On the last point about the historical connection of religion to social justice. perhaps the meaning of social justice has shifted. Before 1970, social justice meant making life easier for the poor and harder for the rich, which is pretty much the whole purpose of the New Testament. Since 1970, the 'liberals' are only interested in spreading the values of aristocrats to the poor. Aristocrats have always favored loose sex and open marriage, which are destructive for poor people. The older message was identical to basic Christianity, and the new message is what Jesus was fighting against.
I wonder if this has any relation to the concert of "luxury beliefs." Burge, if you ever have the chance, contact Rob Henderson. He would be interested in hearing your perspective, especially given Henderson's background.
I'd disagree with the phrases "the whole purpose of the New Testament" and "identical to basic Christianity" -- I'd say the Gospel message of salvation is the chief purpose of the New Testament and the heart of Christian message.
However, it IS a valid point that the left has changed direction here. But what does this have to do with the struggles of liberal Christianity? Not much, I don't think. Then and now, liberal Christianity's political agenda has been dictated by the fashions of elite opinion. But for reasons stated in my post above, while this was a basis for a successful social organization under the conditions of early- and mid-20th century America, that's no longer true under the conditions of the 21st century.
Define salvation… how one interprets that also has repercussions for the social gospel… as a Lutheran I’m not as horrified at this data as I could be… what are Lutherans doing right? I don’t think we know but it would behoove us to figure it out and do it more
It seems to me that to thrive, liberal Christianity needs a sufficiently Christian social backdrop. You need a large class of people who say, "I want something that's different from my childhood upbringing, and the various conservative churches around me -- but not TOO different, not TOO weird, and also respectable." Indeed, one problem liberal churches have is that there was a positive respectability associated with the Mainline for a long time, but now it's, at best, neutral, and at worse, associated with the negative perceptions that elites have towards conservative Christians. Mainliner elites seem to have to spend a lot of time saying to their fellow elites, "We're not like those gross people on the Christian right," for which they receive, at best, a "Meh, OK."
So in the absence of a desire to be KIND of like your childhood church, but more assimilated and respectable, why choose liberal Christianity over a private "a la carte" or New Age spirituality?
I can only think of one answer, which is that liberal churches still have regular meetings that are easy to locate, with good real estate. It's easier to be part of a community. On this front, the "Bowling Alone" phenomenon plays a key role. Back when the Mainlines were thriving, people got out of the house for all sorts of organized social activities. Who cares if you didn't have much conviction in the Gospel? Do you have much conviction in the message of the Loyal Order of Moose? It was just another form of community activity, with potlucks, etc.
But now, the default is to have zero involvement in any kind of social organization. Therefore, the decision to attend frequently now selects heavily for conviction and a willingness to be countercultural.
I don't think the competition is a `private "a la carte" or New Age spirituality`; the competition is nothing...inertia...in a world that takes so much energy of one's psyche to get anything done.
Well, the spirituality I'm describing is certainly less demanding that devout adherence to a traditional religion. But belief in God, "some higher power", or an afterlife still get much higher numbers than church attendance or belief in any traditional Christian doctrine. More anecdotally, it's easy to observe in media all the people out there who say "the universe" to imply some sort of quasi-divine will. And recently there was a trend of using the word "manifest" in a way that sometimes implies the work of mysterious, beneficent spiritual forces.
I think you bring up a valid point that in this distracted age, it's easier than ever to never think about spiritual questions. But I'm thinking about someone who has some desire to connect with the spiritual but has firmly rejected traditional Christianity -- an archetype who existed then and now, even if in different proportions. In the past, this person could still end up happy enough at a liberal church, but he's much less likely to choose that option today, because as I described, the advantages it had over other sorts of spirituality have mostly evaporated.
To your perspective, I would add, that some years ago the great mainline churches, led by my beloved Episcopal denomination, decided to turn their reform movement inward. They changed their doctrines to bring into the Body of Christ a magnificent Trojan Horse they believed to be a gift. Instead it was a disastrous hoax. Today, the mainlines have withered on the vine and may die. In my 86 years, I have learned through the "school of hard knocks" that it is wise to pay heed to the commandments, exhortations and wisdom contained in the Word of God before making any big, irreversible moves.
It is comforting to know that the "nones" appear to have plateaued, and christianity is growing or stable somewhere in America, regardless of political leanings. I don't believe our country, founded on traditional christian beliefs, could survive long term without it.
