11/13/18

The Religious Landscape of Pittsburgh PA

Wikipedia; licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

The Pew Research Center completed its second Religious Landscape Study in 2014; the first one was conducted in 2007. When Pew released its 2014 data, one of the big stories was the significant increase of respondents saying they were religiously “unaffiliated”—an increase of 6.7% since 2007—while those identifying as “Catholic” and “Mainline Protestant” dropped 3.1% and 3.4% respectively. The changes affected all regions of the country and many demographic groups. The Pew data sets are available so that you can compare state and some urban areas with one another. Here, I’ll look at what Pew found for the Pittsburgh metro area, its home state of Pennsylvania and the national data. There are links to the Pew data if you want to do a comparison for other states or metro areas in the U.S.

Here is the link for the Religious Landscape Study. As you scroll down the page, you will see data links for Christian and non-Christian faiths and geographical regions that include the fifty states and selected metro areas like Pittsburgh, Houston, Miami, etc. There are many metro areas, such as Cleveland and Denver that were not linked. There is demographic information as well as information on various spiritual or religious beliefs and practices such as frequency of prayer, attendance at religious services, belief in God, reading Scripture and others. There also is information on various social and political views, including views on abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, government aid to the poor and others. The data on these beliefs and views is also available by state and metro area.

I’ll look at some Christian religious groups (Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Historically Black, Catholic and Mormon) and two non-Christian faiths, Jewish and Muslim. Religious “nones,” agnostics and atheists will also be examined.

More Pittsburghers identified themselves as “Christian” and “Catholic” than the U.S. or Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh also had a higher percentage of residents who identified as “Mainline Protestant” than the U.S. There was a smaller percentage who said they were Evangelical in Pittsburgh than the U.S. Pittsburgh had a higher percentage of Christians, which seems due to its higher percentage of Catholics than the U.S. or Pennsylvania (32%, 20.8% and 24%, respectively). Nones, Muslims and Jews are essentially the same for all three geographic areas. There was also a notably lower percentage of those within historically Black churches. See the table below.

Religious Groups

U.S.

Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh

Overall Christian

70.6%

73%

78%

Evangelical

25.4%

19%

15%

Mainline Protestant

14.7%

23%

25%

Historically Black

6.5%

5%

2%

Catholic

20.8%

24%

32%

Mormon

1.6%

<1%

1%

Jewish

1.9%

1%

<1%

Muslim

.9%

1%

<1%

Nones

22.8%

21%

18%

Agnostics

4.0%

4%

2%

Atheist

3.1%

3%

3%

A greater percentage of Pittsburghers are certain of their belief in God than residents of the U.S. or Pennsylvania. And they are about the same in saying how important religion is in their lives. However, that belief does not translate into more frequent religious practices. Fewer Pittsburghers read Scripture at least weekly (25%) than the U.S. (35%) or PA (31%). And fewer Pittsburghers attend religious services at least weekly (29%) than the U.S. (36%) or PA (34%). Pittsburghers do report praying weekly or monthly more often than the U.S. or PA.  See the table below.

Beliefs & Practices

U.S.

Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh

Certain of God

63%

61%

69%

Fairly Certain

20%

21%

16%

Not Certain

5%

5%

6%

Atheist

2%

10%

5%

Religion very

53%

51%

50%

Religion somewhat

24%

26%

26%

Religion not important

22%

23%

24%

Services at least wkly

36%

34%

29%

Monthly/ few x yearly

33%

35%

40%

Seldom/never

30%

31%

31%

Pray daily

55%

54%

54%

Pray wkly/monthly

22%

22%

30%

Pray seldom/never

23%

23%

17%

Read Scripture wkly

35%

31%

25%

Read monthly/yrly

18%

18%

15%

Read seldom/never

45%

50%

57%

On social and political issues, the only one for Pittsburghers that stood out was on whether homosexuality should be accepted or rejected. More Pittsburghers were in favor of accepting it and less thought homosexuality should be discouraged. With regard to whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal in most cases; whether same-sex marriages was favored or opposed; or whether government aid hurts or helps the poor, Pittsburghers were within the same range of opinion as the U.S. and Pennsylvania. See the chart below.

