Why young men aren't really going back to church, why liberals are sadder than conservatives, and how "Substack-ification" is transforming the future of Christianity, media, and politics
One comment on the mental health discrepancies between conservatives and liberals. It looks as though this is based on self-reporting surveys, and if so, I believe that the culture of the religious vs non-religious relating to reporting any issues with mental health could very much skew the results. I do not believe that the vast majority of religious people would ever say that they struggle with mental health, even if they display the behavior of someone who might indeed fit that description to others outside of the group.
I am biased by my immediate environment and personal experience on this topic, but I tend to think so, because being "unhappy" is seen as not having "faith" in many evangelical circles. Seeking therapy would also be seen as a lack of faith. Now, does that loop in itself help someone from becoming unhappy? Possibly.
Happiness is weird, because even in someone posses none of the traditional objective traits of happiness (friends, family, stability etc), if they truly believe they are happy than that seems like happiness.
I do agree through that someone being conditioned to say they are happy can mask true un-happiness.
It's interesting that the benefits of religion described here all have nothing to do with theology, but are often downstream of education. In many ways, for a few years, college acts as the social space that churches used to.
It's also notable that the church abuse scandal didn't come up at all. Growing up in a majority Catholic area, there was probably nothing stronger pushing people away from religion than that.
I interpreted the piece as "a social community of individuals tied together by similar beliefs benefits the individuals". Without a deeply believed theology, that community would splinter.
If you look at the "American's with no religious affiliation" chart, the rise begins before the church abuse scandals, which, from my recollection, start in the early 2000s.
How wonderful -- a thoughtful, reasoned discussion about a topic that usually features more emotion, noise, and nonsense than enlightenment. One tiny correction that in no way detracts from the quality of this piece -- Jefferson receives far too much credit for the First Amendment religious freedom clauses. He authored the most incredibly powerful language in support of freedom of religion, grounded in his deeply personal and passionate beliefs. However, Jefferson was too controversial to win support for his views and was never much interested in the mechanics of governing, even when he was president.
Instead, Madison and Washington should be given credit for enacting the First Amendment. They had spent several years working together to understand why democracies failed and how to avoid the same fate. They studied every known democracy in history, ranging from ancient Greece to the "Norwegian Thing" to determine why none had lasted very long. They concluded that democracies failed for one or both of two reasons: religious strife and size -- they were torn apart by sectarian conflict because their governments sponsored and enforced specific religions, and they were often swallowed by larger neighbors. The two men then devised solutions to guard the U.S. democracy against both vulnerabilities. They fought for a constitutional bar on state-sponsored religion, which they characterized as a way to protect freedom of thought and conscience, thereby appealing to the American Christian majority, composed of descendants of dissenters who came to America to escape persecution by "official" religions. Second, they worked diligently to ensure that all 13 former colonies joined the new union, thus creating a nation large enough to resist aggressive neighbors and diverse enough to forestall extreme views from dominating national policy. The two men approached the Constitutional Convention with an agenda: to secure the religion clause and ensure that all 13 former colonies embraced the new constitution. As it turned out, they could not win a solid majority of the Convention, and to ensure approval by all 13 state conventions, they decided to leave it to the newly elected Congress. With Madison as Speaker of the House and a less populist, more thoughtful membership than attended the state conventions, the Bill of Rights was enacted after a fierce, but productive debate.
It was great to get an explanation for the touted, but inexplicable rise in religiosity.
The correlation of happiness and religion is so muddy it is almost disingenuous to discuss. It is understandable as a correlation of community connection and happiness. Some of the countries measured as happiest are not particularly religious. Of course, the measuring of happiness should be considered with more than a bit of skepticism.
I feel as if this piece, and others primary from Haidt, show clearly that there is a correlation between religion and happiness in the United States. As to measuring happiness, what is the difference between believing you are happy and being happy?
Seems like we are more or less acquiring a state religion now (secular-ish Trumpy right wing evangelicalism) that we had lacked for 200 years since our founding. Will be very ironic if that is the death knell of American religion as a significant force over the longer term, as Mr. Burge seems to suggest.
