A friend sent a link to a Gallup Poll on religion in America that was released on Christmas Eve. The poll shows that 78 percent of Americans consider themselves to be some form of Christian (56 percent Protestant or other non-Catholic group, 22 percent Catholic), down from 80 percent in 2003 and 85 percent in 1998.
Although 78 percent say they are Christians, however, just 63 percent report belonging to a church or a synagogue. Figuring that some of those 63 percent are Jewish, that suggests that about of fifth of those who claim to be Christian have no affiliation with a church. How many are simply "cultural Christians" who think watching a TV preacher or supporting a politician who touts "Christian values" puts them in the category? How many are postmodern believers who love Jesus but not the institutional church?
The number of those claiming to be Christian and reporting church membership have tended to decline gradually since the survey was first taken 40 years ago. The biggest short-term shift in the survey was the number of respondents who claim no religion at all: 13 percent this year, up from six percent just 10 years ago.
To what should we attribute these shifts? Is a growing reliance on science leading to a fall-off in religious faith? Is church falling from favor because more liberal Christians have watered down the faith by being too tolerant of changing cultural norms -- or is it because more conservative believers have been so antagonistic toward change that they've given Christianity a bad name?
I can think of many potential reasons for why more Americans are feeling less at home with religion, but I'm particularly interested in what readers think about it from their particular contexts. One of my students will be doing an independent study next semester on the growing trend of those who say they are "spiritual," but not religious.
Both I and she would be interested in what you're thinking. Care to share?
Monday, December 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I am one of those who does not claim a church. In my case it has been the emphasis on money, the apparent uncaring attitude of so many pastors, and the backward attitudes of so many. A late, beloved pastor called it the "money-driven" church. The multi-million dollar edifices with gyms and spas are pointed out by the membership with a note of pride as to the cost. Pastors do not "bother" with the flock unless there is money to be begged. They also seem far too denomination oriented. If there is a sick person, they ask about the denomination, then refuse to get involved if it is different from their own. End of written rant. There is so much more.
I'm not sure the sociological depths of this question, but I can speak to what I've observed personally.
The decay of the church in Britain has long been linked to its wedded-ness to the state. America, as such, holds no state church, but there is the ostensible civil religion that I think most people still think is some sort of Judeo-Christian hybrid. It's tacit religion--we hardly even notice "one nation under God" as it goes over the elementary school loudspeaker. It comforts more than it discomforts, but if pressed on the issue by someone they care about, who would not, could not pray to that same God, most reasonable folk would agree it is offensive.
What I'm getting at is that I think the majority feel that committing to a religion is in fact, a commitment--and why tie yourself down unnecessarily? Which gets to the other half of the analogy...
(No offense intended GA Mountain Man) I'm an Associate Pastor currently--on any given day I question that--whether I'm doing the most good--whether I could do more Jesus-sized things in a non-profit or NGO--or even in another congregation. But ultimately, I'm a part of a church--they picked me, and I them. And there's some level of commitment in that.
Churches can be every bit as abusive as relationships can be, I grant that. There's enough evil done in the name of the Church to justify shutting them all down, but the good is often only savored by the committed few, and then only in bits of nostalgia.
Moreover, the saturation of churches across America, offering every type of worship experience, programming and services is comparable to the cell-phone market--people change churches as frequently as they do handsets, even if they pay a penalty of marginal embarrassment and calls of "where have you been?"
I think it comes down to a reasonable fear of commitment. The difference between the church relationship and romantic ones is that no one wants to be alone, so they pursue someone to settle down with. While church/religion offers community and meaning-making, many are content to find it elsewhere.
I do not find it at all surprising that people are less active in church. We have surrendered the church to isolated individualism instead of embodying a belief that the Church is essential to salvation and faithful participation in what God is doing in the world. For many, especially in my tradition, words like salvation and redemption have been robbed of their meaning by a worldview that prizes the autonomous individual and treats community narratives as interference. Instead of speaking of God saving and redeeming the world, we can only now speak of God's work in terms of individual souls. We have divorced God from the Church, preferring to think of him as a polygamist in relationship to millions of "individuals" rather than a faithful husband to the one Bride of Christ.
