LifeWay Research Studies the Use of Private Prayer Language
First, let’s address the research. When Thom Rainer was hired as Lifeway’s President, he founded Lifeway Research as a part of the ministry of Lifeway. This only makes sense, as Dr. Rainer has a world class reputation when it comes to research. Anybody questioning the veracity of this study would display a disposition to deny the findings based on their personal penchant. :) Why do I say that? Because, in such a conversation, the deep convictions of some might persuade them to ignore evidence. Frankly, that’s a natural step – but one to be avoided.
Seminary grads from 1998-2004 were surveyed - from 5 of our US SBC Seminaries and the Canadian Baptist Seminary. The notable exception is, of course, Southwestern. Why would SWBTS be excluded? For the same reason that high profile bloggers might be avoided. Since the PPL issue so drastically involves SWBTS, it would skew the numbers to include that school in the survey. In other words, it would make the numbers a poor reflection of the average SBC subset of pastors – much like if they had used Alan Cross, Marty Duren, Ben Cole, Wade Burleson, Sam Storms, Dwight McKissic and myself as a subset.
[Editor's note - upon a recheck of the Lifeway news website, Southwestern students are listed along with the other Seminaries. It seems that there was an oversight in including them when this release was written. I know that the temptation among those already critiquing the research (please!) will be to wonder aloud whether or not SWBTS' was not actually a part of the survey. Please remember before you say something like that that you will be calling everyone at Lifeway Research a crew of liars. I'm sorry I printed this without calling someone for clarification. While I am inserting verbage, let me take on the several who have critiqued the research in comments elsewhere in the blogosphere. The survey is a sampling across many different strata of the SBC. It is not the size of the sample that is the sole factor in accuracy. The diversity is most key and is represented well, here. The call to survey the entire SBC is like saying that the entire science of polling is worthless. As for the claim of bias, read the questions. If there were bias, certain questions would be leading - they aren't. Moreover, the numbers would be skewed to suit the desired outcome. How would a straight up deadlock (almost) be the desired outcome for anyone? That's just silly.]
Brad Waggoner was asked what the motivation behind the study was and he said that Lifeway was addressing what was influencing churches. I appreciate the leadership shown here. Since it is such a “hot-button” issue, it would have been politic to ignore it and focus on churches in decline. Kudos to Lifeway for taking it on.
The numbers. It is clear now that no perspective on the existence of a Private Prayer Language can claim a clear majority. The number that is sure to surprise some is that more SBC pastors believe in the existence of a PPL than don’t. That certainly shoots in the foot IMB Trustee Jerry Corbaley’s estimation that 95% do not believe in a PPL. Of SBC pastors, 50% do believe in the existence of a PPL, while 43% do not.
I’ll let you read the rest for yourself, but I want to conclude with several observations.
The claim of majority has been decried by me for a long time and again as recently as yesterday. The majority isn’t necessarily right and the minority may very well be right on theological debates. This has not changed. What has changed is any opportunity for any group to claim to represent the majority. Obviously, there is nothing whatsoever true to that statement, as it relates to the PPL issue.
The Boards of Trustees at the IMB, NAMB and SWBTS are now clearly representing less people than they are opposing. What am I saying?
It is clear now that the minority is pressing an exclusionary agenda as it relates to a PPL. This issue is divisive. We are better to agree to disagree on this issue and focus on missions.
The advent of the PPL issue being pressed into our collective conciousness threatens to literaly split the convention. As Ed Stetzer observes at the end of the article, there are clearly to deeply distinct groups within the SBC.
We will work together, or we will not. If we are not allowed to work together without excluding one another, I predict a mass exodus from the SBC. I have said this before and I repeat it now for you: If cooperation is not the outcome of our current discussion, the SBC will splinter and those that grab control away from their fellow conservatives will have control of a destitute and dying organization that has fallen to irrelevance and inability while those who are more concerned with The Mission will network around the SBC, taking their money, creativity, leadership and missionaries with them.
The time has clearly come for the Trustees of these three entities to move toward cooperation. They need to recall their restrictions on the issue of PPL so that the SBC doesn’t have to do it by replacing them with people who more reflect the overall SBC.