Nominally state religions are a form of separation of power, where the government is given legitimacy by the clergy. Trumpism is far closer to the cult of personality in authoritarian states.
Great interview, but I think the “vertical/horizontal” framework at the end actually obscures what’s going on more than it reveals.
When Derek says “the strength of the vertical predicts the strength of the horizontal,” he’s treating belief in God as the engine that produces community as a downstream effect. I don’t think that’s right. Transcendent purpose and deep community aren’t two separate things where one causes the other. They show up together or they don’t show up at all. The early Christians weren’t first believing in the Resurrection and then, as a consequence, nursing each other through plagues. The belief and the mutual obligation were one thing, experienced as one thing.
Here’s how I think about it. Religion is a “gift” that comes “wrapped”. The wrapping is the mythology, the supernatural claims, the institutional scaffolding. Virgin birth, resurrection, papal hierarchy, denominational structure. The gift inside is the whole package together: the recognition that you can’t do this alone, the orientation toward something bigger than yourself, AND the community that forms when people share that orientation. Purpose and community are both inside the box. They’re not separable.
Once you see it that way, every failure Burge describes starts to make more sense.
Sunday Assembly didn’t collapse because it was missing a “vertical.” It collapsed because it tried to grab one piece of the gift (community) while leaving the rest in the box (the shared conviction that we are insufficient on our own and obligated to each other in ways we didn’t choose). They thought God-belief was a load-bearing wall. It was wrapping paper. But the stuff inside the wrapping? That they also threw out.
The SBNRs walking the buffet line aren’t failing because they rejected the wrapping. They’re failing because they grabbed souvenirs from the gift shop without ever opening the actual present. Yoga ripped out of the tradition it was built to function inside. Meditation as a productivity hack instead of a practice embedded in a community of people who actually owe each other something.
And the non-denominational megachurches are so interesting precisely because they’ve made the wrapping as thin as it can possibly get. No ordination, no creed, barely any theology. But a charismatic guy in a basement Bible study accidentally recreates the conditions for the gift: a small group of people oriented beyond themselves, showing up with regularity and real obligation. Willow Creek is what happens when it turns out the wrapping was just one man’s personality. The gift can’t survive that packaging either.
So the question this essay opens but doesn’t close: can you design wrapping that doesn’t require people to believe a man walked out of a tomb, but is still thick enough to hold the gift together? Jefferson tried with scissors and got a moral philosophy you can’t distinguish from Stoicism. Sunday Assembly tried with donuts and TED talks and got nothing that lasted. The non-denoms are trying with charisma and getting something real but structurally fragile.
Nobody has cracked this. That doesn’t mean it can’t be cracked. But it is, I think, the actual design problem hiding underneath all the trend data.
Great conversation. Next up, would love an entire conversation about the rise of non-denominational groups. As you call it, they represent part of "the anti-institutional zeitgeist" undergirding so much of American life.
I guess a good chunk of the American public just feels best following a guy who has near total power over them?
As a Presbyterian myself, I'm a huge fan of church government. The systems can be a little burdensome in ways, but the institution is designed super elegantly (A good chunk of the founding fathers were Presbyterians, so the math checks out). Yet Mainline denominational families (e.g. Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans) aren't growing, they're shrinking. A lot! Church government only works if there are church members.
I appreciate how this reporting digs into this nuance, but for my money, I think it misses it slightly. I'd reframe a bit by saying that yes, the story isn't "More Americans are religious". The story is more like "Christianity in the US used to reflect democratic principles, it now largely reflects authoritarian ones"
This is the best explanation I've seen of the rise (and what will likely be some long-term problems) with the non-denominational church movement. I draw similar conclusions in my forthcoming book about why it's impossible to get the same kind of wrap-around support as you can for a house of worship, and people need to understand that personal compromise is needed to be part of any community, including a religious one.