Therefore, people (at least in my tradition) barely have any resources from which to make the church important - except for as a resource for better Bible reading or psycho-social improvement (both of which are readily available from other media). I dare say that for the majority of Christian history, it would be unimaginable to consider oneself a Christian without participation in the Church. But, alas, we reap what we sow.
This is a difficult question that probably has many answers.
However, basically, I think that churches are failing to meet the needs of people.
I think that churches need to ask:
1. What are the needs of people.
2. What needs can we meet.
Then:
1. Meet those needs.
Sounds simple, but it is hard to do.
Dr. Cartledge,
It is interesting that you frame the question in terms of concerns that I would consider to be 20th Century. I think that you will find as you supervise the independent study that the issue is not primarily a liberal-conservative issue.
Many are rejecting the scientific inquiry of the post-Enlightenment era (or error) and accepting that there is more to this universe than what is scientifically observable and objectively verifiable.
Tom Wright's Simply Christian approaches an apologetic for Christianity from this perspective and procedes to the narrative of scripture. C. S. Lewis apologetic in Mere Christianity is a defense and proof of Christianity from a post enlightenment perspective in an attempt to define Christianity's morality and theology as absolute, objective truth. I feel that his approach has flaws (glaring flaws include the absence of the resurrection and an ignorance of the Biblical narrative). Lewis made some strides, but his Mere Christianity fell short in many ways.
I think that modernist concerns are questioning whether or not the truth claims of religions are verifiable, and the resulting conservative movements are a preservation of their traditions.
Post-moderns do not question the truth claims of a religion per se, but abandon the tradition in favor of understanding the narrative of the faith tradition and its relationship to life's experience.
I feel that behind moderate theologians and ministers, that the Baptist emphasis on freedom is the result of an approach to religion that admits that it cannot be sure of the truth claims of one's tradition because they are objectively verifiable according to our modern standards.
Behind the conservative movement is a defense of tradition as a priori religious truth.
I believe that the 21st century will offer a third way that critically reconsiders various Christian traditions. And, its strength will be that truth and knowledge will not be limited to that which is scientifically observable.
The four previous responders did not indicate problems with truth claims, but the practices of the communities that claim these truths.
Interesting conversation...I hope that more comments follow.
Tim,
I would say 1984 is a good year to suggest as a beginning date for a movement like you mentioned. That was the year that Lindbeck's The Nature of Doctrine and the second edition of MacIntyre's After Virtue were published. There are some excellent theologians working right now, especially Baptist ones (Barry Harvey, Curtis Freeman, Elizabeth Newman, and Steve Harmon to name a few), who are concerned with crafting a response to modernity's claims. The goal is to offer a more vigorous engagement with tradition and how our individuality is shaped by our community narratives.
I would say that people like MacIntyre are completely post-modern, but they are not concerned with abandoning tradition. MacIntyre is concerned with establishing the necessity of engagement and participation in a tradition. This engagement and participation is what many theological scholars (like those mentioned above, not to mention just about the entire Duke theology faculty, as well as CUDS' Cameron Jorgenson) today are working to reclaim.
Mr. Tim Marsh,
I find your comments very interesting. I think that one of our current needs is a way to understand Christianity within a current worldview.
I think the church is failing to meet that need. Some fall away because of the church's failure to speak credibly or intelligently or prophetically to a worldview that is largely scientific and technological.
What I cannot understand is why I had to leave the church and study for myself to hear the messages of Hans Kung, James Alison, Rodney Holder, John Polkinghorne, Ernan McMullin, Graeme Finlay, Alister McGrath, Robert White, John Bryant, Micahel Poole, Sir John Houghton, Denis Alexander, Roger Trigg, R. J. Berry, Ernest Lucas, and many others that forthrightly discuss religion, faith, and Christianity in a way that addresses our contemporary world view.
Where are the prophets?
None of them seem to be in any of the churches that I have visited.
Joshua Brown,
We could add the late James McClendon to this discussion. Interesting that you mention Freeman and Harmon (I am thankful that my alma mater, Beeson Divinity School was able to land Harmon)...I look forward to seeing how Duke graduates and Campbell graduates impact Baptist life in North Carolina in the next couple of decades.
