The Decline of Evangelical America

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opini ... wanted=all

OPINION
The Decline of Evangelical America
By JOHN S. DICKERSON
Published: December 15, 2012


IT hasn’t been a good year for evangelicals. I should know. I’m one of them.

In 2012 we witnessed a collapse in American evangelicalism. The old religious right largely failed to affect the Republican primaries, much less the presidential election. Last month, Americans voted in favor of same-sex marriage in four states, while Florida voters rejected an amendment to restrict abortion.

Much has been said about conservative Christians and their need to retool politically. But that is a smaller story, riding on the back of a larger reality: Evangelicalism as we knew it in the 20th century is disintegrating.

In 2011 the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life polled church leaders from around the world. Evangelical ministers from the United States reported a greater loss of influence than church leaders from any other country — with some 82 percent indicating that their movement was losing ground.

I grew up hearing tales of my grandfather, a pastor, praying with President Ronald Reagan at the White House. My father, also a pastor, prayed with George W. Bush in 2000. I now minister to my own congregation, which has grown to about 500, a tenfold increase, in the last four years (by God’s favor and grace, I believe). But, like most young evangelical ministers, I am less concerned with politics than with the exodus of my generation from the church.

Studies from established evangelical polling organizations — LifeWay Research, an affiliate of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Barna Group — have found that a majority of young people raised as evangelicals are quitting church, and often the faith, entirely.

As a contemporary of this generation (I’m 30), I embarked three years ago on a project to document the health of evangelical Christianity in the United States. I did this research not only as an insider, but also as a former investigative journalist for an alt weekly.

I found that the structural supports of evangelicalism are quivering as a result of ground-shaking changes in American culture. Strategies that served evangelicals well just 15 years ago are now self- destructive. The more that evangelicals attempt to correct course, the more they splinter their movement. In coming years we will see the old evangelicalism whimper and wane.

First, evangelicals, while still perceived as a majority, have become a shrinking minority in the United States. In the 1980s heyday of the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, some estimates accounted evangelicals as a third or even close to half of the population, but research by the Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith recently found that Christians who call themselves evangelicals account for just 7 percent of Americans. (Other research has reported that some 25 percent of Americans belong to evangelical denominations, though they may not, in fact, consider themselves evangelicals.) Dr. Smith’s findings are derived from a three-year national study of evangelical identity and influence, financed by the Pew Research Center. They suggest that American evangelicals now number around 20 million, about the population of New York State. The global outlook is more optimistic, as evangelical congregations flourish in places like China, Brazil and sub-Saharan Africa.

But while America’s population grows by roughly two million a year, attendance across evangelical churches — from the Southern Baptists to Assembles of God and nondenominational churches — has gradually declined, according to surveys of more than 200,000 congregations by the American Church Research Project.

The movement also faces a donation crisis as older evangelicals, who give a disproportionately large share, age. Unless younger evangelicals radically increase their giving, the movement will be further strained.

Evangelicals have not adapted well to rapid shifts in the culture — including, notably, the move toward support for same-sex marriage. The result is that evangelicals are increasingly typecast as angry and repressed bigots. In 2007, the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, in a survey of 1,300 college professors, found that 3 percent held “unfavorable feelings” toward Jews, 22 percent toward Muslims and 53 percent toward evangelical Christians.

To be sure, college professors are not representative of the population, and, despite national trends of decline, evangelicals have many exceptional ministries. Most metropolitan areas in the United States have at least one thriving megachurch. In New York City, Redeemer Presbyterian and the Brooklyn Tabernacle pack multiple services every weekend. A handful of other churches, like North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga., and Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., see more than 20,000 worshipers each weekend. Savvy ministers like the Rev. Craig Groeschel, founder of LifeChurch.tv, are using new technologies to deliver the “good news.”

