The “Religiously Unaffiliated” is one of the fastest growing demographics in America. And that might be a good thing.
By consensus, one of the top religion stories of 2012 was the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey showing that “nones” — those who claim to have no religious affiliations — is the fastest-growing religious group in the United 
States, rising to 19.6 percent of the population. The report emphasizes that “the absence of religious affiliation does not necessarily indicate the absence of religious beliefs or practices.” In fact, 68 percent of the “nones” say they believe in God and about 22 percent say they go to a church service at least monthly. Nevertheless, the survey produced significant hand-wringing among Evangelicals, who appeared to take some huge hits, namely in the defection of Millennials.
Some see the rise of the “nones” as a good thing. They suggest that the weakening of organized religion will lead to less political entanglements and healthier religious discourse. Others believe this trend signals a dangerous theological erosion and cultural disconnect. I’ve found myself somewhere in the middle, neither applauding or panicking, for one simple reason:
In the long run, the Church is better off having less REAL believers, than having MORE fake ones.
Pardon me if that comes across as being harsh or insensitive. It’s not intended to be. I’m not suggesting that institutional organized religion isn’t culpable for driving seekers away or failing to engage the modern mind. I’m also not advocating we turn our backs on the “nones.” I’m suggesting that…
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. (I Jn. 2:19 NIV)
I realize that this verse, in context, is speaking about apostates, or “antichrists” (vs. 18) as the Apostle of Love calls them. However, the principle applies. Could it be that the “nones” went out from us because they never “belonged to us” in the first place? In fact, the growth of the religiously unaffiliated could be proof that the Church is actually doing her job.
I’ve been through my share of Church Growth seminars and how-to guides. The reasons why a church grows or doesn’t are complex and varied. Consider this:
- Some churches grow because they preach the Gospel.
- Some churches DON’T grow because they preach the Gospel.
If Christ is our model, it could be said that He did a poor job of engaging “affiliates.” Jesus alienated His share of “nones.” Not only did He preach hard sermons designed to turn potential followers away (Jn. 6:66), He stressed the terms of discipleship in such a way as to make “affiliation” more, not less difficult (Lk. 9:23).
So isn’t it possible that the rise of the “nones” reveals, in part, that the Gospel of Christ IS being preached, and some folks just aren’t buying it?
Of course, the growth of the religiously unaffiliated could indicate a serious problem with organized religion. I don’t want to minimize that possibility. It’s way too easy and convenient to blame the problem on someone other than us. Chesterton suggested that some unbelief is warranted. When a false caricature of Christ is preached, it should be rejected. Likewise, the rise of the “nones” could be rejection of a false caricature of Christianity. In that case, more power to the unaffiliated.
But is all religious non-affiliation healthy or indicative of organized religion’s disconnect? I don’t see how it can be.
The essential message of Christianity is exclusive. We proclaim things like:
- Jesus is the only way to God.
- There is one true God, not one hundred and twenty-seven.
- Truth is absolute, not relative.
- We are sinners who need saved, not machines who need reprogrammed.
- We are products of Intelligence, not chance.
- Our souls will live on after death, and what we do now matters.
Problem is, some of the “nones” reject these exclusive claims of Christianity. So is this religion’s fault?
Yes, Jesus wants us to spread the Gospel and make more disciples. But what Gospel are we spreading? What “essentials” are we compromising to make the Gospel more palatable? Are we more interested in numbers or the vitality of faith? And are we sacrificing the “hard sayings of Jesus” at the altar of church growth and “religious affiliation”? If John 6 is any indication, one evidence that the true Gospel is being preached could be a decline in church membership.
Of course, the Pew data may be a harbinger of the Church’s demise. However, it may also indicate that the Christian message IS being preached and people just don’t want to hear it. They want to hear that all religions are paths to God and that Christians are narrow-minded bigots. They want to believe that everyone goes to heaven and the Ten Commandments are outdated. They want to believe, pretty much, whatever they want.
And if that’s the case, maybe it’s better some people stay religiously unaffiliated.
Well said. I do think many want to remake Christianity as an all inclusive religion. That’s just not what Jesus had in mind.
I’m not sure – what is the definition of religiously unaffiliated?
Because if it just means “no denomination”, then I count, and probably will always count. (I rotate between my local Roman Catholic, Faith Evangelical Free, and Assemblies of God churches fairly regularly)
Therefore, it could simply be a reflection of the growing dissatisfaction of my generation with denominationalism and the regular attacking of other denom’s by churches.
Pew defines the “nones” as “Americans who do not identify with any religion.” So if you were given a choice to check the box that most applies to you — Roman Catholic, Faith Evangelical Free, Assemblies of God, etc. — would check one, all, or “none of the above”? I think this demographic definitely represents a “growing dissatisfaction of [the Millennial] generation with denominationalism.” I’m just suggesting here that that may not be the only, much less the primary reason, for the “nones.”
I think it would depend on my mood. Some days I don’t want anything to do with people who call themselves Christians because of some by that name in my life who are jerks. Historical data suggests that I don’t have a *requirement* to call myself a Christian with that exact terminology… **shrug** I get in really nasty moods sometimes when something disturbing happens, which happens to be fairly often.