The IMB BOT missed a great opportunity to do just that. Instead, they chose to listen to their own counsel and change their restrictions just enough to say that they have changed them, but not enough to make one shred of practical difference in how they were implemented.
All of this leads me up to next week’s post, one that I have promised and will now deliver: End Game.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
volfan007
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 1:42 pm:
art,
correct me if i’m wrong, but were not many non southern baptist’s polled in this study? and, if so, how many were non sb’s?
my understanding is that it was a very large number of non sb’s polled. also, how many laypeople were polled…..sb’s laypeople?
and, i always look at the way the questions are asked before i really put much stock in any poll.
david
Art Rogers
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 1:49 pm:
David,
Click on the link and read the info in the article. All your questions are answered in the article itself. The stats I quote are only those that relate to the SBC.
Further, the questions asked are repeated in the article and it is clear that they asked non-leading questions. Thom Rainer is not the kind of researcher to allow an inappropriate poll to go out under his authority.
Finally, I reiterate that the questioning of this research shows a predilection not to like the answers.
volfan007
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 3:07 pm:
art,
i dont want to re post what i wrote on my blog, but i would like for you to take a look at what i said about this.
my address is….
fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com
you’ll have to copy and paste due to my lack of computer skills. sorry.
david
Art Rogers
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 3:35 pm:
David,
I appreciate the tone of your post, but take exception to just about everything you wrote. If you think that Lifeway does a poor job in doing research, then point out the mistakes. The questions are printed exactly as asked. They are clear and concise.
Alan Cross
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 3:36 pm:
David,
I would imagine that they polled non-SB’s in the survey as a comparison to judge the results of SB’s against. It is interesting to see how we compare. If you are trying to insinuate that the polling numbers are not accurate just because they polled non-SB’s, you are barking up the wrong tree with that one. From the poll, we are clearly more cessationist than the rest of Protestantism, but not nearly as cessationist as you would have us believe. That is what the numbers tell us.
Another question: Why won’t anyone on your side deal with the actual numbers and implications instead of calling the poll into question? I feel like I am in an “all spin zone” reading you guys.
For 18 months we have heard that you were in the clear majority on this. Today, that has been shown not to be the case. Instead of dealing with facts, you attack the messenger. Why?
volfan007
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 3:59 pm:
alan and art,
only 405 sb pastors were polled? yet, look at how many non sb’s were polled…including 1004 laymen, i beleive. could they not have polled more sb pastors? could they have not polled 1,000 sb laymen?
also, having a degree in sociology and a minor in psych…..i guess i’m very leary of polls to begin with. i see how they can be so easily manipulated, or else how confusing questions can mess them up. so, i really dont put a huge amount of stock in polls.
also, i guess i’m going with personal experience as well. around this area, i dont know very many sb pastors nor laymen who would beleive that a ppl was scriptural. and, i would bet that very, very few around here would have a ppl. now, when you get into public tongue speaking….i dont know many at all who would hold with that around here. not in sb churches. so, i just dont see the study fitting w. tn at all. what i’m saying would also hold true in nw ms where i served for 7 yrs before moving back to tn.
i just dont see it.
david
Jerry Corbaley
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 4:27 pm:
Brother Art,
Apparently, I have a hole in my foot.
I will certainly refrain from using any “95%” language in the future.
I will also wait a couple of months before I draw any solid conclusions. I am a big fan of facts. But both sympathetic and unsympathetic press releases seldom present a clear picture in only a couple of hundred words.
We shall all see what the future holds.
Thanks for beating BSC to the initial rebuke.
Art Rogers
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 4:53 pm:
David,
You said it yourself – you doubt the science because it doesn’t match your perception.
Dr. C.,
More accurately, the stat of 95% has a hole in its foot. You claimed that as just a perception, if I remember correctly. If that were true, it would still not make sense to have the guideline, in my opinion.
As you reflect, be careful not to fall into David’s trap and reject something based on a biased observation or predisposition.
David Phillips
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 5:56 pm:
Dr. Corbaley,
It appears that the SBC has done am in depth evaluation and come to a conclusion, one that obviously doesn’t match your own. Obviously, the IMB BOT has not been doing a proper job in its own research and analysis according the results of this study.
