According to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center, people born since 1980 are less likely than older generations to affiliate themselves with any particular religion.
“Millennials, the generation of young adults born after 1980, are significantly more likely than older adults to say they are unaffiliated with any particular religion. Roughly a quarter of all Millennials (26%) are unaffiliated, compared with 20% of current Gen Xers, 13% of Baby Boomers and very few older Americans.”
I am not really surprised by this, although I think I take a bit different angle than others. It is not so much that the “Millennials” are not religious because science and technology has released them from the need for religion. I think that most 20-somethings do not associate themselves with a religion that the research people understand. The question asked was “What is your religious preference: Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, some other religion, or no religion?” Given that choice, I might select “no religion” as well!
The interpretation of the survey data went on to make this observation:
“Today’s young adults also attended religious services less often and are less likely to say religion is important to them than are older adults. Still, in other ways, such as praying daily, beliefs about life after death and the existence of heaven, hell and miracles, Millennials remain fairly traditional in their religious beliefs and practices.”
These people who do not associate with traditional, mainline denominations are still “fairly traditional” in religious practices. They are “less religious”yet they still pray? They still worship God? Seems to me that the Millennials see their relationship with God as just that, a relationship, and not an affiliation with a denomination. Relationship with God is more important than signing a confessional statement or observing a particular religious calendar or liturgical cycle.
Is this a bad thing? Probably, but it is a natural reaction to hypocrisy in in mainline denominations. It is the natural result of religious leaders who live their lives absolutely opposed to what they preach from the pulpit. It is the natural result of churches and denominations not addressing contemporary culture, but rather feeling from it, or worse, ignoring it. If you drive people out of the church for not conforming to the church, you really cannot complain that they do not associate themselves with your church!
What is remarkable is that last paragraph could describe America, 2010, or Europe 1500, or Rome, 1000. I wonder how the generation just prior to the Reformation would have answered the Survey’s questions?
I really enjoyed reading the portions that were put into the post above. I feel like they really do describe the younger generation of today and I do not see it as a bad thing. If this generation is seeing their religion as more of a relationship with God and they are praying more and are believing more in the things of Christ, then who are we to say that they must go to church or that they must say they have a religion? They are being more true and real to what they believe in than many of the people in churches. I would rather have young people who are firm in their faith and who live it out on a daily basis, than to have people who live their lives as they please throughout the week and then go to church or go to confession. I think that more people need to get back down to the basics of a relationship with Christ rather than putting so much stock into the place of a church.
I don’t necessarily think that this is a bad move away from the oppressive sense of ‘religion,’ but along side of that I wonder what the consequences will be from this Billy Graham like idea of ‘personal relationship with Christ.’ If my generation thinks that all they need is Christ and his sacrifice, then they are indeed missing the bigger picture. Friends of mine will get their theology from inspirational christian films, or popular christian books, and develop a theology of feelings and ideas. Then in order to justify those feelings and ideas they will go back to scripture in order to support themselves. This is in large contrast to how theology, or for that matter christian life, should be done.
“It is the natural result of religious leaders who live their lives absolutely opposed to what they preach from the pulpit. It is the natural result of churches and denominations not addressing contemporary culture, but rather feeling from it, or worse, ignoring it. If you drive people out of the church for not conforming to the church, you really cannot complain that they do not associate themselves with your church!”(P. Long)
Examples like these are good reasons to reform leadership and structure of the church, but not very good reasons to bag the church altogether. Whenever people start separating themselves from the main church in order to commit to following God spiritually and truthfully, half the time you end up with a cult. Sometimes you may end up with a solid group of lay individuals, but eventually their thirst for truth in scripture will be clouded and frustrated by the lack of scholarship supporting their study. Then the situation becomes, like Luther, reading one’s own problems into the text.
I would say the biggest fear of my generation is doctrine. One because we don’t understand it, two because it sounds oppressive, and three because it is not open to change.
In response to Jake. I wouldn’t say the biggest fear is doctrine, as much as it is responsibility to adhere to religious code. freedom of action, to do whatever we want whenever we want, is something that our generation values and fears losing. Look at the song by the Beasty Boys about “fighting for your right to party” The entirety of the song is about fighting against a code of adherence in life, namely the rules of one’s parents. The same applies to our generation’s view of religious code.
