Peter Berger dissects Robert Putnam’s latest book (“American Grace”) over at The American Interest, putting special emphasis on the rise of the so-called “nones” in American society. The “nones” are people without religion who, by virtually all estimations (including, first, the empirical), represent one of the fastest growing demographic cohorts in the country. But why is this happening, and do these people really have no interest in any aspect of faith? Berger disagrees with the narrative, so commonly repeated, that what’s happening is progressive children simply being turned off by their parents’ provincialism:
The two authors [Putnam and Campbell] are very probably correct that, broadly speaking, those who are turned off by Evangelicals and conservative Catholics do so because they don’t like the repressive [n.b. a loaded description in and of itself - could this have affected the survey?] sexual morality of those churches (the sexual abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church has not helped). But the “nones” have also exited from mainline Protestantism, which has been much more accommodating to the liberationist ethic. Here, I think, there has been frustration with what my friend and colleague Thomas Luckmann long ago called “secularization from within”—the stripping away of the transcendent dimensions of the Gospel, and its reduction to conventional good deeds, popular psychotherapy and (mostly left -of-center) political agendas. Put differently: My hypothesis implies that some “nones” are put off by churches that preach a repressive morality, some others by churches whose message is mainly secular.
What then do these people believe?
Find out here.
April 12th, 2012 | 2:32 pm
No doubt SOME people have left mainline Protestant churches because they wanted more rigorous doctrine. But more likely, those Protestant denominations have watered down their teachings to the point where tepid members just decided, “Well… if the only purpose of life is to be nice, I can be nice all by myself. What do I need ANY kind of church for?”
April 12th, 2012 | 4:20 pm
Hmm… As a mere hypothesis, I suspect is just a disagreement with any form of institutionalized religion. In my experience what are called the “nones” are people who say “I believe in God but not in any church”. But then, I suspect that is far more probable that the sexual ethics of conservative churches have done more in alienating people (specially the youth) from organized religion than the secularized versions of the Gospel liberal churches (most people hardly get intellectual terms like “secularized”, while the question of sex touches directly into people life’s…and anyways, those alienated from liberal churches by that reason, don´t turn out to be “nones”, but go directly to conservative churches).
April 12th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
I believe that Peter Berger has his finger on at least one pulse of what is going on: ‘the phenomenon of believing and not belonging’. The reasons for this however are, I believe, very complex.
One aspect has to do with generational values. There are serious studies that show that each generation (a generation has certain parameters however it is far more than a mere seven years) has a primary value to which the whole generation even subconsciously holds to.
These studies state that the ‘history and culture’ etc in which one is raised, especially between age 12 and 22 is very formative. Thus
Those coming to young adulthood in the 30′s and forties [the Great Generation] valued ‘conformity’.The next generation, those coming to young adulthood in the fifties and early sixties value ‘equality’ Those coming to early adulthood in late sixties to roughly 1980 value ‘justice. The next grouping, values ‘freedom’ while the next generation coming to adulthood now return to valuing ‘conformity’.
Of course I am summarizing here so this is not nuanced at all. However, I do believe that some of what we are witnessing is the fundamental value that ‘the nones’ value: ‘freedom’. A secular variation on this theme is the large number of young adults who are drawn toward libertarianism rather than the conservative or liberal ideologies.
Since according to the scholastic axiom ‘grace builds on nature’ how then can the Church evangelize, nourish and care for ‘the nones’ given some of these generational parameters?
I believe the younger adults ‘want’? The Church, Christianity is not primarily about either doctrines or morality (although both play an extremely important role in the Church). The Church is fundamentally ‘about’ Jesus Christ, “The Way, the Truth and the Life” Who reveals the Father’s love and mercy which is the gift-grace of the Spirit. The freedom of the Spirit is not antinomian (anti moral law) however it does transform the individual and community so that we might share in His Life and Love. It invites the individual into an apprenticeship of living and growing in the virtues within and with the assistance of the community until one is fully formed in Christ as a full disciple [a life-long process] This life in the Spirit is far more than merely keeping some obligation or ‘dissenting from it’
April 12th, 2012 | 6:40 pm
Alas, I hoped that this was calling for a revival of the ninth canonical hour, but I am disappointed again. (Seriously, I do think that we need to revive mid-day prayer; the Muslims are making the most devout among us look like heathen.)