Bowden McElroy
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 6:44 pm:
David,
The problem with judging from personal experience is that we tend to hang around like-minded people. My experience would lead me to believe the polling is off: the vast majority of my friends either believe a ppl is a valid gift or are willing to acknowledge the interpretation that leads to such a view is a legitimate position (even if they don’t hold it themselves).
Because I am surrounded by like-minded people, I was surprised at how much of an issue this was in SBC life.
What the LIfeway poll says to me is we are more equally divided than I previously imagined.
Alan Cross
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 8:12 pm:
David,
I thought that only charismatics judged everything by their personal experience. ;) The polling fits my experience almost exactly, which is what I have been saying all along, which is one reason why I have fought this so diligently and was happy with the previous policies. My experience with Southern Baptists on this issue has just about been a split right down the middle of continuationism and cessationism. And, my experience is backed up by the polling data.
So, I’ll see your experience and raise you . . .
Just kidding. :)
cb scott
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 8:22 pm:
Vol,
Since you have those degree, heal thyself.
cb
volfan007
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 9:13 pm:
cb,
i always look to the Lord for all the healing i need. He is sufficient.
alan,
does the 50% of sb pastors who believe that speaking in tongues in public is ok concern you?
david
Art Rogers
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 9:14 pm:
David,
Where did you get that stat?
Maybe your problem is that you are not reading the research at all…
Alan Cross
on Jun 1st, 2007
@ 9:35 pm:
David,
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please re-read the polling data.
Look, I actually think that you are a lot easier to get along with than other folks that I disagree with on this. I genuinely like you and your easy going spirit. I believe that you love Christ and desire to serve Him. But, I am really struggling with why you are not able to accept the data as the current reality. Is that not what we have been told to do for the past year and a half with the decision of the IMB BoT? Please, David, be consistent on this.
volfan007
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 12:21 am:
art and alan,
on lifeway’s website…about the poll…there is one question that asks about “belief about speaking in tongues publicly.” it says that 50% of sb pastors believe that this gift is still given to some believers today.
am i reading that wrong? that would say to me that 50% of sb pastors believe that speaking in tongues in public was ok. would it not? correct me if i’m wrong.
that concerns me greatly if it’s true. and, i really cant see this as being accurate.
david
Art Rogers
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 8:44 am:
David,
You are very mistaken. The only mention of speaking in tongues publicly in the entire report only gives statistics of “Protestant laity.”
At no time whatsoever does the website report that 50% of SB pastors believe that public speaking of tongues is a gift to some believers today.
This reiterates my previous point. You are not reading this study carefully at all. Please read and comment with precision.
I have noted that you have spread this exact point – a very mistaken one – across the Southern Baptist Blogosphere. You should correct it and apologize if you have not already done so.
Misinformation will only serve to further divide the already heavily divided Southern Baptist Convention.
Bob Cleveland
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 11:35 am:
Well .. the apostle Paul said public speaking in tongues was ok, with certain restrictions, so why wouldn’t SBC pastors agree?
The part that strikes me funny is that we have (as my feeble memory recalls) the IMB and SWBTS BoT’s, and that bunch in Florida, who have had no trouble announcing what “the majority of Southern Baptists believe”, and have taken action based on that, and now an SBC entity says “t’ain’t so”.
It’ll be interesting.
volfan007
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 12:18 pm:
art,
i just went to lifeway.com. i clicked on the place where you can see a pic of the graphs. it says that 50% of sb pastors believe that speaking in tongues in public is a gift of God for believers today. please look it up.
david
Tim Rogers
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 2:14 pm:
Brother Art,
I believe what Brother David is referring is chart #10.
Blessings,
Tim
Geoff Baggett
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 2:25 pm:
Uh … Art, take a look at picture / pie chart # 5 here.
David is only reporting what is displayed (graphically) in the LifeWay Web site / report.
It seems that he was/is reading and observing very carefully … maybe moreso than the rest of us. This mistake mistake, if, indeed, there is one, is LifeWay’s … not David’s. I am not saying that the data is in error … simply that there has been an erroneous/confusing reporting of this particular statistic.
I would also like some clarification on that particular graphic, whic contains the heading, “Belief about speaking in tongues publicly,” does, indeed claim that (according to this study) 50% of SBC pastors believe in the “public” exercise of this gift. The effort to clarify via pie chart seems to have, instead, muddied the subject through a faulty heading on that particular graphic.
