A new poll published in USA Today yesterday reveals the 72% of “millennials” consider themselves more “spiritual than religious”. The article is worth reading, sort of – haven’t we been hearing about this for decades? A couple of takeaways include:
“The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith.”
“The 2007 LifeWay study found seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30, both evangelical and mainline, who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23. And 34% of those had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30.”
For a considerably more interesting/insightful take, I suggest JDK’s “Religious Not Spiritual” post from this past November. And then there’s this (re-run):
COMMENTS
23 responses to “Spiritual, Not Religious (and Vice Versa)”
Leave a Reply
"Bad Vicar" is just so very wonderful. I could watch the violent deconstruction of nice liberal Christians (who are "just here to talk about stuff") six days a week. It just gets better and better and then the last 10 seconds have me paralyzed with laughter.
Amen Stamp.
Shameless plug: from my Vlog just the other week, "Spiriligioisity."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP0j3UXX7s4
i'll second the plug for RevFisk's vlog entry. bravo!
This is very funny, and you guys are, as always, admirably breezy and non-judgmental. But I would love to hear your take on the implications of this poll. What will happen to "the church"? Do you see this falling away as a good thing (i.e. a chance to start over "from scratch") or does it worry you? But can be done? What SHOULD be done? Sometimes I get a little frustrated here at Mockingbird. I think that in your attempt to be open-minded and loving (and maybe even "hip"), you fail to dig into conversations that I'm dying to hear you dig into! I assume these things get talked about at "the office," at conferences, etc. But some of us out here in cyberspace are longing for civil – but MEATY – discussion with people who think as deeply as you do. Throw us a bone, would ya?
Margaret, it is always great to have your contributions here–you are such a welcomed voice!
This entire subject is distressing, to say the least, but I think that we are doing what we think can and should be done regarding the falling away of people from the church: preaching the message of the God who justifies the ungodly.
The difficulty with digging into many of these issues is that it quickly enters the realm of "what should we do," which, while important, is a different question than we're focusing on here. In many ways, I think we could be seen as focusing not on "WWJD" what would Jesus do, but "WDJD" "Why did Jesus do (what he did)"
In regards to this idea "spiritual but not religious," the increase in "spirituality" differs from legalistic religious expressions only in kind, not in substance, because at the root of both lies a desire to connect, control and make sense of life and the world around.
I guess this is why the specifics of many social, religious and political topics are not as interesting, for me at least, as trying to see what the underlying motive is and where the energy is coming from.
Of course, all of this seeming flippancy comes from a deep monergistic trust that it is "God who works in you(them), both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:13).
But, I do suggest checking out the post I wrote on the ancient roots of the current "spiritual but not religious," craze:)
Maybe someone else can give a more substantial answer!
Many blessings,
Jady
Margaret E, I have been around the basic "approach" taken by Mockingbird for about 15 years now. So, I am very familiar with the vocabulary, categories, issues, etc. The frustrations you have raised are often raised by people who come into contact with the message of "passivity" as it is presented here. In essence, this frustration is often seen by people who have embraced this "approach" as a mistaken desire to "do something" about any given situation that reflects a lack of understanding of Christian "passivity". This frustration is sometimes seen as "not getting it". The message is–We are to be passive, period. Any discussion of "what to do" is seen as "semi-pelagian" or not "letting go and letting God" or having a weak understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit or trying to give "good advice". The only exception to the "no advice" rule is "pray about it" but that must be put in question form: "Have you prayed about it?", which seems like stealth advice to me, but "whatever".
I have no idea whether this particular understanding of "passivity" is "wrong" or "right". I do know that I am to be entirely "passive" in terms of my relationship toward God and "received" righteousness. How this works itself out in the "here and now" I'm not sure. I certainly don't see Luther as being particularly "passive", but Luther is not the be all and end all in every regard, either. I say this not as a criticism of Mockingbird, which I think has a valuable role to play, but just to let you know "where things stand" and that any substantive discussion of "what to do" about any particular issue is just not going to happen, and for the reasons I have stated. And maybe this is the best approach, who knows? The "grab the bull by the horns" approach of most of evangelical Christianity doesn't seem to be "working" too well.