Ryan, my condolences to you on the loss of your church. I lost a troubled, but much-beloved son in 2005. I could have done more to help him find a good life, but I failed. I live daily with grief and guilt. I imagine you have some similar feelings about your church. I know from experience there's not enough time in this life to get past it.
So I wonder…in the ELCA (and I believe TEC, although I’m less familiar with them), conservatives both among clergy and laity are actively (not yet formally) pushed out by denominational leadership and other clergy. Is the ELCA making their congregants more liberal, or is it just removing all opposition? And thinking about it, I suppose then the inverse question could also be asked. If basically none of these churches are growing numerically, are they moving their members’ civic votes and/or theological commitments from left/center —> right, or are the left/center folks the ones who are dropping out?
The fact that different Mainline denominations differ in the degree to which they have liberalized is something I’ve only come to appreciate with some of Ryan’s stats. Previously, I thought of the Mainlines as a mostly undifferentiated mass, aside from the UMC.
But I know a couple from our church that got married recently at a small town PCUSA church. They’re very sensitive to theology and tell me that it’s a conservative holdout and is basically indistinguishable from a PCA church. I think PCUSA stands alone among the Mainlines in terms of the number of conservative holdout churches it has. I imagine this, in turn, has something to do with its governance structure.
Great point. I know of two "liberal" friends who said they left the "progressive" protestant churches they were members of because of the intolerance of the other members and the pastors towards anyone who deviated in any way from a hard left, DEI etc. perspective
I find this fascinating, thank you for taking the time to do this analysis.
This weekend, I visited a Catholic church while on vacation. I was worried when I saw several young women wearing veils scattered among the pews. Veils (a pre-Vatican II relic) are usually a signal that the parish leans in a more traditional direction. A deacon delivered the homily and he mentioned, in a very positive way, Dorothy Day, a social justice hero. No one got up and walked out. It seems that Catholic theology encourages the individual to recognize systemic issues that are not yet aligned with the gospel encouraging individuals to do what they can to change what they can.
Thank you for sharing your pastoring experience. The statistics were even more accessible with your personal story. I'm sorry that you had to close your church.
I’m a veil-wearing Latin-mass-attending Catholic who absolutely loves Dorothy Day. I don’t see any tension — rather the opposite.
I’ve found that traditional devotional practices (liturgy of the hours, Angelus, scapular-wearing, daily mass when possible, frequent confession and adoration, holy water by my door, veiling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament) provide a spiritual scaffold to uphold my ministry to the poor, which would otherwise be totally draining (I run a Catholic-Worker-adjacent free medical clinic).
In particular, I find that the scapular and the veil are ways I can enter prayer when prayer is really hard — they’re tactile reminders that cue me in my “practice of the presence of God.”
Dorothy Day was pretty traditionalist herself in theological and devotional matters and her writing also makes it pretty clear that this fed her activism, not worked against it. Catholic social teaching is pretty orthogonal to usual right/left divides.
I understand where you are coming from. Thank you for taking the time to share your experience. It definitely takes a strong set of spiritual scaffolds to remain open-hearted (as I am sure that you are) in stressful places. May God continue to bless the work of your hands and heart.
Exactly. Having the saints is a huge counterweight to getting pulled too far in any one political direction, because it forces stops you from reducing Christianity to one good thing in opposition to other good things, like care for the poor and theological orthodoxy.
I know the Unitarian Universalists are never sorted out in the major datasets - they have become way too small to register statistically - but as an ex-UU, I wanted to point out that I think you would have found an even stronger reverse correlation than you did with ELCA. Even as a lifelong center-left Democrat, I found I simply had to leave the UUA, and my local UU church, after 8 years as a member, because the constant hammering on the most far-left positions was driving me to distraction. It was ubiquitous - from the pulpit, on the committees, during the coffee hour, in the denominational magazine, etc. If one took aside someone who one thought was well-connected in the community and asked "Who are the less radically progressive members in our church? Are there ANY Republicans?" (...and I did this a lot!) one would get a confused non-response, or, sometimes, a handful of names of people who hardly ever attended. If you followed those leads, you'd find that the non-lefty members were mostly from legacy families - UU for generations - and they couldn't stand to attend regularly, either... The serious frequent-attendee members were good people, almost without exception, and I miss many of them - but being a highly-involved UU is a real slog if one is not ultra-progressive on all issues.