Social/Political Views

U.S.

Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh

Abortion legal

53%

51%

51%

Abortion illegal

43%

44%

41%

Accept homosexuality 

62%

63%

69%

Discourage homosexuality

31%

30%

24%

Pro same-sex marriage

53%

54%

51%

Con same-sex marriage

39%

37%

37%

Gov’t aid hurts poor

44%

48%

48%

Gov’t aid helps poor

50%

46%

46%

The Religious Landscape Survey did not report data on religious beliefs and practices by metro areas, but it did report them by state. So what follows compares the above beliefs and practices in Pennsylvania (PA) as whole to Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants and Catholics within the state.

Not surprisingly, Evangelicals were significantly more certain of their belief in God; more said religion was very important to them; they attended religious services more often; they prayed more often and they read Scripture more often. Catholics and Mainline Protestants in Pennsylvania had essentially the same percentages of certainty in their belief in God; saying religion was very important to them; and for daily prayer. Catholics attended weekly services more often (40% versus 33%) and Mainline Protestants read Scripture weekly more often (29% versus 18%).

Belief in God, regular attendance at religious services, frequent prayer and Scripture reading are foundational religious practices for Evangelicals. They illustrate the concurrent belief for Evangelicals of the importance of religion in their lives. See the chart below.

Beliefs & Practices

PA

Evan

Mainline

Catholic

Certain of God

61%

88%

66%

65%

Fairly Certain

21%

8%

29%

24%

Not Certain

5%

2%

2%

6%

Atheist

10%

<1%

2%

3%

Religion very

51%

83%

52%

54%

Religion somewhat

26%

13%

40%

32%

Religion not important

23%

3%

8%

13%

Services at least wkly

34%

60%

33%

40%

Monthly/ few x yearly

35%

27%

48%

37%

Seldom/never

31%

12%

18%

23%

Pray daily

54%

81%

56%

56%

Pray wkly/monthly

22%

15%

31%

27%

Pray seldom/never

23%

3%

12%

16%

Read Scripture wkly

31%

69%

29%

18%

Read monthly/yrly

18%

19%

25%

23%

Read seldom/never

50%

12%

46%

59%

Compared to the U.S. percentages for Evangelicals, PA Evangelicals are slightly more likely to read Scripture weekly (69% versus 63%). But essentially the same for the certainty of their belief in God (88% versus 88%), the importance of religion (83% versus 79%), weekly attendance of religious services (60% versus 58%) and daily prayer (81% versus 79%).

Again for PA Evangelicals, there were clear differences of views on abortion, whether homosexuality should be accepted or rejected, and acceptance of same-sex marriage. However results were not as distinct on whether government aid hurts or helps the poor. Evangelicals were significantly more opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. And they were twice as likely to say homosexuality should be discouraged. Catholics were more likely than Mainline Protestants to be opposed to abortion and to accept homosexuality.

Social/Political views

PA

Evan

Mainline

Catholic

Abortion legal

51%

26%

58%

43%

Abortion illegal

44%

71%

38%

50%

Accept homosexuality 

63%

33%

61%

66%

Discourage homosexuality

30%

59%

29%

28%

Pro same-sex marriage

54%

27%

53%

51%

Con same-sex marriage

37%

68%

36%

38%

Gov’t aid hurts poor

48%

59%

54%

48%

Gov’t aid helps poor

46%

34%

38%

46%

A likely explanation for the noted differences in views on abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage for Evangelicals is the strength in their belief of the Bible as the Word of God. Fifty-five percent of U.S. Evangelicals said the Scriptures were the literal Word of God, while another 29% said the Bible was the word of God, but not everything in it had to be taken literally. Interestingly, another 8% of “Evangelicals” did not believe the Scriptures were the word of God. Catholics and Mainline Protestants had similar percentages on how they viewed Scripture. See the chart below.

