The Wrong Boogeymen

Are liberals and singles really to blame for the decline in church attendance?

Mar 21st, 2009 | By Skye Jethani | Category: Church, Culture, Features, Mission, Politics

Two weeks ago the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] released its findings and announced that “secular” Americans now account for 15 percent of the population. That is up from 8 percent in 1990 and just 2 percent in 1962. Among the young the trend is even higher. Only 25 percent of people between 21 and 45 years old regularly attend church. Who is responsible for this dramatic downturn in commitment to church attendance? According to Al Mohler there are two culprits: the government and single adults.

In a blog post from March 19, Al Mohler discusses a column in The Wall Street Journal by W. Bradford Wilcox who believes “the expansion of the government sector to offer cradle-to-grave social services contributes to the secularization of society.” According to Wilcox, and Mohler who affirms the logic, as people become increasingly dependent on government programs for their daily bread, they become less dependent upon their local social networks, family, or themselves. And the church-traditionally a source of personal enrichment, education, and compassion-is replaced by the nanny-state.

Mr. Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, warns:

A successful Obama revolution providing cradle-to-career education and cradle-to-grave health care would reduce the odds that Americans would turn to their local religious congregations and fellow believers for economic, social, emotional and spiritual aid.

Wilcox recognizes that many people engage religious institutions for reasons other than material aid, but then reminds his readers that “many of those who initially turn to religious organizations for mutual aid end up developing a faith that is as supernatural as it is material. But first they need to enter the door.” Mohler shares this viewpoint saying that Wilcox’s article “is not only an article that should be read, but an argument that must be heard.”

Am I the only one who finds this line of reasoning dubious? Are we supposed to believe that the number of secular Americans has nearly doubled in the last 18 years because of liberal government programs? The argument becomes even more incongruous when we remember that conservative Republicans ran the Congress for 12 of those years and the White House for 10. And are we supposed to oppose health care reform and better schools because healthier, more educated Americans may be less likely to attend a worship service?

Government has always been a popular boogeyman for conservative cultural crusaders, but this is bordering on the absurd. What if the exodus of young people from the church isn’t the government’s fault but ours? And what if the solution isn’t opposing the political agenda of President Obama, but working harder at building relational trust with the young adults in our churches, families, and neighborhoods?

What about Al Mohler’s second explanation for secularization-singleness?  Mohler has regularly focused his spotlight on the immaturity exhibited by many modern adults, as well as the prolonged adolescence our culture celebrates. This trend includes the fact that the average American now delays of marriage until age 28-six years later than just a generation ago. He writes:

Looking at this from a biblical perspective, the most tragic aspect of this development is the fact that these young people are refusing to enter into the adult experience and adult responsibilities that is their Christian calling…. The experiences of marriage and raising children are important parts of learning the adult experience and finding one’s way into the deep responsibilities and incalculable rewards of genuine adulthood.

In his March 19 blog post, Mohler also contends that “delay of marriage is a primary driver of secularization.” He believes that most adults are driven to the church to seek support for their marriages and families. But with more people postponing marriage and families, fewer feel the need to enter the church. He concludes, “The extension of adolescence into the twenties (maybe now even the thirties) is highly correlated with the rise of secularism and with lower rates of church attendance.”

Believe it or not, I agree with Mohler on one significant point-adolescence is extending and adults are behaving less maturely. I discuss this trend in chapter six of my book, The Divine Commodity. But I depart from Mohler on the role of marriage as a vehicle to maturity. He seems to believe that if young people would just get married they’d grow-up. He dismisses research that says earlier marriages have a higher rate of failure by citing Fredirica Mathewes-Green: “Fifty years ago, when the average bride was twenty, the divorce rate was half what it is now, because the culture encouraged and sustained marriage.”

