You're primary thesis is 100% correct, and an observation I've been noting privately to folks for more than 20 years...as "non-denominationalism" rises. Thanks for backing it with data.
American's don't trust "institutions," period. This, imho, has been part of broad anti-insitution and anti-expert movement over the past fifty years.
Songwriter David Wilcox made a wry observation in the late 90s, that the fastest growing musicial genre at the time was "Alternative."
Nobody wanted to be part of the traditional genres...everybody wanted to be edgy and unique. Of course, if everyone is unique, than no one is. And everything's just "Alternative," or "Non-denominational."
The rise of these things are no accidentally parallel.
I would refer you to a now more than 20-year-old book by Ethicist William May, called "Beleaguered Rulers,"
The book posits that among eight "professions" anyone attempting to lead "insitiutions was feeling beset from all sides, and increasingly unable to function...certainly not a with a sense that they were working for the "common good."
Take government as another example parallel to this movement within the Church...Folks won't like this, but it's true...from the time that Reagan first said, "Government is the problem," faith in everybody from dog catchers to presidents has been plummeting.
But, he wasn't alone...folks on the right AND left have been distrustful of "experts" and believers in "self help" ever since.
Here's the problem, though: Many of these messages (right and left) do not PUSH people to confront their own shadow selves, nor push them to really unpack the harder parts of being human.
One of my church members, and excellent historian, Andrew McGregor's recent Substack speaks on this very topic:
"Solidarity seems harder to find today. In our contemporary moment, pundits talk about the epidemic of loneliness, the lack of third-spaces, and face-to-face interpersonal engagement. Similarly, I recall a pervasive ethic of edgy, non-conformity in my youth. And before that we had the so-called selfish, consumptive “me generation.” Perhaps something has changed in us. For at least three or four generations, we’ve been discouraged to come together, divided by technology, cliques, rivalries, and self-interest. We’ve certainly lost some of our faith in humanity, and become more cynical about our ability to effect change. I can’t help but think that this is intentional, a cultural strategy to hamper coalition building. It has created what I see as a type of “selfish-citizenship,” that has made us skeptical, suspicious, and quick to disengage from others. We now search for peace in isolation rather than our collective emancipation."
Finally, I must rise to defend our United Methodists, and suggest there's more to our "highest level of interpersonal trust."
Because, no, I don't think that it *only* do to education and income.
I am 100% convinced it's because a primary vision of being United Methodist is what we call "The Connection."
We use this term proudly, to refer to both the system itself, and the members OF the system in their more interpersonal relationships to each other.
As you know, we move our pastors around...which means that active pastors and lay folks get to know each other, as we "connect" with each other.
Point being: Our TRUST is built-in to the system. And over this same period of declining trust in instituations, as you note: our trust reminds highest.
Again, I'm 100% confident some of this must also be attributed to this specific part of our institution: Seeing our churches, schools, hospitals, mission work, etc...as all of what we call "The Connection."
The urging of institutional trust...and an also essential respect for those who "think differently" is baked in to our UM history and the system itself.
IMHO, it's also part of how we weathered the attack from within of those who recently wanted to break us apart.
Yes. 1/4 of UM churches did indeed leave to form a new denomination. But I'm 100% convinced that we came through this *because* of a bed-rock "connection" and trust between people on a broad theological spectrum. Progressives, Moderates and yes even Conservatives chose to *stay* because of the inherent trust that had been banked in each other, over decades.
IMHO, that could position us well to help lead hard cultural conversations across political and theological divides as we move forward in America. We are already connected to each other...rural/urban...progressive/conservative...and we could help leaven the connections that are so deeply frayed right now.
But... It also probably also means we won't grow dramatically. Because that hard work wouldn't be "popular" work.
But that interpersonal trust you're reading...it's structural, not just due to education, etc...
Do you think that decline of interpersonal trust is a cycle that will reverse, or a persistent trend that will last centuries?
Are you predicting that the numeric decline of the UMC will stabilize in the near future?
One piece of evidence for your theory that moving ministers around improves trust is Botswana, which did the same thing with teachers (including into cross-ethnic areas). That's one factor that helped it be one of the most stable sub-Saharan countries.
Nothing would really surprise me, in terms of predicting continuing decline. I would argue, "it will continue" or I could argue the trust levels are such that we might stabilize. But we have sooooo many older folks, that continued decline feels likely.
That said...if we DO stabilize, it's hard to see how we could ever explode in growth like non-denoms have.
Another piece unsaid in Ryan's piece is: much non-denom growth is just reshufflign the deck. Not all, but a significant chunk....sooo..if all mainlines are declining and they're all funneling into an amorphous yet coherent set called "non-denominational," then, yeah, that one is gonna grow and year, all the others are gonna decline.
I'm not suggesting this accounts for ALL the decline/growth over time. But it's as much as anything else, for sure.
Said another way: when you factor in the non-religious....a growing group...it's easier to see how what's really been happening is this reshuffling...not any kind of stunning vindication of non-denom theology or practice.
ameicans shop for churches like they shop for breakfast cereal....harsh, but true.
Back to us...no, I supposed we're not likely to grow...
Because enough of our churches ARE doing messages of challenge alongside message of comfort...and that's the very thing that pushes folks away...nobody wants to hear a hard word about how building community in the real world is "hard."
They want easy..
You first question, though: No, I fear nothing will really reverse our general societal trust decline..
RE: decline: A significant % of the growth in my urban, Episcopal Church has come from an influx of religious/spiritual people (Catholics, Jews, etc) from more conservative backgrounds finding/joining the church.
This is definitely good for my church, but a definite, IMO, loss for the houses of faith they came from.
I think that the rapid growth of Old Order Mennonites, Amish, Bruderhof, and Haredi Jews would challenge the idea that "easy" is the only path to growth.
With the partial exception of your last, scaling rules are very very different at low penetrance (the first three are, even in areas where they are concentrated, pretty low penetrance).
Do you happen to have data for how much of the growth in each grouping is due to (incoming) affiliation versus high completed fertility + retention?
Haredim also differ from the first three in that they do have some degree of state power (I mean more in Israel and West Bank, although I also think Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree and the heavily Haredi parts of Brooklyn). I suspect similar dynamics apply to some subdivisions of American Muslims.
To your first comment, they are higher penetration than you might realize. The Amish numbers are best-established, and they're currently between 450k and 500k in the US, mostly concentrated in the WI-PA corridor.
Incoming affiliation is very low for Amish, OO Mennonites, and Haredim. I'm not sure this makes them much of an exception though. Few groups have ever had long periods where they consistently drew in outsiders. Usually in a religious tradition's first 50 years is when you see more conversions. Even the Nons mostly get musical chairs folks (Burge has said as much).
