That said (and moving away from the currect discussion of homosexuality), I do find the article baffling on some level, though – how are those things no ‘hypocrisy’? If treating each other unlovingly isn’t hypocrisy, then I don’t know what is. If not attending church isn’t hypocrisy, then I don’t know what is. If being holier-than-thou isn’t hypocrisy, then I don’t know what it.

But, in the end, I do appreciate the insight of most of it and I appreciate you sharing it with me, brother.

That’s why I didn’t say ‘merely a liberal bias’, but that a liberal bias is ‘one’ reason.

And I, myself, am on of those theologically conservative but a little more to the center of the political landscape.

But, in the end, you’re absolutely right – we live in a culture that thinks of God based on how His people treat them. And that is why we need to treat them in love, understand them more, listen more, and talk less! Less talking and more sacrificial service would go a long way.

We live in a culture of people who base their thoughts of God on how the people of God treat them; I think you are spot-on with the speculation about reactionary theology, but I also wonder how many churches are rejecting much more than lifestyles?

Why shouldn’t we celebrate any insight we find into the spiritual state of any unreached people group? Would we be so quick to scoff if we found out a little bit more about the mythology of Native/Indigenous people, who routinely reject Christianity as a “white man’s religion”?

Matt

I would be interested in what Barna sees as the root cause of the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals on these religious matters.

No doubt, one would simply be liberal bias.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if another root issue is simply that they are reacting to the church b/c of the churches rejection of their lifestyle. (Reactionary theology seems to be part and parcel of human natuure; it’s not just a gay/lesbian problem!)

The irony here is that Barna has often been the one to point out that most Americans like to consider themselves spiritual – and that this is true of every demographic group. Yet he and his group have done yeoman’s work in terms of unpacking what it means when the typical American calls themselves “spiritual”. Unless I have totally misread his earlier findings, he has already demonstrated that this adjective means almost nothing, because it means whatever the individual thinks is right in his own mind.

So now we come to this study, where Barna celebrates the discovery that most gay Americans consider themselves to be spiritual – even while his same study demonstrates that homosexuals have an even more loose definition than the average American?

The results of this study speak for themselves. Barna’s conclusion is a jigsaw puzzle piece that has been duct taped to the findings and suggests that he wrote the conclusion or developed it in his mind before the results were compiled.