Interesting... Pretty big shift in just seven years:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/PF_15.05.05_RLS2_1_310px.png

America?s Changing Religious Landscape | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/)


the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%.

This breaks it down by generation and shows Millenials are only about 56-57% Christian, as opposed to Baby Boomers (my gen) that runs at 78%:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/PR_15.05.12_RLS-01.png

Very interesting data all the way around. "other faiths" and "unaffiliated" double and more than triple respectively over the age groups.

It will be interesting to see whether those numbers change as Millennials get older. Is this a temporary change as people "find themselves" or more permanent? As they settle down and have children will they identify more with the faiths they were raised with? Dunno.

This is a complicated situation but I think it comes down to a few things. I don't think all of it can be blamed on education or conversions to atheism.

Evangelical protestantism has basically become one and the same with the Republican Party. Most people under 35 don't share the same values as the GOP does and aren't interested in joining a culture war. Most of them have family members or friends who are gay and don't have patience with an institution that seems to have made demonizing gay people their top priority. The evangelical narrative is neither American nor Christian. Jesus didn't come to this earth to take over human governmental institutions to enforce religious piety, nor did he command his followers do so. Most evangelicals would also be shocked to learn that the Founding Fathers weren't the good KJV Baptists they've been led to believe that they were. The no compromise rejection of science also makes that brand of faith a difficult sell in the age of the Internet. Many evangelical churches are trying to make it "cool" with light shows and rock bands but people are seeing right through that.

Mainline Protestant churches on the other hand focus more on social justice issues and less on culture war politics. They give the believer freedom to find harmony between science and the Bible. This is all good, but those denominations are also in decline. Why is that? The only thing I can think of is that contrasted to evangelicals who take a hard, no-compromise stance on doctrinal truths, politics, and the literal interpretation of the Bible, mainline Protestants take a much more relative approach giving the believer freedom on those things. Without any absolutes, church becomes about tradition with little substance. My guess is that many have realized they don't need church to support social justice causes and to do good for people so many don't go. There are many other ways for young people to find community these days other than religious organizations. Young people are also less interested in keeping with past traditions.

Thoughts on this?

One of the few things I think we actually agree on.

^^^

I think you're on target with a lot of those points.

Some mainline Protestant churches have (as I see it) taken a fairly wishy-washy view of the Bible. I was on a dating website for a while, and was very surprised at the number of people who selected "spiritual, but not religious", but I find out later had been raised in Christian households. The people I talked to didn't have a lot of faith in their own beliefs. "Well, you know, people think different things about that..." There's such a thing as being so broadly accommodating of other ideas that you lose your identity.

It will be interesting to see whether those numbers change as Millennials get older. Is this a temporary change as people "find themselves" or more permanent? As they settle down and have children will they identify more with the faiths they were raised with? Dunno.

I would think more the opposite... That most people are born into religious beliefs through their family then become more independent thinking as they age.

I think that's true for every generation.

This is a complicated situation but I think it comes down to a few things. I don't think all of it can be blamed on education or conversions to atheism.

Evangelical protestantism has basically become one and the same with the Republican Party. Most people under 35 don't share the same values as the GOP does and aren't interested in joining a culture war. Most of them have family members or friends who are gay and don't have patience with an institution that seems to have made demonizing gay people their top priority. The evangelical narrative is neither American nor Christian. Jesus didn't come to this earth to take over human governmental institutions to enforce religious piety, nor did he command his followers do so. Most evangelicals would also be shocked to learn that the Founding Fathers weren't the good KJV Baptists they've been led to believe that they were. The no compromise rejection of science also makes that brand of faith a difficult sell in the age of the Internet. Many evangelical churches are trying to make it "cool" with light shows and rock bands but people are seeing right through that.

Mainline Protestant churches on the other hand focus more on social justice issues and less on culture war politics. They give the believer freedom to find harmony between science and the Bible. This is all good, but those denominations are also in decline. Why is that? The only thing I can think of is that contrasted to evangelicals who take a hard, no-compromise stance on doctrinal truths, politics, and the literal interpretation of the Bible, mainline Protestants take a much more relative approach giving the believer freedom on those things. Without any absolutes, church becomes about tradition with little substance. My guess is that many have realized they don't need church to support social justice causes and to do good for people so many don't go. There are many other ways for young people to find community these days other than religious organizations. Young people are also less interested in keeping with past traditions.

Thoughts on this?

The bolded parts are the two big reasons, IMO, of the decline. People, young ones especially, dont want to be a part of a group that demonizes those that are different than them (ie, LGBT folks). They also probably look at religion as just "old fashion." And the second reason I bolded, religions can no longer keep secret the true answers to lifes big questions. The internet has been a powerful force in dispelling so many antiquated religious beliefs.

One other possible reason is that people's time is very valuable these days, and many people simply dont want to spend it going to church throughout the week.

Here is another reason: Younger people tend to live farther away from their parents than previous generations and therefore less likely to hold on to their religious beliefs.

For example, most my friends out here in Cali came from other areas of the country, like me. And like me they were raised with at least some religion in the household.

Yet, almost no one I know attends church. And I know many of them hear about if from their parents, but in the end that obviously doesn't change their behavior.

Here is another reason: Younger people tend to live farther away from their parents than previous generations and therefore less likely to hold on to their religious beliefs.