April 12th, 2012 | 8:29 pm
I would have to agree with Botolph: evangelizing the “nones” must always start with Christ. I have found in my conversations with many unchurched people that this strategy works: there is a great deal of respect for the person of Jesus. Once one starts with Him, one can then show how the teachings of the Catholic Church follow logically from who Jesus said He is and that the sort of “go it alone” spirituality so popular today is actually antithetical to what Jesus taught and handed on to us. It must indeed be “all about Jesus.”
I should also say that as a Catholic “revert” in his mid-forties, I went down the path of “spiritual but not religious” through my 20′s and much of my 30′s. I ultimately found it deeply unsatisfying. Without the moral, intellectual and ritual structure of the Church, I found myself drifting ever deeper into confusion and depression. It is only the grace of Christ and the seeds planted in me by good Catholic parents and the nuns and priests in the Catholic schools I attended that pulled me back. What I have found in my own experience is that the route of “spiritual but not religious” leads, at best, to drift, self-absorption, and apathy, and at worse to self-deificiation, which cuts off any genuine encounter with God.
April 13th, 2012 | 5:50 am
[...] HT: Matthew Cantirino [...]
April 13th, 2012 | 10:05 am
What do people who say they are “believing but not belonging” or “spiritual but not religious” mean? Don’t they just mean that they don’t see the point in the liturgical pageantry, sermons, hymn-singing and forced, phoney “fellowship” that other people spend their Sunday mornings on?
A lot of these “nones” are just as devout as their church-attending counterparts in other areas of life (e.g., they are not less morally serious, their theological understanding is no less profound, their intention to worship God is often just as strong) but they don’t think standing around in a crowd watching a dull, simplistic, faux-theatrical show is relevant.
Their question is, why do we think God likes us to go to church? Isn’t it just kind of like a school assembly/pep rally? Does God really likes assemblies and pep rallies?
April 13th, 2012 | 11:07 am
Felopton: first, you beg the question – you assume that the fellowship in worship is “phoney.” Second, as I remarked in my post above, self-absorption is the biggest trap of “Do-it-yourself” religion and, hence, often leads to smug narcissism. (I find it interesting how the “spiritual but not religious” love to talk about how good and superior they are compared to those unwashed “religious” – I know, I was there.) That is why fellowship is essential to all worship. Finally, the goal of all Christian worship is fellowship with Christ and sharing in the life of the Trinity. Attending mass is essential to developing that fellowship, because there Christ is bodily present.
In any case, what would you say of a person who trumpeted how good and caring they were of their fellow human beings, and yet left in neglect their aged parents, never visiting them or even calling them? You would not have a high opinion of such a person.
April 13th, 2012 | 11:21 am
“What do people who say they are “believing but not belonging” or “spiritual but not religious” mean? Don’t they just mean that they don’t see the point in the liturgical pageantry, sermons, hymn-singing and forced, phoney “fellowship” that other people spend their Sunday mornings on?”
Everything you say about Church is true. I hate going to Church more then any part in the week.
Just like lots of athletes hate doing push-ups.
April 13th, 2012 | 1:04 pm
People should probably pay attention to the rather significant comment that Putnam made to Berger’s column (second comment, I think):
“Thanks, Peter, for this nice, thoughtful commentary. The only slight nuance I’d add involves your highlighted sentence: ‘Most “nones” have not opted out of religion as such, but have opted out of affiliation with organized religion.’ That was precisely our view in American Grace, based on surveys through 2008. The new survey that we did in 2011 (returning to our respondents from 2006-07) and that appears in the epilogue to the paperback edition, however, suggests to us that for a growing number of the ‘young nones,’ the alienation from organized religion is slowly hardening into alienation from religion itself. We’re not sure how this will work out in the decades ahead, but I don’t think we can rule out that religion itself may become affected by the rise of the ‘young nones,’ not just organized religion.”
April 13th, 2012 | 4:16 pm
Isn’t there a bit much hand-wringing and over-thinking on this issue?
Jesus and the first Christians got the diagnosis for this sort of thing correct in the first place, and no degree of institutional change or revamping of image is ever going to rectify the heart of the problem.
“This is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward it, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may clearly be seen as done in God.” John 3: 19-20
“Enter through the narrow gate, for the way is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who take it are many…” Matthew 7: 13
Sin/selfishness is at the root of this phenomenon.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact