New Pew Survey: America's Changing Religious Landscape (2015)
Talk Let's Talk Religion
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1AsYouKnow_Bob
America's Changing Religious Landscape
"The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing, according to an extensive new survey by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, these changes are taking place across the religious landscape, affecting all regions of the country and many demographic groups. While the drop in Christian affiliation is particularly pronounced among young adults, it is occurring among Americans of all ages. The same trends are seen among whites, blacks and Latinos; among both college graduates and adults with only a high school education; and among women as well as men."
3theoria
Hopefully, this will lead to liberalizing processes among the more dogmatic sects as they seek to attract, and to hold onto, a dwindling pool of adherents.
4timspalding
As much as I disagree with evangelical Christianity on so much, Christianity Today's take is persuasive.
Nominals to Nones: 3 Key Takeaways From Pew’s Religious Landscape Survey
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/may/nominals-to-nones-3-key-take...
The "conservative" take on this is that the "real" Christians are now out for all to see, and this is--as CT later puts it a "purifying bloodletting." The Catholic equivalent to that is a "smaller, purer church." Small-minded fish feel better when the pool gets smaller.
From a more liberal, more Catholic perspective, Christianity is not so clearly an either/or phenomenon—the "I know I'm saved!" moment Protestants look for—but a relationship which may grow or decay. And as a practical matter, spiritual seekers, half-Christians and Christmas Christians are more likely to become deeply committed Christians than those who've lost it completely. In other words, on-ramp is falling off. And it's foolish to imagine that so-caled "real" Christianity can be immune from these trends. Just because decline happens at the edge doesn't mean the center is safe. The edge just moves closer and closer to the center.
In either case, the reason so many are moving from nominal to none is not far to see—political polarization and toxic-ification, especially around the sexual issues. As I quoted from a study three years ago:
Witness the grind.
Nominals to Nones: 3 Key Takeaways From Pew’s Religious Landscape Survey
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/may/nominals-to-nones-3-key-take...
"One of the primary reasons it appears as though “American Christianity” is experiencing a sharp decline is because the nominals that once made up (disproportionately) Mainline Protestantism and Catholicism are now checking “none” on religious affiliation surveys.I think that about nails it. Time was when someone without much of a religious identity would self-identify as Christian. It was a net social plus, or neutral. That's changing.
Nominal Christians make up a higher percentage of Mainline Protestants and Catholics than any other denomination of Christian, and this is why their numbers continue to sharply decline.
For those who have only ever considered themselves “Christian” because they’ve been to church before, or because they aren’t Muslim or Hindu, it is starting to make more sense to check “none” on religious identification surveys.
Yet, church attendance rates (though overreported) are not changing substantially. (I will be writing more on that soon.)
…
For example, the cultural cost of calling yourself “Christian” is starting to outweigh the cultural benefit, so those who do not identify as a “Christian” according to their convictions are starting to identify as “nones” because it’s more culturally savvy.
The "conservative" take on this is that the "real" Christians are now out for all to see, and this is--as CT later puts it a "purifying bloodletting." The Catholic equivalent to that is a "smaller, purer church." Small-minded fish feel better when the pool gets smaller.
From a more liberal, more Catholic perspective, Christianity is not so clearly an either/or phenomenon—the "I know I'm saved!" moment Protestants look for—but a relationship which may grow or decay. And as a practical matter, spiritual seekers, half-Christians and Christmas Christians are more likely to become deeply committed Christians than those who've lost it completely. In other words, on-ramp is falling off. And it's foolish to imagine that so-caled "real" Christianity can be immune from these trends. Just because decline happens at the edge doesn't mean the center is safe. The edge just moves closer and closer to the center.
In either case, the reason so many are moving from nominal to none is not far to see—political polarization and toxic-ification, especially around the sexual issues. As I quoted from a study three years ago:
"When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers." (seeAs I put it then, "The gay question is indeed "the big one." It's a new sort of problem, and a very serious one. It's going to grind American Christianity down."
https://www.librarything.com/topic/136917)
Witness the grind.
