Faith in Flux?

A recent CCN article by Richard Greene argues that rather than Americans losing their faith - which has been inferred by several leading studies - they are simply switching between various faiths and denominations over the course of their lifetime.

The article uses Ingrid Case, an Episcopalian turned Quaker, as a case study to highlight the rather startling fact that over half of American adults have changed religion at least once in their lives. Gregory Smith, a researcher at the Pew Forum puts this down to the religious "free market" that exists in America, by which various denominations can cater - both theologically and otherwise - towards their niche target audience. The study indicates that more than 4 in 10 American adults are no longer members of the religion that they were brought up in as children.

But what is most interesting about the study is that it argues that "some factors that might be expected to drive people away from religion -- such as sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, or a belief that science 'disproves' religion -- actually play a very small role". The study seems to show that the moving between denominations and faiths is a more gradual change, rather than "carefully considered, conscious decision-making".

First of all, I find it astounding that a person's decision to change their faith is not based on careful consideration and conscious decision making. I realize that for many religious believers their faith is based on personal experience and emotion rather than simply the raw intellectual arguments for the truth claims of a specific religion, but surely there must be intellectual backing for those considering changing their faith?

Secondly, while the number of people who were raised Catholic and then became Protestant is 5%, the number of people raised protestant who have switched to a different protestant denomination is a staggering 15%.

There seem to be 2 options for this. First, evangelical Christians are realizing that science does indeed disprove the literal biblical story of 6 day creation and a young earth model, and are therefore moving towards mainline protestantism. Second, many mainline protestants are becoming unhappy with the more liberal tendencies of their church and are moving towards the more traditional, conservative branches of evangelical protestantism.

Certainly the data from the Trinity College survey would indicate that the second is the most likely. Perhaps this does indeed prove that "not all of this is the product of carefully considered, conscious decision-making" after all.

Evangelicalism: bend or break?

This week in the Christian Science Monitor, Michael Spencer used apocalyptic rhetoric to herald the end-times for Western Evangelicalism. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html] Speaking from the inside, he takes an interesting angle on the decline of Evangelical participation and influence he predicts will characterize the immediate future. Rather than the forces of Satan buffeting the righteous cause, Spencer says, the Evangelicals themselves will be hoisted by their own petard, paying for the alliances and strategies they made in the past thirty years. Foremost among the "traps" that Evangelicalism fell into is their association "with the culture war and with political conservatism," a rising tide in the Reagan era but now susceptible to charges of intolerance and superannuation. Spencer writes that in as soon as the next ten years, "Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society."

Spencer's bold claims and grim prophecies do not necessarily follow from his evaluations; he would be safer arguing not the end of Evangelicalism, but the end of "Evangelicalism as we know it." It was Evangelicalism's protean nature that allowed it to latch onto the moral values train in the seventies, and the defining beliefs which characterize Evangelicalism (high view of Scripture, emphases on personal conversion and evangelism) could also be at the center of an identity that finds a better home in a progressive public sphere. If Evangelicalism can exist before the Religious Right, it can exist after the Religious Right. Rather than dooming Evangelicalism to a future of irrelevance, Spencer ought to foresee an Evangelicalism separated from the culture war ideology. Though religiously characterized by dogmatism, the political face of Evangelicalism of the past century has transitioned from cause to cause in an effort to stay vocal, contentious, and vital. Spencer's identification of the crisis facing Evangelicalism is fascinating and could be dead-on, but he fails to see that Evangelicalism is like a river that may bend and flow in different directions, but will not dry up.

For evangelicals, bad times are good?

Some "folk wisdom" of evangelical protestantism has it that "bad times are good for evangelical churches,"according to the New York Times.

According to one study, evangelical churches in recession years have grown nearly 50% faster than during more stable economic times. Church attendance among unemployed evangelical congregation members is also higher than that of their employed neighbors by about 10%, according to the same survey. The same is not true of mainline Protestant churches, which have seen steady decline regardless of economic conditions, and have roughly 10% higher attendance among employed church members.

This is certainly an interesting finding, and the article offers a few possibilities for explanation of the phenomenon. One natural assumption is that people in tough times are seeking community and guidance, and this is certainly true: according to one pastor, prayers for job security are among the most common. Others mark it down to simple convenience, claiming that people who are not working have more time to spend doing church-based activities. Some also come to evangelical churches hoping for a more "personal" experience, saying that the traditional outlook of other mainline churches didn't address their growing economic concerns.

Some churches are hoping to capitalize on this by promoting a new "Great Awakening" among the growing evangelical numbers, but I wonder if something more productive can be done. The article says that a few churches are beginning to offer financial management classes, which is a step in the right direction, but surely some of these churches, even with their diminishing collections, are still sitting on pretty hefty budgets. Perhaps community outreach and aid programs could be launched to assist those recently laid-off, or perhaps budgets could be trimmed here and there of unnecessary expenses and rather spent on alms or assistance for the unemployed? Or, perhaps churches could attempt to run some public works projects of their own and directly create jobs (though perhaps this may be a bit far-fetched)?

In any case, churches should indeed capitalize on this trend -- to help their communities, not themselves.

Welcome!

Welcome to our blog, and to what three collaborating professors hope will be a stimulating expansion of our campuses this fall.

There is no question that questions of faith, religion, and morality are deeply intertwined with questions of our collective identity and direction in the United States of America. Although some voices have limited the "moral issues" of American politics to questions of abortion and same-sex marriage, that area is rapidly expanding to include such areas as war, immigration, health care, affordable housing, care for creation, fighting racism, sexism, and poverty. The major parties are battling over the Catholic vote, the Evangelical vote, and likely other faith-based demographics as well.

This semester, in the midst of our study of religion or theology and politics, we will have a chance to explore together the intersection of faith and politics in this election. Some of us likely already know for whom we will vote. Others perhaps are unsure or are even contemplating not voting. Regardless, we hope that this blog will give us all an opportunity to come into contact with people and with points of view that we would not necessarily contact on our own campus.