Once again I fear Mohler is attacking the wrong enemy. Is the church really unable to reach young people because they’re waiting too long to get married? Should we be advocating more 22-year-olds marry as a way of boosting church involvement? And since when did marriage become a prerequisite to hearing the gospel and entering the Christian life? The problem isn’t the large number of single adults-the problem is a church built upon the gospel of marriage and family rather than the gospel of Christ. By being so “focused on the family” most churches have unknowingly alienated more than half of the household in the U.S. that are not traditional families.

If the church has predicated its ministry around the Western nuclear family, and if the church appeals to outsiders by targeting the felt-needs of parents, then the decline in marriage may prove catastrophic. And if marriage rates continue to plummet as they have in Europe, the North American church may soon find itself in the same position as buggy whip manufacturers at the dawn of the automobile age-selling a great product nobody needs.

Al Mohler finds himself in a classic Constantinian trap. He sees the culture becoming increasingly secular (or post-Christian) and doesn’t know how the church can survive or its mission advance once it loses its place of privilege. Therefore, he is striving to reverse the perceived causes of secularization-government and singleness. Rather than calling the church to adjust it’s strategies to the new realities of its mission field, he expects the mission field to adjust to the church’s old ways of operating.

His blog post also reveals the unimaginative nature of the Religious Right’s strategy. After 30 years of combating liberal policies and striving to protect “traditional marriage,” they seem incapable of seeing anything else–like the church’s own shortcomings and failure to take a missional posture in a post-Christian mission field. Somehow, according to this logic, if we can just manage to cut taxes, shrink the size of government, and keep young people celibate until their wedding day (at age 22), the church will thrive again. Is it any wonder why both the evangelical church and the Republican Party are failing to win a hearing with my generation?

6 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. it’s sunday, so i have a lenient breaking-my-fast-if-necessary rule.

    just wanted to say “word” and give you a fist bump.

  2. Skye,

    A couple things. First, you mention the 12-year reign of the Republican Party in Congress. Please do not mistake ‘conservative’ for ’smaller government’. It no longer means that given our current political landscape. Unless you count Ron Paul. Rather, Republicans currently say, “We are growing government *slower* than Democrats.” It’s a matter of degree, not direction. They’re as culpable for the growth of the Leviathan State as Democrats. Possibly more so, since they have done so under the guise of conservatism.

    Second, I agree that we should not be against government assuming responsibility in some areas. Health care, social security, welfare. These are all necessary and good. My question is this: Once upon a time, these things were handled either privately, or by local or state governments. Is there any mechanism for the Federal Government to say, “We are not the best way to handle this,” and pass responsibility *back* to charitable foundations, local or state governments, where bureaucratic costs are lower, compassion can triumph over administrative rules, and the desire to game the system is tempered by relationships and accountability?

    I wouldn’t mind the Federal Government taking on new responsibilities or expanding current roles, if only I ever witnessed them handing old responsibilities back.

    Josh

  3. Thanks so much for this post. I’m so tired of being told by people like Dr. Mohler that simply being single means I’m acting like a teenager - despite the fact that my single friends and I all hold down jobs, budget, pay our own bills, save for retirement, and teach kids or lead other groups at church. The idolatry of the family in American churches is so off-putting to singles that even the most committed Christians among us are completely alienated.

  4. […] my last post I discussed the belief that singleness is leading to a decline in church attendance. Traditional […]

  5. Thank you, Skye! Yes and Amen! The American church needs to expand it’s understanding of widow, orphan and stranger within our own cultural context and embrace God’s idea of an extended family.

  6. We need to admit that our church is not effictively reaching teens and young adults. Let’s do something else. Brian Allen, Director of the CYC in Joliet, hosted a Youth Summit earlier this month and talked about this issue and how the old programs are not reaching the 90,000 kids in our area who are not attending church. There is no guideline in the BIble that says young adults must have youth group on the weekend and a small group meeting one time during the week. Brian told us that after the age of nine, there is a decline in boys attending church. This begins earlier than singles in their 20s. Do you agree?

Leave Comment