It also can't be stressed enough that the plateau in Christianity's decline came at the exact moment that the borders were opened (mainly from countries with relatively higher religiosity). If Trump's remigration plan finds a decent amount of success, I wouldn't be surprised if we once again start seeing Christianity dropping at the rates seen throughout the 00's & 10's.
Young men converting to Christianity want a tight-knit community of people who look like them that they can lead. After conversion, they find a hollowed out husk of old White boomers with liberal racial attitudes and mullato mystery meat Democrat voters, even in the most "conservative" churches. The prognosis for growth is not good.
Within the last 6 months I've returned to a Catholic Church near me. I've noticed there are more younger people doing the same. But the ideology is still as liberal as before. And the devotional aspect feels inauthentic. I think a large part of the return is just isolated youth seeking more social opportunity, not authentic call to religion.
This essay tracks with my anecdotal experience. It's amazing how many young men I've talked to who "like" Christianity and Christians, but for themselves embrace RedPill and secularism.
The conservative Christian wish-casting is real. I know, because I was asked by two different magazine editors to write articles about this phenomenon, and on investigation there really was no wide-spread phenomenon to write about. I think it has something to do with a misunderstanding of population statistics. When a conservative Orthodox or Catholic parish suddenly sees the number of inquirers in their catechism classes double, they think something dramatic is happening—and for that parish it is true. Our catechism class doubled in size! But a doubling of 3 to 6, or even 10 to 20, still means that in the scheme of the entire population the number is statistically zero.
Which Christianity? As that witticism about every man his own Pope made clear, it really comes down to which one pervade. Ultimately, the religion that united and grow the numbers and strength of its people will eventually dominate the others, first in the local area and then the region before a nation.
In middle school, I was the only known atheist among the kids, in a rural community where everyone knew who went to which church and it was a big deal. The hard core kids would get into debates and come to me to settle them because I knew the Bible as well or better than them and I had no iron in the fire. I was greatly amused and honored, and it brought home to me how divided Protestant denominations are. Now that the cult of the individual and the chaos of the interwebs are upon us, truly each person has their own tiny sect. God help them.
This is needlessly cynical. I think the contingent that is experiencing a revival the greatest is young white men, which is mirrored in Russia, France and England. I am certain you would see a greater upswing if you focused on this group.
Presumably if seeing a revival in any notable numbers among young white men, it's continuing to decline a bit in the rest of the population (to balance out total numbers and keep the plateau). Given that women are generally more religious, that'd be an interesting long-term reversal.
And you're a retard because he's never coming back and he's never going to save you, you all mother fuckers are stuck on earth with the rest of us UNTIL THE HEAT DEATH OF THE GOD DAMN UNIVERSE!
Also jesus isn't some king no he's rotting in the ground in some mass roman grave with the rapist and the buggers and the thieves
Dumb article. Religious identification is rising among Gen Z. And no, this isn't due to immigration before you bring up that rightoid meme: "Can immigration explain why secularism has stood still in many Western countries? Probably not. In America newcomers tend to be less Christian than the native-born, making them a drag, not a boost, for the Christian share, notes Mr Smith. " https://archive.ph/3qhDp
You're just restating the argument directly refuted by the data here. The very first graph of the article shows religious identification by generation over time. Gen Z is the most irreligious of all generations in 2024, and is 7% more irreligious than it was in 2016.
Some things not mentioned in the article: in 2016 only 20% of Gen Z never attended church, today that figure is 38%. Again 7% higher than Mils, which is the largest intergenerational jump of any. Similarly, 48% of Mils believe "certainly" in God's existence. It's 40% for Gen Z.
The Economist article you link does not claim "Religious identification is rising among Gen Z" but (correctly) states explicitly multiple times that secularism is slowing. These are two different things.
