We Evangelical Christians will be well served if we recognize political progressivism is the new religion.
Progressivism has its own creeds, its own dogma and its own sacraments. Anybody who disagrees is hopelessly lost and deserving of judgment. Progressivism evangelizes with the same undisciplined passion and vitriol we have used for decades.
Ironically, progressives have become everything they hated about us.
How does it make us feel? Open and curious about their beliefs? Hardly! Of course, that should be an important lesson for us in our own desire to faithfully follow Christ.
We might want to strip away the superfluous dogma (remember dancing and movies?) and distill our message down to the Apostle Paul's guidance in Romans 10..."lf you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". The social practices we condemn are not a function of salvation. They are a function of the Holy Spirit teaching maturity and joy.
Don't do the Holy Spirit's job...He's capable. Just be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15). And...by all means..."speak this truth in love because that is how Christ did it" (Eph 4:15)
Live boldly out there today...
February 4, 2017
January 31, 2017
Is Media Bias Destroying Evangelical Theology?
The first question, logically, should ask..."is the media really biased? In an interview with the editors of Freakonomics, Tim Groseclose states "if you want to understand media bias...poll Washington correspondents and ask “Who’d you vote for last election?” about 93% will say the Democrat".
Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at the University of California, Los Angeles, has constructed precise quantitative measures of the slant of television, radio, and print media. He estimates the SQ (slant quotient) of various news outlets. In his book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, he reports the results of his research, including: (1) that nearly all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias; (2) that many so-called conservative outlets are in fact less tilted toward the right than the typical mainstream outlet is tilted toward the left; and (3) the bias has shifted the average American’s PQ (political quotient) significantly to the left.
James Q Wilson, who reviewed Groseclose's book, explains: To gauge the bias of the mass media, Groseclose develops another measure, the Slant Quotient (S.Q.). This is a number that shows how often a news outlet cites one or more of some 200 think tanks. The S.Q. of a news outlet corresponds roughly to the P.Q. of legislators who cite it. The bigger the S.Q., the more liberal the news outlet. The most liberal newspaper is the Detroit Free Press (S.Q. = 81.5), the New York Times is very liberal (67.3), and the Wall Street Journal is left of center (55.1).
One could also argue that reporters, despite their personal opinions, voluntarily eschew bias out of a sense of civic and professional duty. Groseclose, however, finds little evidence of this self-discipline in a case study about media coverage of the 2001 Bush tax cuts. In the case of the tax cuts, two statements were factually true: first, the rich would get a bigger reduction in their taxes than the poor but, second, that after the tax cut the rich would pay a larger share of federal income taxes than before the cut. Liberal media (those with a high S.Q.) would overwhelmingly report the first fact while conservative outlets (those with a low S.Q.) would report the second fact. Both facts are true; media bias comes from choosing which to report.
So...how does this media slant affect my view of life and...consequently...my Theology? Wilson states: The first task is determining a Political Quotient (P.Q.) based on whether we agree, disagree, or have no opinion on a policy question. Here's an example of nearly 40 questions:
For many years, scholars of the media claimed that, due to the public's "selective attention," people simply screened out media reports that disagreed with the viewpoints they held. But, good studies clearly support the view that the media does matter. Wilson continues...One of them, by Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan, found that as Fox News became available in areas it had not served before the Republican vote for president increased more in those areas than in ones where Fox was long-established. The vote shift was not large—about 0.43%—but big and reliable enough not to be dismissed as statistical noise. Some Yale scholars (Alan Gerber, Donald Green, and Daniel Bergan) conducted a study that offered a free subscription to the Washington Post (a liberal paper) to some residents of Washington's Virginia suburbs, while to others they offered a free subscription to the Washington Times (a conservative paper). The randomly selected Post subscribers gave 3.8% more of their votes for the Democratic candidate for governor than did the randomly chosen Times readers.
Groseclose, himself, says, After aggregating the results of this and similar studies, one finds an inescapable conclusion: Newspapers, television, radio and online media are extremely influential, especially over consumers’ political views. For example, the results imply that if the “slant quotient” of the entire media moved 34 points leftward - approximately the difference between Fox News’ Special Report and The New York Times - then the “political quotient” of the average voter would move about 24 points leftward. The latter shift is approximately the difference between the average voter in Colorado or Iowa and the average voter in Rhode Island or Massachusetts.
So, for we Christians, how does this influence our Theology? In my previous post I explained the difference between Evangelicals and Neo-evangelicals. The term evangelical has its roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news". In the beginning of the movement "gospel" always meant "good news", or the story of the historical Jesus…Son of God. As time passed, "gospel" began to be understood synonymously with “Bible”, the written account of the "good news". It’s not difficult to discern that the Bible is central to Evangelical theology…and fully informs the evangelical distinctive.
The term neo-evangelicalism was coined in 1947 to identify a distinct movement within evangelical Christianity at the time. The new generation of Evangelicals began aligning with the ideals of the political left (progressives) and set as their goal to abandon a militant Bible stance and adopt a hermeneutic tool called “Biblical Criticism”. Biblical Criticism is a study of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings…viewing biblical texts as being ordinary pieces of literature…open to the inevitable skeptical analysis that follows. It draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies. Armed with this new tool, Neo-evangelicals chose to pursue dialogue, intellectualism, non-judgmentalism, and appeasement. They further called for an increased application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas.
Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at the University of California, Los Angeles, has constructed precise quantitative measures of the slant of television, radio, and print media. He estimates the SQ (slant quotient) of various news outlets. In his book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, he reports the results of his research, including: (1) that nearly all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias; (2) that many so-called conservative outlets are in fact less tilted toward the right than the typical mainstream outlet is tilted toward the left; and (3) the bias has shifted the average American’s PQ (political quotient) significantly to the left.
James Q Wilson, who reviewed Groseclose's book, explains: To gauge the bias of the mass media, Groseclose develops another measure, the Slant Quotient (S.Q.). This is a number that shows how often a news outlet cites one or more of some 200 think tanks. The S.Q. of a news outlet corresponds roughly to the P.Q. of legislators who cite it. The bigger the S.Q., the more liberal the news outlet. The most liberal newspaper is the Detroit Free Press (S.Q. = 81.5), the New York Times is very liberal (67.3), and the Wall Street Journal is left of center (55.1).
One could also argue that reporters, despite their personal opinions, voluntarily eschew bias out of a sense of civic and professional duty. Groseclose, however, finds little evidence of this self-discipline in a case study about media coverage of the 2001 Bush tax cuts. In the case of the tax cuts, two statements were factually true: first, the rich would get a bigger reduction in their taxes than the poor but, second, that after the tax cut the rich would pay a larger share of federal income taxes than before the cut. Liberal media (those with a high S.Q.) would overwhelmingly report the first fact while conservative outlets (those with a low S.Q.) would report the second fact. Both facts are true; media bias comes from choosing which to report.
So...how does this media slant affect my view of life and...consequently...my Theology? Wilson states: The first task is determining a Political Quotient (P.Q.) based on whether we agree, disagree, or have no opinion on a policy question. Here's an example of nearly 40 questions:
On August 26, 2009, the Senate voted on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Democrats favored her confirmation 58-0; Republicans opposed it 9-31.For every "yes" answer, you get one point, for every "no" response, zero. The higher your P.Q., the more liberal you are. Among the most conservative politicians, according to this method, are Jim DeMint and Michele Bachmann, and among the most liberal are Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. No surprises here.
I would have favored her confirmation.
I can't decide.
I would have opposed her confirmation.
For many years, scholars of the media claimed that, due to the public's "selective attention," people simply screened out media reports that disagreed with the viewpoints they held. But, good studies clearly support the view that the media does matter. Wilson continues...One of them, by Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan, found that as Fox News became available in areas it had not served before the Republican vote for president increased more in those areas than in ones where Fox was long-established. The vote shift was not large—about 0.43%—but big and reliable enough not to be dismissed as statistical noise. Some Yale scholars (Alan Gerber, Donald Green, and Daniel Bergan) conducted a study that offered a free subscription to the Washington Post (a liberal paper) to some residents of Washington's Virginia suburbs, while to others they offered a free subscription to the Washington Times (a conservative paper). The randomly selected Post subscribers gave 3.8% more of their votes for the Democratic candidate for governor than did the randomly chosen Times readers.
Groseclose, himself, says, After aggregating the results of this and similar studies, one finds an inescapable conclusion: Newspapers, television, radio and online media are extremely influential, especially over consumers’ political views. For example, the results imply that if the “slant quotient” of the entire media moved 34 points leftward - approximately the difference between Fox News’ Special Report and The New York Times - then the “political quotient” of the average voter would move about 24 points leftward. The latter shift is approximately the difference between the average voter in Colorado or Iowa and the average voter in Rhode Island or Massachusetts.
So, for we Christians, how does this influence our Theology? In my previous post I explained the difference between Evangelicals and Neo-evangelicals. The term evangelical has its roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news". In the beginning of the movement "gospel" always meant "good news", or the story of the historical Jesus…Son of God. As time passed, "gospel" began to be understood synonymously with “Bible”, the written account of the "good news". It’s not difficult to discern that the Bible is central to Evangelical theology…and fully informs the evangelical distinctive.
The term neo-evangelicalism was coined in 1947 to identify a distinct movement within evangelical Christianity at the time. The new generation of Evangelicals began aligning with the ideals of the political left (progressives) and set as their goal to abandon a militant Bible stance and adopt a hermeneutic tool called “Biblical Criticism”. Biblical Criticism is a study of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings…viewing biblical texts as being ordinary pieces of literature…open to the inevitable skeptical analysis that follows. It draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies. Armed with this new tool, Neo-evangelicals chose to pursue dialogue, intellectualism, non-judgmentalism, and appeasement. They further called for an increased application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas.
So...evidence tells us...media bias influences each of us toward liberalism. And, liberalism encourages a more subjective understanding of the Bible. We begin relying on how we feel about issues rather than what the Bible teaches. We inter the world of “Eisegesis” and are free to make “assumptions” about the world around us based on how we feel rather than on what the Bible teaches.
Be careful what you read. A biased media will eventually change our view of the authority of scripture. We, as Christians, must be cognizant of this reality and ask ourselves if we are comfortable with the inevitable influence it will have on our belief system, from abortion to gay marriage to immigration.
Live boldly out there today...
Be careful what you read. A biased media will eventually change our view of the authority of scripture. We, as Christians, must be cognizant of this reality and ask ourselves if we are comfortable with the inevitable influence it will have on our belief system, from abortion to gay marriage to immigration.
Live boldly out there today...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)