The declining American church

2,108 Views | 28 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by PacifistAg
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


I am not sure what the source data is. I would imagine the declines in the top group are driven by different factors, but both (Evangelical & Mainline Protestant) decline are fueling the increase in no religion.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
These charts always conflate verbal affiliation with church membership, but I do think church membership in general is declining. Main thing I see in this chart is that millennials aren't afraid to identify to a survey as non-religious. And they probably come from families who are most likely to be mainline/catholic/evangelical. Black protestant churches and Jewish synagogues either A) Still create a community that young people value and are still are involved or B) Young people still verbally affirm affiliation to their group even if they don't particularly consider themselves religious.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is plenty of discussion of the rise of the "nones" within Catholic circles. Non-practicing and outright renounced Catholics would be as large a denomination as nearly any out there. It may have been a joke, but I heard that there were more practicing wiccans in America than Presbyterians.

There are "evangelicals" which isn't so much a denomination as a label for demographers and media types (and folks that don't want to be called Baptist any more), a shrinking but still substantial number of faithful, practicing Catholics, and whole lot of people that think "I'm spiritual, not religious" sounds reasonable.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder how much the rise in the nons has to do with New Atheism (Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris etc). The swing upwards seems to line up with the release of those books.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Everything goes in cycles.

We can point to multiple rises and falls in organized Christianity just in America in the last 300 years.

What do we expect, everything to stay exactly the same, forever? Or trend one way, forever?

Christianity was in decline in the 1920s/30s. It was obviously due to rapid urbanization, modern science, and evolution.

By the 1950-1970 timeframe Christianity will be dead in America.

Come on folks, the world is more complex than our simple narratives!
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From the atheists I've interacted with Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris was a pull factor, but their watching parents live a hypocritical life was a major push factor.

I do think widespread lukewarm Christianity from the previous generation was laid bare to gen X and millennials. Subsequently, they are not afraid to walk away from a faith they saw lazily applied by their parents.

At least those who claim Christianity now are those who are more likely to take their faith seriously and also walk the walk. This has been the case at least in europe. While there has been a huge contraction in casual affiliation with a church, those who are affiliated are really involved. There's also been an explosion of evangelic churches in France and Spain the last decade.

chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dargscisyhp said:

I wonder how much the rise in the nons has to do with New Atheism (Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris etc). The swing upwards seems to line up with the release of those books.

Could be. Timing wise, they seemed to coincide with the blip in the "evangelical" scene that did nothing to push a robust theology. The old "mainline" denominations have a very rigorous intellectual tradition that is withering to no one's benefit. What took their place was a fairly superficial approach to faith and worship that depended a lot on feelings and emotion.

Heck, plenty of folks say the same thing about "the spirit of Vatican II".

The questions/approaches of the new atheists aren't new at all. Their arguments have been discussed for many centuries with slightly different window dressing. The debates where William Lane Craig engaged with these guys is instructive of who actually has a good intellectual grasp of what can be properly understood, but there's a whole lot more Joel Osteen in modern "evangelicalism" than there is Craig.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Timing wise, they seemed to coincide with the blip in the "evangelical" scene that did nothing to push a robust theology.
Yes. Catechize your children.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
when I hear about being a citizen of heaven, I struggle with why we should care about whether the US is post Christian or not.

I'm not saying we don't care about the increasing lost in the US, but that there's no preference towards them in that they are American.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dargscisyhp said:

I wonder how much the rise in the nons has to do with New Atheism (Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris etc). The swing upwards seems to line up with the release of those books.


It's not the atheists that are the fastest growing, it is the nones. So they aren't switching to atheism, they simply aren't anything. I think it is a testament to our culture becoming indulgent in money, success, the American dream, etc. We don't see the need to care about philosophy anymore. We simply don't think about it.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe that will be the good that comes out of Covid as it may make people think about their eternal destination more.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frok said:

dargscisyhp said:

I wonder how much the rise in the nons has to do with New Atheism (Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris etc). The swing upwards seems to line up with the release of those books.


It's not the atheists that are the fastest growing, it is the nones.

What's the difference?
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dargscisyhp said:

Frok said:

dargscisyhp said:

I wonder how much the rise in the nons has to do with New Atheism (Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris etc). The swing upwards seems to line up with the release of those books.


It's not the atheists that are the fastest growing, it is the nones.

What's the difference?
In my mind, an atheist has come to the affirmative conclusion that there is no God. A "none" simply doesn't consider the matter.

There were probably always a bunch of similarly situated folks historically, but they identified religious out of a sense of community, culture, social expectation, but didn't consider much or any of the philosophy themselves. Religion should seek to reach these people as well, but appealing to them when the wider culture disdains religion, it's tough.

As mentioned, there are cycles and events that push people to consider faith and the metaphysical more specifically. Remember the mood after 9/11? It would be nice to get people's attention in the absence of tragedy, but God will do as He sees fit in His time.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dargscisyhp said:

Frok said:

dargscisyhp said:

I wonder how much the rise in the nons has to do with New Atheism (Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris etc). The swing upwards seems to line up with the release of those books.


It's not the atheists that are the fastest growing, it is the nones.

What's the difference?


I think the distinction is an atheist outright rejects the existence of God and so they identify themselves by that stance.

The nones haven't rejected the existence of God, they simply don't hold an opinion one way or another. They might be "spiritual" in some non-committed way OR just not even care.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would still think the NA movement could have contributed to the rise of "nones" by helping normalize being nonreligious.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

Maybe that will be the good that comes out of Covid as it may make people think about their eternal destination more.


