Last week, there was an article in the Atlantic that shed light on an interesting trend. It’s old news that people, particularly liberals and millenials, are leaving churches. But what I didn’t realize before is that conservatives are also leaving churches, and as they do, they are becoming even more conservative and widening the political partisan gap. Let’s see what’s happening.
Secularism is indeed correlated with greater tolerance of gay marriage and pot legalization. But it’s also making America’s partisan clashes more brutal. And it has contributed to the rise of both Donald Trump and the so-called alt-right movement, whose members see themselves as proponents of white nationalism. As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.
Interestingly, Trump won among Evangelicals, but he didn’t win the regular church-goers; he won the ones who don’t attend church, who are secular in practice. It’s one reason they could look past his lack of Christian awareness and adherence (hello! serial sexual assault!) and instead affiliate with his nihilistic message of nationalism and white supremacy. Cruz beat Trump handily (a 15 point lead) among church-going Evangelicals, but Trump killed Cruz (a whopping 27 percent lead) among those who sleep in on Sundays. Why is this? White conservatives who quit attending church tend to suffer economically, leading to disillusionment with the direction the country is taking, and without hearing Christian messages of tolerance and love on a weekly basis, these feelings crystallize in resentment toward immigrants and minorities. So, much as we may find conservatives at church irritating (and I find them very irritating at times), we want them in those pews; we need them in those pews. Turning them loose without Jesus’ message is a much worse alternative.
Since the early 1970s, according to W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, rates of religious attendance have fallen more than twice as much among whites without a college degree as among those who graduated college. And even within the white working class, those who don’t regularly attend church are more likely to suffer from divorce, addiction, and financial distress. As Wilcox explains, “Many conservative, Protestant white men who are only nominally attached to a church struggle in today’s world. They have traditional aspirations but often have difficulty holding down a job, getting and staying married, and otherwise forging real and abiding ties in their community. The culture and economy have shifted in ways that have marooned them with traditional aspirations unrealized in their real-world lives.”
Or as another friend put it, conservatives don’t ever think of themselves as poor people. They think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed rich people (by circumstances or setbacks). Consequently, they don’t want to create systems to help the poor, and they don’t identify with other “poor people,” including minorities and immigrants. They help the rich and blame the (other) poor. With that outlook comes a real disillusionment with the American dream because their own lives are evidence that the American dream has been co-opted by others and doesn’t work for them personally.
Whatever the reason, when cultural conservatives disengage from organized religion, they tend to redraw the boundaries of identity, de-emphasizing morality and religion and emphasizing race and nation. Trump is both a beneficiary and a driver of that shift.
Many in the alt-right blame Christianity for being too universalist in preaching acceptance and tolerance of minorities and immigrants.
Secularization on the left has also created more polarization. Those who backed moderate Clinton were far more likely to attend church services weekly (by 26 points) than those who backed Sanders. Non-religious democrats backed Sanders by a 13 point margin.
As we see from these shifts, the non-religious opted for the more incendiary candidates, whether on the left or the right. This is a political revolution of the non-religious that doesn’t look much like the 1969 summer of love, and with so many continuing to shift out of church, that means that increased polarization is the new normal.
Among the black churches, secularization has a similar effect as well. Secular movements like Black Lives Matter are not interested in approval from whites or in collaborating with their enemies. They want change, and they aren’t going to say please.
Reformists focus on persuading and forgiving those in power. Revolutionaries don’t.
And without any religious influence, political forces are more revolutionary than ever.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I had difficulty continuing to read your post after the comment on finding conservatives irritating. Where’s the tolerance for diversity so espoused by Liberals? I’m a convert, I’m a regular attendee in Church (as is my family), I’m politically/culturally Conservative, I don’t scream at political and religious leaders I disagree with. Must I be pigeon-holed?
Mark- I doubt she wad trying to pigeon hole you, and I’m glad you don’t “scream at political and religious *leaders* you disagree with,” but what about regular church members you disagree with? I find very few conservative members getting after church leaders for liberal positions, but a lot of conservative members letting their ‘righteous indignation’ loose on me and my liberal beliefs.
Well this is an interesting analysis but it is also a very simple and surface view of the politics involved, for example it doesn’t even touch on the disruptive actions of Soros who has hijacked the Left for nefarious purposes while hiding behind the Left’s goodwill as a wolf in sheep skin. Ignoring these very substantial subterranean tactics will lead to chaos on both the national and global stage. Keep your eye on the ball this isn’t about *white* nationalism it’s about nationalism vs global totalitarianism. Ask those who are leaving the EU how they like the New World Order.
