A recent telephone interview study by the Barna Group presented a series of 20 “agree-or-disagree” statements to 1 008 self-identified Christians to determine “whether Christians have the actions and attitudes of Jesus as they interact with others or if they are more akin to the beliefs and behaviors of Pharisees ” the self-righteous sect of religious leaders described in the New Testament.”

Here is a sample of statements Barna used to describe Christ-like actions and attitudes:

“I listen to others to learn their story before telling them about my faith.”

“I see God-given value in every person” ” regardless of their past or present condition.”

“It is more important to help people know God is for them than to make sure they know they are sinners.”

A few Pharisee-like actions and attitudes were:

“I like to point out those who do not have the right theology or doctrine.”

“I prefer to serve people who attend my church rather than those outside the church.”

“People who follow God’s rules are better than those who do not.”

The findings revealed that only 14 percent of Christians identified with Christ-like attitudes and actions” and just over half of the nation’s Christians agreed with the Pharisaical attitudes and behaviors in describing themselves. Whether we realize it or not more than half of us see ourselves as self-righteous ” judgmental and narrow. Just like the Pharisees. I think that is ironic.

Actually” it is more than ironic because we have been taught to think of the Pharisees in such a historically inaccurate way ” and surveys like this only reinforce and perpetuate the misconception.

Churchill was right when he said” “History is written by the victors.” We put all of the Pharisees into the same broad category and assume we can dismiss them completely as rule bound rigid violent and fearful of all change. Today we use the word “Pharisee” to describe behavior we don’t like in ourselves and others ” but we should not be so quick to paint them all with the same brush.

In fact” the Pharisees might well have been the populist social activist loose constructionist iconoclastic religious figures of their day. The Pharisees were on the whole ” extremely popular with the people because they were the party of laymen and “the common man” instead of the elitist Sadducees.

Unlike the Sadducees who held to a literal interpretation of the Torah” the Pharisees allowed for contemporary application and understanding of the spirit of the Law. They believed in the written law but also believed the oral traditions of the people – their stories. They believed people must use their reason as well as their written codes. They believed in local control and freedom of worship. When times and circumstances changed ” they worked to harmonize the teachings of the Torah and to discern the application to new situations.

The Pharisees were the champions of distributed power and struggled with the priests and “clubbish” leadership to democratize faith and practice and remove it from the control of a centralized and inherited bureaucracy. They were in every sense of the word the “progressives” of their day.

I’m not jousting at the windmill of changing our perception of Pharisees. Unfortunately” I think the way we use the term is likely to remain – however misleading it is. Still ” I think we can take a lesson from history.

How does a populist movement committed to progressive values become so vilified as the very embodiment of what it sought to correct? Is there a chance that current progressive evangelical movements focused on social justice” the environment ” fair trade and other issues will share the same fate?

I hope not” ” but that history has yet to be written.