Interpreting Scripture

Evangelical

Mainline

Catholic

Word of God, literally

55%

24%

26%

Word of God, not all literal

29%

35%

36%

Not the word of God

8%

28%

28%

Don’t know

4%

9%

8%

When Pew sorted their data set according to how U.S. participants interpreted Scripture, the correspondence (could we suggest influence?) of their social/political views was evident. Conservative, literal interpreters of Scripture were more hesitant to say they supported social/political issues like abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage than those who did not interpret the Bible as the word of God. See the chart below.

Social/Political views

Word of God, literally

Word of God, not all literal

Not the word of God

Abortion legal

32%

48%

78%

Accept homosexuality

37%

63%

86%

Pro same-sex marriage

26%

52%

81%

There could be a subsection of socially and politically conservative Christians who would disagree that the Bible “is to be taken literally, word for word.” For example, if they thought a literal, word for word reading of Genesis 1-11 required a belief in six twenty-four hour days for God to create, and a global flood they may have failed to say they believed the Bible “is to be taken literally, word for word.” If this understanding led them to say the Bible was the Word of God, but “not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, word for word,” they would have diluted the percentages found approving abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage within the “Word of God, not all literal” grouping.

Also, when the Religious Landscape Survey asked where participants looked to most for guidance on right and wrong—religion, philosophy/reason, common sense and science were options—but Scripture was not. My concern here is that a lack of nuance in categorizing views on interpreting Scripture may have influenced the perceived support of these social/political issues among Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God. Putting aside this critique, the Religious Landscape Survey does provide a wealth of information on the religious beliefs and practices in the U.S. We have only scratched the surface here. Turn to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study for more information, particularly if you are curious about a state or metro area other than what I’ve highlighted here.

07/31/15

A Common Spiritual Path

© Weldon Schloneger | 123RF.com

© Weldon Schloneger | 123RF.com

A self-identification as having no religious affiliation was the big news in a study by the Pew Research Center, the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. “The number of religiously unaffiliated adults has increased by roughly 19 million since 2007.” Those individuals who are religiously unaffiliated generally are less religiously active, but many believe in God and even pray on occasion. According to the Religious Landscape Survey, “Many people who are unaffiliated with a religion believe in God, pray at least occasionally and think of themselves as spiritual people.”

This spiritual, but not religious group of individuals—those indicating that they have no particular religious affiliation, reported as “nothing in particular” in the survey—are the third largest “religious” group in the U.S. behind Evangelical Protestants (25.4%) and Catholics (20.8%); Nothing in particulars (15.8%). So there is a large group of Americans who are not atheists or agnostics; nor are they religious. I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant percentage of this group were active within 12 Step groups like Alcoholics Anonymous.

For a number of years I have been struck by the fact that there are both religious and nonreligious individuals who are critical of the presumed religiosity of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.). Nonreligious critics see it as too religious; religious ones believe it isn’t religious enough. Ironically, A.A. and other Twelve Step recovery programs modeled after it consistently claim they not religious at all.

Historical, religious influences upon A.A. are readily acknowledged by the organization, as are its nonreligious influences. Somewhere in the mix is the claim that it is a spiritual, but not religious program—a claim that is too often dismissed by its critics without an understanding of its origins and meaning. At the center of this debate are the Twelve Steps themselves, whose treatment of God is the flashpoint for both sides.

A.A. was founded in 1935, in the midst of a full social and cultural retreat away from the influence of Christian religious belief on American life. Doctrine, dogma and creeds were found to be increasingly irrelevant after the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. In the Scopes Trial, a high school biology teacher named John Scopes was found guilty of violating Tennessee’s Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach evolution. The trial pitted modernists, who saw Christian religion as consistent with evolution, against fundamentalists who believed that evolution was contrary to Scripture and Christian belief and therefore should not be taught in public schools.

