Is genuine commitment to Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord increasing or decreasing in America? Preachers, pundits, and ordinary people all are likely to have an opinion. Some speak jubilantly of revival while others lament a great decline from the “faith of our fathers.” Is there any evidence that can point one way or the other? Yes and no. Data exist, but there is disagreement over how to interpret them.
Two pieces of evidence worth considering are: (1) Religion in America, 1976, issued as report 130 of The Gallup Opinion Index (the seventy-four-page document is available for $15 from 53 Bank Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540), and (2) the results of a just released Gallup Poll on how many Americans say they are “born again” (see the October 8 issue, page 52).
The Gallup Poll normally queries 1,500 persons over eighteen to get results considered applicable to the entire United States adult population. This small number is scientifically selected so as to be accurate to within three percentage points (at least 95 per cent of the time). According to the pollsters, this means that if all 150 million adults were interviewed, the results would rarely be more than 3 per cent different from those in the sample.
Granting the reliability of the answers, one may suggest that their meaningfulness is another matter. The kinds of questions asked and the potential for less than candid answers dilute the value of such polls. For example, a report on how many say they attend church tells us nothing about why they go, what they are taught, or whether they believe it. Saying that 56 per cent consider their religious beliefs “very important” without saying much about what those beliefs are sheds little light. This becomes apparent when one learns that 16 per cent of those for whom religion is “very important” are not sure they believe in life after death. The difficulty of getting hard data from the poll is also illustrated by the fact that this one found four million Americans were Episcopal by “preference”; the Episcopal Church currently has only about half that number of communicants, many of whom are under eighteen.
But perhaps the vagueness and lack of candor are repeated from year to year, or from age group to age group, and we can still learn something about trends and comparisons. A dim light is far better than none at all.
The statistics show that church and synagogue membership has not changed much in forty years. In 1936, 77 per cent said they were members; now 71 per cent say they are. (About 2 per cent of the population are Jewish, but only one-third of them claim synagogue membership.) Church attendance has also varied little in the twenty years that Gallup has been asking about it. In the mid-fifties 49 per cent said they attended services during the past seven days; last year, as in each of the four previous years, the figure was an even 40 per cent.
The attendance of various subgroups varies. The most interesting trend is that since 1964 the attendance rate of those identifying themselves as Catholics has dropped from 71 to 54 per cent, while the attendance of those claiming to be Protestants has held firm at 38 per cent. Still more decline may be ahead for Catholicism, since the poll showed that their young adults (eighteen to thirty) attend at only 72 per cent of the rate of Catholics generally.
Some frequent assumptions are supported by the poll; others are not. Women are indeed slightly more churchgoing than men, but non-whites (half of whom are Baptists) attend no more than whites. People with college educations are no more likely to stay at home than those with only high school. The South is not the most churchy region; the Midwest slightly edges it, and the East is not far behind. Asian religions, Mormonism, and widely publicized evangelical activity notwithstanding, the West is the least-churched region. People over fifty are more likely to attend church than young adults. Divorced or separated persons are as likely to be in their pews as married people. Amount of family income has little correlation with whether people go to church. Those who live in urban areas with up to a million population are just about as likely to be at a weekly worship service as the residents of rural areas. (Residents of urban areas with more than a million population do attend slightly less.)
Those who think that young people, especially college-educated ones, are turning away from religion need to reckon with Gallup. Half of all eighteen-to thirty-year-olds claim to be Protestants; 31 per cent are Catholics; only 12 per cent claim no religion. Of the college-educated young Protestants, 36 per cent, only 2 per cent less than the overall Protestant average, attended church the week prior to their encounter with the pollsters. Moreover, the 36 per cent was significantly higher than the rate for young Protestants who had gone only to high school or grade school. (By contrast, the church-attendance levels for older Protestants did not vary much according to educational attainment.)
Gallup’s findings do little to support the notions that we are experiencing either a decline or an awakening. Generally speaking, the statistics have been on a steady course for a generation. Apparently no more people, proportionately, are going to church now than formerly. The polls do not say, however, whether the churches they attend are more or less faithful to Christ.