For example, most my friends out here in Cali came from other areas of the country, like me. And like me they were raised with at least some religion in the household.

Yet, almost no one I know attends church. And I know many of them hear about if from their parents, but in the end that obviously doesn't change their behavior.

This is definitely true in my case, my mom lives in Texas and I moved up here for school. My mom is a go to church Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night type of person. I know if I lived down near her I would probably go some of those days because I mean she's my mom. Up here though I don't go at all, yeah she asks if I go and I tell her I may go this next weekend... It never happens though.

I have read that some younger people who grew up in evangelical churches are leaving them because they are so political.

Some mainline churches struggle to reconcile their older members, who want things to be like they were 50 years ago, with their younger members who want more modern music, etc.

I grew up in a small town mainline church where the preacher knew your parents and grandparents and your friend David's father played Santa Claus at the Christmas Party every year. It was like an extended family. The mega churches with thousands of members have never appealed to me. Nor do churches that preach fire and brimstone or churches that don't welcome absolutely everyone. I would never attend a church where the preacher tried to tell me how to vote.

Both of my daughters attend a 'mainline' church in McKinney, Texas. It's one of those that Jerry Fallwell accused of not being Christian enough. The preacher grew up Baptist and by the time he went to college he had decided that his only option was to be an athiest because he believed in evolution. His future wife persuaded him to try her church and he ended up at Princeton Seminary after he got his BA, Contrary to some churches, this church is growing.

It's my uneducated opinion that people who scream the loudest about what good Christians they are and how religious they are turn more people away from religion than they attract.

Organized religion, like most other aspects of the U.S. culture, seems to be increasingly polarized.

At one end, you have the highly politicized and organized evangelicals who become more galvanized as time passes, claiming persecution. Which in turn, makes them appear even more zealous to those not so prone to extremes.

At the other end, you see people shunning religion altogether due to perceived intolerance. Then, increasingly, the two sides snipe at each other with little common ground.

And this whole dynamic seems to be rapidly gaining momemtum. I suspect the next presidential election will bring all this to a boil, although the GOP may have to back off a bit due to the shrinking percentage of evangelicals which means while their support is important, alone it's not enough to carry a candidate.

I wouldn't discount the increasing of non religious people either. I know quite a few.

Some mainline churches struggle to reconcile their older members, who want things to be like they were 50 years ago, with their younger members who want more modern music, etc.

I am not sure adhering to old traditions are the problem for a lot of mainline churches. In fact, a lot of younger people see through the smoke and mirrors that is the light shows and modern music that a lot of evangelical churches have shifted to attempting to attract them. I went to St. Luke's UMC in Midtown for a while and more younger people there actually went to the liturgical service rather than the contemporary one.



At one end, you have the highly politicized and organized evangelicals who become more galvanized as time passes, claiming persecution. Which in turn, makes them appear even more zealous to those not so prone to extremes.

The ironic thing is, American evangelicals scream persecution whenever they aren't in power. In African countries right now Christians are dying for their faith, but American evangelicals cry persecution whenever a court says they can't use the power of a government office to proselytize. I sometimes wonder what Christians in other countries who really have to endure persecution think of American evangelicals.

I went to St. Luke's UMC in Midtown for a while and more younger people there actually went to the liturgical service rather than the contemporary one.

I really like St. Luke's.

Before I moved away, I went one Sunday with my then girlfriend. We were both in our mid-20's at the time.

I really enjoyed the service and people were very friendly, but almost a little too eager in trying to recruit us.

A couple of days later, a man and wife showed up at my house with a pie. It was very nice but the overwhelming feeling was how desperate they were for new members, especially young ones. It made me sad for them but also totally uncomfortable. All this after one visit?

We may have gone back once but we waited a fair bit of time before doing so.

But I remember really liking the minister and the message.

Are people 'increasingly non-religious' or were they just reluctant to speak their mind in the past?

I expect as millienials get older their numbers increase. We're pretty young and haven't to think long and hard about their own mortality as say someone who is 65 and survived cancer. We're at that im invincible the world at my fingertips stage.

I think science has some huge problems in the origin story that the church has never consistency hit back against. Not the science itself but the the conclusions it draws.

For example if science is correct then here's your life.
You are going to die. Fade to black into nothingness. Whatever you lived for is meaningless because you are dead. 115 years from now there's a good chance an entirely different set of humans will be on this earth. He who dies with the most gold still dies. Your name will run out. It will be forgetton to the pages of history. Sure your kids will remember you, their kids, and maybe even their kids. But, eventually the line runs too long and you are forgotten. There is no deeper meaning to life. We're only here because of a one in a trillion chance everything collided and we just came about. Random. Sure you can say I'm doing im trying to save the planet, but deep down the depths of your heart you know it's basically like standing on a stool and saying I'm tall.
It's a hopeless and depressed existence that people will try to find meaning in (insert whatever you want here) only to find they continue to thirst more and more.

Or

You were beautifully and wonderfully made. However, you are sinful at your core and you need a savior. The Godman Jesus was perfect for you and through him you can have eternal life in heaven. There's hope in that. (That's the Christian perspective, obviously there's other religions. None I could comment on correctly however)

When millienials (and other age groups as they age) are confronted with things like that I think you'll see them gravitate more towards religion over time. Particularity Christianity because of the prevalence it has had in our nation.

