Secular America
The United States has always presented itself to the wider world as a bastion of religious expression. Whether it hosts religious minorities fleeing persecution abroad, or serves as the ideological nursery from which nascent faiths emerge and self-promulgate, America has historically proven itself a hot-bed of religious activity. However, a growing number of scholars insist that Winthrop’s proverbial “light of the world” slowly dims. As citizens of a scientifically advanced, post-industrial nation, it seems that Americans lose, if not their religion, then at least their religious zeal. This loss, if it exists, results from new trends in American religious thought that stem from a diminishing respect for religious institutions in the wake of the empirical revolution.
I Worship Attendence
If true, these allegations signify a sea-change in the American cultural dynamic, as U.S. religiosity represents no superficial trend. Americans throughout the ages have harbored a deep spirituality that manifests both as devotion to religion and a strong determination to defend its free expression. Freedom of worship remains a fundamental American right, as the 1st amendment of the Constitution clearly asserts. The high percentage of Americans who self-identify as religious - 86% as of 2008 - attests to the fact that Americans continue to vigorously exercise this right.
This appearance of vigor, however, may conceal pervasive sloth. While none can deny that eighty-six out of every one-hundred randomly selected Americans claimed religious affiliation in 2008, this number demonstrates a steep decline from the ninety-two out of one-hundred who made similar claims a mere 18 years earlier in 1990. Recent statistics call into question not only the quantity, but the quality of the American faithful; the religious declarations of the 2008 poll seem dubious in light of the fact that no more than twenty seven of those eighty-six attended any sort of religious worship service on a regular basis.
II Self Determinism
Some scholars would disagree, arguing that attendance at a worship service no longer stands as an accurate indication of modern religious involvement. Two contradictory trends in American religion lend credence to that argument. One should first consider the rising prominence of self determinism in American religious thought. Whereas in the past, the American people thought of religion as an institutional or communal endeavor, they have increasingly begun to consider it a deeply personal spiritual journey. Although a personal interpretation of, and relationship with, God are hallmarks of religious movements as well established and diverse as Protestantism and Hinduism, the concept of religious self determinism has assumed a far more expansive role than at any earlier point in history (or at least American history), and now manifests as a powerful force on the American religious scene. The faithful increasingly believe they have the prerogative not only to choose a religion, but to personalize, synthesize, or even out-right invent one. The absence of self determinists from a worship service does not necessarily indicate that they are unreligious, but only that they deem it unnecessary to worship in the company of others. This can invalidate religious data based on worship attendance.
III Pseudopistevism
Pseudopistevism describes the converse of religious self-determinism. Pseudopistevism, from the Greek pseudo (meaning “false”) and pistevos (meaning “belief”), denotes exactly that: a false belief. The term pseudopistevist describes someone who reflexively honors religious observance for tradition’s sake, uses religion to acquire a social network, or chooses a mode of worship for no other reason than to identify themselves with a particular cultural or ethnic group. Regardless of their specific personal circumstances, all pseudopistevists derive religious motivation from sources beyond the scope of conventional spirituality, and can practice any religion without genuine belief in even its most basic tenets. Even if a pseudopistevic attends a worship service, it does not preclude the possibility that he or she is actually nonreligious, which further invalidates attempts to gauge American religiosity by religious activity alone.
IV Failing Institutions
Although practicing a conventional religion without acknowledging its validity and cultivating a unique religion in pursuit of spiritual truth may seem like disparate expressions of faith, pseudopistevism and religious self-determinism actually serve as parallel reactions to the same cultural stimulus: the widespread rejection of religious institutions as religious and moral authorities in modern American society.
Increasingly, Americans question the sanctity and wisdom of organized religion and the institutions that represent it. Religious institutions themselves often create or perpetuate these doubts when they or their prominent members breach key moral obligations to the faithful, or act with blatant hypocrisy. The Catholic Church, with its ongoing sex-abuse scandals, provides a classic example. Catholics who allege child molestation often encounter a Church that categorically denies their claims until they threaten mass litigation, and then reluctantly dolls out minimal remuneration. If possible, the Church then reassigns the unpunished offender to a new parish, and attempts to suppress public awareness of the case. The Church’s loss of credibility compels many Catholics to abandon it outright; they convert in ever greater numbers to those religions they perceive as more ethical, or even reconsider the existence of a supposedly just and moral God who allows such deviance among His earthly representatives.