5timspalding
Here's the Crux take:
Pew survey: Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/12/pew-survey-percentage-of-us-catholics-d...
No doubt our resident anti-Vatican II-er will proclaim that this is all the modern Church's fault. But the decline can hardly be ascribed to liberals. The conservative backlash started in 1979, with John Paul II, and most of the "liberal" bishops have died off. As conservative Catholics are quick to point out, new priests are all conservative. And far from lying down, the contemporary church has had a series of high-profile battles against gay marriage, against contraception and on and on. If "standing tall" in the culture wars was the answer to Catholic decline, I'd like to see what the bad options were!
I think we're in for a long run of declines. Demography is that way. But I hazard that, for Catholicism, the answer is essentially "Pope Francis." Even now, radiant, loving piety is respected by nearly all, and following that is respected. In my own life—an almost entirely secular world—I've noticed that reactions to discovering I'm Catholic have gone from frosty to warm. And while I'm no millennial, I suspect that, if asked to give a one-word description of Francis, "antihomosexual" is not the word they're choosing.
Also, numbers aside, not treating homosexuals as a hostile army, might even by the moral option…
Pew survey: Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/12/pew-survey-percentage-of-us-catholics-d...
No doubt our resident anti-Vatican II-er will proclaim that this is all the modern Church's fault. But the decline can hardly be ascribed to liberals. The conservative backlash started in 1979, with John Paul II, and most of the "liberal" bishops have died off. As conservative Catholics are quick to point out, new priests are all conservative. And far from lying down, the contemporary church has had a series of high-profile battles against gay marriage, against contraception and on and on. If "standing tall" in the culture wars was the answer to Catholic decline, I'd like to see what the bad options were!
I think we're in for a long run of declines. Demography is that way. But I hazard that, for Catholicism, the answer is essentially "Pope Francis." Even now, radiant, loving piety is respected by nearly all, and following that is respected. In my own life—an almost entirely secular world—I've noticed that reactions to discovering I'm Catholic have gone from frosty to warm. And while I'm no millennial, I suspect that, if asked to give a one-word description of Francis, "antihomosexual" is not the word they're choosing.
Also, numbers aside, not treating homosexuals as a hostile army, might even by the moral option…
6hf22
CARA (the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University) has its usual "correction" for the PEW Catholic data (http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-island-of-misfit-polls.html).
>4 timspalding:
The take of the linked article seems broadly correct.
As to reasons, the simple fact is the USA is catching up with the rest of the developed world, such as in Europe. "Cultural Christianity" is disappearing, as the culture becomes basically post Christian. This is not a positive development from a Christian perspective, but it seems to be the thing.
Therefore, we should be careful before seeking USA specific answers (like political polarization and toxic-ification), as these are unlikely to be the drivers.
>5 timspalding:
The thing is, in the secular media, Pope Francis has a similar image to say the Dalai Lama. That image just does not seem to drive people to join up - It just stops them actively disliking it.
The basic problem is that in a culture where Christianity is counter-cultural, membership is always going to be much smaller than a culture where Christianity is the default. Neither conservative reaction or liberal pandering are going to materially change that.
>4 timspalding:
The take of the linked article seems broadly correct.
As to reasons, the simple fact is the USA is catching up with the rest of the developed world, such as in Europe. "Cultural Christianity" is disappearing, as the culture becomes basically post Christian. This is not a positive development from a Christian perspective, but it seems to be the thing.
Therefore, we should be careful before seeking USA specific answers (like political polarization and toxic-ification), as these are unlikely to be the drivers.
>5 timspalding:
The thing is, in the secular media, Pope Francis has a similar image to say the Dalai Lama. That image just does not seem to drive people to join up - It just stops them actively disliking it.
The basic problem is that in a culture where Christianity is counter-cultural, membership is always going to be much smaller than a culture where Christianity is the default. Neither conservative reaction or liberal pandering are going to materially change that.
7southernbooklady
>4 timspalding: the cultural cost of calling yourself “Christian” is starting to outweigh the cultural benefit, so those who do not identify as a “Christian” according to their convictions are starting to identify as “nones” because it’s more culturally savvy.
