James Rutland Wood (2000), in Where the Spirit Leads, analyzes and summarizes data gleaned from his surveys of UM 1996 General Conference delegates, and he reports one set of data to which one finding in this research can be compared: the four Biblical stances he defined and found among the GC delegates. I use those stances in my questionnaire as well.

Wood describes the stances as biblical liberal, biblical moderate, biblical conservative, and biblical literalist (p. 63). Below, I define the stances again and then, in Table 41, compare Wood’s findings among the GC delegates and my findings among the BLG persons who participated in my research.

Biblical liberal: "The Bible was written by people inspired by God but contains some errors reflecting the limitations of the authors and the culture of their times."

Biblical moderate: "The Bible is God’s word, and it is authoritative for Christian faith and practice, but it is not a book of science or history."

Biblical conservative: "The bible is God’s word, and all it says is true, but not all of it is meant to be taken literally."

Biblical literalist: "The Bible is God’s word, and it is meant to be taken literally word for word."

Table 41

GC Delegates and Research Respondents Compared

 

	UM GC Delegates	GUM Research Respondents
Biblical liberal Biblical moderate Biblical conservative Biblical literalist	32% 41% 24% less than 3%	82% 11% 6% less than 1%

This information reveals that my research population is a much more liberal group and a much less conservative group than the body of 1996 GC delegates. Both groups, however, do show one similarity in that there are very few Biblical literalists in either.