I'm in the same boat. Being a political centrist just became impossible in my church. And, of course, they just codified this leftward lurch with the latest changes to Article II of their bylaws. UU has become pretty much a social justice organization. The irony of all this is that they think of themselves as radically inclusive, and don't see how their lefty politics alienate existing and potential members.
Very true. My former UU church just got a new minister, and, since the minister had been part of the local part of the "problem" (for me), I decided to attend the two consecutive get-acquainted Sundays and meet the new one. Mind you, I had never stopped considering myself what they call a "Friend of the Congregation" and had attended a number of dinners, etc., with my wife, who is still a member but attends on Sundays only occasionally. Well, long story short, a small and apparently self-appointed committee physically barred me from the sanctuary on the second Sunday, arguing that my presence was "triggering" to unnamed members of the congregation. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. After some weeks, an associate minister told my wife that "they should not have done that" and "had been asked not to do it again", but, notably, no one has contacted ME to apologize. So... kinda not interested any more.
As you say, they've become just a social justice organization, and this kind of behavior is just a reflection of how the more left-wing social justice organizations comport themselves these days - I get the same kind of vibes from my local democrats - with whom I have been involved far longer than I was with UU - when I'm not "progressive enough" or fail some current litmus test on a single issue. And whether UUs or Democrats, the individuals who engage in this behavior just don't grasp that they are not being "inclusive".
During my last year as a member of my old UU church, there was actually a guest minister who proclaimed from the pulpit that it is not a failure to be inclusive to exclude anyone deemed to be non-inclusive. Again, I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. But at least she was clear about what she was saying and doing and why. The vast majority in UU seem not to have thought about it in anything like a critical way.
Anyway, my original point was that UU actually IS a "liberalizing religion" in the sense laid out in the original article, that it's hard to document that in any way beyond anecdotally because of its small size, and that perhaps its not all that desirable a thing to be. BUT, if that is what one is looking for, UU is an excellent place to find it - and that IS what many of my old friends there valued and still value about it.
The “Christian” right created this mess by turning every disagreement into a culture war. Faux oppression and “literalism/Bible idolatry” drive this, and those are fueled by a money-driven evangelical preacher class, that has extremely low barriers to entry. The result is every day there’s a new “scandal” like the embarrassing flap over the Olympics Opening Ceremony, or the lyrics to a Taylor Swift song.
I wonder to what extent Liberalism itself is a factor. I think it is safe to say Liberalism has permutations that are consistent with a Geertzian definition of religion. I'm a democratic socialist Catholic, but even I can't but notice there is a tendency for 'liberal' focused theology to just...fade away. Liberalism (not to be confused with Liberty and Liberation) seems to me a jealous god.
Your data show just two denominations where attendance is correlated with greater likelihood of identifying as "liberal": the Episcopal Church and the ELCA. While the two denominations have been full communion partners for 25 years, they exhibit real geographic and socio-economic differences. The Episcopal Church has always had a high socio-economic status character that the ELCA lacks. On the other hand, the ELCA has a regional dominance over much of the Upper Midwest while the Episcopal Church lacks a regional core that it dominates. What this suggests that in the ELCA heartland of Minnesota, Iowa, SD, and ND one might see religion pushing politics to the left. I think that has been true in Minnesota and to a lesser extent in Iowa. But my experience in the ELCA suggests that the denomination is not reproducing itself very well and often functions as a waystation on the route to secularism.
Are we sure this is the proper direction of causation?
Is it "The more people attend, the less liberal they are" Or "the less liberal they are, The more people attend"? These are very very different claims.
Do we have a control for determining causation, or is this just a general trend? I see that the paper used cross sections of the population, but i dont see an RCT testing if people become more conservative when selected to attend more religious activities. Any clarification would be appreciated from an expert.
Not sure how to understand the Jewish information. Of Jews who attend weekly or weekly +, the vast majority are orthodox. And Orthodox Jews skew more conservative than the rest of the Jewish community. I’d be curious to know whether Reform and Reconstructionist Jews who attend weekly fit the pattern.