In many ways, the issues debated in the Scopes trial now haunt the dispute over A.A. and the Twelve Steps. And it seems these concerns can be articulated within three basic questions. First, is there a place for God in the practice of addiction recovery? Second, is Twelve Step recovery consistent with the Christian religion? Third, should Christians holding to the importance of the Bible as the rule for faith and life participate in Twelve Step recovery programs?

Many individuals have answered the first question with a resounding “No!” and organized intentionally nonreligious support groups such as: Rational Recovery, SMART Recovery, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, and Women for Sobriety. On the other hand, many Christians believe there is a place for God in recovery. But they question if Twelve Step recovery is consistent with Scripture and feel that Christians should be cautious about participating in groups that do not explicitly affirm that Jesus is Lord. So they organized faith-based support groups that reach out to the still-suffering addict and alcoholic from a self consciously Christian perspective. Some of these include: Alcoholics for Christ, Alcoholics Victorious, Celebrate Recovery, Christians in Recovery, and Overcomers Outreach. Then there are the Twelve Step-based groups that answer “yes” to all three questions: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, Marijuana Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Emotions Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Clutterers Anonymous, and many more.

My own answers to these three questions would be nuanced. With regards to the first question, is there a place for God in addiction recovery, I would answer with a resounding “Yes”! I’d also reject the charge that such an affirmation makes Twelve Step addiction recovery inherently religious. The supposed religiosity of the Twelve Steps rests upon the premise that any belief in a Supreme, Transcendent Being is inherently religious. A.A., which originated the Twelve Steps, held that belief in some sort of God was normal. The A.A. Big Book said: “Deep down in every man, woman, and child, is the fundamental idea of God.” Twelve Step recovery believes that a religion takes this fundamental belief in God and the rituals that accompany it, and then institutionalizes them. See “What Does Religious Mean?,” “Spiritual, Not Religious Experience,”  and “The God of the Preachers” for more on these distinctions.

With regard to the second question, is Christianity consistent with the Twelve Steps, I would say it is and it isn’t. There are many parallels between Christianity and Twelve Step recovery. Yet Biblical Christianity makes an explicit claim that Jesus Christ alone is the way to God: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:7). When Christians hold that these words are infallible, that along with all the remaining words of the Bible they are the very breath of God, then compromising them as A.A. does is considered to be a serious break with orthodox Christian belief.

Lastly, I would say that Bible believing Christians can and should participate in non-Christian Twelve Step groups. But I would add that this participation is not a substitute for their fellowship with other members of the body of Christ. Christian faith matures within the context of fellowship with other Christians. Members of A.A. know this is true for alcoholics as well. Recovery matures within the context of fellowship with other recovering alcoholics. Sadly, Christian fellowship alone is often not vibrant enough for addicts and alcoholics to establish and then maintain their abstinence and sobriety. Their recovery can be strengthened within the fellowship of Twelve Step-based groups.

I plan to use the book of Romans as the anchor point for a series of articles that will illustrate how there is a common spiritual path upon which Christians and individuals can travel together—at least for part of their journeys. So there are two primary audiences to whom this series of articles is written: bible-believing Christians who find participation in Twelve Step groups helpful and even necessary for their recovery, and members of Twelve Step groups who desire to grow spiritually within the context of Christian fellowship.

I hope to demonstrate to both groups that they can do so without fear of compromising either their Christian faith or their recovery. Religious critics of A.A. can also gain an understanding of what is meant by its claim to be a spiritual, but not religious program. And perhaps soften their opposition to Christians participating in Twelve Step recovery. There is a richness and depth to the compatibility of Twelve Step recovery and Scripture that proceeds from the deep structure of Scripture.