You are right that it is not an explicit abandonment of tradition that post-moderns Christians are after. However, there is a need to rethink the tradition in light of new biblical scholarship that calls into question our assumptions about Paul's theology, new theological scholarship that focuses on the narrative of scripture rather than systematic theological categories, and new ethical and spiritual thought that focuses on faithfulness to performing the narrative in the present, rather than considering dual loyalties to God and country.
Anonymous,
I too found that church did not meet this need until my home church called a new pastor in 1997, who quoted similar authors who were being taught in my religion classes at Samford U. Throw Dietrich Bonhoeffer into your reading, as well as Tom Wright.
In defense of us pastors, we are spread thin to the point that continuing to read and study in the parish is difficult. Personally, I have conducted 12 funerals and two memorial services since July, and already have 4 weddings and subsequent pre-marital counseling responsibilities on the docket for 2010.
And, we always have the balance in our congregations of touching the most educated and those who want more, with those who are not educated to think critically. We have to be careful with what we say and how we say it.
However, many new churches are engaging new ideas as well as deep Christian writers, thinkers and preachers. May I suggest also Greg Boyd and Brian McLaren. I hope to learn from a few of the authors you mentioned.
One other thing:
I agree with the sentiment of communicating Christianity that makes sense in one's cultural context. However, I believe also that with scholarship's aid, we are uncovering many aspects of First Christianity's heritage that we lost when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. I am particularly hinting at the loss of the Jewish context of the First Century that is necessary to read the New Testament accurately.
Tim Marsh,
If you burrow down into the poll, you will find that the percent rejecting the idea that religion can answer all or most of today's problems, is also increasing. That decline is persistent, albeit with transitory fluctuations, as you will see.
The problem you surface probably has several good answers, but one I believe is primary is this--Christians have spent about 25 years talking themselves out of evangelism. They fear that if they witness, they'll run into a Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, or Alan Colmbes. In reality, however, witnessing Christians find that they run into someone who, in large part, agrees, to varying degrees, with the central convictions of the Christian faith. People in our world are confused about salvation by grace through faith, and the all encompassing commitment to Christ repentance and faith entails, but some patience and explanation go a long way with them. I am finding it easier to witness today than I did when I started in 1982, and I am finding people (especially those under 60) are far more positive and responsive towards the gospel.
BaptistPlanet,
Thanks for pointing that out. However, as we both know, it is a loaded question. We have to ask what the respondant understands by "religion" when asked the question.
And, we also have to ask questions about the cultural context from which many thought religion was the answer. Put it simply, many of us remain in the religious tradition that we are born into, and many of our early experiences effect how we view religion in the future.
Today, we have one other factor to consider, and that is the role of critical thinking in approaches to one's own worldview and faith commitments. Many people attended church in the past because they knew nothing else and had no access to information upon which they could ask critical questions of the faith.
Now, many in the United States can reflect critically on tradition. This is a threat to fundamentalism. Which brings me to David Mills comments, this is not a rejection of evangelism but a style of evangelism. College-educated people will not respond to the five minute sales pitch with the tract. And, like you said, all though I agree that this is good, some of our particular "truths" are coming into question because we are re-reading the Bible. I would love to hear Tom Wright give his five minute presentation of the gospel, because it would sound very different from the Four Spiritual Laws or the Evangecube.
This is an interesting discussion. I do not have the answers. Yet, I believe that the church needs to have conversations like this to approach the cultural shift in the United States and the church. It's not just our culture's fault.
I'm not certain I should be responding for at least two reasons:
My family is currently dealing with over-whelming grief
I have a general bias that polls are of little real value
Nevertheless, actual church statistics are consistent with the poll you cite and my personal grief has caused me to consider anew any relationship between spirituality and 'being religious.'
I am not as cynical as Georgia Mountain Man seems, nor as theological as some other responders. I can personally attest to the intercessory benefit of a collective during crisis. I am experiencing it in both traditional and non-traditional ways. That is, from individual church members and others who are not participants in a church. I'm not certain why the number who intercede on our behalf should matter, but we thank God for each concern expressed and unexpressed.
Active in genealogical genetics, I know many persons who place science ahead of spiritual belief. Occasionally in DNA forums the subject of God and belief surface. As a long-time believer I am in a distinct minority in such conversations. It seems for many adults that the yielding required to receive God's unconditional love is too much like suicide. So as we progressively have a population of more adults who have never yielded, understanding non-believing adults is essential.