Not only organizations, but private individuals, often degrade public faith. Certain televangelists, with their political meddling and conspicuous greed, have (in the eyes of large swaths of society) deconsecrated entire denominations of the Protestant Church. Many socially liberal Christians who cringe at the prospect of popular association with the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson adjust their religious affiliations to better reflect their own personal values. Conservative Christians, for their part, tend to exhibit more enthusiasm than revulsion for the aforementioned reverends, and thereby underscore another factor in the unraveling of the American religious institution: partisan bickering.
V Partisanship
Modern American religion divides itself along partisan lines. Denominations often denote political affiliations, and vice versa. Southern Baptists, for instance, cleave almost wholly to the right wing, while the majority of their nominal spiritual brethren, the Presbyterians, lean markedly left. While theologians and historians agree that certain political issues have disunited American faith populations since the nation’s inception, it becomes increasingly hard to deny that political and religious ideology comingle to a greater extent than ever before. The American layman who knows a stranger’s religious associations can usually predict that person’s views on a host of issues that bear no relevance on the spiritual. Gay rights demonstrate one such political division; the majority of political liberal’s of various faiths support gay rights initiatives, while most religiously inclined political conservatives roundly condemn what they perceive as the advancement of the homosexual agenda. Both groups cite faith as the primary justification for their political beliefs, even though those beliefs form no consensus.
The abstract concept of “Social Justice” creates a similarly polar political division among America’s faithful. Political conservatives believe that activism on behalf of the poor to achieve social equality runs contrary to the divine will, which starkly contrasts with the moral convictions of many liberal religious practitioners, who feel that the redistribution of wealth constitutes a heavenly mandate. No matter what specific issues foment it, the political divisiveness within religious communities confuses and disheartens worshippers. Doubt proliferates, and questions arise as to how people united in a common purpose could interpret spiritual truth in such contradictory ways. Such discrepancies compel many people to abandon their religious convictions.
VI Pluralism
In the past, religious observers would have either dismissed canonical differences between their beliefs and those of other religious denominations as heresy, or accepted the differences as equally valid manifestations of the divine. However, as the latter option, (religious pluralism), becomes more and more prevalent in the modern age of religious tolerance, there emerges a growing danger of what some scholars call spiritual inflation. When an individual accepts not only one, but all religious views, and believes that each holds equal merit, some claim that the value of their belief system cheapens immensely (like currency when the quantity in circulation increases), and can even cease to exist all together. The theologians who proffer this view essentially maintain that all religion means no religion. This theory, however, remains hotly contested because of its subjectivity. Unless someone contemporaneously experiences religion from both a traditional and plural perspective, a reasonable comparison between the two modes of understanding cannot exist. Even if someone could make that comparison, the findings would apply only to him or her individually because of the deeply personal nature of faith.
VII Empiricism
A factor representing a more concrete threat to American religion than religious pluralism has existed since the Renaissance, but arguably wields more power both globally and domestically now than at any previous time in history. Empiricism refers to the belief that all knowledge comes from sensory perception. Central to the scientific method, empiricism enables the discoveries and technological innovations that expand human knowledge of the physical world. Although it brings us to a more perfect understanding of material reality, empiricism completely neglects spiritual reality. Because of divine intangibility, as Strobel asserts, “empirical reasoning cannot prove or disprove the existence of any deity”. Therefore, those who rely exclusively on empiricism to form their perspectives on life cannot logically acknowledge the validity of any religion, personal or organized. Thus, empiricism serves as the fountainhead of both atheism and agnosticism. Because they are mutually imperceptible, the spheres religion and empiricism should not intersect. However, as a result of the prevalence of empirical reasoning in modern society, empiricism exerts an ever broadening influence on religions both institutional and private. It motivates religious action groups such the Jesus Seminar, a nominally Christian religious organization whose members dedicate their scholarly acumen to effacing all biblical references to the divinity of Christ. Empiricism even constitutes the basis for entire religions. One such denomination is Functional Magick, a branch of the Wiccan religion, whose members practice “magic” in the form non-religious rituals such as hiking and cooking. Functional Magicians make no overtures to any divine beings, and maintain no general belief in the supernatural. Empiricism continues to win converts who believe that it precludes the existence of the divine. Nearly 15% of Americans currently self-identify as nonreligious, meaning that their number has increased seven percentage points since 1990.
VIII Conclusion
American religion retreats as non-belief advances, and empiricism above all other factors accounts for this spiritual decline. At present, society increasingly deems empirical reason and faith mutually exclusive, even as empiricism continues to proliferate. If this trend does not abate, then American religion will not only diminish, but slowly dwindle to oblivion. The City on the Hill will cease to shine.