I'm still trying to find Bruderhof numbers, but anecdotally I know of many converts.
We have a lot of Muslim families where I live, and I don't typically see larger families than average. 1-2 kids typically. Some places might be different. Maybe I'll check at some point.
Thanks! Yes, I had no idea there were so many Amish. Wow! Learned something very new.
Agreed the religious group inward conversion is usually when the grouping is new (LDS a partial exception maybe, even still in the US, but lots of out-conversion there too; I live in SoCal in a fairly LDS-heavy area, where there is no obvious in-conversion, but not so far away there are Hispanic-dominant wards with IIUC large levels in-conversion within the last 70-80 years anyway, if not the last 50; obviously lots of Hispanic conversion into various evangelical churches too).
Agreed about Haredim - to be properly Haredi you really need to live in a Haredi-majority zone, although the boundary between what I would probably call "Modern Orthodox with mildly Hasidic characteristics" and "might as well call them Haredi" (not Satmar - that's a whole other level) seems to be more permeable in the recent immigrant parts of Los Angeles than I take to be the case in e.g. greater NYC.
My mileage matches yours re Muslims, although for complex reasons most of the Muslims I know are ethnically Iranian, where as you probably know low fertility seems to be endemic both in the home country and the diaspora. I was wondering whether highly conservative and less assimilated (e.g. Hanbali diaspora) Muslims might tend toward larger families. No idea.
The root word for diversity is also the same for divisive/divide...aka, many moving/thinking/acting parts.
The more diverse (educationally, economically, geographically...you get my drift) a group or entity becomes, the more divided it also becomes...that's human nature/reality.
I've always wondered why I, with a mere MA in Am Soc Cul History, have been able to figure that out and policy makers with multiple advanced degrees and political party "leaders" haven't.
Also, given that I don't actually like the situation I"veI outlined above, I welcome evidence-based links to sites that provide info/data/facts to disabuse me of my above stated insight.
And….I think it’s more pronounced in progressive spaces than in conservative spaces.
Progressive churches, especially those related to social justice, will often find themselves divided among several causes, as opposed to either following ONE cause, or one “strong leader.”
This means (IMHO) progressive churches are always more susceptible to falling apart…they have an allergy to strong central leadership….BUT! It’s also what tends to protect them from becoming cultish or nationalist.
It really is fascinating to watch the ways in which "non-denoms" have shifted because it was always a well known joke in Church Planting circles (which I was in for over 15 years) that nondenominational really just meant Baptist but trying to be hip. Every church planter I knew who was "nondenominational" were really just former Baptists and the divide between SBC and other forms was super interesting as well. When you'd read through their church's Belief Statements, you'd find an awful lot of overlap with every other baptist church in town more or. less. Isn't that the Whole Deal of Acts 29 for example? Non denom but mostly pretty conservative baptist/presbyterian and usually very reformed?
In those circles was there much talk about Rodney Stark and Roger Finke's work suggesting that (in most times and places) high-tension churches tend to grow more quickly?
Some other kinds of analysis I'd be interested in around Nons:
1. Congregant journey: what are the paths that people took to get there, and what percentage of people took which paths?
2. Online engagement: how do the tech use habits of nons differ from other traditions?
3. Career: how important is career success to nons compared to other traditions?
4. Ideological independence: do nons hold a more- or less-eclectic mix of political views than other traditions.
5. Transition survival: most denominational congregations survive pastoral transitions with out a problem. What percentage of non-denominational churches do?
6. Size mix: the stereotype of non-denom churches is that they're large. Is this accurate?
7. Lifestyle tension: what are the lifestyle factors non-denoms place the highest priority on? In other words, how are their members different from their neighbors in behavior?
8. Charismaticicity: that's not a word. What percentage of non-denom churches fall in the charismatic theological camp?
9. Prosperity: what percentage of non denom congregations promote views related to prosperity theology (i.e. what you give will be given back to you, shaken together and flowing over)? How does this differ between other traditions?
As an evangelical who attends a non-denom, I would think about two trends:
1. A lot of us in the evangelical world have unhappy memories of the liberalization of the Mainlines. An interesting question: do denominational bureaucracies have an institutional tendency TOWARDS liberalization? You can maybe invoke Conquest's/O'Sullivan's laws of bureaucracies here.
One case in point: the CRC recently, surprisingly (given the direction of things), voted not to affirm gay marriage. Yet at the time, the denominational bureaucracy was more or less openly lobbying the grassroots of the church to affirm. If that's your experience of denominational bureaucracy -- that it is inevitably far to the theological left of either the clergy or the members at the grassroots level -- then what use is it to those members and clergy? Not much.
This probably does manifest as lower institutional trust in surveys. Conservative Christians are less inclined to trust institutions because the people that run institutions -- even ostensibly Christian ones that in many cases our ancestors helped build up -- don't ever seem to share our values.
2. Alright, but why reject the SBC? Ryan refers to the SBC as "the definition of organized religion in the Protestant world." My problem with this statement is that it's not, strictly speaking, a denomination; it's a noncentral example of what a denomination is like, and this actually matters. SBC churches remain congregational in polity. They have no bishops, and the SBC can't fire a pastor, it can only kick a church out of the SBC. Which is to say -- the only real punishment it can levy is to make that church non-denominational. Which, as this article highlights, isn't much of a punishment at all!
I actually think we should have an SBC, I have no problem with the SBC per se. It makes sense to partner together with other churches for certain projects, especially missions, as opposed to everyone trying go off and do it on their own. My kids have all gone to an SBC preschool. But the church we belong to is not part of the SBC. I would say the simplest reason why we're not SBC is the pastor who planted the church didn't grow up in the SBC or emerge out of the SBC. And I wanted us to join a church plant because we're relatively new in town and I wanted us to grow up as a family alongside this church, as opposed to the more established SBC churches here.
In this sense, the SBC "brand" is kind of a hindrance to growing a church plant -- it signals an older church with older people. Though of course many churches still belong to the SBC without any Baptist branding, so the brand in itself doesn't fully explain the SBC's problems.
But also, let's talk dollars and cents, I'm on my church's finance team. There are church planting funds available that originated with the SBC but are now no longer tied to it, I think because many in the SBC see the writing on the wall and want to prioritize church plants succeeding over growing the SBC per se.