Are people 'increasingly non-religious' or were they just reluctant to speak their mind in the past?

I think you can read it as people are increasingly unaffiliated with any sort of organized religion. How that breaks down person by person would probably be a bit hard to nail down. Atheism is increasing, but I would consider them the minority of the "unaffiliated" population. To echo another poster, I know a ton of "spiritual but not religious" types.

I'll say this: When I lived in OKC, I attended a wonderful church. It was young, the message was realistic but positive, and a big one for me, culturally integrated. I never felt judged or looked down upon. Now that I am in Dallas I have really struggled to find a new church with a similar feel. Increasingly, I find myself going less and less. If I were to take this survey, I would probably have marked "unaffiliated" as well.

As a generation, millenials are not as trusting towards established institutions. We question businesses, banks, the government, and increasingly, the police. We are politically unaffiliated. We are spurning home ownership and have some of the lowest marriage rates in history. So the decline in church attendance is just a continuation of this.

More than anything, the church's decision to go all in on divisive political and social issues has been a big repellent for young people. During the height of the gay marriage ban frenzy in the mid 2000's , the evangelical right was racking up big electoral wins, but even then I started noticing a shift in some of my peers attitudes. It was pretty much an exasperated "screw it I'm done" resignation. If this was the case in the Bible Belt, I can only imagine what it was like in other parts of the nation. Now that attitudes have shifted dramatically for LGBT rights, among other things, the church is probably the biggest loser in all of this.

I expect as millienials get older their numbers increase. We're pretty young and haven't to think long and hard about their own mortality as say someone who is 65 and survived cancer. We're at that im invincible the world at my fingertips stage.

I think science has some huge problems in the origin story that the church has never consistency hit back against. Not the science itself but the the conclusions it draws.

For example if science is correct then here's your life.
You are going to die. Fade to black into nothingness. Whatever you lived for is meaningless because you are dead. 115 years from now there's a good chance an entirely different set of humans will be on this earth. He who dies with the most gold still dies. Your name will run out. It will be forgetton to the pages of history. Sure your kids will remember you, their kids, and maybe even their kids. But, eventually the line runs too long and you are forgotten. There is no deeper meaning to life. We're only here because of a one in a trillion chance everything collided and we just came about. Random. Sure you can say I'm doing im trying to save the planet, but deep down the depths of your heart you know it's basically like standing on a stool and saying I'm tall.
It's a hopeless and depressed existence that people will try to find meaning in (insert whatever you want here) only to find they continue to thirst more and more.

Or

You were beautifully and wonderfully made. However, you are sinful at your core and you need a savior. The Godman Jesus was perfect for you and through him you can have eternal life in heaven. There's hope in that. (That's the Christian perspective, obviously there's other religions. None I could comment on correctly however)

When millienials (and other age groups as they age) are confronted with things like that I think you'll see them gravitate more towards religion over time. Particularity Christianity because of the prevalence it has had in our nation.

Just curious, what is the huge problem with the first one?

Organized religion, like most other aspects of the U.S. culture, seems to be increasingly polarized.

At one end, you have the highly politicized and organized evangelicals who become more galvanized as time passes, claiming persecution. Which in turn, makes them appear even more zealous to those not so prone to extremes.

At the other end, you see people shunning religion altogether due to perceived intolerance. Then, increasingly, the two sides snipe at each other with little common ground.

And this whole dynamic seems to be rapidly gaining momemtum. I suspect the next presidential election will bring all this to a boil, although the GOP may have to back off a bit due to the shrinking percentage of evangelicals which means while their support is important, alone it's not enough to carry a candidate.

I think a lot of that intolerance is real and not perceived.

Lots of this thread make the "intolerance" of bible believing Christians very clear.


And per the last decade. The general public and media should look up the actual meaning of tolerance

As you see from the studies bible believing Christians numbers are down less than 2 percent statistically pretty much flat

Some how to some people religion should change over time? I would argue that makes that faith less valid from the start. If the bible is true it is true if is not it is not. That part of it is pretty simple. It makes little sense to take some of it and reject other parts.

I think a lot of that intolerance is real and not perceived.

Yes and no. Some people are shunning religion altogether because of the very real intolerance displayed by the right wing Christian denominations, not considering that many Christians don't share those beliefs.

I was raised Lutheran in Texas in a church my mom's parents helped establish. It's pretty conservative, but depends on the church really. We attend a great church here, with a good mix of young and old (although not very culturally diverse. Not on purpose, just don't think Lutheran is that popular). We never hear any divisive message, nor does our church get political (unless you call a pro-life stance political). I spoke with my mom in depth about the church's stance on LGBT issues recently, and even herself a Sunday/Wednesday/Saturday type of church goer, agreed that it's time the church take a step back and really look at that issue from other sides. Just like I don't like to be judged by smart asses who think I'm some kind of bumbling idiot for being Christian, if it's not your thing then it's not your thing, I'll still be your friend. The polarity of religion in society and how it turns people on both sides into hateful people is really a shame. I certainly don't condone it on my side of the aisle.

Lots of this thread make the "intolerance" of bible believing Christians very clear.


And per the last decade. The general public and media should look up the actual meaning of tolerance

As you see from the studies bible believing Christians numbers are down less than 2 percent statistically pretty much flat

Some how to some people religion should change over time? I would argue that makes that faith less valid from the start. If the bible is true it is true if is not it is not. That part of it is pretty simple. It makes little sense to take some of it and reject other parts.