> "The Economist article you link does not claim "Religious identification is rising among Gen Z" but (correctly) states explicitly multiple times that secularism is slowing. These are two different things. "
Just completely wrong, you didn't even read it : "This trend seems to have persisted beyond the tumult of covid-19. Across three surveys in 2023-24, the share of young Americans identifying as Christian rose from 45% to 51%. "
> "in 2016 only 20% of Gen Z never attended church, today that figure is 38%. Again 7% higher than Mils, which is the largest intergenerational jump of any. "
This is also briefly explained in the article. We would expect this since a lot of people in Gen Z are converting to religion for the first time.
I can't help you here because the archive link doesn't say which "surveys" show this, and it certainly isn't 2024 CES or 2024 RLS, which again show a rise from 39% to 46% irreligious and 36% to 44% respectively, from 2016 to 2024. PRRI and GSS are also showing the same thing. So I'm really not sure what they're talking about, are they averaging these three surveys into one figure or what? Really skeptical of this
And no, that's not what we would expect to see. If there is a revival occurring you'd expect it to start at the baseline of the previous generation and rebound to more favorable territory. The opposite is occurring, and at a rate far more unstable than any other generation.
The article intentionally obfuscates the distinction between a revival and a plateau. I find it incredibly funny that, against an article warning people to not fall for these articles so easily, you simply reply with one of them and complain.
As for christianity shaping nations. We have the entire 20th century as a blueprint. the material religions and islam took over and drastically reshaped all their societies. It can be done and has been done in living memory.
Before I read Because I had thoughts just from the concept. I think Gen Z might be more open to having these sorts of discussions with your spiritual. And there may be some Revival and there may be some growth however when you look at how the church is currently structured in its General discipleship efforts not even looking at current youth programs and what passes as youth discipleship I think anyone who took time would look at this and say if youth is all about games and just making friends then people are going to confuse faith with social circles. I think there's an opportunity here if we can get our churches and the Ministries to not just teach bully pulpit style but to really interact with and train these youth in spiritual matters in a way that requires them to be an active rather than passive participant. Certainly I know college students are very very more likely to grow if given good discipleship and teaching but I think it could stretch to teens and preteens also.
A couple of comments in response to this, since my username requires that I engage with such thinkpieces. I think it largely misses the point. There may well be a quiet revival in some circles but it's offset by a decline in others. What we're seeing is an increase in polarisation - the religious "liberal middle" dropping out and the hardcore religious and secular liberals growing in number. Eric Kaufmann wrote the book on this and it's very much worth engaging with but over the long term, the demographics clearly favours the religious, irrespective of what's going on with current high level trends.
Also, a comment on the "heretical beliefs" supposedly held by ordinary Christians. I think properly framed these beliefs are not necessarily as problematic as initially framed.
51% believe God changes (modalism) - That's not quite what modalism is but I'll allow. Still, basically everyone acknowledges some sense in which God changes and some sense in which God doesn't change. The bible often speaks of God changing his mind etc and you have to make sense of that. Some frame this in terms of God changing in his accidents but not in his essence or whatever. The claim that God changes is not in itself heretical without qualification.
71% believe we are born innocent and without sin (Pelagianism) - Again, not quite what Pelagianism is but I'll allow. But here we need to distinguish between original/inherited versus actual sin. And those holding to this view may be speaking of the latter and not the former as the latter is more technical and theological whereas the latter is more practical and observable.
73% of evangelicals believe Jesus was the greatest being created by God (Arianism) - This is, on its surface, a true and accurate belief. Jesus - as a human being - *is* "the greatest being created by God". As a divine person he is uncreated but that should go without saying. Again, more clarity needed to determine if actually heterodox.
Yes re concentration of religiosity in leftovers, I allude to this briefly: "One plausible explanation is that we are not seeing a revival, but a completion of the previous era of apostasy. Those who had only marginal or weak associations with Christianity have left, while the remaining portion of believers are far more resolute."
I just don't see how this favors the religious, as it is incorrect to say that the "hardcore religious are growing in number". They're growing in proportion within an increasingly smaller demographic. Maybe there is a silver lining in that but I imagine you would prefer the culture that has since deteriorated, where there the hardcore-religious utterly define the culture in every household and every community, rather than it being forced into a select few.