Not particularly surprising, though it is hard to assess a social gospel in one survey question. What most religion seems to be about is reinforcement of one's personal responsibilities. The people who go to church each week have that as a duty to fulfill. We Jews have commandments that we have a divine mandate to do or to avoid, so we observe sabbath and eat foods that are permitted. Those are personal obligations that we undertake. But Judaism, and I would say other religions, doesn't do well without two core communal concepts, one being Kehillah or being part of a community, the other being Tikkun Olam or improving the world as we find it. Those are byproducts of our personal responsibilities. We see this play out in a number of forms. Charitable outreach to the poor in America is highly dependent on faith based initiatives. As people become Nones, particularly the drifter type people Ryan describes in his book, not only does the worship atrophy but so does the elements of outward focus that are part of all religious traditions. There is a Jewish gospel of wealth that's a bit different than Rev Osteen's. If I am prosperous, you become more prosperous. There is some element to trickle down in this, but to become prosperous I have to hire or contract other people and once I am prosperous I have an obligation to share some. The starting point is I, as the professor suggests. The end result is usually we.
Really moving essay in Deseret News! I hope you find your next spiritual home. Don’t discount all the good you have done and continuing to do in the world in your many roles.
Comparison with Protestant Europe would be interesting here. I feel like in Scandinavia / NL / Francophone Switzerland the main Protestant churches are decidedly center left (with pockets of conservatism / small conservative sects influenced by US evangelicalism), but also have a certain reputation for being staid, establishment institutions; ditto the C of E and the Scottish Kirke. Germany is different because of the strong residual ties linking the churches to the CDU/CSU, and the pockets of Protestantism in ex-communist Europe tends to be pretty conservative (Orban is a member of Hungary’s Protestant minority).
But these are just impressions, I haven’t read a data diver comparable to your post.
Thank you for the moving article about the need to close your church. As a pastor of a small church in Canada, I found it very relatable.
Thank you as well for the interesting data. I'm curious to know whether there's much data on the deconstruction movement and how that might fit in with this. I know that there was a strong correlation between academic learning, faith deconstruction, and progressive social ideas in my own development and I see the same thing frequently with the university students that I meet as a chaplain.
On the last point about the historical connection of religion to social justice. perhaps the meaning of social justice has shifted. Before 1970, social justice meant making life easier for the poor and harder for the rich, which is pretty much the whole purpose of the New Testament. Since 1970, the 'liberals' are only interested in spreading the values of aristocrats to the poor. Aristocrats have always favored loose sex and open marriage, which are destructive for poor people. The older message was identical to basic Christianity, and the new message is what Jesus was fighting against.
I wonder if this has any relation to the concert of "luxury beliefs." Burge, if you ever have the chance, contact Rob Henderson. He would be interested in hearing your perspective, especially given Henderson's background.
Yes. The Overton window for “liberalism” has shifted from combating misogyny, child labor, and Jim Crow to abortion and gay pride parades.
I'd disagree with the phrases "the whole purpose of the New Testament" and "identical to basic Christianity" -- I'd say the Gospel message of salvation is the chief purpose of the New Testament and the heart of Christian message.
However, it IS a valid point that the left has changed direction here. But what does this have to do with the struggles of liberal Christianity? Not much, I don't think. Then and now, liberal Christianity's political agenda has been dictated by the fashions of elite opinion. But for reasons stated in my post above, while this was a basis for a successful social organization under the conditions of early- and mid-20th century America, that's no longer true under the conditions of the 21st century.
Define salvation… how one interprets that also has repercussions for the social gospel… as a Lutheran I’m not as horrified at this data as I could be… what are Lutherans doing right? I don’t think we know but it would behoove us to figure it out and do it more
It seems to me that to thrive, liberal Christianity needs a sufficiently Christian social backdrop. You need a large class of people who say, "I want something that's different from my childhood upbringing, and the various conservative churches around me -- but not TOO different, not TOO weird, and also respectable." Indeed, one problem liberal churches have is that there was a positive respectability associated with the Mainline for a long time, but now it's, at best, neutral, and at worse, associated with the negative perceptions that elites have towards conservative Christians. Mainliner elites seem to have to spend a lot of time saying to their fellow elites, "We're not like those gross people on the Christian right," for which they receive, at best, a "Meh, OK."
So in the absence of a desire to be KIND of like your childhood church, but more assimilated and respectable, why choose liberal Christianity over a private "a la carte" or New Age spirituality?
