I just finished perhaps the most powerful examination of secularization published to date. Not only does it account for secularization as it occurs in different contexts thus ruling out the old theory that "if it happened this way with Europe, it will happen that way everywhere some day", it also challenges Rodney Stark's theory that a more pluralistic society that allows for fair competition among different religious "firms" produces a more religious culture.
Rather, the theory that Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart advance in Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide is very simple. As cultures become more affluent and create systems that produce more existentially secure citizens, people within those cultures will rely less and less on religion to address their existential concerns. For instance, Pippa and Norris offer compelling evidence that this is why countries in the Southern hemisphere are more religious than those in the north; they are generally poorer, have more unstable governments that often oppress rather than support their citizens, have less health care, more contaminated sources of water, more diseases to confront, etc. Moreover, these countries are also reproducing their populations at a much higher rate than societies in the Northern hemisphere. Affluence is tied to lower birthrates. So even while they argue the North is becoming more secular, the South which is more religious continues to produce more of the worlds population and so, the world overall is becoming more and more religious.
The question is why the United States is so much more religious than other nations in the North, or the West as it were. If the US is such a wealthy nation, it seems to offer enough counter-factual evidence that this theory should have a large hole in it. This is where the sobering argument about the social equality and distribution of health and wealth of the US comes into play. The US has a lower life expectancy and a higher infant mortality rate than many other wealthy post-industrial nations like the UK, Japan, or Sweden among others.
There is also ample evidence that since the US is not a welfare state in which such needs as health are not automatically provided from womb to the grave and with a privatized economy that the social divide between the wealthy and the poor is wider creating pockets in the society that do indeed mirror issues that even third world countries face. This creates pockets of the population in urban, rural, and other areas where the overall rate of religiosity balances secularization in more existentially secure areas like the metropolitan suburbs.
(T)he United States is exceptionally high in religiosity in large part, we believe, because it is also one of the most unequal postindustrial societies under comparison. Relatively high levels of economic insecurity are experienced by many sectors of U.S. society, despite American affluence, due to the cultural emphasis on the values of personal responsibility, individual achievement, and mistrust of big government, limiting the role of public services and the welfare state for basic matters such as healthcare covering all the working population (Norris & Inglehart, 2005, pp. 107-108).
This places the mainline churches which persist as the heirs of the wealth created by their forebears at the end of the 19th century to deal with a crisis that this wealth creation has ironically reinforced. The Tower of Babel is, as much as anything else, a tale about a people who believed themselves to be so powerful that they no longer needed God. As we become more affluent in our own mainline denominations, it may be that we are deluded into thinking we no longer need God quite as much. However, this is not what Jesus asks of us. What Jesus asks of us is to serve the least of these and love our neighbor.
If the reality is that the mainline people do not feel the need for God to meet their existential needs quite as much as when each day was a trial for survival, then we are in a position to put the Body of Christ into action to serve those who continue to struggle. Not to commit ourselves to the plight of the poor and those who bear the basic existential burden of survival daily, is nothing short of erecting tall steeples of our own pride and sense of material accomplishment, only to push God out of the very churches in which we gather to worship ourselves.
Related posts:
Drew,
I'm a newcomer to your blog, but also a fellow Presbyterian. I find the arguments being made in the study as you describe them to be intriguing. I'm curious, how do they define "religiosity"? Because I wonder if the worldview and life priorities of people in wealthy, economically secure countries who have discarded the religion of the existentially insecure, in fact constitutes its own brand of religiosity?
One other point, being an African American in the PCUSA, I'm grappling with your last paragraph. I agree that our gains should be used to further the security of those on the margins, but I also want to guard against paternalism which leads toward "worshipping ourselves". That seems like another route to Babel and perhaps another dead end. I've worked with quite a few mainliners who in working for God's Peace and Justice seldom search within for their own vulnerabilities, and are less likely to see vulnerabilities as an asset. The truth is using Christ-like means to help those who struggle may reintroduce some existential and economic insecurity for those of us who are secure. And that's OK. I'm constantly amazed how marginalized people, even in their insecurity, continue to share and serve others with enthusiasm. As we embark in our own unique secularism, theirs may be a pattern to follow.
Thanks,
Thanks for the reply!