"Culturally savvy" is odd way to put it, don't you think? A person's spirituality and faith is not really about being culturally hip.
It sounds to me more like people stopped checking boxes because those churches simply no longer reflect their values or beliefs. But I think it would be an unwarranted leap to conclude that such people don't still hold "Christian" values -- say, of the "love thy neighbor" variety. Or don't believe in God. It seems like more of a rejection of the forms of religion than any core beliefs or values.
"Culturally savvy" is odd way to put it, don't you think? A person's spirituality and faith is not really about being culturally hip.
It sounds to me more like people stopped checking boxes because those churches simply no longer reflect their values or beliefs. But I think it would be an unwarranted leap to conclude that such people don't still hold "Christian" values -- say, of the "love thy neighbor" variety. Or don't believe in God. It seems like more of a rejection of the forms of religion than any core beliefs or values.
8timspalding
>6 hf22:
I suspect it's a mix, but it's not merely the US "catching up" with the rest of the world. The role of religion in US society is quite different from that in the rest of the world. The level of religiosity is not comparable to any other developed society, and the history of our cultural engagement is just different from other societies.
Until quite recently this high level was a bipartisan thing. The most pious president we've had was, after all, Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist and Democrat. According to PEW's 2011 story, an equal number of white Protestants identified with both parties as late as 2008, but a seven-point gap had opened within three (!) years ( see http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-g... ). This agrees with the most significant trend in US demographics, apart from continuing immigration, that of "clustering" or "sorting." ( See The Big Sort and a review in the Economist http://www.economist.com/node/11581447 .) Most Americans used to live in states where vote tallies could be close; now almost nobody does. On the local level, the results are even more striking. America is sorting itself out—reds here, blues here, religious here, irreligious there. Religion is now solidly part of this dynamic—as victim and to some extent, through the logic of mutual acrimony over wedge issues, as cause.
The thing is, in the secular media, Pope Francis has a similar image to say the Dalai Lama. That image just does not seem to drive people to join up - It just stops them actively disliking it.
We'll see. To compare him to the Dalai Lama trivializes things. People over a certain age have a fondness for the Dalai Lama, but nobody in the US really listens to him. When he makes headlines, it's usually over clashes with China.
The Pope makes headlines on a regular basis, on topics directly relevant to the faith. His Twitter account, which is mostly pious aphorisms, is literally the most influential account of a world leader, as counted by followers and engagement ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/pope-francis-twitter_n_7163368.html ). All-in-all, I think he's significantly changed the climate for Catholics in the US, moving the common wisdom from "stodgy and corrupt faith infested with pedophiles" to "faith being shaken up by authentically Christ-like leader."
The basic problem is that in a culture where Christianity is counter-cultural, membership is always going to be much smaller than a culture where Christianity is the default. Neither conservative reaction or liberal pandering are going to materially change that.
The adoption of the term "counter-cultural" by some evangelicals and conservative Catholics needs an essay all it's own. Resisting change by walling yourself off from culture is not counter-cultural, but merely conservative, reactionary or just anti-cultural. There's a whole different social trajectory to such movements—the Amish and Conservative Jews are able to make it work—but it is not to be compared with the classic countercultures, who engage with culture and move it in completely different ways.
>7 southernbooklady:
Indeed, the "nones" are not actually composed of atheists and agnostics, but include a good many religious "seekers." But we're seeing a peeling off of people who didn't really have much of a commitment in the first place.
I certainly don't think it has any necessary logical connection to the rejection of "love thy neighbor." But whereas once people would identify as Presbyterian because they went to church when grandpa came for Christmas, they just aren't bothering anymore. Their actual commitment to core doctrinal truths—e.g., Jesus Christ was the son of God and died to save us from our sins—was probably low before too.
A person's spirituality and faith is not really about being culturally hip.
Sure it is. If your commitment is light, you're one thing this week and another the next. If Christianity is the norm, you're Christian to a degree. If Christianity is mean to gay people, you're not. Good grief, where are all the Pagans I knew in high school in the 80s? I don't think many are pagans anymore.
I suspect it's a mix, but it's not merely the US "catching up" with the rest of the world. The role of religion in US society is quite different from that in the rest of the world. The level of religiosity is not comparable to any other developed society, and the history of our cultural engagement is just different from other societies.
Until quite recently this high level was a bipartisan thing. The most pious president we've had was, after all, Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist and Democrat. According to PEW's 2011 story, an equal number of white Protestants identified with both parties as late as 2008, but a seven-point gap had opened within three (!) years ( see http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-g... ). This agrees with the most significant trend in US demographics, apart from continuing immigration, that of "clustering" or "sorting." ( See The Big Sort and a review in the Economist http://www.economist.com/node/11581447 .) Most Americans used to live in states where vote tallies could be close; now almost nobody does. On the local level, the results are even more striking. America is sorting itself out—reds here, blues here, religious here, irreligious there. Religion is now solidly part of this dynamic—as victim and to some extent, through the logic of mutual acrimony over wedge issues, as cause.
The thing is, in the secular media, Pope Francis has a similar image to say the Dalai Lama. That image just does not seem to drive people to join up - It just stops them actively disliking it.
We'll see. To compare him to the Dalai Lama trivializes things. People over a certain age have a fondness for the Dalai Lama, but nobody in the US really listens to him. When he makes headlines, it's usually over clashes with China.
The Pope makes headlines on a regular basis, on topics directly relevant to the faith. His Twitter account, which is mostly pious aphorisms, is literally the most influential account of a world leader, as counted by followers and engagement ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/pope-francis-twitter_n_7163368.html ). All-in-all, I think he's significantly changed the climate for Catholics in the US, moving the common wisdom from "stodgy and corrupt faith infested with pedophiles" to "faith being shaken up by authentically Christ-like leader."
The basic problem is that in a culture where Christianity is counter-cultural, membership is always going to be much smaller than a culture where Christianity is the default. Neither conservative reaction or liberal pandering are going to materially change that.
The adoption of the term "counter-cultural" by some evangelicals and conservative Catholics needs an essay all it's own. Resisting change by walling yourself off from culture is not counter-cultural, but merely conservative, reactionary or just anti-cultural. There's a whole different social trajectory to such movements—the Amish and Conservative Jews are able to make it work—but it is not to be compared with the classic countercultures, who engage with culture and move it in completely different ways.
>7 southernbooklady:
Indeed, the "nones" are not actually composed of atheists and agnostics, but include a good many religious "seekers." But we're seeing a peeling off of people who didn't really have much of a commitment in the first place.
I certainly don't think it has any necessary logical connection to the rejection of "love thy neighbor." But whereas once people would identify as Presbyterian because they went to church when grandpa came for Christmas, they just aren't bothering anymore. Their actual commitment to core doctrinal truths—e.g., Jesus Christ was the son of God and died to save us from our sins—was probably low before too.
A person's spirituality and faith is not really about being culturally hip.
Sure it is. If your commitment is light, you're one thing this week and another the next. If Christianity is the norm, you're Christian to a degree. If Christianity is mean to gay people, you're not. Good grief, where are all the Pagans I knew in high school in the 80s? I don't think many are pagans anymore.
9paradoxosalpha
>8 timspalding: Good grief, where are all the Pagans I knew in high school in the 80s? I don't think many are pagans anymore.
That's interesting. I didn't know any professed pagans when I was in (affluent Midwestern public) high school in the mid-80s. But I'm pretty sure the majority of the many grownup pagans I knew in the 1990s still call themselves pagan. (I never have, though.)
That's interesting. I didn't know any professed pagans when I was in (affluent Midwestern public) high school in the mid-80s. But I'm pretty sure the majority of the many grownup pagans I knew in the 1990s still call themselves pagan. (I never have, though.)
10timspalding
But it strikes me that was a point when being pagan was cool in certain teen circles, where it isn't cool anymore. Truly oppositional teen culture has ceased to have the same bite—rebellion is part of the landscape, commodified as rapidly as it's created.
