Society & Culture - Posted by Eric Ferreri-Duke on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 17:21 - 12 Comments 
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Losing faith: Less confidence in clergy
QUIZ: Think you know a lot about religion in America today? You may be surprised. Take a quick quiz, which is based on decades of data analyzed by Duke professor Mark Chaves. (Credit: iStockphoto)
DUKE (US) — Americans have significantly less confidence in their religious leaders than they did a generation ago and more than two-thirds would prefer they not dabble in politics.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
Yet, religion and politics are more closely intertwined than a generation ago, according to the new book American Religion: Contemporary Trends by Mark Chaves, a Duke University professor of sociology, religion, and divinity.
“Several decades ago there was not a strong correlation between how religiously active you were and whether you voted Republican or Democrat,” Chaves says. “Now, there is. If you’re religiously active, you’re now more likely to vote Republican. That’s a very important development and is part of what leads people to talk about increasing polarization in American society.”
While a perception exists that Americans have become more religious of late, data suggest the opposite, says Chaves. Between 1973 and 2008, the percentage of people with great confidence in religious leaders declined from 35 percent to less than 25 percent, according to research by Chaves.
This loss of confidence in religious leaders follows similar declines in respect for leaders in government, education, banking, and other walks of life, and may help illustrate why fewer Americans are themselves interested in joining the clergy, he says.
“The American public has lost confidence in leaders of all sorts,” Chaves says. “But the loss of confidence in religious leaders has been more precipitous than in other leaders. There used to be a surplus of confidence in religious leaders that is no longer there.”
The decline is in part connected to the Catholic Church scandal of the early 2000s, when media reports illustrated the irresponsible handling by Catholic leaders of abusive priests, Chaves says.
In his book, Chaves analyzes developments in American religion since 1972. Using data derived mainly from two national surveys, he examines trends in diversity, belief, involvement, congregational life, leadership, liberal Protestant decline, and polarization.
The General Social Survey is an ongoing survey of Americans’ changing attitudes and behavior that began in 1972; the National Congregations Study, which Chaves directed, surveyed American congregations across the religious spectrum.
Using these and other sources, Chaves challenges the popular belief that religion has enjoyed a surge in popularity in the United States. In fact, traditional religious belief and practice are either stable or in decline, he says.
The public misperception is fed in part by the rise of very visible mega-churches, which suggest that more people are actively religious than is actually true, he adds.
“A 2,000-person church is far more visible than 10 200-person churches,” Chaves says.
Among Chaves’ other findings:
- There is a declining, though still very high, belief in God. In the 1950s, 99 percent of Americans said they believed in God; in 2008, about 92 percent did.
- Americans attend church less often than they say they do. About 25 percent of Americans attend religious services, which is lower than the 35 to 40 percent who claim to do so.
- Fewer Americans today approve of their religious leaders getting involved in politics. In 1991, about 30 percent of Americans strongly agreed that religious leaders should avoid political involvement; by 2008, 44 percent felt that way.
More news from Duke University: http://today.duke.edu/
Please wait
12 Comments
Jim H.
Diane Harper
Yet, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter in 1802 to several ministers of the Christian faith. In this letter, Jefferson quoted the First Amendment “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and adding “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” these are the words Jefferson wanted in the Constitution, but our Constitution, like everything in politics, was a compromise. Here are some other comments by our Founding Fathers:
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties…Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all other sects. — James Madison
The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. — James Madison
Even if we take Jefferson’s analogy as an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, a wall of separation between “church and state” is not the same thing as a wall of separation between “religion and state.” It’s unlikely that the founders meant to say “wall of separation between Christianity and state,” much less “wall of separation between all Christian principles and practices and the state.”
JH
This was on NPR today. Must read!
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare
The Evangelicals Engaged In Spiritual Warfare
An emerging Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and the return of Jesus, is becoming more of a presence in American politics. The leaders are considered apostles and prophets, gifted by God for this role.
The international “apostolic and prophetic” movement has been dubbed by its leading American architect, C. Peter Wagner, as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Although the movement is larger than the network organized by Wagner — and not all members describe themselves as part of Wagner’s NAR — the so-called apostles and prophets of the movement have identifiable ideology that separates them from other evangelicals.