Religiosity as the authors look at it is an index of not only attendance, but religious practices such as prayer and so forth. They did it this way to account for eastern religious practices which are far less institutionally bound than Christianity (in its various incarnations) or Judaism are. Often the problem is how we measure these things since obviously a person of one theological perspective will differ strongly from another on the nature of religion. However, there are certain behaviors that are quite predictive of theological orientations and it is the behaviors that the authors isolate, not the theology.
My only point with the second paragraph is that if we live in a world with these economic disparities, and if the mainline churches are the most affluent, then it seem to be only a reasonable not to cling to our amassed resources, but to distribute them to those who most need it. With a clear focus on our obligation to love our neighbor and God, it likely would make it more difficult to be paternalistic and to worship ourselves since we are no longer focused on ourselves.
I think that the continued discussions regarding denominational decline and what to do about it are the reverse of the mission to which God has entrusted the church to accomplish for the sake of the risen Christ.
Hey Drew,
Thanks for the clarification on religiosity. It makes me eager to add the study to my reading list.
I take your point on the transfer of our amassed resources to the needy. I'm alittle cautious though. I've found its not axiomatic that our paternalism will be left behind even in the pursuit of a worthy mission. There are always snares, and as they say, 'the devil's in the details.' Sometimes If we don't disenthrall ourselves of the negative means by which we have accumulated wealth, we risk making the same errors as we give our wealth away. I think the question of our ethic as mainliners for remedying societal disparities is worthy of discussion.
Peace!
Drew,
I'm a newcomer to your blog, but also a fellow Presbyterian. I find the arguments being made in the study as you describe them to be intriguing. I'm curious, how do they define "religiosity"? Because I wonder if the worldview and life priorities of people in wealthy, economically secure countries who have discarded the religion of the existentially insecure, in fact constitutes its own brand of religiosity?
One other point, being an African American in the PCUSA, I'm grappling with your last paragraph. I agree that our gains should be used to further the security of those on the margins, but I also want to guard against paternalism which leads toward "worshipping ourselves". That seems like another route to Babel and perhaps another dead end. I've worked with quite a few mainliners who in working for God's Peace and Justice seldom search within for their own vulnerabilities, and are less likely to see vulnerabilities as an asset. The truth is using Christ-like means to help those who struggle may reintroduce some existential and economic insecurity for those of us who are secure. And that's OK. I'm constantly amazed how marginalized people, even in their insecurity, continue to share and serve others with enthusiasm. As we embark in our own unique secularism, theirs may be a pattern to follow.
Thanks,
Thanks for the reply!
Religiosity as the authors look at it is an index of not only attendance, but religious practices such as prayer and so forth. They did it this way to account for eastern religious practices which are far less institutionally bound than Christianity (in its various incarnations) or Judaism are. Often the problem is how we measure these things since obviously a person of one theological perspective will differ strongly from another on the nature of religion. However, there are certain behaviors that are quite predictive of theological orientations and it is the behaviors that the authors isolate, not the theology.
My only point with the second paragraph is that if we live in a world with these economic disparities, and if the mainline churches are the most affluent, then it seem to be only a reasonable not to cling to our amassed resources, but to distribute them to those who most need it. With a clear focus on our obligation to love our neighbor and God, it likely would make it more difficult to be paternalistic and to worship ourselves since we are no longer focused on ourselves.
I think that the continued discussions regarding denominational decline and what to do about it are the reverse of the mission to which God has entrusted the church to accomplish for the sake of the risen Christ.
Hey Drew,
Thanks for the clarification on religiosity. It makes me eager to add the study to my reading list.
I take your point on the transfer of our amassed resources to the needy. I'm alittle cautious though. I've found its not axiomatic that our paternalism will be left behind even in the pursuit of a worthy mission. There are always snares, and as they say, 'the devil's in the details.' Sometimes If we don't disenthrall ourselves of the negative means by which we have accumulated wealth, we risk making the same errors as we give our wealth away. I think the question of our ethic as mainliners for remedying societal disparities is worthy of discussion.
Peace!
[...] Stackhouse lays out what I think is the central problem and source of idolatry in the world. An economic system is not, in and of itself, the purpose of [...]
[...] tithe, but so that they can pay their taxes. No data reveals this observation. The closest is from Norris & Inglehart's analysis of secularization that shows a relationship between social welfare and intensity of religious belief. The more poor [...]