The more recent poll, undoubtedly sparked by candidate Jimmy Carter’s profession of being “born again,” found that 50 million adults make the same claim. “Born again” was defined by Gallup as having experienced “a turning point in one’s life when one committed himself or herself to Christ.” Some 48 per cent of the Protestants and 18 per cent of the Catholics say they are born again. Undoubtedly, as the New Testament indicates, some people claim to be members of the body of Christ who are not, while others are truly regenerate but do not remember a conscious conversion or else their backgrounds are such that the phrase “born again” is alien or suspect. It is interesting that the percentage of professing Protestants who attended church during a given week (38) is 10 per cent less than the percentage of those who say they are “born again.”
Whatever the situation in America, it is far worse in seventeen Western Europe countries. Gallup-related pollsters found that only 27 per cent of Europeans consider their religious beliefs to be very important to them (ranging from 36 per cent in Italy through 23 per cent in Britain to 17 per cent in Scandinavia and in heavily Catholic West Germany). Canada, which in many respects is like its huge southern neighbor, is decidedly more European in religion, turning up with the same percentage as Italy in the poll. Africa, non-Communist Asia, and Latin America all outranked the United States in percentage of those who said that their religion was very important to them. A conspicuous exception was Japan, where only 12 per cent held that view. In fact, only 38 per cent of the Japanese said they believe in God “or a universal spirit.” In Western Europe 78 per cent of the adults believe in God, but only 44 per cent of them believe that God “observes your actions and rewards or punishes you for them.” The comparable figures for the United States are 94 and 68 per cent.
A comparatively unambiguous question was asked internationally, “Do you believe in life after death?” The United States, along with Africa, had a 69 per cent affirmative response. Non-Communist Asia except for Japan was not far behind with 62 per cent. But Latin America, though nominally Roman Catholic, had only a 54 per cent yes answer, as did Canada. Italy mustered a 46 per cent yes, slightly behind Australia (48 per cent), but ahead of Britain (43 per cent), France (39 per cent), and West Germany (33 per cent). Clearly, evangelists in those lands have to face the reality that most members of their potential audience do not believe a tenet that is a central one in almost every religious faith! It certainly alters the meaning of the term when one realizes that most of the people who call themselves “Protestant” in Western Europe do not believe in life after death.
Non-evangelicals frequently rebuke evangelicals for seeking the conversion of those who are already indentified with some church. Figures like these can be cited to show that church-relatedness in many instances is meaningless.
Americans have no reason to take pride in how United States poll results stack up against those of other countries. After all, they showed that 60 per cent of adults are not in church every week. In politics a 60 per cent vote against a candidate is a landslide! Ultimate truth is not decided by a head count, of course, but these figures do point to important evangelistic opportunities. They show not only that “the field is the world” but also that “the field is the church.”
Election ’76: Indifference Is No Virtue
For the forty-eighth time in American history, citizens will go to the polls November 2 to elect a president. It will be the first presidential vote since public disclosure of the whole Watergate episode.
The conscientious voter will as usual find himself facing a tough question. Given two persons with the basic qualifications and a reasonable degree of mental acumen, there is no certain procedure to determine beforehand which one will make a better president.
Normally the incumbent has demonstrated what he can and will do, which gives him the edge or assigns him a liability. In the case of President Ford, however, incumbency is not nearly so significant, because he assumed office without benefit of a popular vote and has served only half a term. It remains to be seen how he would perform if elected to a full term by the people of the nation. More aggressive initiatives can be expected from one who holds a mandate from the electorate.
Coming in the November 19 issue: an interview with one of the most perceptive analysts of the American religious scene, Dr. Timothy L. Smith of Johns Hopkins University. The interview covers Dr. Smith’s insights into the current evangelical surge and his understanding of the directions of American religious thought in the future.
