"Why millenials are leaving the church"

"Why millenials are leaving the church" has a number of problems not the least of which is that is phrased as a statement rather than a question. Rachel Held Evans does make some decent points in her CNN Belief blog post but ultimately fails to deliver on what she seems to think are decisive insights. Like many other theists who have wonder why more "millenials" are leaving organized religion in larger numbers she makes no attempt at setting aside her own biases. She stops short thinking that once she has found a few possible answers that those must be the answers. Not once does it occur to her that a percentage of this demographic may have reached the conclusion that religion just does not make sense. Personally, I have met a few who were disturbed by "Christianity to be too political, too exclusive, old-fashioned, unconcerned with social justice and hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people." However, that was merely a starting point for some. After thinking about it they found it was hollow and just wasn't worth thinking about anymore.

Evans also at various points slips into contradictions and superficiality. Not quite halfway through her short post she complains, "Invariably, after I’ve finished my presentation and opened the floor to questions, a pastor raises his hand and says, 'So what you’re saying is we need hipper worship bands. …'” This would have been a valid point. The idea that some clergy just can't grasp deeper issues and problems is not that unknown but Evans displays her own superficial understanding a little later on, "Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. – precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being 'cool,' and we find that refreshingly authentic."

"Cool"?! I have yet to come across any atheist who left religion behind because it was "cool." I'm not even sure what that means in the given context. Usually the term is used to denote something that is popular or fashionable. Is being part of a distrust demonized minority really considered cool? By who? Even though there have been reports in our numbers rising it is rather misleading. To some degree it has to do with more being willing to self-identify. Our numbers are still well below 10% when you limit to specifically "atheist." When the term "none" are applied it does rise but that includes many who actually are theists, all be it devoid of a specific brand of religion. I'd also note that there is no objective basis for concluding what she does about church traditions. You can just as easily argue that they are by their nature arrogant and repressive rather than "unpretentious."

In the end there are no one-size-fits-all answers for such a broad question. It gets even messier when you look at more than a narrow demographic like "millenial." People of all ages and backgrounds leave organized religion all over the world. The reasons are as numerous as the individuals involved. And, there is, of course, a related question theist seem to avoid completely. Why be concerned with others leaving religion in the first place? It's as if they can't sustain their own beliefs unless they are shared.

Faith, Religion, and Organized Religion

Faith, Religion, and Organized Religion are all inter-related terms. That, however, does not mean they are completely interchangeable. Last weekend the Bangor Daily news ran a very misleading article that not only implied that these three are all identical but also repeated a number of myths and misconceptions.

"Got faith? Maine the least-religious state in the nation" starts from a false premise. It is assumed that lack of a specific religious affiliation means a lack of religion. This is not true. Plenty of people continue to believe in God and a variety of other religious concepts without the need to identify with a specific denomination/sect or regularly attend religious services. A more accurate title and tone would follow that Maine is the least religiously affiliated. Personally, I wish it were true that my state were the least "religious." Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to support such a claim.

The article quickly moves on to quote a reverend who, surprise, misrepresents our nations history.

“'What’s alarming about those numbers is that more than 300 years after the country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, the large numbers of nonaffiliated folks out here is just the norm,' the Rev. Steve Lewis, academic dean of Bangor Theological Seminary, said earlier this month."

There are two problems with this statement. What makes it alarming that people do not choose a specific affiliation? Wouldn't that prove that religious freedom is alive and well. Seems to me that being able to choose whether you want to associate with specific groups or find ways to satisfy any religious inclinations as you see fit is the epitome of freedom. Second, the early settlers did not come expressly for religious freedom. That is a myth. The "pilgrims" fled England for the Netherlands seeking religious freedom. They found the freedom they sought but quickly came to realize they had other non-spiritual interests and needs they felt could be better advanced elsewhere. Settlers came to America in search of better economic circumstances. There's no spirituality in economics. Then again, the "Prosperity Gospel," seems to preach otherwise.