Actually, I think we are doing exactly what needs to be done. Just preach the Gospel, 190 proof, pure white lightning, not watered down in any of the ways that humanity wishes to make it humanity's own story, and people are drawn to it like moths to a flame.
That's what is to be done, the ONLY thing that can and should be done, and it can only be done through prayer and the Holy Spirit, so it's also a doing that is done in passivity.
shameless plug for the Gospel According to Pixar…
MC- With the Pixar series what emerged from the various contributors was a real investigation into the passive/active dialectic. Our passivity in the Gospel makes for God's creative activity which results in works of love. Each of the movies attempts to define what passivity looks like in a way that tied it directly to the event of love which incites the character change. It's one of the parts in the series that I'm really proud of.
Michael,
I think that you are conflating what is being said here and your 15 years of experience with the "Mockingbird approach" in a unhelpful way. As far as I can tell, nobody on here has ever said "let go and let God," in any way other than tongue-in-cheek.
You've given the impression that what we are arguing here is that "what should you do" is not an important question, but that's not true. It is an important question, but it is not directly related to the proclamation of the Gospel, so, as such, it is not of a primary concern here.
Nobody ever has a problem with anything that people do for the sake of the Gospel, but we have a problem when people argue that whatever they are doing is its necessary condition or outcome. So, do whatever you think best, just don't try and baptize it as necessary for salvation:)
Also, while passivity vs. activity is an important topic, one that is more prominent in the thought of some than others, and one that is certainly not relegated to this site alone–as the question of human/divine agency was present in the pages of the NT itself–to argue that this view of Christian passivity somehow contributes to inactivity or complacency is unfair.
If thoughts and ideas are the root of the tree of action, and if action (ie. life) is impossible to avoid, then this "idea of passivity" can have no other result than to affect change in the lives of those who have been given to reorient their lives around this "passive" paradigm.
People can not (nor should they) stop being doctors, bankers, lawyers, fire-eaters,s etc. . but the idea that they are partnering with God for the coming of the Kingdom rather than passively receiving life as He gives it to them has a profoundly life-changing dynamic to it. If one goes around thinking that the problem with the world, particularly within Christianity, is that people are not (a'la Spike Lee) "Doing the right thing," then that person is going to have a much different life than someone who is working through the idea that Jesus "looked upon the crowd with compassion."
We have to remember what we are dealing with here. This is not a public-policy site or even really a theology think-tank, what we are interested in doing is distinguishing the law from the gospel, pointing people towards "Christ and him crucified," and hoping to help people connect theology to the everyday, active concerns of their lives.
At any rate, I don't think that there has been much calling of people semi-pelagian, calls to prayer on here, and certainly no "let go and let God," but the fact remains that the distinction between law/gospel confounds attempts to systematize into "what we should do," which is what makes it a constant work–one that we are happily working away on every day!
Now that's what I'm talking about, guys! I hope you didn't take my comments as criticism. I just felt like maybe I was missing something, as a newbie here. I think I get it now. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion!
Jady, what you say here really hits home with me, and the way that God has worked in my life:
People can not (nor should they) stop being doctors, bankers, lawyers, fire-eaters,s etc. . but the idea that they are partnering with God for the coming of the Kingdom rather than passively receiving life as He gives it to them has a profoundly life-changing dynamic to it. If one goes around thinking that the problem with the world, particularly within Christianity, is that people are not (a'la Spike Lee) "Doing the right thing," then that person is going to have a much different life than someone who is working through the idea that Jesus "looked upon the crowd with compassion."
Hey Margaret. Fabulous post. Thanks.
Several thoughts in response!
(1) One of your concerns is that sometimes you are hoping a thread will go in a certain direction, and then if it doesn't, that can be frustrating. My advice is to do exactly what you are doing right now — which is frankly raise whatever it is you want to talk about and see whether you can get some takers! Already you are getting several people responding!
(2) Jady's post (11/16/2009) is great and well worth reading if you are curious in diving deeper.
