First, you can rather readily see which class most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture from such stats as:
I gather that you see the stats you quoted (which I snipped for brevity's sake) as indicative of something or other. Adherence and/or fidelity to God's word? But I see in those stats support for my own view that Catholicism is a more natural home to a wider variety of people than evangelicalism.
Specifically, evangelicalism (and, frankly, any tradition which espouses sola scriptura) somewhat requires laypeople to become, in a sense, scholars of the word on their own. While that may sound like a positive development on the surface, the sad reality is that most people aren't equipped to be scholars.
Now, as a Catholic, that poses no problem for me. My faith recognizes that different people have different gifts and different callings. And, to put it softly, different aptitudes; not all Catholics are called to be scholars and experts. In the Catholic Church, there are many ways to answer one's calling. Virtually none of them require the layman to become a scholar.
However, this approach poses a unique challenge to evangelicals. For one thing, it artificially sets one's spiritual acumen into artificial parameters of scriptural expertise. For two things, this happens in spite of the fact that, let's face it, the great majority of people in the world (and, yes, the great majority of evangelicals) are not exactly equipped to be scholars and academics.
It seems that the evangelical tradition does not offer very many accommodations to all people's gifts and aptitudes. And it looks to me as though the difference between you and me is that you see this development as a positive thing.
And I already showed you that even "Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does.
If I'm misinterpreting your post here, I welcome your correction. But here, again, you seem to interpret this as a positive thing. I have a fair number of conservative ideological preferences myself. But on certain issues, I am left of center.
I find it troublesome that one's Christian faith should be so closely identified to their ideological preferences. Baptism is not (and should not be) accompanied by a GOP membership card. I believe Christians do a disservice to non-Christians by implying a mandatory connection to Republican Party politics. Considering how polarized America is right now, evangelizing others is challenging enough without introducing the complicating factor of party affiliation.
At least Anglican understanding is not so extreme, and though far less precise nor uniformly believed it seems, and it is rejected as being a valid Eucharist, and (according to a Catholic researcher) Anglicanism can apparently lay claim to being the originators of the term "Real Presence" in order to distinguish btwn the two.
Divide and conquer? I do not believe you benefit your side in attempting to further alienate Anglicans from Catholics in order to reinforce your evangelical viewpoints.
Whatever daylight there might be between Anglicans and Catholics, I have observed that many Anglicans have an easier time seeing themselves among Catholics than they do with seeing themselves among evangelicals.
Circling back to the ideological thing, I've noticed a tendency in many of your posts to treat your faith as though it's a political ideology itself. Such is your right, of course, but the adage goes "You catch more flies with honey" for a reason.
Which is simply fallacious argument. First, rejecting ancient creeds does not mean one necessarily rejects fundamentals of the faith and embraces ancient heresies
Be that as it may, the creeds are important to the great majority of Christians worldwide. The evangelical rejection of creeds (or at least the evangelical tendency to ignore them) is bothersome to most of the Christians in the world.
I well understand why evangelicals tend to ignore the ancient creeds. In its place, their logic is sound. However, the facts remain that the creeds do exist and most Christians cherish them. But evangelical ecclesial communities ignore the creeds and this represents another divisive factor for people who might otherwise be of good will toward the evangelical tradition.
And while affirming such Truths as stated in the Apostles creed the Nicene creed as stated on CF, yet one can reject them as a doctrinal standard, since the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed.
This is a curious observation considering the various creeds' roots in the Early Church.
Instead, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
I note you left out "comprehensive" as a descriptor.
And thus rather than being a standard for orthodoxy, creeds as well as writings of so-called church fathers (which we also have available as a result of the work of Anglicans), insofar as they affirm Catholic distinctives then they are an attestation not to manifest NT orthodoxy, but to gradual accretion of non-Scriptural beliefs.
Put another way, the Church went off the rails a few weeks after Our Lord's ascension and it took over a millennium and a half to get everything back on track?
Luther himself did not want to separate at first, but their comes a point when it becomes necessary as in the case of recalcitrance.
To be fair (which is the opposite of charitable in this case), Luther was willing to stick around had the Catholic Church collectively been willing to convert to Lutheranism.
Which is simply another false either/or dichotomy. Most of church services I have been part of typically have a static liturgy, though aside from basics, none is manifest in the inspired life of the NT church. I think most find safety in structure, and would not like a meeting as 1 Corinthians 14 describes, "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Corinthians 14:31)
This, again, speaks to the evangelical unwillingness to accommodate the needs of its members (or would-be members, as the case may be).
I draw a spiritual comfort from a liturgy which has been slowly refined and perfected over the centuries. I find that more trustworthy than the overly-produced and perfectly executed stage-managing of evangelical worship.
As for no creed and mighty hymns(!), what classic mighty hymns we have!
Here is one area where results tend to vary significantly. However, in the Southern Baptist and non-denominational services I have attended, the music tends to be a selection of whatever's popular on the local Contemporary Christian radio station.
The near-perfect stage management strikes again here because only those who refuse to see won't notice the relationship between the volume of the music compared to the brightness of the house lights. The louder the song is, the brighter the light are. The transition from softness to loudness is frequently accompanied by a transition from dim lights to bright lights. "Here's the big dramatic transition to the loud part of the song, better shine those lights brighter! Maybe the parishioners will recognize their cue to stand up in unison!"
Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I recognize that this shallow (though dramatic) type of presentation is a successful way of reaching vast swaths of the audience. But I, frankly, resent being "managed" in this type of way, particularly when there's no real purpose for it. Nothing of substance is gained from these manipulative theatrics and I remain unmoved, literally and emotionally. They are lost on me... though, apparently, not everybody. Not even close to everybody, it seems.
Why even Rome sings some of them. Read an old Baptist hymnal, as this from men and women of the SBC, favorites of which I put together here , and glorify the Lord. Which are not as the majority of contem-poor-ary fluff, but overall of dept and much theology. Such can serve as creeds, while our hard cover old Baptist hymnal has an extensive doctrinal section in the back.
This is a remarkable admission on your part. And yet, it's something I find common in the various forms of evangelicalism.
It seems that the evangelicals have observed some facet of traditional Christianity and then thrown it away for no good reason. Later, they realize the utility of whatever practice which they rejected once offered so they replace it with something of lesser value.
To wit: evangelicals don't have Confessors; but they may have "accountability partners". In some respects, an AP serves some of the same purposes of a Confessor. Except an AP need not be ordained and certainly cannot hear a proper Confession. Moreover, a Confessor is forbidden from discussing the particulars of what he hears; no such restriction exists for AP's. The law recognizes and protects the Seal of Confession; no such recognition or protection likely exists for AP's.
Evangelicals typically don't have a cantor, as such. But many of them have come to recognize the importance a musical director offers so now they have "worship leaders". However, a cantor's role is to direct the faithful in song while it's the job of a "worship leader" to memorize songs popular on the aforementioned local Contemporary Christian radio station.
And, regarding your post above, evangelicals don't have creeds. But many of them have come to recognize the value creeds offer so they use songs in their place. There's no apparent logic behind this decision, save "Creeds are what the dang Catholics do and we ain't Catholic!", I suppose. But the ancient creeds have existed since the Early Church while evangelical songs are probably here today, gone tomorrow, and will be swiftly forgotten by history. Time will tell, I guess.
In any case, the more time goes by, the more I see evangelicalism as a hollow, stripped down, less effectual and less valuable shadow of traditional Christianity. The above are just some examples as to why.
And also judge righteousness judgment, versus off-the-cuff bias, though we all can be guilty of that.
To say the least.