Michael Spencer at CS Monitor writes:
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
Focus on the last sentence (the info in the other quoted sentences here is suspect as well by the way). It is wrong. Dead wrong. To which "West" is he referring? The US? If so, there is no evidence that the US is becoming less religious and thus, "very secular and religiously antagonistic." There is even some evidence to suggest that this is not completely predictive in Europe in many places.
In fact, the only evidence that we have for any evangelical decline is that the young adult population has shrunk somewhat in proportion to other populations compared to previous generations. However, a large part of this is fully accounted for by life cycle effects (people are getting married much later and social mobility is more erratic for two), and a young adult population that has shrunk compared with the baby boomer population that has moved almost fully out of the young adult demographic (roughly ages 21-45 – yes, 45 so feel good about yourself!). Couple this with the overwhelmingly majority opinion that the secularization thesis does not hold in the US and the entire piece is falsely derived.
Second, any notion that the political involvement of the religious right with evangelicals puts evangelicalism under an umbrella that does not exist! Evangelicals are far more diverse with regard even with issues like abortion and homosexuality than the media likes to portray. Again, the correlation might not exist much less any variable to predict an outcome.
Finally, what "tide" of secularism is there? A few books by Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins got you worried? Dont let them. There is again no evidence that their arguments will cause very many people to switch or lose faith. In fact, it is still the case that evangelicalism garners the greatest amount of religious switchers (mostly Catholics interesting enough) due to the nature of the evangelical ministry itself and their ability to be non-denominational and traditionally adaptable.
The evidence for over 20 years has confirmed time and time again that the most accurate predictors of religion are in terms of how the institutions respond to demographic and life-cycle changes in people. Since these are not predicting a "collapse" but rather a continued flourishing of religion in the US and in the Southern Hemisphere of the world, all we really can predict from this piece is that Spencer can stand to do a little more homework before potentially freaking people out with undue and irresponsible haste.
Sure evangelical churches will have to make changes as will every other church. The changes will have to be along the lines of how to adapt with different demographic and social changes in as much as theological "marketing" in order to be competitive with other religious suppliers. Churches need to continue to work together to maximize what they can do. But none of this is new stuff.
The rest is simply not worth your time to read since it is based on a totally false premise. The assertions Spencer raises are absurd, perhaps ideologically derived, and will provoke equally absurd reactions that have absolutely no basis in fact. CS Monitor needs to do better than this when vetting op-ed pieces. "Opinions" should not be license for glaring factual errancy and unnecessary anxiety provocation.
Spencer writes at Internetmonk.com.
HT: Rev""s Rumbles, Jim West.
No related posts.
[...] the depressing angst of people who think religion is going to be obliterated in the US some day, even within the next 20 years. Confidence in organized religion also fell significantly under Bush''s watch, although [...]
[...] I received from four years at a flagship Seminary. What we get are forecasts that make no sense even if they garner emotional appeal. So here are a few ways to look at [...]
Hi, Drew. Caught your blog by way of a link from Ancient Hebrew Poetry. I think you are a bit too hasty in your dismissal of Spencer's opinion piece. I agree with you that that the secularization thesis is erroneous. If all of Spencer's observations are grounded on that thesis, then you'd be right. But I don't think they are. Actually, I think the commonalities between his analysis and your earlier post on the irrelevancy of mainline christianity have importants points of contact with each other.
A better analysis by Michael, perhaps, is his older essay, "Why do they hate us?"
I find your penultimate paragraph fascinating:
I think the assumptions supporting your claims are important to bring out. For example, are we actually talking about the Church if our theoretical or functional understanding of it is that it is a delivery system of spiritual goods and services? If so, what kind of church is this? Is it not a church of spiritual consumers? Is the Jesus who asks us to trust Him (e.g., John 6) shaping and directing such a community? Or is some other "value system" or ideology?
Thanks for the reply.
I am really not all that concerned if the various predictions in the piece are grounded in secularization or not. The issue is on what basis that these propositions are actually legitimate. In terms of sociological data, they are not very well founded in what we know to be the case in American religion and in religious patterns of behavior elsewhere. Maybe on the basis of such evidence you can clarify how my dismissal is too hasty?
Perhaps your last point is where we might have a disconnect. I am not making any theological claims at all here. In terms of the patterns of religious behavior, I think that religion is part of a bigger consumer complex in the US and that is why I think the supply-side theory (via Stark and Finke, et. al.) holds true, at least right now.
Clearly Jesus does not call the church to consume religion. In fact braking the consumer mentality is, I think, the greatest challenge for the church today. But to do this it has to be quite radical. How can we live in a world shackled to consumerism and not be beholden to the rules of that world? I think Shaine Claiborn gives us some material and ways of living to ponder. What I argue in the last sentence you quote is that somehow churches need to work together in common spirit as the Kingdom of God as a movement of resistance and change. But are we the saints equipped to do that? Others have tried and history does not show a whole lot of success.
Hi, Drew. Caught your blog by way of a link from Ancient Hebrew Poetry. I think you are a bit too hasty in your dismissal of Spencer's opinion piece. I agree with you that that the secularization thesis is erroneous. If all of Spencer's observations are grounded on that thesis, then you'd be right. But I don't think they are. Actually, I think the commonalities between his analysis and your earlier post on the irrelevancy of mainline christianity have importants points of contact with each other.
A better analysis by Michael, perhaps, is his older essay, "Why do they hate us?"
I find your penultimate paragraph fascinating:
I think the assumptions supporting your claims are important to bring out. For example, are we actually talking about the Church if our theoretical or functional understanding of it is that it is a delivery system of spiritual goods and services? If so, what kind of church is this? Is it not a church of spiritual consumers? Is the Jesus who asks us to trust Him (e.g., John 6) shaping and directing such a community? Or is some other "value system" or ideology?
Thanks for the reply.
I am really not all that concerned if the various predictions in the piece are grounded in secularization or not. The issue is on what basis that these propositions are actually legitimate. In terms of sociological data, they are not very well founded in what we know to be the case in American religion and in religious patterns of behavior elsewhere. Maybe on the basis of such evidence you can clarify how my dismissal is too hasty?
Perhaps your last point is where we might have a disconnect. I am not making any theological claims at all here. In terms of the patterns of religious behavior, I think that religion is part of a bigger consumer complex in the US and that is why I think the supply-side theory (via Stark and Finke, et. al.) holds true, at least right now.
Clearly Jesus does not call the church to consume religion. In fact braking the consumer mentality is, I think, the greatest challenge for the church today. But to do this it has to be quite radical. How can we live in a world shackled to consumerism and not be beholden to the rules of that world? I think Shaine Claiborn gives us some material and ways of living to ponder. What I argue in the last sentence you quote is that somehow churches need to work together in common spirit as the Kingdom of God as a movement of resistance and change. But are we the saints equipped to do that? Others have tried and history does not show a whole lot of success.