The Summit Network was founded by Summit Church (which is SBC) but doesn't require its plants to be SBC. It granted us a good sum of money to get started and now we're putting money back into it. The SBC's former lending arm is now independent and no longer requires churches to be part of the SBC, but it does require them to be "Baptist" under a broad definition, which I think is really just "credobaptist", something that basically all non-denoms qualify as. In any event we qualified and so received below-market loans from them to construct our building.
Okay, so let's talk about the SBC as a denomination for a minute.
I think it's very fair to say that the SBC is not a denomination in the same way that the Episcopalians are. Way less hierarchy, credentialing, etc.
However, I think that the SBC is a denomination in that it does (sparingly) enforce conformity with the BF&M. Which, by the way, is not very Baptist of them. From my (biased) point of view the ABCUSA is way less of a denomination because it takes local church autonomy and soul competency very seriously!
Sure, I think that's all reasonable, even if I'd be on the side of more, not less, enforcement of the BF&M. To me, it's hard to argue for the proper form of church polity from abstract principles, because there they all make a reasonable case. I see it as a pragmatic question.
But to the broader point: the SBC might be much larger than TEC today, but I think for most people that aren't deeply engaged in this stuff, they think of TEC's model, or even the Roman Catholic model, as normative. And even there, they imagine the RCC to be more hierarchical and centralized than it actually is, with the Pope as an absolute autocrat.
I also think at times when the SBC says it really doesn't have much enforcement power, like in the case of some of the abuse cases that emerged, a lot of people take that message like a mobster telling you that all his associates are independent contractors: some sort of legal fiction invented to dodge responsibility, and not a choice of polity that has been pursued out of real and heartfelt conviction on the part of a lot of people.
Of course, corrupt men will at times take advantage of decentralized institutions to commit evil and evade responsibility. Though at other times they'll take advantage of centralized institutions to commit evil and evade responsibility, which is why, in my mind, this goes back to being a pragmatic question.
This is one of the most rewarding/information dense single comment(s) I have read here at Ryan's (or anywhere else on the topic in question). Thanks!
Plus how could I *not* appreciate "[the SBC] is a noncentral example of what a denomination is like, and this actually matters."? Would that more people (across the political and theological spectra) could unlearn, or learn to overcome, reflexively Platonist/Aristotelian ontologies - noncentral example indeed!
Very interesting, and unusually perceptive/smart, that "many in the SBC see the writing on the wall and want to prioritize church plants succeeding over growing the SBC per se." Speaks to your point of the SBC being functionally somewhat less of an institution than might appear to be the case from the outside view. Do the credobaptist plants (in your experience, obviously) show a strong preference for filling their pastorate with grads of SBC-affiliated seminaries?
As for your question: in my experience, it doesn't seem like there's that much overlap (though there is SOME overlap) between non-denom and SBC pastors in terms of where they go to seminary, so that's partly what I mean when I say my pastor didn't "emerge from" the SBC; he received an M.Div. from what would be seen as a generally non-denominational evangelical seminary. I don't get the sense that my pastor's choice of seminary was any sort of hindrance in receiving the SBC-related funds I described.
For what it's worth, I WOULD say that I've never seen graduate-level overlap between Mainline and evangelical pastors though; Mainline pastors seem to either go to seminary at designated denominational schools or standard secular private schools like Duke, Vanderbilt, etc.
Of course, in evangelical world, it's common enough for pastors to only have a Bachelor's degree, perhaps earning a certificate from a seminary and not a full M.Div or otherwise going through some sort of non-degree church plant training program or residency (e.g. Summit Network, which I described, has a program like this).
SBC pastors do appear to be better-credentialed in this regard. It's common enough to have an SBC pastor with a doctorate; I was married by one. Though something about this feels Boomer to me and I wonder if it might be rarer in the current generation. Still, I can't think of a non-denominational pastor with a Ph.D.
What an insightful perspective into this issue. Thanks!
I'm not sure I see the correlation between central leadership and liberalism. TEC has central leadership with meaningful control and is very liberal. The UCC central leadership has very little control (they're even called "congregational") and is very liberal. The SBC has little control and is very conservative. The RCC has meaningful control and is (at least in terms of policy) very conservative.
In Anabaptist circles, centralizing resources is considered inherently liberal ("high" is their term), so much so that the lowest groups don't even have church buildings.
One question on your comment about the CRC: "at the time, the denominational bureaucracy was more or less openly lobbying the grassroots of the church to affirm."
What led you to the conclusion that the denomination was openly lobbying the congregations in this way?
To the pile of liberal denominations, I would add that European state Protestant churches tend to be liberal and centralized. E.g. the Church of England.
But one thing about liberalization is that it tends to be the natural direction of denominations. You need a "conservative takeover", some sort of decisive and dramatic action, to prevent it from happening. LCMS had this: Seminex. Even the SBC had it. If everyone just goes with the flow, the denomination will inexorably drift left. Or, we might say, in the direction of assimilating to the mainstream elite culture, which normally looks like "left." Hence the phrase "Semper Reformanda".
If there's a conflict between the denominational institutions and the grassroots, it seems to be the case almost every time that the denominational institutions are on the left, and the grassroots on the right, and the question is whether the grassroots is able and willing to take control of the institutions from those who naturally inhabit them. This is naturally easier in a congregationalist system, but it doesn't mean congregationalist conservatives always win.
Sometimes the grassroots drifts left, especially in a denomination concentrated in a liberal part of the country. Or it doesn't have the stomach for any kind of fight. I don't know the full story of the UCC, but I imagine some combination of these is what happened.
On the point about the CRC: I recall hearing this from a few different sources. Doing a quick search for something tangible, here's an article that talks about it:
As presented here, the first time the Synod voted to affirm traditional sexual morality, the denomination (including its publication, The Banner) basically tried to undermine it and soften the blow. The leftward moves were also basically all being led by the congregations around Grand Rapids, which contained both the denominational offices and Calvin University; it was largely their staff doing this.
As for the RCC and EO, I'm going to hold that they're fundamentally unlike Protestant churches in this regard; they operate by largely different rules because the extraordinary age of their organizations has produced an inertia unlike nearly any other extant institution in the world. Even so, at this particular moment, it does appear that the institutional hierarchy of the RCC is controlled by people to the left of active grassroots Catholics laity and parish priests.
I'm in the CRC, though I don't live in Grand Rapids so don't see all the politics.
I also write for The Banner and so read it frequently. My assessment is that they try and soften all blows. Their basic goal is to avoid fights, which is not exactly the same thing as promoting liberalism.
In a time of growing individualism I could see how avoiding fights would promote liberalism. In a time of growing communalism (e.g. if we see ascendent religious nationalism) I would expect the opposite.