I, personally, think that all those who have treated David like an idiot (and,regrettably, continue to do so throughout all of the blogs that so many of us frequent) for making this significant point owe him something of an apology.
Jerry Corbaley
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 3:11 pm:
I have just published my kudos to Lifeway Research. I acknowledge the accuracy of their findings.
Now I find you guys questioning it? Please, ‘Come, Lord Jesus’.
May the Lord bless us for His name’s sake.
Alan Cross
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 3:26 pm:
David, I apologize if I offended you by disagreeing with you about your statement on the pie charts. I had not seen the pie charts until I just followed Geoff’s link. I had only read the report and listened to the podcast. Your confusion is understandable. I am sure that there was a heading mistake, as Geoff said.
Thanks for pointing that out. I seriously doubt that 50% of SB pastors support public speaking in tongues. If this throws into doubt the rest of the survey for anyone, I would suggest that you contact Lifeway Research first thing Monday morning. I would imagine that someone will clear this up.
Art Rogers
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 4:43 pm:
David,
I, too, apologize. I might have caught this as well, but, like Alan, had not looked at the pie charts. As you can tell from my sporadic blogging over the weekend, I am pulled in several directions – as are many others I am sure.
Unlike Alan, I am unsure that there is a mistake. I think it may actually refer to the speaking of a known language to a lost people group on the mission field number as opposed to a “prophetic utterance” followed by an interpreter in the middle of the worship service.
Or it could represent both conceptions, if the question did not differentiate. I would like some clarification as well.
As to reading very carefully, you have done so – again, I apologize for being guilty of that for which I chastised you. Talk about eating crow. Yuck.
I would say that if, on the other blogs – assuming you haven’t done so – clarifying that you are not talking about the report but the graph, you might find similar responses with them.
volfan007
on Jun 2nd, 2007
@ 5:19 pm:
art and alan,
all’s well, my bro.’s apology accepted.
i’m just glad that the Lord forgives me for all the things i do to let Him down. i’m also glad that my wife is a forgiving woman. :)
david
Tim Rogers
on Jun 3rd, 2007
@ 3:49 pm:
Brother Art,
Your explanation; “I think it may actually refer to the speaking of a known language to a lost people group on the mission field number as opposed to a “prophetic utterance” followed by an interpreter in the middle of the worship service.” seems to be Brother Robin’s view on the Public Speaking of Tongues.
I truly do want to believe in this report, but the discrepancies that keep coming forth do seem to question the veracity of the report.
Blessings,
Tim
Debbie Kaufman
on Jun 4th, 2007
@ 8:11 am:
Again, where was this outcry during the Calvinist report from Lifeway. I am Calvinist and I found no reason to question the methodology used. I have yet to hear a good reason for a discrepancy. What does seem obvious to me is that some think they can even control the numbers on a honest survey.
Kelly Reed
on Jun 4th, 2007
@ 8:11 am:
Art,
I am a Southwestern grad (2000) and an SBC pastor that was polled for this research a couple of weeks ago. I wrote about it that day here:
http://pursuing-faith.blogspot.com/2007/05/lifeway-research-alcohol-tongues.html
The pollster was fair and not leading in his questions. Several times I had to insist upon answers that were not in the standard list of possibilities. They were allowed.
I wonder how the powers that be would be touting this study if the numbers had been more in their favor. I wonder if a “new” poll is in the works. Time will tell.
Pursuing Answers to Questions of Faith & Life,
Kelly
Alan Cross
on Jun 4th, 2007
@ 8:49 am:
Thank you, Kelly, for that testimony. I am sure, however, that some will find a way to discount your experience and still call the survey into question. That seems to be the norm these days – unless of course the results are what some people want.
Geoff Baggett
on Jun 4th, 2007
@ 11:46 pm:
Art,
The most important question of all was not included in this survey. Does anyone know why?
Geoff
Tim Rogers
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 8:09 am:
Brother Alan,
That is a cheap shot and you know it. Has anyone heard me say anything about there being only 10% Calvinist in the convention? No! Those are numbers that I would agree with, however, because of the small sampling pool I question the results. 400 pastors randomly surveyed that claim to be Southern Baptist is not a clear representative of Southern Baptist.