The pulse of evangelicalism is also shifting, in many ways for the good, from American politics to aid for the global poor, as evidenced in books by the Rev. David Platt, the Rev. Max Lucado and the Rev. Timothy Keller. Evangelicals are still a sophisticated lot, with billions in assets, millions of adherents and a constellation of congregations, radio stations, universities and international aid groups. But all this machinery distracts from the historical vital signs of evangelicalism: to make converts and point to Jesus Christ. By those measures this former juggernaut is coasting, at best, if not stalled or in reverse.

How can evangelicalism right itself? I don’t believe it can — at least, not back to the politically muscular force it was as recently as 2004, when white evangelicals gave President George W. Bush his narrow re-election. Evangelicals can, however, use the economic, social and spiritual crises facing America to refashion themselves into a more sensitive, spiritual and humble movement.

We evangelicals must accept that our beliefs are now in conflict with the mainstream culture. We cannot change ancient doctrines to adapt to the currents of the day. But we can, and must, adapt the way we hold our beliefs — with grace and humility instead of superior hostility. The core evangelical belief is that love and forgiveness are freely available to all who trust in Jesus Christ. This is the “good news” from which the evangelical name originates (“euangelion” is a Greek word meaning “glad tidings” or “good news”). Instead of offering hope, many evangelicals have claimed the role of moral gatekeeper, judge and jury. If we continue in that posture, we will continue to invite opposition and obscure the “good news” we are called to proclaim.

I believe the cultural backlash against evangelical Christianity has less to do with our views — many observant Muslims and Jews, for example, also view homosexual sex as wrong, while Catholics have been at the vanguard of the movement to protect the lives of the unborn — and more to do with our posture. The Scripture calls us “aliens and exiles” (1 Peter 2:11), but American evangelicals have not acted with the humility and homesickness of aliens. The proper response to our sexualized and hedonistic culture is not to chastise, but to “conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God” (1 Peter 2:12).

This does not mean we whitewash unpopular doctrines like the belief that we are all sinners but that we re-emphasize the free forgiveness available to all who believe in Jesus Christ.

Some evangelical leaders are embarrassed by our movement’s present paralysis. I am not. Weakness is a potent purifier. As Paul wrote, “I am content with weaknesses ... for the sake of Christ” (2 Corinthians 12:10). For me, the deterioration and disarray of the movement is a source of hope: hope that churches will stop angling for human power and start proclaiming the power of Christ.

Simple faith in Christ’s sacrifice will march on, unchallenged by empires and eras. As the English writer G. K. Chesterton put it, “Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.”


John S. Dickerson is the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church and author of the forthcoming book “The Great Evangelical Recession: Six Factors That Will Crash the American Church ... and How to Prepare.”

Interesting article by an insider. While I'm not sure about the methodology of the study cited above, I'm fairly certain that more than 7% of Americans would identify themselves as evangelical unless the study required a person to pick only "evangelical" from a list of various denominations/tendencies (ie from "Baptist", "Presbyterian", "Non-denominational" etc.).

[Sidewinder]

The article writer brings up good points- I'm saying this as one who was raised a Christian, as my mother is a Christian- but many of these points are ones to which I'm tempted to shout, "Duh! What, were you living in a cave the past 20 years?"

In 2007, the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, in a survey of 1,300 college professors, found that 3 percent held “unfavorable feelings” toward Jews, 22 percent toward Muslims and 53 percent toward evangelical Christians.

I'd like to know WHY these college professors held "unfavorable feelings" towards these groups. It's alarming to think these people, with their ability to influence young minds, might also infect their students with anti-Semitic attitudes, the belief that Islam is a religion of terrorism, or other bigoted views.

[CaptJodan]

Seems like kind of a restatement of the old adage of "hate the sin, not the sinner" to me. I find it not at all surprising that he finds nothing wrong with the message itself, just it's delivery. You saw the exact same response after the 2012 election with the GOP.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Their issue isn't with the delivery of their messages as this article suggests. It's that many Americans are finding their messages toxic. There is no nice way of condemning homosexuality without making a derogatory statement about gay people for example. As ignorance is being combated, their more prejudiced belief systems will start to give way.