Appreciate the insight. I’m sure you have much more lived experience with this. I’ve only read about the CRC’s fights from afar and tried to map them onto the struggles that I know closer to home.
I’m trying to think about your last statement. I think I got this from Aaron Renn, but there’s a model in these denominational fights that says you have conservatives, moderates, and liberals. The moderates are the ones that say “Why can’t we all get along?” Which you’re associating with The Banner in the case of the CRC. The liberals tend to take vanguard actions that break the rules and create facts on the ground. E.g., they name an openly gay pastor in a denomination that forbids it. The conservatives try to enforce punishments for those rules, but the moderates, while agreeing with the rules in principle, are very reluctant to enforce them once that means defrocking pastors and so on, and so they become a blocking force that allows liberal practices to spread. Then at some point, conservatives are disgusted with the liberal advances and start exiting the denomination, which becomes a spiral that allows the liberals to take control.
Now, let’s think about the situation reversed. I imagine it would look like Operation Reconquista. Some young conservatives start taking over liberal churches in a dying Mainline denomination that is full of historic buildings but no people. The liberals in that denomination try to crush the movement, but the moderates, if they’re strong enough, could once again block it, allowing a conservative resurgence.
I don’t think it will happen, but that’s probably what it would look like if it did.
A big question is why various scandals at non-denominational churches simply don't impact people's trust in the non-denominational movement the way that they do with denominations.
It does. There's a whole movement called "deconstruction" (I realize that this term is used by others for different reasons) that's basically people leaving non-denoms over this. They become "nones" though, rather than choosing a denomination.
When Ryan was a guest on a podcast, I think he mentioned teaching ‘total depravity of people.’ Beating that into heads week after week (pun intended), say in an SBC church, points the SBC member to think the guy on the street will bash me on the head.
I love reading the comments, from the perspective that the news is never as important as what people think about the news. Trust in all kinds of institutions is probably at a low point, headed for collapse in some - Eric's observation is a completely valid one, at the top level.
I would propose that trust-in-instution is a vertical; it's the BF&M, the which-seminary, the branding and labels stuff that clergy and lay leaders like to ruminate over. It's the water in which they swim, they're almost incapable of seeing it from the level of the decisions that put people in pews. What's more important for non-denominational members and attendees is identification - a horizontal. There are several comments that intersect:
"In other words, how are their members different from their neighbors in behavior?" - Jeremiah
"nondenominational really just meant Baptist but trying to be hip." - Robin
Long story short (too late), it's easier to tell your neighbors that you go to The Rock ("oh...") than to say you go to First Baptist ("Aren't Baptists against dancing and...?"). The very vagueness of the category makes it easier to sidestep tough conversations. Your neighbors might think you're hip - or at least won't have identifiable reasons to think you're not - if your behavior isn't benchmarked.
"Non-denominationalism is predicated on the collapse of institutional trust."
Very true. I would also say non-denominationalism is the logical extension to Nathan Hatch's democratization thesis, which is still helpful for me. Legalizing grass-roots denominations was perhaps American Christianity's first great contribution to Christian history. It seems to me that since 1945, new movements have mostly taken the SBC's loose sense of "denomination" as a maximum amount centralization instead of the minimum it had been before.
I would be curious to chart some of the drops in specific groups against scandals, strategy shifts, and votes or statements on controversial issues.
For instance, all the mainline denominations have been rocked by theological/social debates for the last 50ish years. It would make sense if some of those drove people to distrust denominational leadership more.
In a similar way, the SBC is at the tail end of a pretty ugly set of controversies that implicated multiple denominational leaders in covering sexual abuse, and also shifted their policy on women in leadership. It seems like those could be the root for future mistrust.
Honestly, I think this extends to government as well. Widespread skepticism about the US government has always existed, but I think Watergate put it on steroids. And unless an institution takes specific steps to fix the issue, and prevent similar things from happening again, the trust is difficult to rebuild.
To me, this is one of the most interesting questions. What does low trust do over time?
Burge shared on "Holy Post" that he thinks that some mistrustful people choose a group where all the leaders are people you know personally (or can at least see).
Whether that approach continues to dominate long term will be interesting.
A lot of people think that major society-wide catastrophes like war are the kind of thing that will restore social trust. Others like Putnam thinks that this happens for unknown reasons and doesn't require war.
Another theory is that in a time of widespread misinformation people will turn to something really old and stable, like the RCC.
And, of course, when trust is this low groups can just die out because no hope = no babies.
My man, have you considered that non denominational is just another word for white evangelical Protestantism, which regardless of self appellation is a real denomination?
"I always tell people I’m not biased against groups like Hindus, lesbians, or vegans."
The first two each a bit over 1% of the US population, I think (although I'd take any self-report numbers on lesbians, be they high or low, with an unhealthy heaping of salt).
So far more frequent in the US than e.g. Eastern Orthodox (maybe 0.25% for remotely active participants?). I suspect similar in magnitude with Actually Theistic Judaism (YMMV).
Interesting. I think that two things are also in play:
Didn't nondenominational churches emerge about 100 years ago as the theological conservatives and biblical literalists of the denominations realize they had more in common than with the liberals of the time?
How much of this general institutional distrust is fueled or fuels the conspiracy theories we have seen from this sector of the public?
It actually goes back farther than that. I grew up in the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, which resulted from the Campbell/Stone New Testament Restoration Movement that started in the early 1800s, mostly in the Ohio River valley region. They had no denominational structure above the local church. Over time, they had two major splits. The first was over instrumental music in the late 1800s; the second, in the 20th century, was over liberal theology. The liberals left and formed what is now the Disciples of Christ denomination, with typical structure. When I was growing up, they had colleges and seminaries, a couple of publishers, and an annual convention. The only business done at the convention was planning future gatherings. The convention had no authority over local churches. Apparently a few years ago they quit having the conventions. They do have a remarkably uniform culture, though. One slogan of the first-generation leaders was, "We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only."
You're primary thesis is 100% correct, and an observation I've been noting privately to folks for more than 20 years...as "non-denominationalism" rises. Thanks for backing it with data.
American's don't trust "institutions," period. This, imho, has been part of broad anti-insitution and anti-expert movement over the past fifty years.
Songwriter David Wilcox made a wry observation in the late 90s, that the fastest growing musicial genre at the time was "Alternative."
Nobody wanted to be part of the traditional genres...everybody wanted to be edgy and unique. Of course, if everyone is unique, than no one is. And everything's just "Alternative," or "Non-denominational."
The rise of these things are no accidentally parallel.