The choice is also harder to make this year because neither candidate’s potential for presidential leadership has been significantly tested. A number of prominent American statesmen have come up through state government, as Jimmy Carter has, and others have come up through the Congress, as Ford has. But neither Carter in the Georgia governor’s mansion nor Ford in the House of Representatives or the White House has ever been obliged to deal with the kind of turbulence that Nixon and Johnson faced.
We are often told that prospective voters should study the issues and vote accordingly. A well-informed citizenry is desirable, but even the issues approach is somewhat unsatisfactory. Positions that seem desirable now may not be expedient two years from now. Issues, moreover, tend to be very complicated and hard to reduce to simple statements. The spirit in which a problem is attacked may be more important than the specific route taken.
Issues must also be understood in light of the historical fact that not infrequently candidates do a significant ideological turnabout in office, liberals turning toward the conservative side and vice versa. Therefore, the surface issues are less important than the candidate’s long-term record and his underlying philosophy.
Whoever is elected will make mistakes. It might be wise to consider as a key qualification the ability to recover from errors in judgment and to press on. On the athletic field this quality can separate real winners from losers. The loser, the one with the serious character weakness, is the one who allows mistakes to depress him into passivity or whose pride pushes him into extensive rationalization.
In 1976 both presidential candidates count themselves as born-again Christians, although they differ significantly in their expression of their faith. One talks about it very readily when asked, sometimes so explicitly that he embarrasses fellow Christians. The other chooses not to wear it on his sleeve, and even though he candidly answers questions about it when asked, he gets criticized for hiding his light under a bushel. Neither man has been a model of applied theology, but that tells us more about the Church than about the candidates. One wonders whether evangelicals have adequately prepared themselves for such a time as this.
Numerous recent books, such as those espousing “liberation theology,” argue that morality is on the side of Marxism in any debate with capitalism. It is often suggested that much of academic leadership is likewise hostile to free-market economics. In this light, the following extract from a baccalaureate address is worth noting. It was delivered by Yale University president Kingman Brewster, Jr., to the Yale class of 1976. It is reprinted with permission from the June issue of “Yale Alumni Magazine” (copyright 1976, by Yale Alumni Publications, Inc.).
For all its distortions and imperfections, the free market is still a better monitor of what people appreciate in material terms than would be any projection of a paternalistic master-bureaucratic plan. At least people ought to have a chance to try out a new product, or a new way of producing an old product, without first having to convince some bureaucrat. In spite of all obstacles and restraints, access to the market for capital, taking the risks of the market for goods and services, is better than having to get advance permission from a monolithic political authority.
Economic popularity, as registered in the marketplace for goods and capital, should not be disparaged if you want to encourage people to spend their energy and seek their fortunes in ways which are useful to others. The incentive and the variety of opportunity for voluntary usefulness are more important to me than the promise of efficiency. Capitalism is not just an economic system; it is a system of rewards and incentives for usefulness, too.
What, then, are the implications for the role of government—the public sector—if you think that the urge for self-motivated usefulness is an important part of life, an important element in the definition of a good society? At least the encouragement of usefulness puts some conventional government responsibilities in perspective. It may also help to clarify one’s vision of some of the appropriate affirmative missions of government.
I suggest that the government of a good society must first deter conduct or arrangements which are designed to limit or to shrink people’s capacities and opportunities. Physical harm, deprivation of property, abuse, neglect—the catalogue of criminal coercion and wrongful taking—lead the list.
White-collar crimes are not far behind, whether they take the form of blatant fraud or willful exploitation. Although the focus of resentment tends to be an unjust enrichment, the social evil is to hold down or to hold back someone else below the level which their capacities might deserve.
By this test, curtailing production to achieve a monopoly or cartel price is unjust primarily because it deprives others, not just because it fattens the purse of the monopolist. Inside dealing in securities manipulation is not bad primarily because of ill-gotten gains, but because it cheats others of their chance to make a fair deal. Promoting shoddy or unsafe goods is evil not mainly because of unwarranted profits, but because it inflicts harm on others, limiting their opportunities and perhaps doing violent harm to them physically.