Religion does change over time. Once upon a time the official position of the church was that the Earth was the center of the universe. They based that on some rather strained interpretations of the Bible.

There's a big problem with the politicization of the church over the last few decades, as well as the church "doubling down" on social and scientific issues. You can energize the faithful by saying that every word of the Bible is literally true. But you drive away people who aren't fundamentalists when you are fighting against evolution despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. Instead of saying "hey it looks like this part here is metaphor", they're building creationist museums in Kentucky.

Would you believe in a religion that said the Earth was the center of the universe, when we've got pictures from space that prove that isn't true? Not unless you were crazy. The churches haven't adapted their interpretations of Genesis to account for new discoveries.

Yes and no. Some people are shunning religion altogether because of the very real intolerance displayed by the right wing Christian denominations, not considering that many Christians don't share those beliefs.

Very good point but it's the right wing that get's all the press and that's what young folk see.

If the bible is true it is true if is not it is not. That part of it is pretty simple. It makes little sense to take some of it and reject other parts.

I think this is what causes problems for a lot of people. They can't take the Bible literally because there are so many contradictions.

I expect as millienials get older their numbers increase. We're pretty young and haven't to think long and hard about their own mortality as say someone who is 65 and survived cancer. We're at that im invincible the world at my fingertips stage.

Could be possible. But the study doesnt show this to be true. It shows that there is currently a decline in older folks too.




I think science has some huge problems in the origin story that the church has never consistency hit back against. Not the science itself but the the conclusions it draws.

For example if science is correct then here's your life.
You are going to die. Fade to black into nothingness. Whatever you lived for is meaningless because you are dead. 115 years from now there's a good chance an entirely different set of humans will be on this earth. He who dies with the most gold still dies. Your name will run out. It will be forgetton to the pages of history. Sure your kids will remember you, their kids, and maybe even their kids. But, eventually the line runs too long and you are forgotten. There is no deeper meaning to life. We're only here because of a one in a trillion chance everything collided and we just came about. Random. Sure you can say I'm doing im trying to save the planet, but deep down the depths of your heart you know it's basically like standing on a stool and saying I'm tall.
It's a hopeless and depressed existence that people will try to find meaning in (insert whatever you want here) only to find they continue to thirst more and more.

Or

You were beautifully and wonderfully made. However, you are sinful at your core and you need a savior. The Godman Jesus was perfect for you and through him you can have eternal life in heaven. There's hope in that. (That's the Christian perspective, obviously there's other religions. None I could comment on correctly however)

When millienials (and other age groups as they age) are confronted with things like that I think you'll see them gravitate more towards religion over time. Particularity Christianity because of the prevalence it has had in our nation.

Science has huge problems? Just because science can admit when it doesnt know something doesnt mean it has huge problems. Its better to say "I dont know" than to make up stories without any evidence. And I guess the church could hit back against science but with what? Does the church point to the first few paragraphs of Genesis and say "heres your answers." I dont think thats good enough for logical, rational people. At least science still looks for the answers and doest just point to a 2000 year old book written by men who at the time thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around us.

And you make the common mistake thinking life is meaningless if there is no god. There is so much good a person can do or experience in their lifetime, which can be very meaningful. You can leave a lasting impression on this planet without a god or heaven, you know. And so what if we happened to come to life in this form on this planet by random chance, MAKE THE MOST OF IT!

I think this is what causes problems for a lot of people. They can't take the Bible literally because there are so many contradictions.

True. The big problem with a literal, all or nothing approach to the Bible is that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny when viewed in the light of modern science. That is not even considering some of the contradictions found in the text. Biblical literalism is actually a relatively recent phenomenon, really taking hold in the 18th century. The Bible is also a collection of many different types of writings penned over thousands of years and many different eras. It never refers to itself as one unit. Saint Augustine, one of the early church fathers, was against Biblical literalism declaring that reason should be applied when interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture. With all of that said, I can definitely understand the appeal of an all-or-nothing, literal approach to the Bible. I was raised with that mindset and to even question it was high heresy. It's nice to have all the answers laid out in a simplistic form without any questions and Biblical literalism provides that as long as you ignore modern science and historical evidence.

For most of my adult life I've given this answer when asked about religion:

I'm not naive enough to believe words written by man and I'm not vain enough to say how the universe was created.

I think this is what causes problems for a lot of people. They can't take the Bible literally because there are so many contradictions.

If you spend a good amount of time sudying the bible. In the proper context. There really are not

I would also add the the auto Connect some you make between politics and the evangelical Christians. Is not very accurate

I would also add the the auto Connect some you make between politics and the evangelical Christians. Is not very accurate

Why then are virtually ALL evangelical politicians in the modern era Republicans and why are they all "culture warriors" like Mike Huckabee, focusing primarily on gay marriage and tearing down the wall of separation of church and state? When you look at the Republican primaries, why is it all about wooing the evangelicals? Why do most evangelical preachers preach on importance of voting on culture war issues or on America's "Christian" founding around every election season? Even in more moderate evangelical churches where it is never preached from the pulpit, there are subtle political references and tremendous pressure to vote Republican. I would say that the perceived marriage between the GOP and evangelical Christianity is very accurate in 2015.

you contention that a voting discussion occurs regularly or ever from the evangical pulpit doesn't match with reality

Why then are virtually ALL evangelical politicians [/B[B]]in the modern era Republicans and why are they all "culture warriors" like Mike Huckabee, focusing primarily on gay marriage and tearing down the wall of separation of church and state? When you look at the Republican primaries, why is it all about wooing the evangelicals? Why do most evangelical preachers preach on importance of voting on culture war issues or on America's "Christian" founding around every election season? Even in more moderate evangelical churches where it is never preached from the pulpit, there are subtle political references and tremendous pressure to vote Republican. I would say that the perceived marriage between the GOP and evangelical Christianity is very accurate in 2015.