I would refer you to a now more than 20-year-old book by Ethicist William May, called "Beleaguered Rulers,"
https://www.amazon.com/Beleaguered-Rulers-Public-Obligation-Professional/dp/066422671X
The book posits that among eight "professions" anyone attempting to lead "insitiutions was feeling beset from all sides, and increasingly unable to function...certainly not a with a sense that they were working for the "common good."
Take government as another example parallel to this movement within the Church...Folks won't like this, but it's true...from the time that Reagan first said, "Government is the problem," faith in everybody from dog catchers to presidents has been plummeting.
But, he wasn't alone...folks on the right AND left have been distrustful of "experts" and believers in "self help" ever since.
Here's the problem, though: Many of these messages (right and left) do not PUSH people to confront their own shadow selves, nor push them to really unpack the harder parts of being human.
One of my church members, and excellent historian, Andrew McGregor's recent Substack speaks on this very topic:
"Solidarity seems harder to find today. In our contemporary moment, pundits talk about the epidemic of loneliness, the lack of third-spaces, and face-to-face interpersonal engagement. Similarly, I recall a pervasive ethic of edgy, non-conformity in my youth. And before that we had the so-called selfish, consumptive “me generation.” Perhaps something has changed in us. For at least three or four generations, we’ve been discouraged to come together, divided by technology, cliques, rivalries, and self-interest. We’ve certainly lost some of our faith in humanity, and become more cynical about our ability to effect change. I can’t help but think that this is intentional, a cultural strategy to hamper coalition building. It has created what I see as a type of “selfish-citizenship,” that has made us skeptical, suspicious, and quick to disengage from others. We now search for peace in isolation rather than our collective emancipation."
https://open.substack.com/pub/amcgregor/p/re-reading-and-reflecting-bayard?r=9i0xo&selection=609df29c-59b9-4bbe-a83a-08cbcaf34f4f&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
Finally, I must rise to defend our United Methodists, and suggest there's more to our "highest level of interpersonal trust."
Because, no, I don't think that it *only* do to education and income.
I am 100% convinced it's because a primary vision of being United Methodist is what we call "The Connection."
We use this term proudly, to refer to both the system itself, and the members OF the system in their more interpersonal relationships to each other.
As you know, we move our pastors around...which means that active pastors and lay folks get to know each other, as we "connect" with each other.
Point being: Our TRUST is built-in to the system. And over this same period of declining trust in instituations, as you note: our trust reminds highest.
Again, I'm 100% confident some of this must also be attributed to this specific part of our institution: Seeing our churches, schools, hospitals, mission work, etc...as all of what we call "The Connection."
The urging of institutional trust...and an also essential respect for those who "think differently" is baked in to our UM history and the system itself.
IMHO, it's also part of how we weathered the attack from within of those who recently wanted to break us apart.
Yes. 1/4 of UM churches did indeed leave to form a new denomination. But I'm 100% convinced that we came through this *because* of a bed-rock "connection" and trust between people on a broad theological spectrum. Progressives, Moderates and yes even Conservatives chose to *stay* because of the inherent trust that had been banked in each other, over decades.
IMHO, that could position us well to help lead hard cultural conversations across political and theological divides as we move forward in America. We are already connected to each other...rural/urban...progressive/conservative...and we could help leaven the connections that are so deeply frayed right now.
But... It also probably also means we won't grow dramatically. Because that hard work wouldn't be "popular" work.
But that interpersonal trust you're reading...it's structural, not just due to education, etc...
Do you think that decline of interpersonal trust is a cycle that will reverse, or a persistent trend that will last centuries?
Are you predicting that the numeric decline of the UMC will stabilize in the near future?
One piece of evidence for your theory that moving ministers around improves trust is Botswana, which did the same thing with teachers (including into cross-ethnic areas). That's one factor that helped it be one of the most stable sub-Saharan countries.
Great info/insight: the more one rubs up against "the other" they less said "other" is seen as being "the other."
Nothing would really surprise me, in terms of predicting continuing decline. I would argue, "it will continue" or I could argue the trust levels are such that we might stabilize. But we have sooooo many older folks, that continued decline feels likely.
That said...if we DO stabilize, it's hard to see how we could ever explode in growth like non-denoms have.
Another piece unsaid in Ryan's piece is: much non-denom growth is just reshufflign the deck. Not all, but a significant chunk....sooo..if all mainlines are declining and they're all funneling into an amorphous yet coherent set called "non-denominational," then, yeah, that one is gonna grow and year, all the others are gonna decline.
I'm not suggesting this accounts for ALL the decline/growth over time. But it's as much as anything else, for sure.
Said another way: when you factor in the non-religious....a growing group...it's easier to see how what's really been happening is this reshuffling...not any kind of stunning vindication of non-denom theology or practice.
ameicans shop for churches like they shop for breakfast cereal....harsh, but true.
Back to us...no, I supposed we're not likely to grow...
Because enough of our churches ARE doing messages of challenge alongside message of comfort...and that's the very thing that pushes folks away...nobody wants to hear a hard word about how building community in the real world is "hard."
They want easy..
You first question, though: No, I fear nothing will really reverse our general societal trust decline..
RE: decline: A significant % of the growth in my urban, Episcopal Church has come from an influx of religious/spiritual people (Catholics, Jews, etc) from more conservative backgrounds finding/joining the church.
This is definitely good for my church, but a definite, IMO, loss for the houses of faith they came from.
I think that the rapid growth of Old Order Mennonites, Amish, Bruderhof, and Haredi Jews would challenge the idea that "easy" is the only path to growth.
With the partial exception of your last, scaling rules are very very different at low penetrance (the first three are, even in areas where they are concentrated, pretty low penetrance).
Do you happen to have data for how much of the growth in each grouping is due to (incoming) affiliation versus high completed fertility + retention?
Haredim also differ from the first three in that they do have some degree of state power (I mean more in Israel and West Bank, although I also think Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree and the heavily Haredi parts of Brooklyn). I suspect similar dynamics apply to some subdivisions of American Muslims.
To your first comment, they are higher penetration than you might realize. The Amish numbers are best-established, and they're currently between 450k and 500k in the US, mostly concentrated in the WI-PA corridor.
Incoming affiliation is very low for Amish, OO Mennonites, and Haredim. I'm not sure this makes them much of an exception though. Few groups have ever had long periods where they consistently drew in outsiders. Usually in a religious tradition's first 50 years is when you see more conversions. Even the Nons mostly get musical chairs folks (Burge has said as much).
I'm still trying to find Bruderhof numbers, but anecdotally I know of many converts.