Watch Soros describe Soros in his own words.
The theory is that Republicans who attend church tend to be loving and forgiving while conservative who skip Sunday services become more resentful and intolerant. But if Democrats usually avoid organized religion, the article doesn’t really explain how or why liberals are more likely than conservatives to promote values such as compassion and empathy.
Interesting piece. If you want a look at what’s going on behind the Trump movement, read the New Yorker article about Robert Mercer, the money behind the alt-right. He’s a conspiracy theorist like Trump, who made his money by making hedge funds more lucrative. He’s behind the marriage of Trump and Bannon and is probably responsible for pushing Trump over the edge from loser to temporary winner.
Some of this piece rings true, especially the idea that Trump appealed to un-Christianized Christians. But how do we explain Trump’s outsized popularity among Mormons. In a recent Gallup poll, Trump’s approval rating is down to 36 percent. But in Utah, he’s flying high at over 50 percent approval. Good grief, what’s wrong with us Mormons?
I think it’s also a matter of where people get their political education. Churches can be counted on providing a limited and often moderating political education. Without them, some one with a high school or technical degree mainly gets their political ideas from the media and the internet. This empowers talk radio and right-wing sites that push a newer and more aggressive ideology. That’s why the only conservatives who have kept more traditional conservative views have either a substantial education or are more active in their churches
Fantastic post. I think a lot of people identify with their politics more than their religion, and as outrage has become more and more the chosen motivator for politics, this will become even more true. Outraged people tend to lose perspective, don’t mind bending the facts to sustain their outrage, and have much less problem reducing their opponents to 1-dimensional cartoon villains. A lot of religious people seem to justify their outrage as righteous indignation or righteous anger, but I don’t buy it. I don’t see anybody who allows himself to whip into a frenzy easily as being receptive to the Spirit. I think these people will work themselves out of their churches if they haven’t already.
The Bible says to be angry but do not sin.
Kullervo, Ephesians 4:26 read in context doesn’t seem to me to be recommending anger. The whole chapter is about unifying the saints. Depending on which translation of the bible you use, that verse is translated as “if you are angry, do not sin”. And when it says “let not the sun go down upon your wrath”, I think it means we’re supposed to get rid of our anger quickly. Some seem to think it means we’re not to let it die out.
This is a pretty interesting idea. On the one hand, I think secularization can be overblown (because it’s always kind of ebbed and flowed in American history) but on the other it seems relevant to recognize the post-WWII international order was indeed deeply influenced by religious ideas of human rights, etc. I think those who promote secularism correctly argue that a belief in human rights can be maintained in a secular context but it does seem like the communities that have sprung up as a result of the decline of religious communities seem rather untethered to liberal/human rights consensus. Similarly, Andrew Sullivan has an interesting piece in New York Magazine arguing that intersectionality has become a dogmatic belief and students on college campuses are essentially forming a new religious movement based on a systematic categorization of oppression and power relationships. It’s not a perfect piece (sells the broader theory of intersectionlity short, IMHO) but it is interesting to think of the ways in which people are filling that void as organized religion declines in popularity.
Just to give some props where props are deserved, in light of this article’s analysis, the recent push to improve church attendance could be seen as prophetic. And while liberals aren’t pleased with the frequently conservative political messages mingled with scripture, it might be just what some of the more extreme conservatives need to hear to keep them in check (along with hearing from diverse viewpoints – liberals, raise those hands and make those comments!).
I read the article over the weekend and couldn’t figure out why there was a proposed correlation with poverty, etc. and people leaving Christian religions. I didn’t recall seeing any substantive study referred to so I was very skeptical of the claim. Were they speaking of people who have historically left religions so they can go party, do drugs, etc.? If so, that type of history doesn’t necessarily speak to the rise of secularism, which is more of a modern phenomenon.
I could sit in the Chapel during Sacrament , look around at the other members, and imagine how many differences may exist between us; Political/Social/Movies/Food/Secular music, on and on and on. But that’s not why I’m there. I want to learn how to apply the message of the Savior to the world, not the other way around.
I like this post, all very interesting.
