In yesterday's column, Ross Douthat smacked the Episcopalians for selling their Christian birthright for a mess of secularist pottage. If only they had stuck to the old time religion, they wouldn't be shedding parishioners by the flockload. And yet, as RNS' humble aggregator Dan Burke notes, old-time religion-stickers like the Southern Baptist Convention and Douthat's own Catholic church have also been losing their sheep at a rapid pace. So what gives?
More things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Douthat's philosophy.
One part of the answer is "no religion." As the succession of American Religious Identification Surveys have demonstrated, the category that has gained the most since 1990 is the one composed by those who answer "none" when asked, "What is your religion if any?"--up from 7 percent to over 15 percent. Lots of adherents of all persuasions have simply decided to opt out of religious identification, but especially white Catholics.
Mainline Protestants like Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists have stopped working to keep their young people within the fold. Southern Baptists and other large conservative churches have been too doctrinaire. The Catholic abuse scandals, combined with retrenchment from the Vatican II, have alienated a significant number of the faithful. Not belonging, not showing up for worship, is an option that doesn't attract the neighbors' opprobrium these days, and many Americans are availing themselves of it.
In fact, the only sizable portion of the American Christian population that is growing at all these days turns out to be the one whose members simply identify themselves as "Christians" or "non-denominational Christians." They go to megachurches and smaller places specializing in a generic style of evangelical faith. When it comes to belief, they tend to be neither too hot nor too cold. You might call them lukewarm.
Why are the lukewarm churches growing? I'd like to see Douthat try his hand at that one.
Mike | Jul 16, 2012 | 8:01pm
Douthat sort of touches on the “lukewarm churches,” dismissing them out of hand as shallow. I had the same questions about Douthat’s story—and other takes on this issue—because he apparently doesn’t realize that it isn’t about liberal that causes declines, it’s being organized. While ready to dismiss liberal Christians for not being good Christians and too focused on gays, he doesn’t offer a similar explanation for why his own version of Catholicism is attracting fewer and fewer people.
Another Mike | Jul 16, 2012 | 10:26pm
In his book, “Bad Religion,” he hits the failures of the conservative churches, including the RC Church, about as hard as he hits the failure of liberal churches. But he would say (and I believe it’s true) that the demographic decline of the later is far greater than the demographic decline of the former.
Window stickers | Jul 17, 2012 | 6:29am
Its gratifying to see such a great article. We are really impressed with your information.
http://www.mediapoint.com.au/
Marian Ronan | Jul 17, 2012 | 2:13pm
The previous comment is fake, to sell stuff.
Kevin Schultz | Jul 19, 2012 | 11:23am
And what of the David Hollinger thesis, developed as his presidential address for the Organization of American Historians, which holds that, while ecumenical (mainline) Protestantism may be losing numbers, that’s only half the story. The other half is that they pushed American culture and life to embrace their ideals throughout the 20th century, and their victory in that realm (more ecumenism, great access to civil rights, etc.) came at the cost of members. It wasn’t just that they aligned with the surrounding culture, but the surrounding culture embraced many of their cherished ideals. Who’s the real winner then? A nice write-up with Hollinger appeared in last month’s Christian Century and is here: http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-06/culture-changers
I wish Hollinger had written one of the letters to the editor in today’s NYT…
baber | Jul 22, 2012 | 11:05pm
The Episcopal Church is dying because of lack of faith and commitment. Clergy are not seriously committed to growth, or even self-preservation. They don’t believe that it’s important to get people in and so aren’t willing to devote the time, money and effort to do it. It’s that simple.
They’re embarrassed: god forbid, don’t imagine that joining our church, or even religious belief is “necessary to salvation.” And, Lord know, we don’t proselytize. Ok, you don’t preselytize, you don’t commit to getting people in, and you die.
The point of getting people in isn’t to benefit them—to “save” them or whatever but to promote the interests of the institutional church: to keep the buildings maintained and the services going. That is eminently worthwhile, but to maintain the infrastructure you’ve got to recruit and get people to kick in.
Jake Howard | Nov 4, 2012 | 5:17pm
I Agree, why are the Lukewarm churches growing?
http://www.plasticprinting.com.au