Moral outrage and the urge for legal redress is therefore rooted more in the harm which is inflicted than in the resentment of the unwarranted wealth of the wrongdoer. No society deserves to be called “good” which fails to vindicate this moral outrage by punishment in the name of society as well as in the case of particular victims’ redress.
Most heinous of all is the exercise of either public or private power to hold down or oppress people because of their race, their color, their national origin or other class attribute. Even if no gain to the bigot or to the oppressor is involved, the willful deprivation of both capacity and opportunity of whole groups of people is the evil most deserving of opprobrium. Prevention and punishment of such oppression is crucial if you accept the notion that the goodness of a society depends upon the extent to which it enhances the potential usefulness of all its members to each other.
What, then, of the positive role of government in a society which aspires to encourage people to enhance each others’ potentialities? If the satisfaction of usefulness requires broad freedom of choice about how best to make your impact, then government should not impose its decisions about what individual aspirations should be, which abilities an individual should try to develop, which alternatives they most want to pursue in their effort, in turn, to enlarge the capacities and opportunities of others.
This approach suggests a preference for the “opportunity state” rather than the “welfare state.” It connotes a preference for government by incentive rather than by regulation or public ownership.
However, those who do not have a minimal level of health, of housing, or of education—in short, those held below a level of human decency—will develop neither capacity nor opportunity. Since the market does not assure such minimal decency, the government must. However, housing, health, and education, too, should be provided, where possible, by working through markets, even artificially created markets, rather than through discretionary handouts by politicians and bureaucrats.
Where concentration of private power is inevitable, then accountability, rather than the substitution of public for private decisions, should be the first resort. The creative development of avenues of legal redress and legal reform are essential, especially in those areas where markets cannot take adequate account of the impact of private transactions on third parties and the public.
More “Naderism” is far preferable to the red tape of direct regulation or the intrusion of government into private decisions. Needling of the corporate conscience by proxy solicitation is far better, for example, than putting political nominees on boards of directors. Class suits on behalf of injured third parties seem to me to be better than the heavy hand of advance permission from the public agency.
In sum, if society’s highest aim is to maximize the ability of each citizen to contribute to the potentialities of others, there is plenty for government to do, but it should be done insofar as possible without using government to usurp the responsibility for individual actions, or to prejudice the freedom of individual choice.
Christians need to continue to try to translate their faith into deeds that have meaning in the workaday world. One way is to make sure to vote, even if one considers the race a toss-up or dislikes both candidates. Being indifferent is worse than voting for the wrong candidate. Not nearly enough good people are involved in the events that shape our culture.
Not all those shaping events take place in the White House. Christians should also show a great deal more interest in congressional races and local elections. Largely because of the repeated failures of Congress to act decisively, the powers of the federal government’s executive branch have increased and the “legislative” role of the Supreme Court has expanded. With an unusually large number of congressmen retiring this year, it is important to focus attention on electing lawmakers who will restore the system of checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution.
With its two hundredth birthday now behind it, the United States has one of the world’s oldest representative governments. That doesn’t mean it is heading toward death. Despite what the cynics, the fatalists, and the prophets of doom have to say, America’s greatest days may still lie ahead. Christian people can help to ensure this by taking their political stewardship—at all levels—seriously.
Facing Our Twenty-first!
CHRISTIANITY TODAY is now entering its twenty-first year. In these two decades of publication we have had our ups and downs, our successes and failures. We’ve been right and we’ve been wrong. But through it all we have not departed from our original goals: to tell the truth in love; to articulate evangelical concerns in the context of historic orthodoxy; to relate the Gospel to the pressure points of today’s world; to speed the evangelization of the world; to inform and convince those who hold views opposed to ours; and to strengthen evangelical believers by means of a scholarly apologetic that is forthright and positive without being defensive. Our watchword for the coming year comes from the pen of Martin Luther: “Peace if possible, but truth at any rate.”