“we may find conservatives at church irritating (and I find them very irritating at times), we want them in those pews; we need them in those pews”
I would guess that if there is a movement and less time in the pews, and that leads to negative outcomes not better outcomes…then the pendulum would swing back to pull people back to church to restore what was lost in the hearts of people. However…if leaving the pews leads to less guilt, shame, fire-and-brimstone, and hating non-members …all good things to have less of…then they find leaving the church is freedom to be enjoyed to go in society and deal with the societies problems of hate with other avenues to develop love and find order.
Butts in pews is only gonna be needed if it really leads to more tolerance and love by the church preaching to the pews.
It would suggest the market corrects itself and natural forces balance out over time, even if imbalance is felt from moment to moment.
In that case…church/religion has a future. And an opportunity. They should position themselves to be ready for the correction by loving those who leave, hoping they become prodigals with broken hearts, while praying to keep their own spirits contrite along the way, not proud they stayed. In short…the church should focus on Christ and his gospel.
orangganjil: It’s a valid question whether there’s just correlation or causation behind the lower economic numbers and non-church attendance among Evangelicals. Interestingly, Mormons out-earn Evangelicals according to Pew forum data. I believe all those results are from Pew.
markag: Your last comment is exactly the point the article was making about why church attendance keeps both conservatives and liberals more moderate: they are focused on what they have in common more than their differences, and the messages of Christianity are particularly pacifist and conciliatory.
Heber13: Maybe the benefit you are describing is if someone who is more conservative becomes more liberal in reducing church attendance (which keeps them in the moderate middle), but again, the studies in the article show that liberals who leave become more liberal and conservatives who leave become more conservative.
As most of you will recall, the slide that was leaked by Mormon Leaks showed threats from both the left and the right, and they frankly are more aligned with this article than anything else. When people on the right leave the church, they go to the Snuffer-type groups or become Preppers. On the left, they go toward the activist / John Dehlin side.
Can I take the conversation off in a completely different direction a bit? I read and appreciated the article, and as always appreciated Angela’s commentary on it. I want to focus on something highlighted at the end, but that informs the whole position of the discussion, namely that moderation is inherently good. For example, this quote (which I think is effective in the piece): “Reformists focus on persuading and forgiving those in power. Revolutionaries don’t.” In context, the quote reinforces the rhetorical argument that polarization is the source of our troubles.
I think, sometimes, we have this idea that being in the center is inherently good. In terms of “revolution” versus “reform”, it feels good to be a centrist. It lets us say, “Look, see, I’m reasonable, I listen to everyone!” But it really depends on what the “extremes” are. If at one extreme we have “a little too far, but reasonable” and at the other end we have “completely disconnected from reality,” finding a spot near the center will leave us still more unbalanced.
But I think the problem we’re talking about is more about a lack of compassion, I think, rather than the degree of change necessary (reform or revolution). Looking at a brief list of revolutionaries and reformers, it’s clear that the type of change proposed matters less than the direction of change proposed: Lenin, Stalin, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Jim Crow, and Radical Republicans, Civil Rights Movement, Jefferson, Washington, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, Gandhi, Luther — not to mention Jesus of Nazareth. Does it matter which is a revolution, or which is filled with love toward God and our fellow people?
In short, I think our focus on getting consensus, instead of showing compassion while pursuing righteousness, can pull us away from solving our problems. What if polarization, instead, is a symptom of the depth of our problems, and that extreme solutions might be necessary before we can move forward?
And because of that, the more interesting question to me going on with the original article is this: what happens to societies that lose a safety net, like religious communities, without replacing them with other safety nets, like an economy that cares for everyone? What should we do when our problems are really bad and the social institutions we’re used to depending on (in this case, churches) are insufficiently strong to solve them? How do we respond?
jstricklan, I agree that being centrist is in and of itself not a virtue. But avoiding extremes that become hateful and frenzied is.
It should be issue driven, and results-oriented, and principle centered. Jesus may have been viewed radical by some, but was centered on true principles. Right?
To respond to some of your last questions…I guess I first want to know if we are really in a position where problems are “really bad”. Just because people don’t stay for 3rd hour of church, doesn’t mean they are really bad people and something is failing them. Maybe, they’re just bored and smart enough to go find more fulfilling things to spend their time doing…things that help them be better as families. So…some of the things in the leaked videos seem to be focused on attendance…and the assumption is that is bad inherently. Why? What if church attendance goes down…and yet society has greater freedoms and social support and diversity of thought to practice religious freedoms of all kinds? Butts in pews doesn’t mean the world is burning.