I can only think of one answer, which is that liberal churches still have regular meetings that are easy to locate, with good real estate. It's easier to be part of a community. On this front, the "Bowling Alone" phenomenon plays a key role. Back when the Mainlines were thriving, people got out of the house for all sorts of organized social activities. Who cares if you didn't have much conviction in the Gospel? Do you have much conviction in the message of the Loyal Order of Moose? It was just another form of community activity, with potlucks, etc.
But now, the default is to have zero involvement in any kind of social organization. Therefore, the decision to attend frequently now selects heavily for conviction and a willingness to be countercultural.
I don't think the competition is a `private "a la carte" or New Age spirituality`; the competition is nothing...inertia...in a world that takes so much energy of one's psyche to get anything done.
Well, the spirituality I'm describing is certainly less demanding that devout adherence to a traditional religion. But belief in God, "some higher power", or an afterlife still get much higher numbers than church attendance or belief in any traditional Christian doctrine. More anecdotally, it's easy to observe in media all the people out there who say "the universe" to imply some sort of quasi-divine will. And recently there was a trend of using the word "manifest" in a way that sometimes implies the work of mysterious, beneficent spiritual forces.
I think you bring up a valid point that in this distracted age, it's easier than ever to never think about spiritual questions. But I'm thinking about someone who has some desire to connect with the spiritual but has firmly rejected traditional Christianity -- an archetype who existed then and now, even if in different proportions. In the past, this person could still end up happy enough at a liberal church, but he's much less likely to choose that option today, because as I described, the advantages it had over other sorts of spirituality have mostly evaporated.
To your perspective, I would add, that some years ago the great mainline churches, led by my beloved Episcopal denomination, decided to turn their reform movement inward. They changed their doctrines to bring into the Body of Christ a magnificent Trojan Horse they believed to be a gift. Instead it was a disastrous hoax. Today, the mainlines have withered on the vine and may die. In my 86 years, I have learned through the "school of hard knocks" that it is wise to pay heed to the commandments, exhortations and wisdom contained in the Word of God before making any big, irreversible moves.
It is comforting to know that the "nones" appear to have plateaued, and christianity is growing or stable somewhere in America, regardless of political leanings. I don't believe our country, founded on traditional christian beliefs, could survive long term without it.
Ryan, my condolences to you on the loss of your church. I lost a troubled, but much-beloved son in 2005. I could have done more to help him find a good life, but I failed. I live daily with grief and guilt. I imagine you have some similar feelings about your church. I know from experience there's not enough time in this life to get past it.
Interesting data point re: ELCA. It is true in my case.
So I wonder…in the ELCA (and I believe TEC, although I’m less familiar with them), conservatives both among clergy and laity are actively (not yet formally) pushed out by denominational leadership and other clergy. Is the ELCA making their congregants more liberal, or is it just removing all opposition? And thinking about it, I suppose then the inverse question could also be asked. If basically none of these churches are growing numerically, are they moving their members’ civic votes and/or theological commitments from left/center —> right, or are the left/center folks the ones who are dropping out?
The fact that different Mainline denominations differ in the degree to which they have liberalized is something I’ve only come to appreciate with some of Ryan’s stats. Previously, I thought of the Mainlines as a mostly undifferentiated mass, aside from the UMC.
But I know a couple from our church that got married recently at a small town PCUSA church. They’re very sensitive to theology and tell me that it’s a conservative holdout and is basically indistinguishable from a PCA church. I think PCUSA stands alone among the Mainlines in terms of the number of conservative holdout churches it has. I imagine this, in turn, has something to do with its governance structure.
Great point. I know of two "liberal" friends who said they left the "progressive" protestant churches they were members of because of the intolerance of the other members and the pastors towards anyone who deviated in any way from a hard left, DEI etc. perspective
I find this fascinating, thank you for taking the time to do this analysis.
This weekend, I visited a Catholic church while on vacation. I was worried when I saw several young women wearing veils scattered among the pews. Veils (a pre-Vatican II relic) are usually a signal that the parish leans in a more traditional direction. A deacon delivered the homily and he mentioned, in a very positive way, Dorothy Day, a social justice hero. No one got up and walked out. It seems that Catholic theology encourages the individual to recognize systemic issues that are not yet aligned with the gospel encouraging individuals to do what they can to change what they can.
Thank you for sharing your pastoring experience. The statistics were even more accessible with your personal story. I'm sorry that you had to close your church.