[Thanas]

I'd like to know WHY these college professors held "unfavorable feelings" towards these groups. It's alarming to think these people, with their ability to influence young minds, might also infect their students with anti-Semitic attitudes, the belief that Islam is a religion of terrorism, or other bigoted views.

Because they are human beings like any others. Muslims were the big evil after 9/11 and still have issues with fundamentalism, Israel = Jewish lobby in the USA and Evangelists are the enemy of any real college professor due to their rigidity of mind.

[Channel72]

Homosexual marriage has really put a big dent in the evangelical movement. It's a major stumbling block for them which they can't easily adapt to without blatantly contradicting Scripture. In the 1960s, some religious organizations were able to participate in the civil rights movement, emphasizing a message of love and quoting Bible passages promoting tolerance like "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

But they can't do that now. They simply can't participate positively in the gay rights movement because the Bible itself is simply too hostile to homosexuals. The "love the sinner, hate the sin" strategy doesn't work very well since sexuality is very much part of a person's identity. It takes a lot of double-think to condemn homosexual behavior while at the same time broadcasting a message of love towards homosexuals.

One interesting point raised by the article however, is the amount of backlash evangelicals specifically get from the general public, even though Catholics, Jews and Muslims are also pretty anti-homosexual. It's probably because Catholics are a lot less vocal about it (in the US at least) and have a lot less influence on the GOP than evangelicals. And it's too politically incorrect to criticize Jews or Muslims, even though Orthodox Jews are often just as toxically offensive and bigoted as evangelicals.

[Zaune]

Because they are human beings like any others. Muslims were the big evil after 9/11 and still have issues with fundamentalism, Israel = Jewish lobby in the USA and Evangelists are the enemy of any real college professor due to their rigidity of mind.

Thing is, though, those three statements are all about as factually accurate as "All Germans are Nazis"; ie not at all. (Yes, shockingly, there are British people who realise this.) If for no other reason than the fact that phrases like "evangelical Christian" have a nasty habit of meaning different things to different people.

[Thanas]

Because they are human beings like any others. Muslims were the big evil after 9/11 and still have issues with fundamentalism, Israel = Jewish lobby in the USA and Evangelists are the enemy of any real college professor due to their rigidity of mind.

Thing is, though, those three statements are all about as factually accurate as "All Germans are Nazis"; ie not at all.

How is the statement that muslims were considered to be the big evil after 9/11 and that they still have issues with fundamentalism untrue?
How is the statement that the Jewish Lobby in the USA exists to serve Israeli needs untrue?
How is the statement that the evangelists are fundamentalists untrue?

[Channel72]

How is the statement that the Jewish Lobby in the USA exists to serve Israeli needs untrue?

It's not untrue per se, but it's understandably exaggerated. The truth is that most American Jews don't really care about Israel that much. The Pro-Israel lobby is actually more of a right-wing evangelical movement than a Jewish movement.

[Thanas]

These are Jewish voters. They do not equal Jewish lobbying organizations like the ADL.

[Mr Bean]

How is the statement that the Jewish Lobby in the USA exists to serve Israeli needs untrue?

It's not untrue per se, but it's understandably exaggerated. The truth is that most American Jews don't really care about Israel that much. The Pro-Israel lobby is actually more of a right-wing evangelical movement than a Jewish movement.

This is born out by polling, there is no one more pro-Israel than evangelicals who believe in the rapture and end of days. Because without the Jews in the Holy land, Jesus can't come back. So any method of support the Israeli's is strongly supported by this block.

This is not to say the Jewish lobby is not concerned with Israeli needs. But there is a difference between the Jewish Lobby and Jews in America. In fact I'm pretty sure pro-Israel groups run by evangelicals out-number the actual groups like the Anti-Defamation League something like seven to one.