But I don’t doubt that there are other causes. I’m just one person, and I tend to hang out with people who are much like me so therefore the people I’m around have similar viewpoints and experiences.
Another possible idea is that it’s becoming more acceptable to be honest about what you actually believe: faith is a little less familial and a little more personal. I think that trend is good. If a person is more honest about what they believe or don’t believe, they’re more likely to be open to changing it. Nothing worse than dealing with someone who doesn’t understand what they believe and defends it to the bitter end just because it’s what they grew up with.
I should also note that an article like this gives me a kneejerk reaction – I feel like the reaction of the Church (particularly the Christians I don’t like to be around) to an article like this is to feel all snobby and elitist. Like ‘we’re the only good ones left’ etc etc. Makes me a mite uncomfortable.
Mike, I think what you’re saying is reflected in a number of Scripture passages, not the least that which identifies following Christ as a narrow way, contrasted with the broad way leading to destruction. I don’t think we like these verses, though. It’s uncomfortable and maybe convicting (Would so many people be “fake believers” if I showed them Christ as I should?) to think of all those people marching off toward Hell. It’s perhaps easier to focus on getting bodies back into the pews. I’m convinced that is NOT what the Church needs–more people with a false sense of security or the false notion that attending church will earn them Brownie points with God.
Becky
“They want to hear that all religions are paths to God and that Christians are narrow-minded bigots. They want to believe that everyone goes to heaven and the Ten Commandments are outdated. They want to believe, pretty much, whatever they want.”
Yeah, I think a lot of the “nones” phenom is postmodernism fully catching up with the church. Put that together with native human pride, and kablooie. People ten years younger than me were raised with much less absolutism in their cultural sensibilities than even I myself was. If we like it, then that’s the closest to truth that we need to get.
There’s also genuine cultural irrelevance, and the church-growth mentality which makes human beings feel like production units. I’m a major skeptic about American institutions of religion. But there’s a difference between systems and the people who exist and act within them, and I can’t allow myself to confute the two.
The people, overall, have genuine spiritual commitment and the kind of grace that was completely foreign to my life experience before I became a Christian. And I’ve never found it anywhere else. These are people who are treated like lowly pawns by both the celebrity-church culture and mainstream/post-church skeptics, and yet they do more good for the world and those around them…and I think they’re the invisible glue missing from the whole sheep-counting scenario. Where systems fail, relationships can remain.
Cat, I agree with both your points: Many churches are in danger of complete cultural irrelevance and “postmodernism [is] fully catching up with the church.” Frankly, it’s this last point that hasn’t gotten the treatment it deserves. It seems people are too quick to use findings like this to bash the Church rather than critique culture. But I see it like you: We are reaping the rotten fruit of relativism.
Kerry dropped me a line awhile back about a book called “Christians are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…and Other Lies You’ve Been Told.” He said it’s not too long, and worth looking at for its (re)consideration of data like the Pew stuff.
I’ve noticed a large portion of post-evangelical conversation centers on a specific kind of rejection of biblical truths that can only occur when there’s no acceptance of the concept of the knowable. In fact, even epistemology doesn’t seem to make it acceptable.
That’s a shift in core convictions that really, really needs greater address in the religious dialogue, imo.
I have to mention a grammar technicality to you (so roll your eyes at me–I don’t care!). When I read the title “less Christians” I really thought you meant less Christian, as in “not as Christian in behavior”. I’m pretty sure you meant to say “fewer Christians”, as in “a countable number of Christians”.
Hah, thank you for taking the pedantry bullet for me, because I was just itching to say something about it but didn’t want to seem to be ignoring the main point of the article (which is very good and worth talking about).
That being said, I also stumbled over this:
We are sinners who need saved, not machines who need reprogrammed.
I’m guessing the double “need verbed” construction was an editing typo caused by an attempt to eliminate all instances of “to be” from the article? In which case “saving” and “reprogramming” would fix the problem, but I don’t think leaving in the “to be”s would have hurt anything.
Apologies to Mike — I’m sick in bed and apparently can’t muster any more intelligent thoughts than nitpicking your grammar! 🙂
Oh, you’re right. I realized I should have used the word “fewer” after I posted. If you imagine you’re hillbilly, it reads just fine.
Hillbilly Day for everyone! *scatters moonshine*
*looking for thumbs-up button* 😀
Agree with your premise, Mike.
I don’t really agree. The fewer Christians, the worse, and not just for us: post-christian societies seem to be stuck in a morass of pathology to the point where doing the normal aspects of human life are suffering: educating kids, getting married, having jobs, and having children. There’s also troubling issues of persecution when Christian societies mutate into post-Christian ones. Something fills the void, and it’s often something that resents what it replaced.
As for fewer, but more devout believers, it would only be good if we became more visible and more martial. If we retreat into isolation and self-segregation, it wouldn’t be. Unless we could embrace being an army to change the world, we’d wilt. Mostly the problem is a lack of vitality, and a bit too much worrying about what the world thinks of us. As well as comfort with it.
Well said Mike. So many have watered down the gospel to the whosoever goes to church no matter what they believe.
God bless -Greg