Also, notice the openness that Brother Kelly reports in his experience. He was forced to choose answers that he did not agree with and on a couple of occasions he insisted on using his own answers. I am not an expert on surveys and statistics but in the statistics courses that I did take the one thing that was pressed was the need for the questions to be able to be answered without explanation. As anyone can tell these questions needed much explaining.
One other thing. This survey was combined with an alcohol survey–according to Brother Kelly’s article. Where are the results for that? Why the rush to get the PPL/Tongues results before the convention convenes and the appeared lackadaisical response to the alcohol issue? Of course, the convention has already spoken loudly on that issue, but the tongues issue is still out there to be determined. So the question seems to come forth, Is LifeWay Research trying to report what the convention believes, or are they trying to get the convention to believe what they believe?
Blessings,
Tim
cb scott
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 8:48 am:
Alan,
We have not talked much since Jackson. I am sure we have been busy. Nonetheless, your comment of which Tim is in reference does smack a little like something you said you were cautious about when you heard such “shots” from me and a friend of mine when we are in debate with others.
Tim is a capable war horse in his own right and does not need me but I do want to remind you of your own caution about debating issues.
Of course, I must remind you, those were your cautions and not mine:-)
cb
Geoff Baggett
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 9:01 am:
Alan,
Not to call the survey into question, but Kelly said, “The pollster was fair and not leading in his questions. Several times I had to insist upon answers that were not in the standard list of possibilities. They were allowed.”
But Bowden McElroy – counselor, scientist, researcher, & all-round great guy that we all know and love – in a response to my post from last night, stated:
“…in response to your question ‘(If a respondent) insisted upon answers that were not included in the available survey options, were his answers interpreted by the surveyor’… the standard method for dealing with this situation is to throw out the whole interview. The same thing happens with respondents who don’t complete the whole interview. They wouldn’t be included in the final sample. I assume that’s what Lifeway did.
So, according to Bowden, typical survey methodology would have demanded that Kelly’s interview be thrown out … not even considered in the overall analysis because some of his answers did not conform to the options given.
So, we have our own version of “hanging chads.” :)
Wouldn’t it be great to know how many other results had to be similarly “thrown out?” How might those responses have impacted a study like this?
But even more importantly than that – wouldn’t it have been even better if the survey had simply asked, “Do YOU practice a private prayer language?” The most important question of all! I have yet to figure out why that was avoided (except for recent seminary graduates). Any ideas?
Alan Cross
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 9:44 am:
Wow. Honestly, Tim, I was not thinking of anyone in particular, much less you, when I made my comment. I was responding to the general rejection of the polling data by quite a few people. It was very surprising to me. I felt that if the exact same methodology had been used and the result had said that 85% of SB pastors were strict cessationists, then it was hard for me to believe that it would have been scrutinized in this way.
But, let me say this. I apologize for taking a “cheap shot.” That was not my intention and I can see where my comment was taken harshly. It came across much harsher than I meant it and I will be more careful. But, that is the danger with sarcasm – it is harsh by nature and it reveals a weakness in character among those who use it repeatedly. CB, your caution is duly noted. I am sorry for any offense that I gave in saying what I said. My frustration was obviously beginning to boil pretty high at that point because it seems like that we (people on my side of the debate) have been just forced to live with the IMB BoT decisions. We have heard constant calls to just submit to our leadership and polity and stop protesting. We have also heard that the BoT view is in the extreme majority, therefore we should just accept their decision. When information from another SBC agency is released that disputes that, it is ripped to shreds and they are called “biased” and their motives are even questioned. There has just seemed to be a double standard and I was getting frustrated.
So, I am sorry. Again, Tim, I can honestly say that I was not speaking specifically of you. But, you were in the group that I was reacting to. So, I apologize for my sarcastic, cutting comment. I receive your correction and I will try and be more careful in the future. I also do not need to let frustration with this situation get to me and affect my spirit. It is not worth it. I have enjoyed our debates, and even in disagreement you and I have gotten along pretty well. I do not want to endanger that relationship.
I look forward to seeing all of you in San Antonio. I hope that you will forgive me. We all need to deal with substance and keep the meanness out of it. We are still brothers, after all.