*Edit
That is to say the ADL is out numbered and out spent by Fundamentalist Christians 7 to 1 in support of Israel. Further the ADL spends most of it's time fighting Jewish stereotyping in media and getting those who use the various code words of the crazy Jewish conspiracy tossed out of office.

[Simon_Jester]

One interesting point raised by the article however, is the amount of backlash evangelicals specifically get from the general public, even though Catholics, Jews and Muslims are also pretty anti-homosexual. It's probably because Catholics are a lot less vocal about it (in the US at least) and have a lot less influence on the GOP than evangelicals. And it's too politically incorrect to criticize Jews or Muslims, even though Orthodox Jews are often just as toxically offensive and bigoted as evangelicals.

Also, Orthodox Jews and Muslims aren't big enough political forces to show up on the anti-gay radar. They are not the ones donating millions of dollars to ad campaigns in states that consider gay marriage; that's all on the evangelicals.

[Kuja]

I'd like to know WHY these college professors held "unfavorable feelings" towards these groups. It's alarming to think these people, with their ability to influence young minds, might also infect their students with anti-Semitic attitudes, the belief that Islam is a religion of terrorism, or other bigoted views.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, "unfavorable feelings" is a pretty broad term. It could mean anything from "I teach biology and every year I have some kid yelling about evolution" to "I had a relationship with an Islamic woman and she left me because I'm Lutheran" to any one of a thousand different causes. It's not necessarily Anti-Semitism that might make one disagree with, and be annoyed by the US funneling money to Isreal. More, somebody who teaches, for example, Aerospace Engineering might well go an entire career without a single student knowing that he owns a copy of Mein Kampf because the subject he teaches has nothing to do with sociology and he's smart enough not to go off on some rant about Jews in front of his classroom.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I'd like to know WHY these college professors held "unfavorable feelings" towards these groups. It's alarming to think these people, with their ability to influence young minds, might also infect their students with anti-Semitic attitudes, the belief that Islam is a religion of terrorism, or other bigoted views.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, "unfavorable feelings" is a pretty broad term. It could mean anything from "I teach biology and every year I have some kid yelling about evolution" to "I had a relationship with an Islamic woman and she left me because I'm Lutheran" to any one of a thousand different causes. It's not necessarily Anti-Semitism that might make one disagree with, and be annoyed by the US funneling money to Isreal. More, somebody who teaches, for example, Aerospace Engineering might well go an entire career without a single student knowing that he owns a copy of Mein Kampf because the subject he teaches has nothing to do with sociology and he's smart enough not to go off on some rant about Jews in front of his classroom.

I was going to mention that as well, it sounds far too broad to be useful.

I do want to point out that just owning a copy of Mein Kampf doesn't make someone an anti-semite, any more than my copy of the Quaran makes me a Muslim, you're not required to believe a word of it.

[Omega18]

One interesting point raised by the article however, is the amount of backlash evangelicals specifically get from the general public, even though Catholics, Jews and Muslims are also pretty anti-homosexual. It's probably because Catholics are a lot less vocal about it (in the US at least) and have a lot less influence on the GOP than evangelicals. And it's too politically incorrect to criticize Jews or Muslims, even though Orthodox Jews are often just as toxically offensive and bigoted as evangelicals.

I am going to take some real issue with this in terms of characterizing the American Jewish position. Both Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism allow gay marriage, (along with the Reconstructionist movement) so it is only the Orthodox Jewish moment who oppose gay marriage in America, so very clear majority of US Jews are supportive of gay marriage. (With Orthodox Jews only representing around 13% of the total U.S. Jewish population.) In the case of Conservative Judaism it depends on individual synagogues regarding whether they personally conduct gay marriage, but the movement itself is clearly in favor of at least making gay marriage legal. In other words, Judaism in America is in general significantly more supportive of Gay Marriage than Christian denominations as a whole. This also holds true of general polling with around 81% of American Jews when polled supporting gay marriage.
http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinki ... -marriage/