One comment on the mental health discrepancies between conservatives and liberals. It looks as though this is based on self-reporting surveys, and if so, I believe that the culture of the religious vs non-religious relating to reporting any issues with mental health could very much skew the results. I do not believe that the vast majority of religious people would ever say that they struggle with mental health, even if they display the behavior of someone who might indeed fit that description to others outside of the group.
Do you think that skew would be present in even non-mental health framed questions like "are you happy?".
I am biased by my immediate environment and personal experience on this topic, but I tend to think so, because being "unhappy" is seen as not having "faith" in many evangelical circles. Seeking therapy would also be seen as a lack of faith. Now, does that loop in itself help someone from becoming unhappy? Possibly.
Happiness is weird, because even in someone posses none of the traditional objective traits of happiness (friends, family, stability etc), if they truly believe they are happy than that seems like happiness.
I do agree through that someone being conditioned to say they are happy can mask true un-happiness.
It's interesting that the benefits of religion described here all have nothing to do with theology, but are often downstream of education. In many ways, for a few years, college acts as the social space that churches used to.
It's also notable that the church abuse scandal didn't come up at all. Growing up in a majority Catholic area, there was probably nothing stronger pushing people away from religion than that.
I interpreted the piece as "a social community of individuals tied together by similar beliefs benefits the individuals". Without a deeply believed theology, that community would splinter.
If you look at the "American's with no religious affiliation" chart, the rise begins before the church abuse scandals, which, from my recollection, start in the early 2000s.
How wonderful -- a thoughtful, reasoned discussion about a topic that usually features more emotion, noise, and nonsense than enlightenment. One tiny correction that in no way detracts from the quality of this piece -- Jefferson receives far too much credit for the First Amendment religious freedom clauses. He authored the most incredibly powerful language in support of freedom of religion, grounded in his deeply personal and passionate beliefs. However, Jefferson was too controversial to win support for his views and was never much interested in the mechanics of governing, even when he was president.
Instead, Madison and Washington should be given credit for enacting the First Amendment. They had spent several years working together to understand why democracies failed and how to avoid the same fate. They studied every known democracy in history, ranging from ancient Greece to the "Norwegian Thing" to determine why none had lasted very long. They concluded that democracies failed for one or both of two reasons: religious strife and size -- they were torn apart by sectarian conflict because their governments sponsored and enforced specific religions, and they were often swallowed by larger neighbors. The two men then devised solutions to guard the U.S. democracy against both vulnerabilities. They fought for a constitutional bar on state-sponsored religion, which they characterized as a way to protect freedom of thought and conscience, thereby appealing to the American Christian majority, composed of descendants of dissenters who came to America to escape persecution by "official" religions. Second, they worked diligently to ensure that all 13 former colonies joined the new union, thus creating a nation large enough to resist aggressive neighbors and diverse enough to forestall extreme views from dominating national policy. The two men approached the Constitutional Convention with an agenda: to secure the religion clause and ensure that all 13 former colonies embraced the new constitution. As it turned out, they could not win a solid majority of the Convention, and to ensure approval by all 13 state conventions, they decided to leave it to the newly elected Congress. With Madison as Speaker of the House and a less populist, more thoughtful membership than attended the state conventions, the Bill of Rights was enacted after a fierce, but productive debate.
Very insightful, thank you.
It was great to get an explanation for the touted, but inexplicable rise in religiosity.
The correlation of happiness and religion is so muddy it is almost disingenuous to discuss. It is understandable as a correlation of community connection and happiness. Some of the countries measured as happiest are not particularly religious. Of course, the measuring of happiness should be considered with more than a bit of skepticism.
I feel as if this piece, and others primary from Haidt, show clearly that there is a correlation between religion and happiness in the United States. As to measuring happiness, what is the difference between believing you are happy and being happy?
Seems like we are more or less acquiring a state religion now (secular-ish Trumpy right wing evangelicalism) that we had lacked for 200 years since our founding. Will be very ironic if that is the death knell of American religion as a significant force over the longer term, as Mr. Burge seems to suggest.