Kelly Reed
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 10:00 am:
Whether my answers were always tallied is something I cannot answer. Basically, some of the questions were either/or and I wanted to answer with a both/and. Or they were A, B or C and I was one of those annoying types who insisted, A & B or something to that effect. The pollster listened, I assume noted my answer and even at one point let me know that I wasn’t the only one who insisted upon the answer I gave.
Most polls will try to limit answers in order to effectively categorize and tally them. Perhaps their questions could be improved and may be in a future poll. However, since these questions weren’t choosing between chocolate & vanilla or Candidate A & Candidate B, but were dealing with serious issues of interpretation, the options were not always representative of my beliefs. The differing camps both have solid concerns, but neither fully represent me. I would hope that more people would have given answers not on Lifeway’s list. If they didn’t, it seems that they would have a shallow understanding or are so locked into a certain view that they disregard other biblical teachings on the subject. That concerns me more than the results.
As for the alcohol questions and why we haven’t seen those numbers, who knows, they may have some trouble with the data and that’s why they’re holding on to it. Perhaps the results are so surprising that they want to confirm them again in some way. Perhaps they wanted each to get their own publicity/discussion so they are releasing the subjects separately, so we should be seeing those numbers soon. Perhaps they were concerned about accusations made against their methodology and if they released them both together there would be conspiracy theories about how Lifeway Research is now funded by the Big Beer and Big Tongues industrial complexes (If anyone can work out the details to that conspiracy please post).
Hind sight is always 20/20–could some questions have been better, sure. But you work with the numbers you got. Pollsters work to simplify their questions to isolate certain opinions. That’s not an easy task. All of these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, but not dismissed. In fact, I would ask that this exact survey be repeated at least once a year to determine consistency.
Pursuing Him,
Kelly
Geoff Baggett
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 10:07 am:
Kelly,
“Perhaps they were concerned about accusations made against their methodology and if they released them both together there would be conspiracy theories about how Lifeway Research is now funded by the Big Beer and Big Tongues industrial complexes…”
Now THAT’S funny! :) :) :)
But, seriously, in all likelihood those “middle ground” responses were discarded (including yours?). Your statement that “The pollster listened, I assume noted my answer and even at one point let me know that I wasn’t the only one who insisted upon the answer I gave.” seems to reinforce the point that the possible choices for responses may not have been complete or clear enough for all respondents.
volfan007
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 10:35 am:
tim and geoff,
amen.
david
Tim Rogers
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 11:24 am:
Brother Alan,
Carley Simon is not warming up in the background beginning to sing “Your So Vain”. :>) I did not think you had me in mind personally. I did believe you were referring to those of us who are questioning the findings. Thank you for your apology to me, but as I said, I did not take it personally, I just felt you broad-brushed everyone that disagreed with the report.
Brother Bowden McElroy has pointed something out that I believe is very important. Most surveys are done not to find beliefs but find where to start in order to find certain beliefs. (I hope I understood him correctly). If this is the case with this survey, I look forward to more sampling in order to understand what it is that we as SB believe exactly on this issue.
Also, I believe you have to admit when you saw the results, I bet you were surprised also.
Blessings,
Tim
Alan Cross
on Jun 5th, 2007
@ 11:37 am:
Tim,
Thank you for accepting my apology. I will be more careful in the future.
We still disagree on this, however, which I overlooked because I wanted to first of all focus on my wrong before I stated disagreement. I tried to explain where I was coming from so that you would understand my frustration in the tables being seemingly turned here. But, despite what caused it, my frustration should be controlled and I should try and be edifying.
You said that the sampling size was small. Lifeway says that it was random and representative. With 400 pastors, if we assume 40,000 senior pastors in the SBC (which might be generous), then we have a sampling of 1%. If it is truly random, then that is a very large sampling. Political polls that judge within a margin of error of 3-5% commonly have a sampling of 0.001% of likely voters. So, I see no problem with the sampling size.
I am sure that we will soon see other polls on this. Actually, I would guarantee it. Whatever the results, I am happy to believe what I understand God’s Word to teach, as are you.
Art Rogers
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 7:36 am:
Ron,
I moved your question to the next post up, where it is on topic. It is also answered in the post and comments.