Technology, such as this, has changed the way people communicate. Worship is a form of communicating.
Ultimately, it comes down to God's love for each of us. Recently, while in traditional worship, I wrote the following:
“The purer the love, the fewer the questions.”
I don't know how theologically sound that statement is, but it has proved comforting to me while in the throes of grief.
This conversation may well be over, but I'd like to push a point of Tim's a bit.
The statement that post-moderns aren't questioning the truth claims I find to be lacking a bit. I don't mean this just to pick points of disagreement--I'm not sure that gets us anywhere--but I think it's worth saying because it gets to this larger issue of church/community.
Post-modernity is about the death of the meta-narrative. Much like the "Death of God" movement in the 1960's, this doesn't mean the narrative is ACTUALLY dead--just that it has, in fact, been replaced by something else.
Others had talked at length about it, but I firmly believe the "meta-narrative"--the overarching, empirical story arc of all things--has been replaced by postmoderns with the "many-narrative".
Think about the film "Crash" or the TV show "Lost"--the meaning is found in the interrelatedness of the characters stories and how they effect/influence/are transformed by the narratives of the others. These examples (and there are others) are ideal postmodern pictures because they center not around affinity or collegial groups but around random chance--and yet community is forged through out.
And it is these stories alone which communicate "truth" in these films. There is a deep and abiding sense among postmoderns that the worth of the thing is greater than any one individuals take on it.
This is why organized religion will die and yet live among postmoderns. The need for community--for a place to "speak of what we have seen and heard concerning the word of truth" will remain--but insofar as congregations and clergy are unwilling to expand the narrative--to add the canon of the individual's experience to the canon of Scripture and revelation--then it will surely perish.
Trey,
Well said.
While I am not a Baptist, I think that Baptists stand in a unique place that will allow some of them to meet the need for a faithful Christian theology informed by mankind's understanding of the reality that God has created for us.
Observing the great diversity of Christian belief, even from the beginning, to remain credible, Christians must find and affirm common theological ground without abandoning their own diverse, individual traditions. At the same time, they need to work to improve their own individual traditions without harming the ability to stand together with all Christians in one, united, faith in Christ.
May God bless us all!
To Gene Prescott:
With your permission, I'd like to use your quote, giving proper credit, of course:
“The purer the love, the fewer the questions.”-Gene Prescott
Thanks in advance if it's ok.
Your friend in Christ,
star
starduster,
Permission granted. FWIW, Dr. Randy McKinney was preaching a sermon on 'love' when my wandering mind went elsewhere and the thought came. I suppose Randy is indirectly responsible :-)
Go back to Marcionism and religion will become more popular. People don't want to worship a god that commanded genocide. The gospel that Yahweh is a wicked creator and Jesus is the Son of a Higher Better God that send him to die on the cross to use his death to blackmail Yahweh and force him to sell humanity to him is a better Gospel than the absurd notion that the same old genocidal Yahweh somehow loves everyone and sent his Son to die a cruel death to appease his own bloodthirstyness. Orthodox Christianity is a poor basis for moral living, unlike Marcionism. That's the problem. The Catholic church screwed us in the 2nd Century when they took Marcion's gospel and letters of Paul and corrupted them with absurd out of context manglings of the Old Testament to force a Judaization of Christianity and idenfitication of the Father with Yahweh. Just read Isaiah 7 in context and see that the child born of a virgin was to be born in Ahaz' lifetime and before the child knew good and evil the two kings of Samaria and Damascus were to be defeated by the Assyrian king--that was the prophecy and it was fulfilled in Isaiah 8 with Maherhsalalhashbaz. This is a good example of the Catholic twisting of the OT to make it fit in to the story of Jesus. Another is "out of Egypt I called my son" which in Hosea 11:1 in context is about Israel and the Exodus. Rachel weeping is about Babylonian exile not death of infants, for in Jer 31 Yahweh responds to Rachel's weeping "your children will return from the land of the enemy to their own border." In other words, the Catholics filled the field with tares while men slept. The field (the Bible) is corrupt. Its time to clean it out and go back to Marcion's canon.
Post a Comment