It's more that (a) fertility already favours the "hardcore religious" and that (b) absent a moderate/liberal religious middle ground contingent, the exit costs are much higher. Throw in the general effect of polarisation driven by social media and you have a recipe for a more conservative and more religious world over the long term, albeit extremely divided between different religious groups.
I'm always very cautious to conclude that higher fertility among a certain behavior means that behavior will become more common. In a vacuum yes, but that didn't stop the previous wave of mass apostasy from happening both within and across generations. Yes people will be more polarized, one pole will be more conservative than before, but it will also be vastly smaller. And to the larger point here, that's worse than what was enjoyed in previous centuries where the whole of society was pious and "conservative" to a degree unfathomable to us today. Banking on the polarity rather than the capture of the entire culture is evidence of the decline in significance I'm talking about here
I agree insofar as it's hard to predict long term trends from short term evidence. The "capture of the entire culture" you speak of could also be named "the secularisation effect". And it is a powerful effect, embodied in soft power institutions like Hollywood, the media, higher education and so on.
I think the big game changer will be AI/automation. This will most directly impact those soft power institutions and all but eradicate the secularisation effect, and in the process put many existing liberal elites out of a job. That could have a drastic effect on the secular/liberal consensus, even over the short term. But that's getting into other issues and somewhat tangential to the central arguments you were making here.
Every time somebody points to an event which may seem like revival. I'm reminded of what I learned in my fireman chit lessons in the boy scouts. See a fire does not start by its own it needs three things. It needs oxygen it has to breathe it needs fuel something that can burn and it needs something to cause ignition we usually think of this as a heat source that it could be sparks.
If one takes the analogy of a campfire, three things stand out.
All fires are consuming, that is to say they burn through whatever fuel is present. A fire remains in place as long as fuel lasts until wind blows a part onto ready fuel elsewhere. This is like revival. When one person catches fire and burns brightly for Christ others nearby may soon also catch fire and burn brightly.
But the same things that help a fire grow and spread also play a factor in how a fire us controlled, managed, and eventually extinguished. Bring more fuel together and the fire grows in size, heat, and time. Distance fuel sources, sufficatthe fires ability to combust with oxygen, and their behind to self burnout. Toss suppressant in the form of dirt, water, or other elements and the heat taken from it will see the fire die.
So what can this teach us about revival? There is always potential fuel, but not all wood is prepped to catch fire quickly, and the distance to the nearest flame source reduces that possibility.
So if revival is sputtering out, the fault must lie in when the fuel was prepared. That has to fall on the church, which go uses increasingly more on spectacle, hollow paid performances over spirit lead worship, and chooses easy, lest challenging topics for its messages.
It isn't just on pastors, but on elders, deacons, and long time at tenders who do little to prepare their home firepit for use, and may leave church on Sunday perhaps not warmed or feed by what they witnessed or heard.
I don't really know what you're getting at with this. I was just trying to say that it makes sense given the context that you would be cynical on the possibility of Christian revival in the current era because of your anti-Christian disposition.
And I'm saying that's not the case because my conclusions for why this is happening pose serious problems for my religion as well. This isn't a point-and-laugh.
Except that they are not anti-christian they're just pointing out the fucking obvious that christianity is dying and quite frankly i would go one step further in saying that christianity is not able to adapt to the modern climate and that the fact that people have information at their fingertips and you don't have to go to some pastor or clergy to get your information on christianity when you can get it yourself.
Also you can see this effect but 10x faster with political islam as more and more muslims become non religious because they're unable to shame people into staying in there religion.
It also can't be stressed enough that the plateau in Christianity's decline came at the exact moment that the borders were opened (mainly from countries with relatively higher religiosity). If Trump's remigration plan finds a decent amount of success, I wouldn't be surprised if we once again start seeing Christianity dropping at the rates seen throughout the 00's & 10's.
Both are symptoms rather than the cause.
Diversity and anti-institutionalism were both heavily promoted in media and education from the 1960s on. Neither is caused by the other.