But the concerns that will be addressed here are not just those encountered by Christians involved in self-help groups based upon the Twelve Steps. Increasingly, Western culture itself has become “spiritual, but not religious” in a way that builds upon the view of religion and spirituality found in the Twelve Steps. I think the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey illustrates this. Americans in particular have historically had diverse opinions on what it means to be “one nation under God” that fits with the idea being spiritual but not religious. Self-defined higher powers and the subjective experience of transcendence articulated in the writings of William James have become a basis for the spirituality of millions of individuals.

The same religious and theological challenges encountered as we journey along the path of recovery through the book of Romans occur repeatedly when discussing the relevance of Christianity to the lives of the millions of spiritual, not religious individuals who sit beside us on planes and in coffee shops; who live in our neighborhoods; who commute to work with us; and who even sit in the church pews beside us on Sunday.

If you’re interested, more articles from this series can be found under the link for “The Romans Road of Recovery.” “A Common Spiritual Path” (01) and “The Romans Road of Recovery” (02) will introduce this series of articles. If you began by reading one that came from the middle or the end of the series, try reading them before reading others. Follow the numerical listing of the articles (i.e., 01, 02, etc.), if you want to read them in the order they were originally written. This article is “01,” the first one Enjoy.

07/10/15

American Christianity is Evolving

© ribah | stockfresh.com

© ribah | stockfresh.com

The Pew Research Center recently released its new Religious Landscape study and it seems to have stimulated differing opinions on the status of Christianity in America. CNN reported that Millennials are leaving the church in droves. Ryan Bell, the former Seventh Day Adventist minister who took a year off (and counting) from belief in God, titled his article: “American Christians Scramble for Silver Lining in Pew Religion Poll.” But evangelicals like Joe Carter of the Gospel Coalition and Ed Stetzer, a contributing editor for Christianity Today had a different take on the Pew Religious Landscape study.

Daniel Burke, the CNN Religion Editor highlighted the finding that the percentage of the Americans saying they were Christian dropped from 78.4% in 2007 to 70.4% in 2014. This was attributed by the Pew Research Center to the fact that more millennials are saying they are not affiliated with any faith. Thirty-six percent of younger millennials (18-24) identified as unaffiliated as 34% of older millennials (25-33). Twenty-three percent of Gen Xers (34-49), 17% of Baby Boomers (50-68) and 11% of the Silent Generation (69-86) were reportedly unaffiliated.

Burke pointed to how almost every major branch of Christianity lost a significant number of members. Greg Smith, from Pew Research, was quoted as saying: “We’ve known that the religiously unaffiliated has been growing for decades . . . But the pace at which they’ve continued to grow is really astounding.” The declines were deepest among Catholics and mainline Protestants. Burke’s conclusion was that the older generations were not as effective in passing along their faith as their forebears were.

Ryan Bell simply concluded: “Americans are losing their religion.” He noted the surprising increase among nones (religiously unaffiliated) to 22.8% of the population. He cautioned that atheists who celebrated these results as a victory were being too enthusiastic. Of the 22.8%, 4.0% said they were agnostic (a 1.6% increase since 2007), 3.1% said they were atheist  (a 1.5% increase since 2007) and 15.8% said they were “nothing in particulars” (a 3.7% increase since 2007).

Several analyses of the Pew study have focused on the dramatic increase in the “unaffiliated” or “religious nones.” But look at what Pew Research means by “nones.” They are generally less religiously observant, but all nones are not nonbelievers. “In fact, many people who are unaffiliated with a religion believe in God, pray at least occasionally and think of themselves as spiritual people.” A better statement would seem to be that “Americans are losing their religious affiliation.” But this doesn’t appear to be happening with evangelicals. The Pew Research Center said:

The new survey indicates that churches in the evangelical Protestant tradition—including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Presbyterian Church in America, other evangelical denominations and many nondenominational congregations—now have a total of about 62 million adult adherents. That is an increase of roughly 2 million since 2007, though once the margins of error are taken into account, it is possible that the number of evangelicals may have risen by as many as 5 million or remained essentially unchanged.