Nominally state religions are a form of separation of power, where the government is given legitimacy by the clergy. Trumpism is far closer to the cult of personality in authoritarian states.
Great interview, but I think the “vertical/horizontal” framework at the end actually obscures what’s going on more than it reveals.
When Derek says “the strength of the vertical predicts the strength of the horizontal,” he’s treating belief in God as the engine that produces community as a downstream effect. I don’t think that’s right. Transcendent purpose and deep community aren’t two separate things where one causes the other. They show up together or they don’t show up at all. The early Christians weren’t first believing in the Resurrection and then, as a consequence, nursing each other through plagues. The belief and the mutual obligation were one thing, experienced as one thing.
Here’s how I think about it. Religion is a “gift” that comes “wrapped”. The wrapping is the mythology, the supernatural claims, the institutional scaffolding. Virgin birth, resurrection, papal hierarchy, denominational structure. The gift inside is the whole package together: the recognition that you can’t do this alone, the orientation toward something bigger than yourself, AND the community that forms when people share that orientation. Purpose and community are both inside the box. They’re not separable.
Once you see it that way, every failure Burge describes starts to make more sense.
Sunday Assembly didn’t collapse because it was missing a “vertical.” It collapsed because it tried to grab one piece of the gift (community) while leaving the rest in the box (the shared conviction that we are insufficient on our own and obligated to each other in ways we didn’t choose). They thought God-belief was a load-bearing wall. It was wrapping paper. But the stuff inside the wrapping? That they also threw out.
The SBNRs walking the buffet line aren’t failing because they rejected the wrapping. They’re failing because they grabbed souvenirs from the gift shop without ever opening the actual present. Yoga ripped out of the tradition it was built to function inside. Meditation as a productivity hack instead of a practice embedded in a community of people who actually owe each other something.
And the non-denominational megachurches are so interesting precisely because they’ve made the wrapping as thin as it can possibly get. No ordination, no creed, barely any theology. But a charismatic guy in a basement Bible study accidentally recreates the conditions for the gift: a small group of people oriented beyond themselves, showing up with regularity and real obligation. Willow Creek is what happens when it turns out the wrapping was just one man’s personality. The gift can’t survive that packaging either.
So the question this essay opens but doesn’t close: can you design wrapping that doesn’t require people to believe a man walked out of a tomb, but is still thick enough to hold the gift together? Jefferson tried with scissors and got a moral philosophy you can’t distinguish from Stoicism. Sunday Assembly tried with donuts and TED talks and got nothing that lasted. The non-denoms are trying with charisma and getting something real but structurally fragile.
Nobody has cracked this. That doesn’t mean it can’t be cracked. But it is, I think, the actual design problem hiding underneath all the trend data.
Great conversation. Next up, would love an entire conversation about the rise of non-denominational groups. As you call it, they represent part of "the anti-institutional zeitgeist" undergirding so much of American life.
At the top of the show, Ryan talked about how America is a total outlier among wealthy nations in it's religiosity. Curiously, America is also an outlier in it's preference for Authoritarianism (only the UK beats us) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/
I guess a good chunk of the American public just feels best following a guy who has near total power over them?
As a Presbyterian myself, I'm a huge fan of church government. The systems can be a little burdensome in ways, but the institution is designed super elegantly (A good chunk of the founding fathers were Presbyterians, so the math checks out). Yet Mainline denominational families (e.g. Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans) aren't growing, they're shrinking. A lot! Church government only works if there are church members.
I appreciate how this reporting digs into this nuance, but for my money, I think it misses it slightly. I'd reframe a bit by saying that yes, the story isn't "More Americans are religious". The story is more like "Christianity in the US used to reflect democratic principles, it now largely reflects authoritarian ones"
Typo on last word in this: If true, this would mean the abrupt end to the largest wand
This is the best explanation I've seen of the rise (and what will likely be some long-term problems) with the non-denominational church movement. I draw similar conclusions in my forthcoming book about why it's impossible to get the same kind of wrap-around support as you can for a house of worship, and people need to understand that personal compromise is needed to be part of any community, including a religious one.