Ever heard of President Jimmy Carter ?

Ever heard of President Jimmy Carter ?

I said all evangelical politicians in the modern era. The Jimmy Carter era was very different from today. He was pre-culture war, pre-Jerry Fallwell, pre-Moral Majority, and pre-Ronald Reagan. Carter Democrats are a rare breed in 2015. Prior to the 1980s, evangelicals were NOT the political force on the right that they have been since.

Without addressing anybody's posts specifically, here are some thoughts:

1. I do feel that the number for Millennials will see a noticeable uptick over the next 10 - 15 years. A variety of factors will push people back into the church. Perhaps older age and the appreciation for things that are more timeless/transcendent (and whether or not it actually is, religion tends to at least FEEL that way) coupled with the ability to approach religion in a more mature manner makes it all a lot easier to process/experience at birth-20 and then 40-death. Also the whole effect of children, which Millennials are a lot slower on having than their previous counterparts, is a big aspect. The desire for children to have a specific community and other people teaching makes church a valuable asset. It's also one of the easier places to meet other families.

2. Politically speaking, I do believe there is a very strong libertarian undercurrent in the Evangelical movement that will explode if libertarians ever find a way to become a viable 3rd party. There are a massive amount of people in the EV church (which, btw, is an INCREDIBLY broad term making any characterizations of Evangelicalism necessary to take with a grain of salt) who really don't care about the church being an active political force. They also don't have strong opinions on traditionally conservative/liberal hot button issues like equal rights (for all genders/races/sexualities), abortion, etc. These people may lean toward the right and may toe the company line and appear more conservative because of it, but it wouldn't take very much at all for at least part of the EV church to become a bastion of libertarianism.

3. The theology will come around when the Baby Boomer's no longer have a substantial voice in the church. I've always said Theology = Philosophy = Politics, so when the Baby Boomers, who are probably more "tolerant" than they're given credit for, are the oldest generation, the theology is going to swing relatively quickly toward what is today considered "liberal" theology.

4. The Catholic Church is obviously incredibly well endowed. This uniquely positions them to make big waves in a swift manner. I don't know what those waves might look like, but I think they are sort of a "dark-horse" to become "relevant" again and see a notable increase in membership over the next 25 years.

Religion does change over time. Once upon a time the official position of the church was that the Earth was the center of the universe. They based that on some rather strained interpretations of the Bible.

There's a big problem with the politicization of the church over the last few decades, as well as the church "doubling down" on social and scientific issues. You can energize the faithful by saying that every word of the Bible is literally true. But you drive away people who aren't fundamentalists when you are fighting against evolution despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. Instead of saying "hey it looks like this part here is metaphor", they're building creationist museums in Kentucky.

Would you believe in a religion that said the Earth was the center of the universe, when we've got pictures from space that prove that isn't true? Not unless you were crazy. The churches haven't adapted their interpretations of Genesis to account for new discoveries.

Depends what you mean by "church". The bibles position was never that the earth is the center of the universe. The church in this context (and in the context of bible believing Christians ie evangelicals) is not religion or any authority. The bible is the basis of religion as Gods word

What a fascinating discussion this is! So many good points being made. Very thought-provoking.

My take on the decline in mainline denominations is that they were just a little late to the game when the non-denominational churches swept in and got a big chunk of their membership. At the time, the concept of not having to believe strictly in one particular denomination's philosophy was probably quite appealing to people. Plus, these churches were more "cool" and "open", with bands, light shows, coffee bars, no dress codes, etc. So people jumped ship. In droves. By the time the mainline denominations took notice, the non-denominational churches had exploded. Ever since, the mainlines have been grappling to catch up. Some have survived and thrived (particularly where the services provided have been re-tailored to resemble the non-denominationals), while others are barely hanging on.

I noticed a few years back, when we were experimenting with different churches of different mainline denominations, that the populations of those groups were very aged. Like Pete said earlier, when a young couple came in--especially if they had children--church members were thrilled, perhaps to the point of making the newcomers feel pressured. We experienced a lot of that as we attended different churches during that period of time. There was a sense of desperation for new blood, for sure. Another thing I perceived (and I might be wrong) was that the younger members of these congregations were much more willing to change the way things were done, and were more open-minded than the previous generations. They were respectful of the older members, but you could sense that they understood that if things stayed the same, there wouldn't be anybody left when the elders died out. I really feel for the mainline denominations. They have their work cut out for them.

Even though there has been a move away from organized religion for a while, the numbers show that momentum really started to pick up in the 80's. So, the obvious question is: Why?