Bell didn’t seem to think much of the fact that there was only a minor decrease (-.9%) in the percentage of individuals saying they were evangelical, from 26.3% in 2007 to 25.4% in 2014.  He pointed to how 35% of childhood evangelicals left their faith as adults. But Bell neglected to say that 41% of evangelicals were converts from other faith groups. This meant evangelicals were the only Christian faith group that gained, rather than lost members as their children grew to adulthood. However, he was correct to say that most of the Catholics or mainline Protestants leaving their faith group are becoming unaffiliated and not evangelicals. Among adults with no religious affiliation, 28% are former Catholics and 21% are former mainline Protestants.

The unaffiliated religious group was the most fluid over time, with only 21% of individuals currently identifying as such being raised within that tradition, while 90% of Catholics were raised as Catholics. Mainline Protestants and evangelicals were in-between with 42% and 39% respectively having been raised in religious groups other than their current identification.

Joe Carter concentrated his response on what he saw as the important “takeaways” related to evangelicalism. He said claims that conservative forms of evangelicalism are rapidly declining because of pernicious sexism, religious intolerance and conservative politics don’t seem to be true. He wondered whether this new information would be enough to lead critics of evangelicalism to alter their conclusions. Among the important takeaways he pointed to were a few we’ve already touched on, namely: evangelical Protestants have increased slightly or remained essentially unchanged while mainline Protestants declined significantly. He also noted that 65% of adults raised as evangelicals still identify as evangelicals. But there were a couple of additional interesting facts about evangelicals to look at as well.

One of these was how racial and ethnic minorities now make up 24% of evangelicals. This was an increase of 5% since 2007, with most of that increase (4%) coming from Hispanics. Another finding is that more Americans who self-identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual say they are evangelical (13%) than mainline (11%), atheist (8%), or agnostic (9%). Only Catholics had more individuals (17%) who self-indentified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Among non-Christians, the four primary faith groups had very few individuals who self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual: Jewish (2%), Muslim (1%), Buddhist (2%), Hindu (1%).

As a quick aside, among individuals who self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, 41% said they were religiously unaffiliated—8% said they were atheist; 9% were agnostic; and 24% were nothing in particular.

Ed Stezer has written several articles about the Pew Research Center data, for Christianity Today and other media outlets, including USA Today, CNN and The Washington Post.  The link here for “Nominals to Nones” gives you access his other articles. Stezer made a distinction between three categories of Christians: cultural, congregational and convictional. He said the first two were nominal Christians who said they were Christian, but did not attend church services regularly or shape their lives around their faith convictions, as convictional Christians did. Cultural Christians were the least connected, calling themselves “Christian” because of heritage or culture. Congregational Christians had a connection to a local church, but rarely attended.

He said we see cultural and some congregational Christians now identifying themselves as “unaffiliated” or “nones.” Stezer supported this conclusion with a quote by Conrad Hackett, from Pew Research, “People with low levels of religious commitment are now more likely to indentify as religiously unaffiliated, whereas in earlier decades such people would have indentified as Christian, Jewish or as part of some other religious group.” In his CNN article, he looked at data from the General Social Survey (GSS) that suggested what we are seeing the death of is cultural and congregational Christians.

So, the big story is this: convictional Christians are remaining relatively steady with a slight decline. The nominals (cultural and congregational Christians) are often becoming the nones; and the sky is just not falling (unless you are a mainline Protestant).

His 3 key takeaways from the Pew Religious Landscape Survey were: convictional Christianity is rather steady; there have been significant shifts in American Christianity; and mainline Protestantism continues to hemorrhage. He said Christianity isn’t dying, but it is evolving. It’s becoming less nominal, more defined and more outside mainstream American culture. So we don’t need to run around saying, “The sky is falling!”

Christianity is losing, and will continue to lose, its home field advantage; no one can (or should) deny this. However, the numerical decline of self-identified American Christianity is more of a purifying bloodletting than it is an arrow to the heart of the church.