More generally, I suspect paganism is gaining from Christian disaffiliation and losing out to atheism as a form of protest against Christian affiliation. I make no claim about the overall state of pagan demographics. My guess is that nobody can really say. Certainly the PEW model won't pick it up.
More generally, I suspect paganism is gaining from Christian disaffiliation and losing out to atheism as a form of protest against Christian affiliation. I make no claim about the overall state of pagan demographics. My guess is that nobody can really say. Certainly the PEW model won't pick it up.
11paradoxosalpha
>10 timspalding: that was a point when being pagan was cool in certain teen circles
Not where I was, is what I'm saying. The value of "certain" here must be pretty narrow.
I suppose there might have been a little glut of trendy paganism around 1996 (when The Craft was on big screens).
Not where I was, is what I'm saying. The value of "certain" here must be pretty narrow.
I suppose there might have been a little glut of trendy paganism around 1996 (when The Craft was on big screens).
12southernbooklady
>8 timspalding: he most pious president we've had was, after all, Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist and Democrat.
Speaking of someone who stopped checking the box.
Their actual commitment to core doctrinal truths—e.g., Jesus Christ was the son of God and died to save us from our sins—was probably low before too.
I suppose what I have trouble distinguishing in studies like the one cited is how people distinguish between "the church" -- the sociopolitical institution -- and "the faith" -- the core set of beliefs, as you put it. I guess I've been under the impression that being disaffected from the former is not a reliable indicator of the strength of the latter.
Speaking of someone who stopped checking the box.
Their actual commitment to core doctrinal truths—e.g., Jesus Christ was the son of God and died to save us from our sins—was probably low before too.
I suppose what I have trouble distinguishing in studies like the one cited is how people distinguish between "the church" -- the sociopolitical institution -- and "the faith" -- the core set of beliefs, as you put it. I guess I've been under the impression that being disaffected from the former is not a reliable indicator of the strength of the latter.
13JGL53
The piety and church attendance of those over, say 40 years old, is holding steady. The big loss is in those under 40.
The trend does not look good for the pious among us who believe all should never cease bowing the knee to the Big G and kissing the wrinkled old asses of the local clerical and ecclesiastical authority of their choice.
This of course refers to the developed world, mainly. The undeveloped world less so. But there is always hope for the future. It took a couple of millennia or so to do away with legal and/or socially approved slavery so that now all "decent" people see it as an unmitigated evil to be rejected and publically denounced as such - and that our ancestors were morally wrong in approving of and perpetuating the owning of fellow humans.
It is (organized and "serious") religion's turn now. The wheel turns slowly but grinds exceedingly fine.
It's called progress. Join the parade, step aside or get the fuck ran over. It's like, uh, your free will choice. lol.
The trend does not look good for the pious among us who believe all should never cease bowing the knee to the Big G and kissing the wrinkled old asses of the local clerical and ecclesiastical authority of their choice.
This of course refers to the developed world, mainly. The undeveloped world less so. But there is always hope for the future. It took a couple of millennia or so to do away with legal and/or socially approved slavery so that now all "decent" people see it as an unmitigated evil to be rejected and publically denounced as such - and that our ancestors were morally wrong in approving of and perpetuating the owning of fellow humans.
It is (organized and "serious") religion's turn now. The wheel turns slowly but grinds exceedingly fine.
It's called progress. Join the parade, step aside or get the fuck ran over. It's like, uh, your free will choice. lol.
14hf22
>8 timspalding:
I suspect it's a mix, but it's not merely the US "catching up" with the rest of the world. The role of religion in US society is quite different from that in the rest of the world. The level of religiosity is not comparable to any other developed society, and the history of our cultural engagement is just different from other societies.
Yeah. The amazing thing is religiosity has held up for so long, not that it is now falling.
We'll see. To compare him to the Dalai Lama trivializes things ... "stodgy and corrupt faith infested with pedophiles" to "faith being shaken up by authentically Christ-like leader."
