior. The third measure, collected in 2002 and 2004, asks respondents if during the past year they had received too much change from a cashier and not returned the excess money.
Overall, Evangelicals scored low on dishonesty. Only 8% of Evangelicals and 6% of Mainline Protestants said that they would lie to the police for a friend, compared to 14 to 15% of Black Protestants, Catholics, and members of other religions. Meanwhile, 20% of the religiously unaffiliated predicted that they would lie. Similarly, Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants were the least likely (21% and 24% respectively) to agree that paying taxes wasn’t “very important,” compared to 30% of Black Protestants, 31% of members of other religions, and 39% of the religiously unaffiliated. Finally, 44% of Evangelicals reported that they had not returned excess change during the previous year, less than the 55% of religiously unaffiliated.
Figure 6.7: Measures of Dishonesty in Everyday Life (Evangelical Respondents)
Turning to attendance measures, when it comes to everyday honesty the results are mixed for Evangelicals. A willingness to lie for a friend decreases considerably with church attendance. While 17% of the Evangelicals who rarely attend church would lie to the police, only 3% of the weekly attendees would do so. In contrast, there isn’t a clear pattern between attitudes toward paying taxes and attendance. Nineteen percent of weekly attendees view paying taxes as not “very important,” which is more than the never-attendees (13%) but less than the monthly attendees (31%). In regard to not returning excess change, the monthly and weekly attendees were the least likely (33% and 42% respectively) not to have returned excess change, compared to 57% of those who seldom attend.
It’s not clear to me why those who attend church most frequently do not fare better in these measures; however, I would hesitate to read too much into this set of findings because the questions themselves are not a great fit for the concept that I am trying to measure.
So Where Does This Leave Us?
This chapter uncovers several general patterns regarding morality and religious affiliation. Essentially, people who associate themselves with Christianity, as compared to the religiously unaffiliated, are more likely to have faithful marriages, commit less crime, interact honestly with others, and not get into as much trouble with drugs or alcohol. What’s more, the more committed Christians are to their faith, as measured by church attendance,
the greater the impact the church’s teachings seem to have on their lives.
Clearly from these analyses we know that Christians are not perfect. Many of the numbers may disappoint you or perhaps even shock you. But the question of what we should expect from Christians should be addressed. As I brought up in an earlier chapter, often those outside the church (and some inside the church) frequently accuse Christians of hypocrisy. But what does hypocrisy really mean? Is it simply doing something wrong that you know you shouldn’t? If so, I don’t know anyone, Christian or otherwise, who isn’t a hypocrite. Everyone falls short of their own standards from time to time, whether they tell a lie when they know they shouldn’t or drink one drink too many at a cocktail party.
But if we want to be precise with our definitions, that isn’t hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is claiming to be something you’re not. For instance, if you run for office proclaiming your unblemished record of honesty, but then are secretly taking bribes on the side, you’re a hypocrite. If, on the other hand, you believe that lying is wrong but sometimes do it anyway, you’re not. You’re just human.
And, for better or worse, Christians are certainly human. Many of us lie, cheat, get drunk, etc., just like all the other billions of people on the planet. To some extent this is disappointing (because we should know better), but at the same time it shouldn’t be unexpected (because we know ourselves). Granted, there are certainly some Christian hypocrites out there, but most of us just fall into the general category of “sinners.”
As I mentioned in the introductory chapter, becoming a Christian doesn’t make people good, it just makes them better. In other words, Christians believe that the Christian faith should, in fact, change how people live their lives, but this change isn’t necessarily instantaneous. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it might take even longer to perfect a person than to build an empire. Our expectations, therefore, should not be that Christians are blemish-free, but rather that they are different than non-Christians when it comes to various measures of morality—specifically those “rights and wrongs” that the Bible and churches teach about. And, lo and behold, the research seems to bear this out.
To some extent this is a “dog bites man” story. In other words, when things occur the way we would expect them to, it’s usually not newsworthy. But in this case, what should be expected is, in fact, surprising. Why? Because the vast majority of reports we hear, both secular and Christian, have been claiming for years that Christians are no more moral—and often less so—than everyone else. Overturning conventional wisdom? Cool.
CHAPTER 7
Do Christians Love Others?
“Being Christian” is no longer defined by doing good deeds.
—Tom Gilroy, Writer and director
“Christianity” has essentially become a mechanism for allowing millions of people to replace being a decent human being with something else, an endorsed “spiritual” substitute.
—Richard Beck, Professor, Christian psychologist
We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough religion to make us love one another.
—Jonathan Swift
The last chapter asked if Christians are doing what is morally wrong, and this chapter asks the reverse question: Are Christians doing what’s morally right? This is a broad question, and Christians vary widely in their understanding of what Christians should be doing. For example, charismatic Christians emphasize the importance of spiritual gifts such as healing, prophecy, words of knowledge, and speaking in tongues. Health-and-wealth churches emphasize success in both one’s personal life and career. Far more obscure, but still derived from a reading of the Bible, are snake-handling sects in the rural South whose worship services involve actually handling snakes as a sign of God’s work. If you’ve never seen footage from a snake handling service, look it up on the Internet—it’s fascinating. Me? I very much dislike snakes. It’s not quite a phobia, but I don’t want them anywhere nearby while I’m worshiping. My limit would be handling gummy worms.