Works Cited
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006
Wunthrow, Robert. “Religion”. Understanding America. Ed. Peter H. Schuck and James Q. Wilson. New York: Public Affairs, 2008
The United States has always presented itself to the wider world as a bastion of religious expression. Whether it hosts religious minorities fleeing persecution abroad, or serves as the ideological nursery from which nascent faiths emerge and self-promulgate, America has historically proven itself a hot-bed of religious activity. However, a growing number of scholars insist that Winthrop’s proverbial “light of the world” slowly dims. As citizens of a scientifically advanced, post-industrial nation, it seems that Americans lose, if not their religion, then at least their religious zeal. This loss, if it exists, results from new trends in American religious thought that stem from a diminishing respect for religious institutions in the wake of the empirical revolution.
I Worship Attendence
If true, these allegations signify a sea-change in the American cultural dynamic, as U.S. religiosity represents no superficial trend. Americans throughout the ages have harbored a deep spirituality that manifests both as devotion to religion and a strong determination to defend its free expression. Freedom of worship remains a fundamental American right, as the 1st amendment of the Constitution clearly asserts. The high percentage of Americans who self-identify as religious - 86% as of 2008 - attests to the fact that Americans continue to vigorously exercise this right.
This appearance of vigor, however, may conceal pervasive sloth. While none can deny that eighty-six out of every one-hundred randomly selected Americans claimed religious affiliation in 2008, this number demonstrates a steep decline from the ninety-two out of one-hundred who made similar claims a mere 18 years earlier in 1990. Recent statistics call into question not only the quantity, but the quality of the American faithful; the religious declarations of the 2008 poll seem dubious in light of the fact that no more than twenty seven of those eighty-six attended any sort of religious worship service on a regular basis.
II Self Determinism
Some scholars would disagree, arguing that attendance at a worship service no longer stands as an accurate indication of modern religious involvement. Two contradictory trends in American religion lend credence to that argument. One should first consider the rising prominence of self determinism in American religious thought. Whereas in the past, the American people thought of religion as an institutional or communal endeavor, they have increasingly begun to consider it a deeply personal spiritual journey. Although a personal interpretation of, and relationship with, God are hallmarks of religious movements as well established and diverse as Protestantism and Hinduism, the concept of religious self determinism has assumed a far more expansive role than at any earlier point in history (or at least American history), and now manifests as a powerful force on the American religious scene. The faithful increasingly believe they have the prerogative not only to choose a religion, but to personalize, synthesize, or even out-right invent one. The absence of self determinists from a worship service does not necessarily indicate that they are unreligious, but only that they deem it unnecessary to worship in the company of others. This can invalidate religious data based on worship attendance.
III Pseudopistevism
Pseudopistevism describes the converse of religious self-determinism. Pseudopistevism, from the Greek pseudo (meaning “false”) and pistevos (meaning “belief”), denotes exactly that: a false belief. The term pseudopistevist describes someone who reflexively honors religious observance for tradition’s sake, uses religion to acquire a social network, or chooses a mode of worship for no other reason than to identify themselves with a particular cultural or ethnic group. Regardless of their specific personal circumstances, all pseudopistevists derive religious motivation from sources beyond the scope of conventional spirituality, and can practice any religion without genuine belief in even its most basic tenets. Even if a pseudopistevic attends a worship service, it does not preclude the possibility that he or she is actually nonreligious, which further invalidates attempts to gauge American religiosity by religious activity alone.
IV Failing Institutions
Although practicing a conventional religion without acknowledging its validity and cultivating a unique religion in pursuit of spiritual truth may seem like disparate expressions of faith, pseudopistevism and religious self-determinism actually serve as parallel reactions to the same cultural stimulus: the widespread rejection of religious institutions as religious and moral authorities in modern American society.
Increasingly, Americans question the sanctity and wisdom of organized religion and the institutions that represent it. Religious institutions themselves often create or perpetuate these doubts when they or their prominent members breach key moral obligations to the faithful, or act with blatant hypocrisy. The Catholic Church, with its ongoing sex-abuse scandals, provides a classic example. Catholics who allege child molestation often encounter a Church that categorically denies their claims until they threaten mass litigation, and then reluctantly dolls out minimal remuneration. If possible, the Church then reassigns the unpunished offender to a new parish, and attempts to suppress public awareness of the case. The Church’s loss of credibility compels many Catholics to abandon it outright; they convert in ever greater numbers to those religions they perceive as more ethical, or even reconsider the existence of a supposedly just and moral God who allows such deviance among His earthly representatives.