We have a lot of Muslim families where I live, and I don't typically see larger families than average. 1-2 kids typically. Some places might be different. Maybe I'll check at some point.
Thanks! Yes, I had no idea there were so many Amish. Wow! Learned something very new.
Agreed the religious group inward conversion is usually when the grouping is new (LDS a partial exception maybe, even still in the US, but lots of out-conversion there too; I live in SoCal in a fairly LDS-heavy area, where there is no obvious in-conversion, but not so far away there are Hispanic-dominant wards with IIUC large levels in-conversion within the last 70-80 years anyway, if not the last 50; obviously lots of Hispanic conversion into various evangelical churches too).
Agreed about Haredim - to be properly Haredi you really need to live in a Haredi-majority zone, although the boundary between what I would probably call "Modern Orthodox with mildly Hasidic characteristics" and "might as well call them Haredi" (not Satmar - that's a whole other level) seems to be more permeable in the recent immigrant parts of Los Angeles than I take to be the case in e.g. greater NYC.
My mileage matches yours re Muslims, although for complex reasons most of the Muslims I know are ethnically Iranian, where as you probably know low fertility seems to be endemic both in the home country and the diaspora. I was wondering whether highly conservative and less assimilated (e.g. Hanbali diaspora) Muslims might tend toward larger families. No idea.
The root word for diversity is also the same for divisive/divide...aka, many moving/thinking/acting parts.
The more diverse (educationally, economically, geographically...you get my drift) a group or entity becomes, the more divided it also becomes...that's human nature/reality.
I've always wondered why I, with a mere MA in Am Soc Cul History, have been able to figure that out and policy makers with multiple advanced degrees and political party "leaders" haven't.
Also, given that I don't actually like the situation I"veI outlined above, I welcome evidence-based links to sites that provide info/data/facts to disabuse me of my above stated insight.
I definitely see the issue you’re raising here.
And….I think it’s more pronounced in progressive spaces than in conservative spaces.
Progressive churches, especially those related to social justice, will often find themselves divided among several causes, as opposed to either following ONE cause, or one “strong leader.”
This means (IMHO) progressive churches are always more susceptible to falling apart…they have an allergy to strong central leadership….BUT! It’s also what tends to protect them from becoming cultish or nationalist.
YUP....and the current state of one of our major parities is prof of this!
It really is fascinating to watch the ways in which "non-denoms" have shifted because it was always a well known joke in Church Planting circles (which I was in for over 15 years) that nondenominational really just meant Baptist but trying to be hip. Every church planter I knew who was "nondenominational" were really just former Baptists and the divide between SBC and other forms was super interesting as well. When you'd read through their church's Belief Statements, you'd find an awful lot of overlap with every other baptist church in town more or. less. Isn't that the Whole Deal of Acts 29 for example? Non denom but mostly pretty conservative baptist/presbyterian and usually very reformed?
In those circles was there much talk about Rodney Stark and Roger Finke's work suggesting that (in most times and places) high-tension churches tend to grow more quickly?
I wish. Ironically, that kind of thought was too secular for my former crowd :(
Interesting angle. I like it. Very compelling.
Some other kinds of analysis I'd be interested in around Nons:
1. Congregant journey: what are the paths that people took to get there, and what percentage of people took which paths?
2. Online engagement: how do the tech use habits of nons differ from other traditions?
3. Career: how important is career success to nons compared to other traditions?
4. Ideological independence: do nons hold a more- or less-eclectic mix of political views than other traditions.
5. Transition survival: most denominational congregations survive pastoral transitions with out a problem. What percentage of non-denominational churches do?
6. Size mix: the stereotype of non-denom churches is that they're large. Is this accurate?
7. Lifestyle tension: what are the lifestyle factors non-denoms place the highest priority on? In other words, how are their members different from their neighbors in behavior?
8. Charismaticicity: that's not a word. What percentage of non-denom churches fall in the charismatic theological camp?
9. Prosperity: what percentage of non denom congregations promote views related to prosperity theology (i.e. what you give will be given back to you, shaken together and flowing over)? How does this differ between other traditions?
As an evangelical who attends a non-denom, I would think about two trends:
1. A lot of us in the evangelical world have unhappy memories of the liberalization of the Mainlines. An interesting question: do denominational bureaucracies have an institutional tendency TOWARDS liberalization? You can maybe invoke Conquest's/O'Sullivan's laws of bureaucracies here.
One case in point: the CRC recently, surprisingly (given the direction of things), voted not to affirm gay marriage. Yet at the time, the denominational bureaucracy was more or less openly lobbying the grassroots of the church to affirm. If that's your experience of denominational bureaucracy -- that it is inevitably far to the theological left of either the clergy or the members at the grassroots level -- then what use is it to those members and clergy? Not much.
This probably does manifest as lower institutional trust in surveys. Conservative Christians are less inclined to trust institutions because the people that run institutions -- even ostensibly Christian ones that in many cases our ancestors helped build up -- don't ever seem to share our values.
2. Alright, but why reject the SBC? Ryan refers to the SBC as "the definition of organized religion in the Protestant world." My problem with this statement is that it's not, strictly speaking, a denomination; it's a noncentral example of what a denomination is like, and this actually matters. SBC churches remain congregational in polity. They have no bishops, and the SBC can't fire a pastor, it can only kick a church out of the SBC. Which is to say -- the only real punishment it can levy is to make that church non-denominational. Which, as this article highlights, isn't much of a punishment at all!
I actually think we should have an SBC, I have no problem with the SBC per se. It makes sense to partner together with other churches for certain projects, especially missions, as opposed to everyone trying go off and do it on their own. My kids have all gone to an SBC preschool. But the church we belong to is not part of the SBC. I would say the simplest reason why we're not SBC is the pastor who planted the church didn't grow up in the SBC or emerge out of the SBC. And I wanted us to join a church plant because we're relatively new in town and I wanted us to grow up as a family alongside this church, as opposed to the more established SBC churches here.
In this sense, the SBC "brand" is kind of a hindrance to growing a church plant -- it signals an older church with older people. Though of course many churches still belong to the SBC without any Baptist branding, so the brand in itself doesn't fully explain the SBC's problems.
But also, let's talk dollars and cents, I'm on my church's finance team. There are church planting funds available that originated with the SBC but are now no longer tied to it, I think because many in the SBC see the writing on the wall and want to prioritize church plants succeeding over growing the SBC per se.
The Summit Network was founded by Summit Church (which is SBC) but doesn't require its plants to be SBC. It granted us a good sum of money to get started and now we're putting money back into it. The SBC's former lending arm is now independent and no longer requires churches to be part of the SBC, but it does require them to be "Baptist" under a broad definition, which I think is really just "credobaptist", something that basically all non-denoms qualify as. In any event we qualified and so received below-market loans from them to construct our building.