Given the wide range of Christian practices, I’ve decided to focus on the central command of loving others. Even love is a very broad concept, encompassing a variety of beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and actions. To my knowledge, no large-scale survey has asked questions designed specifically to measure the breadth of Christian love, so I had to rummage around a number of surveys looking for pertinent items.
As you’ve probably figured out already, I’m no theologian, and so I am not claiming that these survey questions are an ideal representation of Christian love. Rather, they were the best I could find. I divided these questions into three topics: Do Christians interact with their neighbors? Do Christians act virtuously? Do Christians love members of other groups? Of course, there is a lot more to love than just these three topics, but it seems rather straightforward that they are aspects of Christian love.
Interactions With Neighbors
If we Christians are to love other people, this would imply, at the very least, that we interact with them. There are many, many data sets that measure social ties—this is something that sociologists like to study—but I want to focus on neighbors. The concept of “neighbor” in Scripture is much broader than simply the people living near us, but it certainly includes them. The 2006 Social Capital Community Study asks respondents how often they talk or visit with their immediate neighbors. As shown in Figure 7.1, Protestant respondents were the mostly likely (53%) to interact at least once a week with their neighbors, followed by Catholics (50%), those with no religious affiliation (46%), and members of other religions (44%). Among Protestants, there is a modest positive association between church attendance and interacting with neighbors. Whereas 49% of Protestants who never attended church talked or visited with their neighbors weekly, 56% of the weekly attendees did so.
Do Christians Love Others?
In looking at love, let’s start with Christians’ attitudes toward others. Two survey questions from the General Social Survey pertain to selflessness. The first asks how often the respondents feel a selfless caring for others, and the second asks how often they accept others even when others do things they think are wrong. Figure 7.2 plots how many respondents report doing these two things on a daily basis. Black Protestants, especially, and Evangelical Christians score highest on these measures, with about 40% or more agreeing that they selflessly care for and accept others. In contrast, only about 25% of the religiously unaffiliated report doing so.
Among Evangelicals, those who attend church services most frequently report the most caring and acceptance. About one-third of the never-attendees selflessly care for others on a daily basis compared to 45% of the more regular attendees. Similarly, only 26% of the never-attendees regularly accept others when they are wrong, but 46% of the weekly attendees do so.
Another aspect of Christian love is caring for the disadvantaged and exploited. The General Social Survey asks two questions in this regard. The first asks respondents if they are described well by the statement: “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me,” and the second asks respondents if they agree with the statement: “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them.” When it comes to how many respondents agree with these statements, Evangelicals score the highest on both measures. Eighty percent of the Evangelical respondents reported being concerned for those less fortunate, and 86% reported feeling protective toward those taken advantage of. In contrast, the religiously unaffiliated registered the lowest scores, with 68% reporting concern and 75% reporting feeling protective.
Figure 7.1: Do You Talk or Visit with Your Immediate Neighbors on a Weekly Basis?
Figure 7.2: On a Daily Basis, Do You Selflessly Care for Others and Accept People
Even When You Think They Are Wrong?
These empathetic feelings increase with church attendance among Evangelicals. Seventy-one percent of the Evangelical respondents who never attend church services are concerned about the less fortu
nate, which is significantly less than the 83% of the weekly attendees. When it comes to feeling protective of those who are taken advantage of, Evangelicals who attend church at least yearly score higher than those who never attend (85% vs. 81%), but there’s curiously not much difference between those who attend yearly, monthly, or weekly.
Another attitude associated with Christian love is putting others’ interests before our own. The General Social Survey has three relevant questions. They ask whether respondents agree with the following statements: “I would rather suffer myself than let the one I love suffer”; “I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let the one I love achieve his/hers”; and “I would endure all things for the sake of the one I love.” Overall, three Christian groups—Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics—score the highest on all these measures, and Black Protestants and the unaffiliated scored lowest. The biggest difference occurred with the statement about “enduring all things.” Eighty-five percent of Evangelicals somewhat or strongly agreed with this statement, along with 81% of Catholics; whereas about 71% of Black Protestants and members of other religions agreed with it, and only 66% of the religiously unaffiliated agreed.
One last relevant attitude is forgiving others. To be honest, this isn’t one of my favorite commandments, for I would just as soon keep a close accounting of others’ wrongs (while wanting my own wrongs forgiven, of course), but it is in the Book. The 1998 General Social Survey asked respondents if because of their religious and spiritual beliefs they always forgave those who hurt them. Overall, Protestant respondents—Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Black Protestants—are the most forgiving, with 52 to 55% of them reporting that they always or almost always forgive others. About 45% of Catholics and members of other religions report always forgiving, and only 29% of the religiously unaffiliated do so.