I also found it interesting that the article noted the large numbers of people leaving the largest Christian denominations but never seemed to ask if they had good reasons for doing so. The tone seems to imply that not only is losing your specific religious affiliation negative but that it is equivalent to losing faith which is also negative. This just seems wrong on every count. Mainers are still overwhelmingly believers. Considering how authoritarian religion tends to be and how frequently religion interferes in politics (virtually always for the worse) I'd say that lower rates of organized religion is a good thing.

The last section's subtitle is nearly as foolish as the headline the article starts with. "America’s religious landscape ‘radically changed.’" No, it isn't. The majority of Americans still believe in God and any number of other religious concepts and doctrines. The shift away from organized religion is occurring but it has not happened over night. All the trends mentioned in the article have been gradually developing for at least a handful of decades. There is nothing "radical" about gradual changes. It is certainly not radical in light of the fact that we are one of the last industrialized countries to undergo this shift.

Basically, the article consists of little more than sensationalized headlines and subheadings, misinterpreted statistics, and rehashed myths and misconceptions. It is the typical blather I have come to expect from the mainstream media.

Religious Athletes

Prayerful Players: The Top 10 Religious Athletes

Who gives a shit? Really? They're athletes. They're job is to play the sport and win. I don't see what their personal views on religion has to do with how they play and I don't care. When I watch a game it's to see the game. I also find it both idiotic and belittling to say some play or maneuver is "miraculous." I may take issue with how much they get paid or how much attention professional athletes get but I have no problem acknowledging the hard work they put in and the skill they attain.

I also have no problem with individual athlete's who want to pray or thank mythical figures. If it makes them happy, why not. But the media does not have to get all excited over it. It should be a surprise that so many athletes are religious. The majority of people are religious. So, why is this newsworthy?

Is America Moving Away from Religion?

It would be nice if it were true but I don't see it quite the way Tana Ganeva does in her Alternet piece, "5 Signs That America Is Moving Away from Religion". In the introduction she talks about how fed up people are with the "Tea Party" and the GOP, especially the manner in which they use religion. It does not seem to occur to her that she is conflating a loss of faith in the Religious Right with a shift away from religion itself. Just because people are gradually come to realize that mixing religion and politics is a terrible idea does not mean they as a whole are becoming less religious.

It also seems obvious, once you take a moment to analyze them, that the 5 signs really end up being 2 signs. Again, those two don't necessarily mean there really is a move away from religion. The first sign listed by Ganeva, "American religious belief is becoming more fractured", may help some theists realize that religion is a very personal and subjective aspect of life. This may in turn lead to the conclusion that religion should not be involved in public policy. I would certainly encourage such a process but do not think it helpful to misinterpret it as a sign of irreligion. It isn't. The last "sign" listed, "Getting married by friends", also may indicate a softening of religions influence on peoples lives but then again it may mean something else entirely. It is just as likely an interpretation that people want a more personal ceremony. Most faiths allow some choices within how they conduct marriage ceremonies but civil ceremonies offer far greater options. Part of the trend does seem to correlate with choosing family and friends as officiates. How many people have family members that happen to be clergy?

The last point leads to another distinction that should be made but alludes Ganeva. There is a difference between religion and organized religion. Many mainstream Christian denominations/sects are shrinking in membership. This coincides with a growing trend that amounts to little more than a shift in semantics. A lot of people who end up being classified as "non-religious" in various surveys and studies really are not. The tend to self identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." What that indicates, apparently, is a move away from a specific denomination/sect. Those who claim to be "spiritual" are still religious they just don't like the term. They are still believers and therefore not "non-religious." It is this lack of distinction and confusion of labels that basically nullifies her second and third "signs."  How you identify yourself is important, of course, but that does not change basic facts. If you believe then the label "non-belief" does not make sense.

Ganeva's forth sign, "Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds", makes no sense to me. It is almost entirely focused on one group and it really does not say anything about religion in general. It is revealing only in regard to one version of one faith and even that is more about mixing politics with religion than about anything strictly theological.

It is still an interesting article and in its own way encouraging. Moving away from religion being so influential on public life is certainly a good thing. It is a positive direction for everyone, theist and atheist alike. Strengthening separation of church and state can only help guarantee freedom of thought. The sooner those seeking to use religion for political and economic gain are exposed for the scum they are the better. They may never completely go away but if we can keep them as powerless as possible society will be better off.