I love sociology and impact of communication and technology on society. And what started to change very dramatically starting in the early 80's was first cable TV then of course, the Internet.

Prior to the 80's, in most places in the U.S. you had very little access to cultural trends or topics. I remember my family got cable around 1981 and we were very one of the first areas around Oklahoma to get it. And then the world really started to open up to me.

MTV was probably the first huge cultural shift, especially with young people. It drew them in and also had a very progressive message. Remember the little promos they had about the environment (use a rag, not a paper towel!) and the like? I think it was the first time that people all over the world started to hear a progressive message and that certainly included the music and videos and interviews will all the musicians.

In 1980 I took a trip to Italy, the first time I had been out of the country. It was in the middle of college for me and I remember how everywhere we went, we stood out very strongly. People immediately knew we were Americans by the way we looked and dressed. About 15 years later I went back to many of the same places and several times people came up asking for directions or other info in Italian; assuming I was from there. In that short period, the world had become much more homogeneous and it was all due to worldwide cable TV and shows like MTV.

The 80's was also the first time that religious scandals started to surface. Why? Because there were shows like Donahue (he was absolutely the first person on national TV to talk about previously taboo subjects) where people came to share their experiences; things that had previously not been seen as fit for popular consumption. Then the floodgates opened with the Catholic church abuse and then a bunch of televangelist scandals and that completely changed the way younger people in particular looked at organized religion.

Now, the information and communication channels are wide open with access by almost everyone. So much easier for people to learn, question, challenge, etc.

Not only has the information that is available changed dramatically, but it's created a much more cynical and analytic view by many, especially the young.


BTW, as a side note I'm very sure my father was sexually abused in the Catholic church. He passed away in 1982 before all that stuff came out but once it did, I had no doubt what had happened to him back in the 30's and 40's. Can you imagine living with something like that your whole life and not knowing it happened to thousands of others? Makes me incredibly sad to think about.

As a generation, millenials are not as trusting towards established institutions. We question businesses, banks, the government, and increasingly, the police.

As a member of the BB generation I can state from experience my generation has had those feelings and attitudes since the mid '60's.

While a significant amount of the 'unaffiliated' segment are likely believers who pull the "it's not a religion, it's a relationship" BS, the uptick in unbelievers and 'others' stands out as more significant. Lots of millennials are poking their head out of their parents' church for long enough to see that it was built on an absurd foundation, and moving on to other spiritual outlets, or to no outlet at all. The increased acceptability of not believing has allowed a great deal of people to stop pretending.

Lots of this thread make the "intolerance" of bible believing Christians very clear.


And per the last decade. The general public and media should look up the actual meaning of tolerance

As you see from the studies bible believing Christians numbers are down less than 2 percent statistically pretty much flat

Some how to some people religion should change over time? I would argue that makes that faith less valid from the start. If the bible is true it is true if is not it is not. That part of it is pretty simple. It makes little sense to take some of it and reject other parts.

Would you not agree that over time there have been many, many different denominations under the Christian umbrella? That would indicate to me that many Christians take some of it and reject other parts or at the least interrupt things differently. Heck there is not even one version of the bible that is acceptable to all who claim to be under that Christian umbrella.

Depends what you mean by "church". The bibles position was never that the earth is the center of the universe. The church in this context (and in the context of bible believing Christians ie evangelicals) is not religion or any authority. The bible is the basis of religion as Gods word

I'm not really sure what you are arguing here.

You can say that the church isn't religion or authority, but churches are clearly influencing people's perception of Christianity. A lot of churches are fighting against evolution, reading a very literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis. When you have fairly large denominations who have taken the official position that the Earth is less than 6000 years old, then that basically is their religion. The Bible is subject to a great deal of interpretation -- as evidence I give you the dozens, if not hundreds, of different sects and denominations that are out there right now. So it's not really the Bible that is the basis for Christianity, it's someone's interpretation of the Bible. Pretending that there is only one specific way to interpret it is, well, it's just pretending.

I think a lot of churches are following what I would call "Sunday School Imagery". When I was a kid, I went to Sunday School, and I remember being shown badly animated stories of the Bible.

http://www.ninjaculture.com/img/articles/084-03.jpg

I remember one particular cartoon that showed the creation of Adam and Eve where the wind blows a pile of dirt into the shape of a man, then it glows brightly, and when the light fades, there's a dude sitting there. These types of shows were perfectly fine to show children to give them some understanding of Bible stories. My issue is that I don't think many churches have bothered to develop any sort of visualization or understanding of the Bible more complex than that. In their minds, Moses looks like Charlton Heston, and Exodus happened exactly the way they saw it in The Ten Commandments. Jesus is a white guy who looks like he did in The Last Supper painting. God is visualized as a guy in a big fluffly cloud palace who looks suspiciously like Zeus (because the Renaissance artists who painted that stuff took a lot of imagery from Greek and Roman sculptures). I don't think this does the church any favors in 2015 when you are trying to sell grown adults on a relatively simple visualization for a very complex theological issue.

Even if you disagree that that is what the churches believe, it is inarguably the way they have allowed themselves to be portrayed.

When it comes to Christianity, are the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist interchangeable?

When I think of the term Evangelical, I'm reminded of the people I met in college who were in Campus Crusade for Christ. The only word I could think of to use for them at the time was 'pushy'. It was the first time in my life that I had to be intentionally rude to get someone to back off. Nothing else seemed to work.

When I think of 'Fundamentalist', I think of my sister-in-law, who swore you couldn't believe what was on PBS because she knew the world was only 6,000 years old. Or of her husband who thought it was a good idea to tell his father that none of his Cherokee Ancestors went to heaven unless they had been 'saved' properly.

No they are not. President Carter is an evangelical but not a fundamentalist. Some have said a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is always mad.

I would also add the the auto Connect some you make between politics and the evangelical Christians. Is not very accurate

Have you ever read "Crazy for God" by Frank Schaeffer? He describes the beginnings of the marriage between the Evangelicals and the Republican party quite well.

Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back: Frank Schaeffer: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/B003P2VBWG)

When it comes to Christianity, are the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist interchangeable?

When I think of the term Evangelical, I'm reminded of the people I met in college who were in Campus Crusade for Christ. The only word I could think of to use for them at the time was 'pushy'. It was the first time in my life that I had to be intentionally rude to get someone to back off. Nothing else seemed to work.

When I think of 'Fundamentalist', I think of my sister-in-law, who swore you couldn't believe what was on PBS because she knew the world was only 6,000 years old. Or of her husband who thought it was a good idea to tell his father that none of his Cherokee Ancestors went to heaven unless they had been 'saved' properly.

This is a good question.

Both evangelicals and fundamentalists approach the Bible in the same way so they both fall in pretty much the same place on the broader religious spectrum. Both base their assurance of faith on having a "born again" experience and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They differ mostly on how much interaction with the secular world is permissible. Fundamentalists require a strict doctrine of separation. Evangelicals are more likely to attempt to engage culture rather than separate from it. In OKC, Lifechurch is evangelical while Olivet Baptist is fundamentalist.

Not sure if this was posted earlier as I didn't read all comments, but many other highly developed countries have seen this trend a decade or so ago. The U.S. if I remember right is one of the few 1st world countries that still had a high religious population.

The other thing I dislike when people associate someone that says they aren't religious to someone that is automatically an atheist. I find this more often than not to be false, as most are agnostic.

This is a good question.

Both evangelicals and fundamentalists approach the Bible in the same way so they both fall in pretty much the same place on the broader religious spectrum. Both base their assurance of faith on having a "born again" experience and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They differ mostly on how much interaction with the secular world is permissible. Fundamentalists require a strict doctrine of separation. Evangelicals are more likely to attempt to engage culture rather than separate from it. In OKC, Lifechurch is evangelical while Olivet Baptist is fundamentalist.

As a basic definition of a very nuanced thing this is not a bad definition.

The SBC the larger Protestant (because clearly catholic/Protestant is reasonable). Is absolutely and evangelical denominaton. And most would say has fundamentalist beliefs. However the SBC doesn't teach or prescribe to "young " earth theology. Or several other things that pure new definition fundamentalist are thought to believe

Not sure if this was posted earlier as I didn't read all comments, but many other highly developed countries have seen this trend a decade or so ago. The U.S. if I remember right is one of the few 1st world countries that still had a high religious population.

The other thing I dislike when people associate someone that says they aren't religious to someone that is automatically an atheist. I find this more often than not to be false, as most are agnostic.

Very well said. When you get right down to it, until that moment when we take our final breath, nobody knows. In fact, everyone, at one time or another, is agnostic. There's always a sliver of doubt whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Whatever.

Very well said. When you get right down to it, until that moment when we take our final breath, nobody knows. In fact, everyone, at one time or another, is agnostic. There's always a sliver of doubt whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Whatever.

Actually, everyone, Christians included, are atheists up to a point. They are an atheist to all gods but their own. The only difference between a Christian and atheist is an atheist believes in one less god.

Actually, everyone, Christians included, are atheists up to a point. They are an atheist to all gods but their own. The only difference between a Christian and atheist is an atheist believes in one less god.

I see this quote fairly frequently. Honestly it seems like a snarky, condescending response to legitimate discussion.

I see this quote fairly frequently. Honestly it seems like a snarky, condescending response to legitimate discussion.

I call it the smartass approach, but then again, I'm old fashioned.

It's an abuse of the definition of the word atheist to actually ask the question "Why do you believe in Jehovah but not Krishna". It's technically not a bad question, but it's kind of a jackass way of asking it and you can be sure that whoever said it like that isn't actually interested in the answer.

^^^ It's not a legitimate question/idea for an informed person because an informed person understands the terminologies necessary to tackle the question. But then again, a wide range of atheists are pseudo-thinkers (as are a wide range of Christians). Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. are hardly great philosophers…they're populist thinkers the same way that Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc. are…neither do the world any favors by advancing dialogue…they simply retrench their followers along battle lines to win an argument rather than genuinely advance the historical conversation of theology and philosophy.

As for the Evangelical/Fundamentalist question. Fundamentalists are pretty self explanatory. There is a margin somewhere between EV and Fundi that one journalist I know calls "fundangelical" and that margin has increased quite a bit in the last decade.

Evangelicals do, contrary to belief, have plenty of wiggle room to believe a variety of theologies. Campus Crusade for Christ is probably the quintessential Evangelical organization and they are pretty ecumenical. There are plenty of mainline denomination churches that are essentially evangelical even they belong to a body that is less so. United Methodists are a great example because they have a fairly loose take on scripture that allows individuals (and individual congregations) to arrive at their own stance. That allows some churches/members to fit in fairly easily with EVs, and others to be quite liberal and falling a bit further from that tree.

The important thing for Evangelicals is that there is a major element of sharing your faith with those to whom the individual feels called by God to witness. But whether or not one is Calvinist/Arminian, believes in Infant Baptism or not or Immersion/Sprinkling, Tongues/no Tongues, etc. doesn't really matter as far as Evangelicals are concerned. The basic belief though is that the Bible is the Inerrant word of God (though not ALWAYS to be taken literally…and this is why there is less force against things like gay marriage, women preachers, etc. in the EV church than the Fundamentalist church) and that one must have some sort of relationship with Jesus Christ (the definition of which is very volatile even for believers of a similar mindset) and that that is bore out in a lifestyle where some form of sharing that relationship with other believers and non-believers alike is an important belief held by the believer.

^^^ It's not a legitimate question/idea for an informed person because an informed person understands the terminologies necessary to tackle the question. But then again, a wide range of atheists are pseudo-thinkers (as are a wide range of Christians). Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. are hardly great philosophers…they're populist thinkers the same way that Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc. are…neither do the world any favors by advancing dialogue…they simply retrench their followers along battle lines to win an argument rather than genuinely advance the historical conversation of theology and philosophy.

As for the Evangelical/Fundamentalist question. Fundamentalists are pretty self explanatory. There is a margin somewhere between EV and Fundi that one journalist I know calls "fundangelical" and that margin has increased quite a bit in the last decade.

Evangelicals do, contrary to belief, have plenty of wiggle room to believe a variety of theologies. Campus Crusade for Christ is probably the quintessential Evangelical organization and they are pretty ecumenical. There are plenty of mainline denomination churches that are essentially evangelical even they belong to a body that is less so. United Methodists are a great example because they have a fairly loose take on scripture that allows individuals (and individual congregations) to arrive at their own stance. That allows some churches/members to fit in fairly easily with EVs, and others to be quite liberal and falling a bit further from that tree.

The important thing for Evangelicals is that there is a major element of sharing your faith with those to whom the individual feels called by God to witness. But whether or not one is Calvinist/Arminian, believes in Infant Baptism or not or Immersion/Sprinkling, Tongues/no Tongues, etc. doesn't really matter as far as Evangelicals are concerned. The basic belief though is that the Bible is the Inerrant word of God (though not ALWAYS to be taken literally…and this is why there is less force against things like gay marriage, women preachers, etc. in the EV church than the Fundamentalist church) and that one must have some sort of relationship with Jesus Christ (the definition of which is very volatile even for believers of a similar mindset) and that that is bore out in a lifestyle where some form of sharing that relationship with other believers and non-believers alike is an important belief held by the believer.

All great points. I especially like that you pointed out "fundangelical." I would say this is where denominations like the Southern Baptists and Pentecostals fall. I was raised in an extremely right-wing, Independent Fundamental Baptist church but attended a Southern Baptist church for a while after getting out on my own. The biggest difference is the IFB forbids partaking in any part of secular culture with the exception of 1950s TV shows and music (I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith, etc), does not allow any Bible versions other than the KJV, and does not allow modern worship music in their services. IFBs also heavily encourage homeschooling or IFB Christian school. Mainstream Southern Baptists give the adherent a little more freedom on those things and usually have modern-style worship services. However, they still align closely with the fundamentalists on certain things such as a literal interpretation of the Bible and most of them encourage their members to actively support right-wing political candidates. Both have a fascination with the end times. There is a more liberal wing of the Southern Baptists known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship that aligns more with the Methodist line of thought and is purely evangelical, not fundamentalist.

I grew up IFB and even went to an unaccredited IFB Bible College here in Oklahoma City. I can attest to the IFB forbidding anything out in the secular world, I remember my youth pastor telling me that I shouldn't go to the movie theater, or play certain video games. It was kind of frustrating and my parents actually got tired of it. My youth pastor wasn't my father and they didn't like that he was trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't do. That is why I won't put my son through the IFB or really any church to be honest. I have such a strong distaste for how the IFB does things now. I mean the Bible College I went to was like stepping into a whole other world, girls only in skirts guys in jeans with their T-shirts tucked in. Yeah how is that going to help them out in the real world? Sorry, getting off on a tangent, just trying to say people think Southern Baptist and IFB are the same thing, they are definitely not, Southern Baptists are super liberal compared to IFB.

Windsor Hills Baptist? They are the ones that put their students on the street corners holding the bible and preaching fire and brimstone. It is very much a part of the Independent Fundamental Baptist church scene. Jim Vineyard was the pastor for years, his son has the church now. It makes Olivet Baptist look like some liberal outpost. Seriously. Also, there have been many allegations at that church and school concerning sexual molestation. In fact, it's been a big issue in those circles.

Windsor Hills Baptist? They are the ones that put their students on the street corners holding the bible and preaching fire and brimstone. It is very much a part of the Independent Fundamental Baptist church scene. Jim Vineyard was the pastor for years, his son has the church now. It makes Olivet Baptist look like some liberal outpost. Seriously.

Southwest Baptist, where I went as a teenager, does this also. You can find them in Bricktown with a bullhorn on any given Friday night passing out "chick tracts."