In the case of Jews, any criticism needs to be really specifically directed at the Orthodox or it really is inaccurate and criticism of those not being careful is by no means that unfair. Another detail certainly is Orthodox Jews are less politically powerful overall than the Christian movements opposing gay marriage, especially out of perhaps New York and New Jersey. Since gay marriage has now passed anyways in New York and is clearly pretty safe there, and the holdup in New Jersey really doesn't have much to do with Orthodox Jews right now, it makes sense the focus is primarily on other opponents of gay marriage. (When you look at most of the states where gay marriage legalization is going to plausibly come up anytime soon, with the New Jersey exception already noted, Orthodox Judaism is simply not all that statistically significantly significant in most of them. A related point is that allot of states with the most Jews have already legalized Gay Marriage, making Jews even less likely to be singled out as opponents of it.)

[Channel72]

Yeah, I said the problem is mostly with Orthodox Jews.

[Kuja]

I was going to mention that as well, it sounds far too broad to be useful.

I do want to point out that just owning a copy of Mein Kampf doesn't make someone an anti-semite, any more than my copy of the Quaran makes me a Muslim, you're not required to believe a word of it.

Certainly. I just wanted to illustrate an example that someone can be a quiet bigot or racist but if they bury it deep enough in the closet it could be very hard to determine for certain.

[Straha]

One interesting point raised by the article however, is the amount of backlash evangelicals specifically get from the general public, even though Catholics, Jews and Muslims are also pretty anti-homosexual. It's probably because Catholics are a lot less vocal about it (in the US at least) and have a lot less influence on the GOP than evangelicals. And it's too politically incorrect to criticize Jews or Muslims, even though Orthodox Jews are often just as toxically offensive and bigoted as evangelicals.

I would say that it's not so much vocality (speaking as a New Yorker, the Catholic church was the most vocal opponent to gay marriage in the state), but a cultural association that Catholics and Jews should be proud but mildly embarrassed of their faith. With regards to Catholics, I have never met a Catholic who has been truly dogmatic, despite having many devout Catholic friends and going to a Jesuit High School. Every Catholic I have ever met who discusses theology, including the priests, will say that they believe in the Church and faith but don't necessarily care about X, Y, or Z issue be it Gay Marriage, women priests, the immaculate conception, or whatever. This spills over into people understanding that even if the Catholic Church is an odious institution Catholics are, by and large, acceptable people who you can have a conversation with.
This is probably doubly true of the popular conception of the Jewish faith. The people who define what it is to be culturally Jewish inside the United States are almost all comedians; Jon Stewart, Jerry Seinfeld, Woody Allen, etc. People come to understand what it means to be Jewish in society not through the angry ravings of a hasidic Rabbi, but through Fiddler in the Roof's endorsement of Jewish tradition through loving mockery, or through jokes about the inter-personal relationship between god and Moses. It is very difficult to project anger at a group of people where their cultural perceived response will be "yeah, you're right," and it is even more difficult to build up nodes of resentment over cultural morays when Jewish comedians have already beaten you to the punch.

The Evangelical faith is a complete 180 from this, though. People like Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, and Jerry Falwell show no signs of self-awareness and engage openly in warfare organized around their faith. The fundamental principle of modern Evangelical Christianity is that they understand how the world ought be organized and operate and are tasked with bringing that organization into practice and anyone who opposes them is a mortal enemy. This is not just a cultural understanding, but the self-selected banner of these churches and it shows.

I would feel remiss if I didn't add here that some of the most respectful, aware of diversity, and ardent advocates for profound revolutionary change on a left leaning basis (specifically in regards to queer and race issues) come from Liberty University and everyone I have met from that institution, including the most fundamentally evangelical, has been a truly and profoundly caring person. The banner that the evangelical churches fly does not necessarily represent the makeup of their followers, but those followers are either unwilling to publicly step out of line with the church for fear of undermining the core message of their faith or are unable to find an audience when they do want to dissent. Both of which hurt the evangelical movement in America, and probably American politics as a whole.