Young men converting to Christianity want a tight-knit community of people who look like them that they can lead. After conversion, they find a hollowed out husk of old White boomers with liberal racial attitudes and mullato mystery meat Democrat voters, even in the most "conservative" churches. The prognosis for growth is not good.
The only exception I know to this trend are groups like Asatru, but they're growing very slowly.
Within the last 6 months I've returned to a Catholic Church near me. I've noticed there are more younger people doing the same. But the ideology is still as liberal as before. And the devotional aspect feels inauthentic. I think a large part of the return is just isolated youth seeking more social opportunity, not authentic call to religion.
This essay tracks with my anecdotal experience. It's amazing how many young men I've talked to who "like" Christianity and Christians, but for themselves embrace RedPill and secularism.
The conservative Christian wish-casting is real. I know, because I was asked by two different magazine editors to write articles about this phenomenon, and on investigation there really was no wide-spread phenomenon to write about. I think it has something to do with a misunderstanding of population statistics. When a conservative Orthodox or Catholic parish suddenly sees the number of inquirers in their catechism classes double, they think something dramatic is happening—and for that parish it is true. Our catechism class doubled in size! But a doubling of 3 to 6, or even 10 to 20, still means that in the scheme of the entire population the number is statistically zero.
Which Christianity? As that witticism about every man his own Pope made clear, it really comes down to which one pervade. Ultimately, the religion that united and grow the numbers and strength of its people will eventually dominate the others, first in the local area and then the region before a nation.
In middle school, I was the only known atheist among the kids, in a rural community where everyone knew who went to which church and it was a big deal. The hard core kids would get into debates and come to me to settle them because I knew the Bible as well or better than them and I had no iron in the fire. I was greatly amused and honored, and it brought home to me how divided Protestant denominations are. Now that the cult of the individual and the chaos of the interwebs are upon us, truly each person has their own tiny sect. God help them.
The sooner the Judaic religions disappear, the better.
This is needlessly cynical. I think the contingent that is experiencing a revival the greatest is young white men, which is mirrored in Russia, France and England. I am certain you would see a greater upswing if you focused on this group.
Presumably if seeing a revival in any notable numbers among young white men, it's continuing to decline a bit in the rest of the population (to balance out total numbers and keep the plateau). Given that women are generally more religious, that'd be an interesting long-term reversal.
Christ is King. We are going to take everything back.
Prepare for the second greatest comeback of all time
Wat was the first
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800626796?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_tpbk_2&storeType=ebooks
;)
Based
And you're a retard because he's never coming back and he's never going to save you, you all mother fuckers are stuck on earth with the rest of us UNTIL THE HEAT DEATH OF THE GOD DAMN UNIVERSE!
Also jesus isn't some king no he's rotting in the ground in some mass roman grave with the rapist and the buggers and the thieves
Christ is Lord
No it doesn't and just because your bible says so doesn't make it correct.
Good, a Christian revival would put you yanks further into the pockets of the Israelies’
Dumb article. Religious identification is rising among Gen Z. And no, this isn't due to immigration before you bring up that rightoid meme: "Can immigration explain why secularism has stood still in many Western countries? Probably not. In America newcomers tend to be less Christian than the native-born, making them a drag, not a boost, for the Christian share, notes Mr Smith. " https://archive.ph/3qhDp
You're just restating the argument directly refuted by the data here. The very first graph of the article shows religious identification by generation over time. Gen Z is the most irreligious of all generations in 2024, and is 7% more irreligious than it was in 2016.
Some things not mentioned in the article: in 2016 only 20% of Gen Z never attended church, today that figure is 38%. Again 7% higher than Mils, which is the largest intergenerational jump of any. Similarly, 48% of Mils believe "certainly" in God's existence. It's 40% for Gen Z.
The Economist article you link does not claim "Religious identification is rising among Gen Z" but (correctly) states explicitly multiple times that secularism is slowing. These are two different things.