Not only organizations, but private individuals, often degrade public faith. Certain televangelists, with their political meddling and conspicuous greed, have (in the eyes of large swaths of society) deconsecrated entire denominations of the Protestant Church. Many socially liberal Christians who cringe at the prospect of popular association with the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson adjust their religious affiliations to better reflect their own personal values. Conservative Christians, for their part, tend to exhibit more enthusiasm than revulsion for the aforementioned reverends, and thereby underscore another factor in the unraveling of the American religious institution: partisan bickering.
V Partisanship
Modern American religion divides itself along partisan lines. Denominations often denote political affiliations, and vice versa. Southern Baptists, for instance, cleave almost wholly to the right wing, while the majority of their nominal spiritual brethren, the Presbyterians, lean markedly left. While theologians and historians agree that certain political issues have disunited American faith populations since the nation’s inception, it becomes increasingly hard to deny that political and religious ideology comingle to a greater extent than ever before. The American layman who knows a stranger’s religious associations can usually predict that person’s views on a host of issues that bear no relevance on the spiritual. Gay rights demonstrate one such political division; the majority of political liberal’s of various faiths support gay rights initiatives, while most religiously inclined political conservatives roundly condemn what they perceive as the advancement of the homosexual agenda. Both groups cite faith as the primary justification for their political beliefs, even though those beliefs form no consensus.
The abstract concept of “Social Justice” creates a similarly polar political division among America’s faithful. Political conservatives believe that activism on behalf of the poor to achieve social equality runs contrary to the divine will, which starkly contrasts with the moral convictions of many liberal religious practitioners, who feel that the redistribution of wealth constitutes a heavenly mandate. No matter what specific issues foment it, the political divisiveness within religious communities confuses and disheartens worshippers. Doubt proliferates, and questions arise as to how people united in a common purpose could interpret spiritual truth in such contradictory ways. Such discrepancies compel many people to abandon their religious convictions.
VI Pluralism
In the past, religious observers would have either dismissed canonical differences between their beliefs and those of other religious denominations as heresy, or accepted the differences as equally valid manifestations of the divine. However, as the latter option, (religious pluralism), becomes more and more prevalent in the modern age of religious tolerance, there emerges a growing danger of what some scholars call spiritual inflation. When an individual accepts not only one, but all religious views, and believes that each holds equal merit, some claim that the value of their belief system cheapens immensely (like currency when the quantity in circulation increases), and can even cease to exist all together. The theologians who proffer this view essentially maintain that all religion means no religion. This theory, however, remains hotly contested because of its subjectivity. Unless someone contemporaneously experiences religion from both a traditional and plural perspective, a reasonable comparison between the two modes of understanding cannot exist. Even if someone could make that comparison, the findings would apply only to him or her individually because of the deeply personal nature of faith.
VII Empiricism
A factor representing a more concrete threat to American religion than religious pluralism has existed since the Renaissance, but arguably wields more power both globally and domestically now than at any previous time in history. Empiricism refers to the belief that all knowledge comes from sensory perception. Central to the scientific method, empiricism enables the discoveries and technological innovations that expand human knowledge of the physical world. Although it brings us to a more perfect understanding of material reality, empiricism completely neglects spiritual reality. Because of divine intangibility, as Strobel asserts, “empirical reasoning cannot prove or disprove the existence of any deity”. Therefore, those who rely exclusively on empiricism to form their perspectives on life cannot logically acknowledge the validity of any religion, personal or organized. Thus, empiricism serves as the fountainhead of both atheism and agnosticism. Because they are mutually imperceptible, the spheres religion and empiricism should not intersect. However, as a result of the prevalence of empirical reasoning in modern society, empiricism exerts an ever broadening influence on religions both institutional and private. It motivates religious action groups such the Jesus Seminar, a nominally Christian religious organization whose members dedicate their scholarly acumen to effacing all biblical references to the divinity of Christ. Empiricism even constitutes the basis for entire religions. One such denomination is Functional Magick, a branch of the Wiccan religion, whose members practice “magic” in the form non-religious rituals such as hiking and cooking. Functional Magicians make no overtures to any divine beings, and maintain no general belief in the supernatural. Empiricism continues to win converts who believe that it precludes the existence of the divine. Nearly 15% of Americans currently self-identify as nonreligious, meaning that their number has increased seven percentage points since 1990.
VIII Conclusion
American religion retreats as non-belief advances, and empiricism above all other factors accounts for this spiritual decline. At present, society increasingly deems empirical reason and faith mutually exclusive, even as empiricism continues to proliferate. If this trend does not abate, then American religion will not only diminish, but slowly dwindle to oblivion. The City on the Hill will cease to shine.
Works Cited
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006
Wunthrow, Robert. “Religion”. Understanding America. Ed. Peter H. Schuck and James Q. Wilson. New York: Public Affairs, 2008