I’m a veil-wearing Latin-mass-attending Catholic who absolutely loves Dorothy Day. I don’t see any tension — rather the opposite.
I’ve found that traditional devotional practices (liturgy of the hours, Angelus, scapular-wearing, daily mass when possible, frequent confession and adoration, holy water by my door, veiling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament) provide a spiritual scaffold to uphold my ministry to the poor, which would otherwise be totally draining (I run a Catholic-Worker-adjacent free medical clinic).
In particular, I find that the scapular and the veil are ways I can enter prayer when prayer is really hard — they’re tactile reminders that cue me in my “practice of the presence of God.”
Dorothy Day was pretty traditionalist herself in theological and devotional matters and her writing also makes it pretty clear that this fed her activism, not worked against it. Catholic social teaching is pretty orthogonal to usual right/left divides.
I understand where you are coming from. Thank you for taking the time to share your experience. It definitely takes a strong set of spiritual scaffolds to remain open-hearted (as I am sure that you are) in stressful places. May God continue to bless the work of your hands and heart.
Exactly. Having the saints is a huge counterweight to getting pulled too far in any one political direction, because it forces stops you from reducing Christianity to one good thing in opposition to other good things, like care for the poor and theological orthodoxy.
I know the Unitarian Universalists are never sorted out in the major datasets - they have become way too small to register statistically - but as an ex-UU, I wanted to point out that I think you would have found an even stronger reverse correlation than you did with ELCA. Even as a lifelong center-left Democrat, I found I simply had to leave the UUA, and my local UU church, after 8 years as a member, because the constant hammering on the most far-left positions was driving me to distraction. It was ubiquitous - from the pulpit, on the committees, during the coffee hour, in the denominational magazine, etc. If one took aside someone who one thought was well-connected in the community and asked "Who are the less radically progressive members in our church? Are there ANY Republicans?" (...and I did this a lot!) one would get a confused non-response, or, sometimes, a handful of names of people who hardly ever attended. If you followed those leads, you'd find that the non-lefty members were mostly from legacy families - UU for generations - and they couldn't stand to attend regularly, either... The serious frequent-attendee members were good people, almost without exception, and I miss many of them - but being a highly-involved UU is a real slog if one is not ultra-progressive on all issues.
I'm in the same boat. Being a political centrist just became impossible in my church. And, of course, they just codified this leftward lurch with the latest changes to Article II of their bylaws. UU has become pretty much a social justice organization. The irony of all this is that they think of themselves as radically inclusive, and don't see how their lefty politics alienate existing and potential members.
Very true. My former UU church just got a new minister, and, since the minister had been part of the local part of the "problem" (for me), I decided to attend the two consecutive get-acquainted Sundays and meet the new one. Mind you, I had never stopped considering myself what they call a "Friend of the Congregation" and had attended a number of dinners, etc., with my wife, who is still a member but attends on Sundays only occasionally. Well, long story short, a small and apparently self-appointed committee physically barred me from the sanctuary on the second Sunday, arguing that my presence was "triggering" to unnamed members of the congregation. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. After some weeks, an associate minister told my wife that "they should not have done that" and "had been asked not to do it again", but, notably, no one has contacted ME to apologize. So... kinda not interested any more.
As you say, they've become just a social justice organization, and this kind of behavior is just a reflection of how the more left-wing social justice organizations comport themselves these days - I get the same kind of vibes from my local democrats - with whom I have been involved far longer than I was with UU - when I'm not "progressive enough" or fail some current litmus test on a single issue. And whether UUs or Democrats, the individuals who engage in this behavior just don't grasp that they are not being "inclusive".
During my last year as a member of my old UU church, there was actually a guest minister who proclaimed from the pulpit that it is not a failure to be inclusive to exclude anyone deemed to be non-inclusive. Again, I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. But at least she was clear about what she was saying and doing and why. The vast majority in UU seem not to have thought about it in anything like a critical way.
Anyway, my original point was that UU actually IS a "liberalizing religion" in the sense laid out in the original article, that it's hard to document that in any way beyond anecdotally because of its small size, and that perhaps its not all that desirable a thing to be. BUT, if that is what one is looking for, UU is an excellent place to find it - and that IS what many of my old friends there valued and still value about it.
I’m a Catholic lefty. I can’t stand how the culture war has created this mess.