> "The Economist article you link does not claim "Religious identification is rising among Gen Z" but (correctly) states explicitly multiple times that secularism is slowing. These are two different things. "
Just completely wrong, you didn't even read it : "This trend seems to have persisted beyond the tumult of covid-19. Across three surveys in 2023-24, the share of young Americans identifying as Christian rose from 45% to 51%. "
> "in 2016 only 20% of Gen Z never attended church, today that figure is 38%. Again 7% higher than Mils, which is the largest intergenerational jump of any. "
This is also briefly explained in the article. We would expect this since a lot of people in Gen Z are converting to religion for the first time.
I can't help you here because the archive link doesn't say which "surveys" show this, and it certainly isn't 2024 CES or 2024 RLS, which again show a rise from 39% to 46% irreligious and 36% to 44% respectively, from 2016 to 2024. PRRI and GSS are also showing the same thing. So I'm really not sure what they're talking about, are they averaging these three surveys into one figure or what? Really skeptical of this
And no, that's not what we would expect to see. If there is a revival occurring you'd expect it to start at the baseline of the previous generation and rebound to more favorable territory. The opposite is occurring, and at a rate far more unstable than any other generation.
The article intentionally obfuscates the distinction between a revival and a plateau. I find it incredibly funny that, against an article warning people to not fall for these articles so easily, you simply reply with one of them and complain.
I forsee a “paganization” of christianity
As for christianity shaping nations. We have the entire 20th century as a blueprint. the material religions and islam took over and drastically reshaped all their societies. It can be done and has been done in living memory.
As long as feminism exists, true Christianity will never come back to dominance.
Christianity was never Masculine it was always Feminine in the way is kept people in line.
Before I read Because I had thoughts just from the concept. I think Gen Z might be more open to having these sorts of discussions with your spiritual. And there may be some Revival and there may be some growth however when you look at how the church is currently structured in its General discipleship efforts not even looking at current youth programs and what passes as youth discipleship I think anyone who took time would look at this and say if youth is all about games and just making friends then people are going to confuse faith with social circles. I think there's an opportunity here if we can get our churches and the Ministries to not just teach bully pulpit style but to really interact with and train these youth in spiritual matters in a way that requires them to be an active rather than passive participant. Certainly I know college students are very very more likely to grow if given good discipleship and teaching but I think it could stretch to teens and preteens also.
A couple of comments in response to this, since my username requires that I engage with such thinkpieces. I think it largely misses the point. There may well be a quiet revival in some circles but it's offset by a decline in others. What we're seeing is an increase in polarisation - the religious "liberal middle" dropping out and the hardcore religious and secular liberals growing in number. Eric Kaufmann wrote the book on this and it's very much worth engaging with but over the long term, the demographics clearly favours the religious, irrespective of what's going on with current high level trends.
Also, a comment on the "heretical beliefs" supposedly held by ordinary Christians. I think properly framed these beliefs are not necessarily as problematic as initially framed.
51% believe God changes (modalism) - That's not quite what modalism is but I'll allow. Still, basically everyone acknowledges some sense in which God changes and some sense in which God doesn't change. The bible often speaks of God changing his mind etc and you have to make sense of that. Some frame this in terms of God changing in his accidents but not in his essence or whatever. The claim that God changes is not in itself heretical without qualification.
71% believe we are born innocent and without sin (Pelagianism) - Again, not quite what Pelagianism is but I'll allow. But here we need to distinguish between original/inherited versus actual sin. And those holding to this view may be speaking of the latter and not the former as the latter is more technical and theological whereas the latter is more practical and observable.
73% of evangelicals believe Jesus was the greatest being created by God (Arianism) - This is, on its surface, a true and accurate belief. Jesus - as a human being - *is* "the greatest being created by God". As a divine person he is uncreated but that should go without saying. Again, more clarity needed to determine if actually heterodox.
Yes re concentration of religiosity in leftovers, I allude to this briefly: "One plausible explanation is that we are not seeing a revival, but a completion of the previous era of apostasy. Those who had only marginal or weak associations with Christianity have left, while the remaining portion of believers are far more resolute."