Okay, so let's talk about the SBC as a denomination for a minute.
I think it's very fair to say that the SBC is not a denomination in the same way that the Episcopalians are. Way less hierarchy, credentialing, etc.
However, I think that the SBC is a denomination in that it does (sparingly) enforce conformity with the BF&M. Which, by the way, is not very Baptist of them. From my (biased) point of view the ABCUSA is way less of a denomination because it takes local church autonomy and soul competency very seriously!
Sure, I think that's all reasonable, even if I'd be on the side of more, not less, enforcement of the BF&M. To me, it's hard to argue for the proper form of church polity from abstract principles, because there they all make a reasonable case. I see it as a pragmatic question.
But to the broader point: the SBC might be much larger than TEC today, but I think for most people that aren't deeply engaged in this stuff, they think of TEC's model, or even the Roman Catholic model, as normative. And even there, they imagine the RCC to be more hierarchical and centralized than it actually is, with the Pope as an absolute autocrat.
I also think at times when the SBC says it really doesn't have much enforcement power, like in the case of some of the abuse cases that emerged, a lot of people take that message like a mobster telling you that all his associates are independent contractors: some sort of legal fiction invented to dodge responsibility, and not a choice of polity that has been pursued out of real and heartfelt conviction on the part of a lot of people.
Of course, corrupt men will at times take advantage of decentralized institutions to commit evil and evade responsibility. Though at other times they'll take advantage of centralized institutions to commit evil and evade responsibility, which is why, in my mind, this goes back to being a pragmatic question.
This is one of the most rewarding/information dense single comment(s) I have read here at Ryan's (or anywhere else on the topic in question). Thanks!
Plus how could I *not* appreciate "[the SBC] is a noncentral example of what a denomination is like, and this actually matters."? Would that more people (across the political and theological spectra) could unlearn, or learn to overcome, reflexively Platonist/Aristotelian ontologies - noncentral example indeed!
Very interesting, and unusually perceptive/smart, that "many in the SBC see the writing on the wall and want to prioritize church plants succeeding over growing the SBC per se." Speaks to your point of the SBC being functionally somewhat less of an institution than might appear to be the case from the outside view. Do the credobaptist plants (in your experience, obviously) show a strong preference for filling their pastorate with grads of SBC-affiliated seminaries?
Thanks!
As for your question: in my experience, it doesn't seem like there's that much overlap (though there is SOME overlap) between non-denom and SBC pastors in terms of where they go to seminary, so that's partly what I mean when I say my pastor didn't "emerge from" the SBC; he received an M.Div. from what would be seen as a generally non-denominational evangelical seminary. I don't get the sense that my pastor's choice of seminary was any sort of hindrance in receiving the SBC-related funds I described.
For what it's worth, I WOULD say that I've never seen graduate-level overlap between Mainline and evangelical pastors though; Mainline pastors seem to either go to seminary at designated denominational schools or standard secular private schools like Duke, Vanderbilt, etc.
Of course, in evangelical world, it's common enough for pastors to only have a Bachelor's degree, perhaps earning a certificate from a seminary and not a full M.Div or otherwise going through some sort of non-degree church plant training program or residency (e.g. Summit Network, which I described, has a program like this).
SBC pastors do appear to be better-credentialed in this regard. It's common enough to have an SBC pastor with a doctorate; I was married by one. Though something about this feels Boomer to me and I wonder if it might be rarer in the current generation. Still, I can't think of a non-denominational pastor with a Ph.D.
What an insightful perspective into this issue. Thanks!
I'm not sure I see the correlation between central leadership and liberalism. TEC has central leadership with meaningful control and is very liberal. The UCC central leadership has very little control (they're even called "congregational") and is very liberal. The SBC has little control and is very conservative. The RCC has meaningful control and is (at least in terms of policy) very conservative.
In Anabaptist circles, centralizing resources is considered inherently liberal ("high" is their term), so much so that the lowest groups don't even have church buildings.
One question on your comment about the CRC: "at the time, the denominational bureaucracy was more or less openly lobbying the grassroots of the church to affirm."
What led you to the conclusion that the denomination was openly lobbying the congregations in this way?
To the pile of liberal denominations, I would add that European state Protestant churches tend to be liberal and centralized. E.g. the Church of England.
But one thing about liberalization is that it tends to be the natural direction of denominations. You need a "conservative takeover", some sort of decisive and dramatic action, to prevent it from happening. LCMS had this: Seminex. Even the SBC had it. If everyone just goes with the flow, the denomination will inexorably drift left. Or, we might say, in the direction of assimilating to the mainstream elite culture, which normally looks like "left." Hence the phrase "Semper Reformanda".
If there's a conflict between the denominational institutions and the grassroots, it seems to be the case almost every time that the denominational institutions are on the left, and the grassroots on the right, and the question is whether the grassroots is able and willing to take control of the institutions from those who naturally inhabit them. This is naturally easier in a congregationalist system, but it doesn't mean congregationalist conservatives always win.
Sometimes the grassroots drifts left, especially in a denomination concentrated in a liberal part of the country. Or it doesn't have the stomach for any kind of fight. I don't know the full story of the UCC, but I imagine some combination of these is what happened.
On the point about the CRC: I recall hearing this from a few different sources. Doing a quick search for something tangible, here's an article that talks about it:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/curious-case-crc/
As presented here, the first time the Synod voted to affirm traditional sexual morality, the denomination (including its publication, The Banner) basically tried to undermine it and soften the blow. The leftward moves were also basically all being led by the congregations around Grand Rapids, which contained both the denominational offices and Calvin University; it was largely their staff doing this.
As for the RCC and EO, I'm going to hold that they're fundamentally unlike Protestant churches in this regard; they operate by largely different rules because the extraordinary age of their organizations has produced an inertia unlike nearly any other extant institution in the world. Even so, at this particular moment, it does appear that the institutional hierarchy of the RCC is controlled by people to the left of active grassroots Catholics laity and parish priests.
I'm in the CRC, though I don't live in Grand Rapids so don't see all the politics.
I also write for The Banner and so read it frequently. My assessment is that they try and soften all blows. Their basic goal is to avoid fights, which is not exactly the same thing as promoting liberalism.
In a time of growing individualism I could see how avoiding fights would promote liberalism. In a time of growing communalism (e.g. if we see ascendent religious nationalism) I would expect the opposite.