In the sense of the contemporary connotation of the word ‘doctrine’, I would say you’re right Jacob. Doctrine is far from understood and usually quite confused from the layman down. The word certainly sounds oppressive and I would gather from what this millennial generation has experienced, doctrine seems far from willing to change. But this is not so much the doctrine as it is the generations which have beheld it before now. But doctrine is understandable, its from from oppressive, and it absolutely needs to be open to change…and it has been.
Unfortunately, aside from Baker Bookhouse, Christian book stores in town specialize in devotionals, christian fiction, and christian living but very little in the realm of Christian academics, biblical studies, theological studies, and so forth. Today, people are more apt to develop their theology from John Eldredge, and I don’t think that this is a very reliable source for such determinations. The problem is in how the doctrine has been presented and it has actually been fairly successful in and amongst the recent emergent movement. Kregel bookstores has a section titled “fresh faith” and in it you will find thinkers like N.T. Wright and Rob Bell. Not to put anyone on a pedestal or claim that all they say is right and true, but at least they have been able to bridge the gap between scholarship and practicality, something severely lacked today.
“Examples like these are good reasons to reform leadership and structure of the church, but not very good reasons to bag the church altogether.” (Jacob)
I totally agree. We need to reform and return to the original intent of Scripture, and not “repaint” the way Christianity should be, or as you say, bag the church altogether.
“I would say the biggest fear of my generation is doctrine. One because we don’t understand it, two because it sounds oppressive, and three because it is not open to change.” (Jacob)
1. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
2. same as number 1
3. If it is correct doctrine, based on the Bible, of course it doesn’t change! (and that is folly to those of this generation…). People naturally want to do WHATEVER they want…
Most people in their twenty somethings want to experience something other than God. They want to sooth their consciences with an hour of liturgy on Sunday. The very waste of time they think they have broken free from in the traditional church, they have found repackaged in the emergent monement. I believe that many times the most influential servants of God (BILLY GRAHAM), have created the wrong perception of what it means to be saved (easy believism). I agree with almost everything you said Jacob. I have seen more people “get saved” at concerts and christian youth camps than I could count. Its based on a feeling. I know people that have been saved 5 or 6 times in the last 10 years and they don’t go to church regularly.
The people of the twenty something generation have a spirit of entitlement. They can walk in the church and get saved, enjoy the fellowship until we find someone to love (lust after), find a whole bunch of friends, and then take the people who are really trying to live for God out as they leave the church pissed off. The title “no religion” means that you can go to church sometimes, be a follower of Christ, live how you want without correction, and go to heaven when everything is all said and done.
What happened to running the race with perseverance or trusting that God has something greater planned for us than the temporary fixes we indulge in. I am guilty of the very thing I am talking about. For if I was not convicted myself, then I would just be a hypocrite. We are not interested in doctrine because it takes diligence and hard work and time to form a doctrine and a theology. It is easier to just raise my hand during the music portion of the worship service. How about the church signs by the side of the road that have different times for worship (9:30) and teaching (10:00). Wow has our culture created a warped view of God.
I think that another issue with our generation when it comes to religion, is corporate worship. When I look around me I fail to see a grey area in regards to things such as sunday morning worship and the attendance there-of. It is really a hit or miss, attend or don’t attend type of thing. When some people look at sunday mornings, they view it as a time to sleep, or do whatever recreational thing they might have in mind, and rationalization is huge here “I had a pft with the national guard on saturday, I’m going to sleep on sunday because I’m tired” for example. Or it is the other way around, where church is non-negotiable. It is interetsting to see what personality types, or family situations affect the results of the Hit or miss groups.
“These people who do not associate with traditional, mainline denominations are still “fairly traditional” in religious practices. They are “less religious”yet they still pray? They still worship God? Seems to me that the Millennials see their relationship with God as just that, a relationship, and not an affiliation with a denomination.” (P. Long). It does not matter if someone is traditional or not, it just matters if someone is obeying the word of God or not, whether they are following God, spending time with Him, and walking with him everyday. It is also important for Christians to fellowship with other true believers to encourage and exhort one another. That is one of the purposes of the church. It is important to meet with one another. There are so many churches out there, so I don’t it’s right to be disassiated from all churches/denominations.
“Relationship with God is more important than signing a confessional statement or observing a particular religious calendar or liturgical cycle.” (P. Long). This is true, but it seems like people don’t even realize what a relationship with God is anymore.
“Is this a bad thing? Probably, but it is a natural reaction to hypocrisy in mainline denominations. It is the natural result of religious leaders who live their lives absolutely opposed to what they preach from the pulpit” (P. Long). It may be a reaction to hypocrisy, but there are still plenty of good churches out there!