The “Christian” right created this mess by turning every disagreement into a culture war. Faux oppression and “literalism/Bible idolatry” drive this, and those are fueled by a money-driven evangelical preacher class, that has extremely low barriers to entry. The result is every day there’s a new “scandal” like the embarrassing flap over the Olympics Opening Ceremony, or the lyrics to a Taylor Swift song.
I wonder to what extent Liberalism itself is a factor. I think it is safe to say Liberalism has permutations that are consistent with a Geertzian definition of religion. I'm a democratic socialist Catholic, but even I can't but notice there is a tendency for 'liberal' focused theology to just...fade away. Liberalism (not to be confused with Liberty and Liberation) seems to me a jealous god.
Your data show just two denominations where attendance is correlated with greater likelihood of identifying as "liberal": the Episcopal Church and the ELCA. While the two denominations have been full communion partners for 25 years, they exhibit real geographic and socio-economic differences. The Episcopal Church has always had a high socio-economic status character that the ELCA lacks. On the other hand, the ELCA has a regional dominance over much of the Upper Midwest while the Episcopal Church lacks a regional core that it dominates. What this suggests that in the ELCA heartland of Minnesota, Iowa, SD, and ND one might see religion pushing politics to the left. I think that has been true in Minnesota and to a lesser extent in Iowa. But my experience in the ELCA suggests that the denomination is not reproducing itself very well and often functions as a waystation on the route to secularism.
I have a post in the hopper right now that looks the income and education of a bunch of religious traditions! TEC certainly stands out.
Are we sure this is the proper direction of causation?
Is it "The more people attend, the less liberal they are" Or "the less liberal they are, The more people attend"? These are very very different claims.
Do we have a control for determining causation, or is this just a general trend? I see that the paper used cross sections of the population, but i dont see an RCT testing if people become more conservative when selected to attend more religious activities. Any clarification would be appreciated from an expert.
Not sure how to understand the Jewish information. Of Jews who attend weekly or weekly +, the vast majority are orthodox. And Orthodox Jews skew more conservative than the rest of the Jewish community. I’d be curious to know whether Reform and Reconstructionist Jews who attend weekly fit the pattern.
Not particularly surprising, though it is hard to assess a social gospel in one survey question. What most religion seems to be about is reinforcement of one's personal responsibilities. The people who go to church each week have that as a duty to fulfill. We Jews have commandments that we have a divine mandate to do or to avoid, so we observe sabbath and eat foods that are permitted. Those are personal obligations that we undertake. But Judaism, and I would say other religions, doesn't do well without two core communal concepts, one being Kehillah or being part of a community, the other being Tikkun Olam or improving the world as we find it. Those are byproducts of our personal responsibilities. We see this play out in a number of forms. Charitable outreach to the poor in America is highly dependent on faith based initiatives. As people become Nones, particularly the drifter type people Ryan describes in his book, not only does the worship atrophy but so does the elements of outward focus that are part of all religious traditions. There is a Jewish gospel of wealth that's a bit different than Rev Osteen's. If I am prosperous, you become more prosperous. There is some element to trickle down in this, but to become prosperous I have to hire or contract other people and once I am prosperous I have an obligation to share some. The starting point is I, as the professor suggests. The end result is usually we.
Really moving essay in Deseret News! I hope you find your next spiritual home. Don’t discount all the good you have done and continuing to do in the world in your many roles.
Comparison with Protestant Europe would be interesting here. I feel like in Scandinavia / NL / Francophone Switzerland the main Protestant churches are decidedly center left (with pockets of conservatism / small conservative sects influenced by US evangelicalism), but also have a certain reputation for being staid, establishment institutions; ditto the C of E and the Scottish Kirke. Germany is different because of the strong residual ties linking the churches to the CDU/CSU, and the pockets of Protestantism in ex-communist Europe tends to be pretty conservative (Orban is a member of Hungary’s Protestant minority).
But these are just impressions, I haven’t read a data diver comparable to your post.
Thank you for the moving article about the need to close your church. As a pastor of a small church in Canada, I found it very relatable.
Thank you as well for the interesting data. I'm curious to know whether there's much data on the deconstruction movement and how that might fit in with this. I know that there was a strong correlation between academic learning, faith deconstruction, and progressive social ideas in my own development and I see the same thing frequently with the university students that I meet as a chaplain.