Two ministries in the movement planned and orchestrated Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s recent prayer rally, where apostles and prophets from around the nation spoke or appeared onstage.
Is this the “Texas Taliban”?
And what is Glenn Beck doing in Israel?
Diane Harper
In an early treaty with a Muslim nation, George Washington wrote that the United States was in no way founded as a Christian nation. If you read the gospels, Jesus is a liberal. He accepted every one, even lepers, unlike some of the “evangelical” churches today that are quite exclusionary.
Long post. My apologies in advance. Hope you can wade through it.
On C. Peter Wagner and the “spiritual warfare” fad: I’ve never been a fan. I didn’t know many were still listening to Wagner. In any case, he represents no more than a small subset of those who claim the term “evangelical” and an even smaller subset of those who claim the term “Christian.”
It’s important to notice some distinctions here. Not all Christians cherry-pick from the Bible to support their personal agendas. Those who read the Bible comprehensively understand that any kind of “take over” of the political system has to occur by legal means (Rom. 13). So, just like any other ideology, they have to be persuasive (not coercive) in the marketplace of ideas and win votes. This is (at least) as far from Taliban as Mother Teresa is from Richard Dawkins.
As for Jesus “accepting everyone,” I’ll let Jesus speak (below). He was actually not all politically correct. It’s important as well to notice that “welcoming” is not the same thing as “accepting.” All truly Christian churches welcome everyone. But they also call everyone to repent, believe the gospel and be changed… just as Jesus did.
Jesus: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Mt 23:15 ESV)
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mk 1:14–15 ESV)
Jesus: “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Mt 12:34 ESV)
Jesus: “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Mt 7:22–23 ESV)
On Glen Beck: He has warm feelings about God. Other things being equal, that’s nice. Beyond that, Christians have little in common with him. I have no desire to defend him other than to say what I would say just as truly and willingly of, say, Barack Obama: he understands that to accomplish what he believes in he must persuade (not coerce) majorities to agree with that agenda and support it in the democratic process.
Aaron —- “Church” has often been used as a metonym for “religion”. When we refer to the “church”, we are often referring to religion, just as we say “Washington” to refer to the United States government, or “White Hall” to refer to the British government. So, yes, rhetorically speaking, “church” often means “religion”. Besides, quibbling over the distinction between the two misses the essential point of the founding fathers, which was that they did not want the United States to devolve into a theocracy. That is exactly what happens when lawmakers pass minor laws here and there, step-by-step, until they have legislated an entire religion. They have gotten away with legislating religion through a piece-meal process. If you can’t legislate Christianity, you can’t legislate the components of Christianity in their entirety. It’s two in one, half-a-dozen in the other.
Sorry, I meant “six in one, half-a-dozen in the other”. That is one of the most confusing idioms….
Jim H. —-
The Constitution does not explicitly state that religion should stay out of government, but it does *imply* so. When we read the letters of the founding fathers who drafted (Madison) or influenced the drafting (Jefferson) of the Constitution, it is clear they were wary of religious influence in government. Read Diane Harper’s post above. So, yes, the purpose of the Constitution *is* to keep religious influence out of government. And those Christian principles we speak of? Like do not murder, and be charitable? Those aren’t Christian. They’re humanistic. Lots of philosophies teach such principles.
Besides, if the Constitution doesn’t technically proscribe religious influence in government, so what? We’ll just change the Constitution to suit our present-day needs. Meanwhile, you still have every right to practice your religion how you want. You just can’t impose it on others.
I agree with Brandon for sure!
Aaron
Some may use “church” interchangeably with “religion,” but this is not helpful. A church or denomination is an institution, a religion is a set of ideas. The latter cannot “act” to control anything. Rather it is embraced by individuals as their means of evaluating the world, identifying right and wrong, etc.
Furthermore, even Jefferson embraced many of the ideas of Christianity and saw them as important in any viable democracy, while he was less enthusiastic about “church.”
The distinction is important and needs to be recovered.
Everybody has principles. It’s folly to reject a set of principles because we are calling them “church.”
To put it another way, church and state must maintain an institutional separation. They should not try to maintain an ideological separation.
The Constitution doesn’t call for separation of church and state! It says that the Govt.can’t declare a national religion that everyone in the country is required to belong to! The separation of church and state isn’t a valid arguement!