(3) The issue of what to do in an Ecclesial sense is tough. Part of the reason we often try not to debate it here is because the answer is not universal. The right thing for Margaret to do may be different than Jady or Jeff or Todd — all of whom are likely to be in very different church contexts (and contexts in their personal lives). Likewise the right thing for one parish to do might be different than another. So we are big on prayer and being guided by the Holy Spirit and being open about seeing through a glass darkly and just plain not knowing.
(4) What to do about reaching a particular person (who's identified himself as "spiritual but not religious") is also not universal. The answer is always going to be pastoral and rooted in what that phrase means for HIM. For example, for some people, it really just means he's an atheist but doesn't want to sound abrasive. For someone else it means they are a Gaia worshipper. And so on. So it's hard to find THE right answer here, THE right thing to do, because there isn't one — there's gonna be a different approach depending on the person.
(5) All that said, I'd be fascinated to hear more about what it is concretely that you were hoping to hear discussed. Do you have a particular "do" choice in your own life regarding this? Your parish? Your denomination? Love to hear more details.
Hey StampDawg… great response. Thank you. And no, I wasn't so much thinking of myself and my own situation. (Though, certainly, I could use some advice there!) I was more interested in hearing how the Mockingbird gang – mostly a bunch of young theologically-inclined people, many of whom actually make their living in the church – feel about this fast and furious "falling away" that's taken place. What do y'all see as the "future of the church?" Is there anything that can be done to turn things around? Does it even matter if "the church" as we've known it ceases to exist…?
But back to ME 🙂 I live in South Carolina, where Christianity is still a pretty strong cultural presence. But I can see that that's changing. My husband is not a believer – not really – but he's fine with the fact that I'm raising our daughter in the church. But here's what I wonder: By the time she's an adult (she's 8 now), will Christianity still be considered "normal"? Or will it be considered more along the lines of a cult? And do I care? Might it be that Christianity needs to lose its "normal" status to regain some of its power? Have we tamed it and cultured it too much, maybe? All just random thoughts….
Such great questions, Margaret.
On the one hand, bear in mind that this is just a survey of young folks. All it tells us is that when kids get away from Mom and Dad, they often look to define themselves over and against who their parents were (e.g. church-going Christians). Kids have been doing this for about 3000 years. I am certain that if you did this survey in the late 60s or 70s you would have gotten even more extreme results.
If you read the survey results carefully, one also sees that most of the young people who abandon Christianity in their late teens and early 20s come back to it by the time they are 30.
Also, even in times when huge numbers of people called themselves Christians and went to church, there were always a lot of people who didn't believe it much, so maybe we are just seeing an increasing freedom for people to declare who they really are.
Finally note that the survey results imply that EVERYONE responded to this question, which as a professional survey methodologist I find dubious.
All of which is to say that we can't be certain that there really is a "fast and furious" falling away from the church — at least not on the grounds of this survey alone.
Stronger evidence (but possibly confined just to overseas) is the vast degree of unbelief and churchlessness in Europe. As you wondered at the end of your post, maybe one day we too will see almost all our cathedrals and such being converted into museums and other secular spaces.
My biggest concern is the degree to which ALL groups (the New Atheists, the New Agers, the Spiritual But Not Religious, the ascendent Liberals in the mainline denominations, and their conservative "bible-believing" opponents) are moving at Warp 8 away from the historic Gospel (just in different directions).
Okay, I'm almost out the door – driving to Hilton Head for a play – and won't be home 'til late tonight, but I'm dying to hear you (StampDawg) elaborate on your provocative final sentence:
"My biggest concern is the degree to which ALL groups (the New Atheists, the New Agers, the Spiritual But Not Religious, the ascendent Liberals in the mainline denominations, and their conservative "bible-believing" opponents) are moving at Warp 8 away from the historic Gospel (just in different directions)."
I will be checking back in the morning. But no pressure 🙂
Jady, You state: "to argue that this view of Christian passivity somehow contributes to inactivity or complacency is unfair."
Please point out to me where I argued that. I do not think that nor did I mean to imply or "argue" that point. I have stated as honestly as I can the impression I have based on many years of experience of a general trend of thought, many times expressed here, which is highly critical of what has, over and over again, been chastised as "semi-pelagian Christianity." In fact, I agree 100% with that criticism. On the other hand, human depravity being what it is, I have also seen this valid criticism turn into a "law" of its own, complete with the rules of the road I mentioned, in which anyone who honestly asks " but what should we do" is seen, rather condescendingly, as an uninitiated member of the so-called "Christian right." This unfortunate turn is not taken by all, and I don't mean to level any personal criticism at you or anyone else. You are certainly free to disagree with my analysis, but I stand by what I have said.