Also…why do we think the churches are the social institutions needed to solve problems? If the churches aren’t strong enough…then let’s find something that is. The churches should either show their value, or move out of the way so we can build institutions that help promote values in people. They aren’t all safety nets. Some are traditions of our fathers, and I’m ok with discarding traditions that have no lasting value. They need to show their value.
What does the church have to offer society? I believe there are some, if it gets to the root purpose it was founded and restored for.
I’m critical of leaders talking to members with obligatory statements of needing the church or all is lost. Why? What does it matter to go to church or not? Show me.
Heber, thanks for a thoughtful response. In my view, Jesus was definitively a radical, particularly in his time, and that demonstrates my main point (which it looks like you mostly agree with): it’s not the radical nature of our response that matters so much as whether or not it is filled with love. In my list of reformers and revolutionaries, I think it is those who are without love toward their own flesh that cause the problems.In that sense, as you put it so well, being centered on true principles (in short, the two great commandments) leaves us in the position of following Jesus either as a revolutionary or a reformer.
When I mentioned really bad problems, I was mostly thinking of American political polarization. [1]
Building off of Angela’s review of Charles Taylor’s “Secular Age” from a while back, I agree with you that it might not be right that churches should serve as the solution to our current social problems. It seems true to that the transition to the modern world has resolved some problems (for example, the enfranchisement of humans other than the king) but has brought up others (a sense of disconnection or alienation). Many thinkers consider the retreat of universal Christianity (and the institutional Church, as in the Catholic Church) as one of the causes of alienation.[2] People often want to restore that role, which is why the role of the church (little c) in society is such a hot topic, and why charges of theocratic governance aren’t entirely spurious when applied to the religious right.
But I agree with you that the calculus is not so simple, and that lower church attendance generally might come along with some real benefits that we don’t want to give up, like expanded rights and freedoms. In our secular age, suggesting that increased church attendance will save us might not be entirely appropriate.[3]
Which brings me back to the article Angela started with. Perhaps one of the functions of religion in America has been to moderate political passions. It seems clear that churches are less able to perform that moderating function as people attend church less often. The question is whether increasing church attendance will help moderate our American political discourse.
My point is two-fold: first, that moderation and “centrism” is not always a good thing, particularly when our problems are large and need big answers; and second, even if there is a causation relationship between church attendance and socio-economic trends (I think there may be) that we probably need to develop a different means of gluing together the American body politic than (little c) church attendance, given that these trends are unlikely to reverse.
[1] As an aside to your other points about the way the (big C) Church seems concerned about attendance, I think I mostly agree with you on each of your points, but am setting the Mormon-specific questions aside for brevity’s sake. All the same, the health of the society the Church lives in affects the health of the society of the Church, but I don’t really have good insight into those issues. Specifically, I don’t know that the problems of attendance in the Church are any worse or any better than we should expect given human nature (as demonstrated over and over in the stories of God’s people in the scriptures), our place and time, etc.
[2] It’s not just religious people like Taylor who point this out. In chapter one of his “The Inclusion of the Other”, Jurgen Habermas, a German secular philosopher, goes over this problem in detail before proposing that modern secular society is certainly up to the task of overcoming alienation through solidarity if we pursue the construction of our morality and laws in a thoughtful pluralism. Lots of people are unconvinced by him, but I’m not one of them.
[3] For example, the traditional role of the (usually Catholic) church in society is the source of the argument that religious organizations, not the government, should care for the poor. (My response to that argument is, “No one is stopping you, that argument is why we don’t tax your church in the first place, so hop to it and after you take care of all our social ills, we’ll give everyone a tax cut.”) However, as you mention, there might be better ways of handling poverty than letting religious organizations take care of it.
I had a public relations professor some years back who insisted that most politicians were Episcopalian or Methodist…that the devout Baptists were forced to moderate their strong beliefs to survive in Washington.
Some thoughtful stuff here, but my head aches at throwing around the liberal/conservative terms and expecting us to know what everyone means by it. It makes me feel stupid, and why should I keep reading something that makes me feel stupid?
I have no idea where the hell that I belong o that spectrum. I am a USAmerican registered Democrat and voted for Clinton. I believe church leaders are inspired and trying to seek the will of the Lord and doing what Christ would do if he was with us today. I wear pants to church sometimes. I see great value in male-only priesthood. I believe that young women should be encouraged to get an education and follow whatever career path that they think is right for them. I value the work of full-time parents.
I’ve been dismissed and denigrated by both the president of our local National Organization for Women, and by penis bearers at church.
So am I a liberal or conservative? I don’t particularly care.