What I noticed is COVID wiped out many of those who simply attended. Since we've come back our attendance is down but giving is up. Maybe the ones not there are still giving but I think it's really only 20% that gives the bulk of the funds and they are still coming.

Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dargscisyhp said:

I would still think the NA movement could have contributed to the rise of "nones" by helping normalize being nonreligious.


You are probably right
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Part of our problem is that we are materially satisfied generation but unaware of the spiritual void within. I previously cited the global growth of charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity. These are the churches which are growing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/todays-pentecostals-arent-tongues-talking-hicks-they-are-slick-australian-exports
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
one MEEN Ag said:

From the atheists I've interacted with Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris was a pull factor, but their watching parents live a hypocritical life was a major push factor.

I do think widespread lukewarm Christianity from the previous generation was laid bare to gen X and millennials. Subsequently, they are not afraid to walk away from a faith they saw lazily applied by their parents.
It's the internet more than any of those. Lukewarm Christians are as old as Christianity. For my, part the ones in my community mostly walked the walk. But having the vast amount of information at your fingertips and being able to question free of repercussion or taboo is a powerful force. For me and those I know who are atheists (which is probably a majority of my peer group) most of us were out or on our way out before we read any dawkins or Hitchens. Maybe a few youtube debates helped things along for some.

Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chimpanzee said:


the debates where William Lane Craig engaged with these guys is instructive of who actually has a good intellectual grasp of what can be properly understood, but there's a whole lot more Joel Osteen in modern "evangelicalism" than there is Craig.
WLC has a style that does well against those, but falls very flat against others. He got beat soundly by shelly kagen and never stood a chance against sean carroll. When he played against experts in the appropriate field his schtick doesn't stick.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The debate with Shelley Kagan is honestly the best one I've ever seen.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:

chimpanzee said:


the debates where William Lane Craig engaged with these guys is instructive of who actually has a good intellectual grasp of what can be properly understood, but there's a whole lot more Joel Osteen in modern "evangelicalism" than there is Craig.
WLC has a style that does well against those, but falls very flat against others. He got beat soundly by shelly kagen and never stood a chance against sean carroll. When he played against experts in the appropriate field his schtick doesn't stick.

It seems Kagan and Carroll are the true Scotsmen then. Nevertheless, Hitchens et. al., very likely pulled more people from the pews owing to the popularity of their work and yet a rhetoric guy like Craig did a pretty tidy job of presenting sound counterpoints that many had never heard.

Having looked into the Kagan and Carroll stuff just now, you're getting way more esoteric than most folks will ever consider, and perhaps Craig is out of his element. But it's a fair point to ask, if you haven't considered whether the universe can exist without causation, are you any better than the people that never considered their faith, or lack thereof, in much depth at all?

Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I personally never found Hitchens particularly impressive in debates. He was a rhetorical genius, which played amazingly in interviews, but in formal debates, not so much. At least not in my opinion.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chimpanzee said:


It seems Kagan and Carroll are the true Scotsmen then.

They are experts in the right fields. Hitchens might be smarter than either of them but he isn't going to be speaking the same language as craig whos talking Kalam.


Quote:

Nevertheless, Hitchens et. al., very likely pulled more people from the pews owing to the popularity of their work and yet a rhetoric guy like Craig did a pretty tidy job of presenting sound counterpoints that many had never heard.
He's a Kalam guy. I never thought it was a very good argument for a specific god, it's an attempt at deism. But Carroll pantsed him when he tried make physics arguments with a cosmologist.

Quote:


Having looked into the Kagan and Carroll stuff just now, you're getting way more esoteric than most folks will ever consider, and perhaps Craig is out of his element.

Yes and no. It's certainly more esoteric, but that's actually what it takes to beat craig, as all he usually does is methodically lays out a Kalam argument. This is tough for someone not experienced in philosophy or physics to deal with. When speaking to his peers in philosophy or his betters in physics, it doesn't end so well.


Quote:

But it's a fair point to ask, if you haven't considered whether the universe can exist without causation, are you any better than the people that never considered their faith, or lack thereof, in much depth at all?
I have considered it. I also consider it a relatively unimportant question when examining revealed religion.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The argument of the bounds of physics seems to guide what one finds persuasive, but I don't think either side gives the other enough credit. It's really easy to start talking past each other at that point.
americathegreat1492
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A broader discussion of what's driving data like this.



Awakening from the Meaning Crisis

PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
much ado about nothing.

we are hardwired to know/love God.

mesocosm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PacifistAg said:



I am not sure what the source data is. I would imagine the declines in the top group are driven by different factors, but both (Evangelical & Mainline Protestant) decline are fueling the increase in no religion.


Awesome News! May the trend continue
Religion is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world - Bertrand Russell
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pacifist, you should follow lymanstoneky on Twitter. loots of this type of data. thats his gig.

also, Has American Christianity Failed by Bryan Wolfmueller..great book. would be happy to lend you my copy.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

pacifist, you should follow lymanstoneky on Twitter. loots of this type of data. thats his gig.

also, Has American Christianity Failed by Bryan Wolfmueller..great book. would be happy to lend you my copy.

Thanks so much for the recommendations. No need to loan. Sounds interesting, so I'll definitely buy. Plus, borrowing books puts a tremendous amount of pressure on me to read as fast as humanly possible, and I like to go slow and let things marinate. Lol
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.