Appreciate the insight. I’m sure you have much more lived experience with this. I’ve only read about the CRC’s fights from afar and tried to map them onto the struggles that I know closer to home.
I’m trying to think about your last statement. I think I got this from Aaron Renn, but there’s a model in these denominational fights that says you have conservatives, moderates, and liberals. The moderates are the ones that say “Why can’t we all get along?” Which you’re associating with The Banner in the case of the CRC. The liberals tend to take vanguard actions that break the rules and create facts on the ground. E.g., they name an openly gay pastor in a denomination that forbids it. The conservatives try to enforce punishments for those rules, but the moderates, while agreeing with the rules in principle, are very reluctant to enforce them once that means defrocking pastors and so on, and so they become a blocking force that allows liberal practices to spread. Then at some point, conservatives are disgusted with the liberal advances and start exiting the denomination, which becomes a spiral that allows the liberals to take control.
Now, let’s think about the situation reversed. I imagine it would look like Operation Reconquista. Some young conservatives start taking over liberal churches in a dying Mainline denomination that is full of historic buildings but no people. The liberals in that denomination try to crush the movement, but the moderates, if they’re strong enough, could once again block it, allowing a conservative resurgence.
I don’t think it will happen, but that’s probably what it would look like if it did.
I really wish folks would remember the Black church in these discussions. We have more non-denoms that lean Pentecostal(COGIC NOT AOG).
What is driving non-denominationalism is the "shuffling of the saints", not the transformation of sinners...
A big question is why various scandals at non-denominational churches simply don't impact people's trust in the non-denominational movement the way that they do with denominations.
It does. There's a whole movement called "deconstruction" (I realize that this term is used by others for different reasons) that's basically people leaving non-denoms over this. They become "nones" though, rather than choosing a denomination.
When Ryan was a guest on a podcast, I think he mentioned teaching ‘total depravity of people.’ Beating that into heads week after week (pun intended), say in an SBC church, points the SBC member to think the guy on the street will bash me on the head.
I love reading the comments, from the perspective that the news is never as important as what people think about the news. Trust in all kinds of institutions is probably at a low point, headed for collapse in some - Eric's observation is a completely valid one, at the top level.
I would propose that trust-in-instution is a vertical; it's the BF&M, the which-seminary, the branding and labels stuff that clergy and lay leaders like to ruminate over. It's the water in which they swim, they're almost incapable of seeing it from the level of the decisions that put people in pews. What's more important for non-denominational members and attendees is identification - a horizontal. There are several comments that intersect:
"In other words, how are their members different from their neighbors in behavior?" - Jeremiah
"nondenominational really just meant Baptist but trying to be hip." - Robin
Long story short (too late), it's easier to tell your neighbors that you go to The Rock ("oh...") than to say you go to First Baptist ("Aren't Baptists against dancing and...?"). The very vagueness of the category makes it easier to sidestep tough conversations. Your neighbors might think you're hip - or at least won't have identifiable reasons to think you're not - if your behavior isn't benchmarked.
I don’t think it’s distrust so much as it is that the greatest crime you can do in conservative evangelical circles is criticize Donald Trump.
Sure people leave because of distrust, but mostly people leave because they are board.
"Non-denominationalism is predicated on the collapse of institutional trust."
Very true. I would also say non-denominationalism is the logical extension to Nathan Hatch's democratization thesis, which is still helpful for me. Legalizing grass-roots denominations was perhaps American Christianity's first great contribution to Christian history. It seems to me that since 1945, new movements have mostly taken the SBC's loose sense of "denomination" as a maximum amount centralization instead of the minimum it had been before.
I would be curious to chart some of the drops in specific groups against scandals, strategy shifts, and votes or statements on controversial issues.
For instance, all the mainline denominations have been rocked by theological/social debates for the last 50ish years. It would make sense if some of those drove people to distrust denominational leadership more.
In a similar way, the SBC is at the tail end of a pretty ugly set of controversies that implicated multiple denominational leaders in covering sexual abuse, and also shifted their policy on women in leadership. It seems like those could be the root for future mistrust.
Honestly, I think this extends to government as well. Widespread skepticism about the US government has always existed, but I think Watergate put it on steroids. And unless an institution takes specific steps to fix the issue, and prevent similar things from happening again, the trust is difficult to rebuild.
To me, this is one of the most interesting questions. What does low trust do over time?
Burge shared on "Holy Post" that he thinks that some mistrustful people choose a group where all the leaders are people you know personally (or can at least see).
Whether that approach continues to dominate long term will be interesting.
A lot of people think that major society-wide catastrophes like war are the kind of thing that will restore social trust. Others like Putnam thinks that this happens for unknown reasons and doesn't require war.
Another theory is that in a time of widespread misinformation people will turn to something really old and stable, like the RCC.
And, of course, when trust is this low groups can just die out because no hope = no babies.
Interesting for sure.
My man, have you considered that non denominational is just another word for white evangelical Protestantism, which regardless of self appellation is a real denomination?
"I always tell people I’m not biased against groups like Hindus, lesbians, or vegans."
The first two each a bit over 1% of the US population, I think (although I'd take any self-report numbers on lesbians, be they high or low, with an unhealthy heaping of salt).
So far more frequent in the US than e.g. Eastern Orthodox (maybe 0.25% for remotely active participants?). I suspect similar in magnitude with Actually Theistic Judaism (YMMV).
Orthodox (as a whole) are about 1% on surveys, but then their membership stats are way lower than that. Hindus are .5%.
The lesbian thing is hard to parse - lots of younger women ID as bisexual. But I would peg it around 1%.
Got a post in a couple weeks about the non-gender conforming part of the sample.
Interesting. I think that two things are also in play:
Didn't nondenominational churches emerge about 100 years ago as the theological conservatives and biblical literalists of the denominations realize they had more in common than with the liberals of the time?
How much of this general institutional distrust is fueled or fuels the conspiracy theories we have seen from this sector of the public?
It actually goes back farther than that. I grew up in the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, which resulted from the Campbell/Stone New Testament Restoration Movement that started in the early 1800s, mostly in the Ohio River valley region. They had no denominational structure above the local church. Over time, they had two major splits. The first was over instrumental music in the late 1800s; the second, in the 20th century, was over liberal theology. The liberals left and formed what is now the Disciples of Christ denomination, with typical structure. When I was growing up, they had colleges and seminaries, a couple of publishers, and an annual convention. The only business done at the convention was planning future gatherings. The convention had no authority over local churches. Apparently a few years ago they quit having the conventions. They do have a remarkably uniform culture, though. One slogan of the first-generation leaders was, "We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only."
Hey restorationist cousin!