“It is the natural result of churches and denominations not addressing contemporary culture, but rather fleeing from it, or worse, ignoring it. If you drive people out of the church for not conforming to the church, you really cannot complain that they do not associate themselves with your church!” (P Long). It depends on what contemporary culture is… If the culture has a total disregard for God and is contrary to the Bible, than the church must be opposed to the culture in some ways. Yes, the culture should be addressed, but not to a huge extent. People should not be encouraged to conform to the church, but to conform to the Bible and what it tells us.
I agree, but I would argue that most of the generations are just recognizing the deep faults of today’s modern Church. Post-modern Christians are going back to what the early Church swore to in those days. Instead of the over zealous intolerance of the traditional modern Church, the newer generations are becoming more and more tolerant of other viewpoints and opinions. This tolerance is leading to a new synthesis of an orthodox Church. Orthodoxy was never meant to be specific theology and doctrines, but a wide gauge of theologies and doctrines in one circle. This is what the newer generations are striving for. I realize this argument leads to the weakness of being too tolerant, but every synthesis demands an antithesis, which of course is the newer generations of the Western world.
Hagel
I really, really liked this post. It is something that I think should be addressed more in today’s culture. I don’t think it is a bad thing for the 20 somethings to address their relationship with God as exactly that, a relationship. Many 20 somethings would not associate their beliefs in those specific categories because their relationship with God is so much more than the religious calendar or something along those lines. I do believe that the question could have been asked in a different way that could have been a little more specific.
For example: let’s take my graduating class from high school. I went to a public high school where we learned nothing about the religions of the world unless we googled it. Many of the people I graduated with would not know the difference between Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant. I know of one girl who was forced to go to Mass by her parents whenever she was grounded but other than that I was the only person who went to church. Those people I graduated with are now in their 20 somethings and a few of them attend a local church, but I am positive that they still probably wouldn’t know the difference.
As a Youth Ministry Major something else I see from this is the lack of a bridge between youth (high school) ministry and post-high/young adult ministry. Many of the kids who grow up with a youth group have no where but adult classes to attend (which let’s face it… just don’t measure up to youth group). There needs to be a medium in which these people who had a great relationship with God in high school, then kind of lose it when they go off to college, can come and remember their relationship. I personally think that if there was a better bridge, those young adults who have graduated from high school ministry and feel like they have no where to go so they just stop going, the numbers on that research would be higher. If this “bridge” type ministry got a little deeper than youth group, if it challenged the young adults to serve and remember their relationship that would be something amazing.
But now… the question is how does that happen? I know there are some churches that are doing a really good job of this bridge… but there are others (my home church for example) that have nothing to continue to challenge our faith once we get out of high school.
“Yes, the culture should be addressed, but not to a huge extent. People should not be encouraged to conform to the church, but to conform to the Bible and what it tells us” (Rachel).
I also feel like this is a problem as well. As many have said these ideas about developing doctrine and theology are scary, especially to a generation of people based on “feeling” Christianity. Those words were absolutely horrifying to me before I took classes here. It made me cringe and terrified when in TH 414 we had to explain a certain aspect of Dispensational Theology. It freaked me out because I wasn’t sure if I could say it the right way. It is my personal belief that although there are many churches doing great things out there, there is a huge gap between those who are attempting to be strictly theological and those who are just based on feeling. As Nick talked about, I too would not be able to count the people at concerts/camps/etc. who made a “commitment” to Christ because of the atmosphere or because their friends raised their hand.
Anyways… back to the whole culture thing. I know there are some churches out there who are catering directly to the culture and they are catering to the needs of the culture today not necessarily in a good way either. They want to have a good relationship with people that they will sometimes compromise their standards or compromise truth to make it more appealing to others. So like Rachel said I agree that people need to be taught to conform to what the Bible says, not what the church says.
I think that even though the say that most of the people that were born since 1980 do not affiliate themselves with a religion then are not religious like you said. I think that people that fall into that age group are just as religious, but they feel like if they say that they are a certain religion then they are going to be tied to that religion and can’t go to others and check them out. And a lot of people in that group are religious , they are just confused as t what they want.
I agree that the survey is probably not seeing the whole picture. They left close ended questions instead of leaving it open ended. Even my friends not from GBC are affiliated with some type of religion. They just do not want to be labeled with a church or a denomination.