I think the media and general view of him is trivialised, just as the Dalai Lama is. Looking around the facebook memes, he seem clearly to be tagged in the "vaguely spiritual guy who affirms what I think anyway" category, which the Dalai Lama has been in for so long.
The adoption of the term "counter-cultural" by some evangelicals and conservative Catholics needs an essay all it's own.
I was not referring to the nature of the cultural clash, just that the dominant culture is becoming "post-Christian". Christianity is not the assumed cultural default, so there are going to be less Christians.
I suspect it's a mix, but it's not merely the US "catching up" with the rest of the world. The role of religion in US society is quite different from that in the rest of the world. The level of religiosity is not comparable to any other developed society, and the history of our cultural engagement is just different from other societies.
Yeah. The amazing thing is religiosity has held up for so long, not that it is now falling.
We'll see. To compare him to the Dalai Lama trivializes things ... "stodgy and corrupt faith infested with pedophiles" to "faith being shaken up by authentically Christ-like leader."
I think the media and general view of him is trivialised, just as the Dalai Lama is. Looking around the facebook memes, he seem clearly to be tagged in the "vaguely spiritual guy who affirms what I think anyway" category, which the Dalai Lama has been in for so long.
The adoption of the term "counter-cultural" by some evangelicals and conservative Catholics needs an essay all it's own.
I was not referring to the nature of the cultural clash, just that the dominant culture is becoming "post-Christian". Christianity is not the assumed cultural default, so there are going to be less Christians.
15John5918
Is the UK still a Christian country? (BBC)
The answer to that appears to be moving towards "no", but worldwide:
contrary to long-held Western assumptions that religion would disappear as societies developed, secular and religious liberalism itself will become the exception in the world and not the norm...
The Pew report to which they refer is at http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/03/PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsFullReport.pdf
The answer to that appears to be moving towards "no", but worldwide:
contrary to long-held Western assumptions that religion would disappear as societies developed, secular and religious liberalism itself will become the exception in the world and not the norm...
The Pew report to which they refer is at http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/03/PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsFullReport.pdf
16prosfilaes
>15 John5918: Said Pew report says, page 20, "In any case, the projections in this report are not based on theories about economic development leading to secularization." Basically, the demographer disagreed with those assumptions, and then produced a report from his assumptions.
I find the references to China to be bizarre. The curves of religiosity between Mao's Marxist utopia and modern China should be expected to look quite different from any place that didn't have laws against religiosity. If we see a collapse of the current governments, I expect the number of religious Iranians and Saudi Arabians to drop, for example.
I find the references to China to be bizarre. The curves of religiosity between Mao's Marxist utopia and modern China should be expected to look quite different from any place that didn't have laws against religiosity. If we see a collapse of the current governments, I expect the number of religious Iranians and Saudi Arabians to drop, for example.
17John5918
>16 prosfilaes: If we see a collapse of the current governments, I expect the number of religious Iranians and Saudi Arabians to drop, for example.
Which is indeed a "long-held Western assumption". It will be interesting to see whether or not the long-held western assumptions hold up.
Which is indeed a "long-held Western assumption". It will be interesting to see whether or not the long-held western assumptions hold up.
18timspalding
I'm afraid this is a case of the boy who cried wolf. Now that modernity really is grinding away religion in culture after culture, nobody believes it.
19prosfilaes
>17 John5918: You're saying that threatening people with death sentences for apostasy does not decrease the people who claim to be apostates? Surely Iran and Saudi Arabia wouldn't make it a crime unless they thought it reduce the frequency or at least the openness of apostasy, so it's not just a Western assumption.
20John5918
>19 prosfilaes: I'm not making predictions, simply saying that it will be interesting to see what happens.
21prosfilaes
>20 John5918: You are claiming that something the Iranians and Saudis and Chinese apparently believe is a long-held Western assumption.
22Roundpeg
I don't know where these polls get their information from. If a person is a member or attender of a religious organization I can see how that person may be counted. But how the heck does one know how many atheists are in the world. No one has ever polled me or any other atheist I know.
23timspalding
Um, statistical sampling, just like other polls?