I just don't see how this favors the religious, as it is incorrect to say that the "hardcore religious are growing in number". They're growing in proportion within an increasingly smaller demographic. Maybe there is a silver lining in that but I imagine you would prefer the culture that has since deteriorated, where there the hardcore-religious utterly define the culture in every household and every community, rather than it being forced into a select few.
It's more that (a) fertility already favours the "hardcore religious" and that (b) absent a moderate/liberal religious middle ground contingent, the exit costs are much higher. Throw in the general effect of polarisation driven by social media and you have a recipe for a more conservative and more religious world over the long term, albeit extremely divided between different religious groups.
I'm always very cautious to conclude that higher fertility among a certain behavior means that behavior will become more common. In a vacuum yes, but that didn't stop the previous wave of mass apostasy from happening both within and across generations. Yes people will be more polarized, one pole will be more conservative than before, but it will also be vastly smaller. And to the larger point here, that's worse than what was enjoyed in previous centuries where the whole of society was pious and "conservative" to a degree unfathomable to us today. Banking on the polarity rather than the capture of the entire culture is evidence of the decline in significance I'm talking about here
I agree insofar as it's hard to predict long term trends from short term evidence. The "capture of the entire culture" you speak of could also be named "the secularisation effect". And it is a powerful effect, embodied in soft power institutions like Hollywood, the media, higher education and so on.
I think the big game changer will be AI/automation. This will most directly impact those soft power institutions and all but eradicate the secularisation effect, and in the process put many existing liberal elites out of a job. That could have a drastic effect on the secular/liberal consensus, even over the short term. But that's getting into other issues and somewhat tangential to the central arguments you were making here.
Every time somebody points to an event which may seem like revival. I'm reminded of what I learned in my fireman chit lessons in the boy scouts. See a fire does not start by its own it needs three things. It needs oxygen it has to breathe it needs fuel something that can burn and it needs something to cause ignition we usually think of this as a heat source that it could be sparks.
If one takes the analogy of a campfire, three things stand out.
All fires are consuming, that is to say they burn through whatever fuel is present. A fire remains in place as long as fuel lasts until wind blows a part onto ready fuel elsewhere. This is like revival. When one person catches fire and burns brightly for Christ others nearby may soon also catch fire and burn brightly.
But the same things that help a fire grow and spread also play a factor in how a fire us controlled, managed, and eventually extinguished. Bring more fuel together and the fire grows in size, heat, and time. Distance fuel sources, sufficatthe fires ability to combust with oxygen, and their behind to self burnout. Toss suppressant in the form of dirt, water, or other elements and the heat taken from it will see the fire die.
So what can this teach us about revival? There is always potential fuel, but not all wood is prepped to catch fire quickly, and the distance to the nearest flame source reduces that possibility.
So if revival is sputtering out, the fault must lie in when the fuel was prepared. That has to fall on the church, which go uses increasingly more on spectacle, hollow paid performances over spirit lead worship, and chooses easy, lest challenging topics for its messages.
It isn't just on pastors, but on elders, deacons, and long time at tenders who do little to prepare their home firepit for use, and may leave church on Sunday perhaps not warmed or feed by what they witnessed or heard.
Leave it to a pagan to be downing on such a thing.
https://substack.com/@gildhelm/note/c-152382266?r=tuevu
I don't really know what you're getting at with this. I was just trying to say that it makes sense given the context that you would be cynical on the possibility of Christian revival in the current era because of your anti-Christian disposition.
And I'm saying that's not the case because my conclusions for why this is happening pose serious problems for my religion as well. This isn't a point-and-laugh.
Except that they are not anti-christian they're just pointing out the fucking obvious that christianity is dying and quite frankly i would go one step further in saying that christianity is not able to adapt to the modern climate and that the fact that people have information at their fingertips and you don't have to go to some pastor or clergy to get your information on christianity when you can get it yourself.
Also you can see this effect but 10x faster with political islam as more and more muslims become non religious because they're unable to shame people into staying in there religion.
Leave it to the pagan to be right and when your unable to adapt and evolve you die and not even religion is immune to its effects.