I am also a little unclear why "let go and let God" drew such ire. Do you disagree with that proposition, and if so, I would like to know why. Actually, I agree with it, although I would argue that we can't even let go, and that God has to rip our hands off the wheel, and that the resulting totally passive deadly crash is the only gateway to a truly "active" Christian life, a la Luther, et al.
Michael,
I think that my objection to your comment had to do with the way you were describing us, and perhaps, like when someone else starts pointing out your family's faults, what is perfectly acceptable for you to acknowledge can get your back up coming from someone else. Since you are, essentially, an adopted cousin of the Mockingclan, I should have been more charitable in my reading of your comments.
And, while I can't speak for everyone, I find just as much law and if/then thinking in "let go and let God," as I do in "if you just had enough faith. . ." The implications of both are that if we would only do something, then God would be able to do what He really wants to do, which, of course, the only reason he is not is because we are not "letting go," "having faith," praying enough, buying indulgences, witnessing, etc.
So, I guess that is where the ire comes from, at least for me.
Anyway, I drew the conclusion from your comment that an emphasis on passivity leads to an inability to say anything (and by extention, do anything) actively with regards to the questions of life. Goodness knows this would not be the first time I've misunderstood your comments and vice/versa! The interwebs can only take us so far:)
Jady, I am honored to be considered a "cousin", and I hope a "first cousin" 🙂 My comments were not meant, as I said, as any criticism of the basic idea expressed here concerning "passivity" before God as the well-spring of creative activity that comes from God, which I see as the core of Mockingbird. And, as we see from this blog, this idea certainly doesn't lead to "the inability to say anything" !!!
And, as we see from this blog, this idea certainly doesn't lead to "the inability to say anything" !!!
isin't THAT the truth:)
Just so that I don't end on too lovey-dovey a note– I want to point out the fact that the (very funny) "bad vicar" clip is HEAVY-HANDED IRONY of the typical pop-British variety! From some earlier posts and comments, I thought irony was "bad"??? I defended irony earlier in the face of this sad misunderstanding of the art form—I am now happy that DZ has seen the light and come to its defense 🙂
Michael, I think that irony – like most things – is a fine thing in moderation. But we live in a secular culture that's grown far TOO ironic for my taste. David Foster Wallace, the late, great ironist, eventually concluded that "Irony is enfeebling… it serves an almost exclusively negative function,” and is “singularly un-useful when it comes to constructing anything to replace the hypocrisies it debunks.” I tend to agree with him… but I wouldn't go that far. As I said, I think it's good in moderation. The danger is in becoming all-ironic, all-the-time. But I don't see much danger of that happening in the Christian church as we know it today. So I find the bits of irony here at M'bird as refreshing as I find bits of sincerity when they appear on certain secular-progressive blogs.
Margaret E– Nothing is good in moderation.
Hmmm…. well, I disagree, Michael. From my perspective, there are plenty of things that are good in moderation but not in excess. I'd love to hear your argument to the contrary! (Though I realize we've now gone way far afield of the topic, so don't feel obliged… )
Margaret E– Maybe my comment was a bit excessive. That is why it was so good 🙂 The point, anyway, being that, say, if Jesus had not been so excessive in that Sermon on the Mount "love your enemies" "anger is murder" "lust is adultry" talk, would it have been a better sermon?
The problem with much of what goes by the name "irony" is that it is just plain crap, not that there is "too much of it these days and we need to be more sincere." Bad "irony" is bad "irony", whether in moderation or in excess. Sitcom one-liner cutting remarks with laugh tracks is bad, pathetic surface "irony". It is bad in moderation, and bad, period.
On the other hand, _Tom Jones: The History of A Foundling_ and _Don Quixote_ are masterpieces of irony: they are very long works. They are good in excess: read them 10 hours a day for the next 10 years and you will be richly rewarded.