Next Gen:  Spiritual Decline or Spiritually Different?

Any aware student of religion and culture recognizes that particular religious zeal fluctuates.  Some eras are more Christian than others:  The Great Awakening contrasts with the 1960’s infatuation with gurus and Eastern mysticism.  Yet, both reflected forms of religious zeal.  The “secularization thesis,” however, contends that with Modernity, religious zeal will flatline and ultimately become negligible, being supplanted by secularism.  Many academics jumped on this bandwagon: religion is a cultural bug, not a feature, they chirped.  Except that the data simply do not support this notion.  God and spirituality were – and remain – far from dead.[1]  We’re actually not becoming less spiritual and more secular; we’re becoming differently spiritual.

A Cornell religious sociologist, Landon Schnabel, recently penned an article summarizing research relating to the “Getting Rid of God” hypothesis – and found it false.[2]  Pointing to Pew Research, Schnabel pondered why the trend for religious disaffiliation – “Getting Rid of God” – has stabilized, much to the secularists’ chagrin.[3]  Is this surprising to Christians?  Should we be unsettled or shocked?  How does the informed Christian worldview apply here?  How best can we engage the unbelieving world?  Let’s get to the gist. 

The Secularization Thesis:  What Supposedly Would Happen, but Didn’t

Modernist scholars trumpeted the notion that once science rebutted religious superstition and its metaphysics, religion writ large would be confined to the status of a curious relic.  The problem is that real facts become pesky pebbles in the sociologists’ shoes, and they caused the conversion of many who had embraced this secularization thesis, including the noted sociologist, Peter Berger.  Berger did an about face, confessing:

“My point is that the assumption that we live in a secularised world is false. The world today, with some exceptions, is as furiously religious as ever. This means that a whole body of literature by historians and social scientists, loosely labeled secularisation theory, is essentially mistaken. In my early work, I contributed to this literature. I was in good company. Most sociologists of religion had similar views and we had good reasons for upholding them. Some of the writing we produced still stand up. Although the term ‘secularization theory’ refers to works from the 50’s and 60’s, the key idea can be traced right back to the Enlightenment. The idea is simple. Modernization necessarily leads to a decline of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. And it’s precisely this key idea that turned out to be wrong.”[4]

How can Christianity in America seem to decline and yet the culture be simultaneously “furiously religious” as Berger claims?  If culture is not secular, what exactly is it and why? 

The Data:  Spiritual Difference, Not Spiritual Decline

Enter Schnabel and his colleagues.  They wrestled with this data, which surprised them.  Here’s his explanation for this unexpected trend, contra to the secularization thesis:

One explanation may be offered in the decade long study that my colleagues and I recently published in the journal Socius: We’re witnessing not simple secularization, but transformation and polarization — a sorting process in which those uncomfortable with religious institutions have largely already left, while those who remain are more committed.[5]

His research reveals:

While church attendance and denominational affiliations declined sharply, personal spiritual practices often persisted. Many who stopped attending services continued to pray. Belief in God remained durable, even as organizational commitments faded. Meditation practices increased.[6]

One common thread centered not on rejecting “the spiritual” but on rejecting authoritative spiritual institutions:

What united many [of the so-called “nones”] wasn’t a rejection of the sacred but a rejection of religious bureaucracy that felt disconnected from their lived experience.[7]

Schnabel uses the sociological terms “sorting” and “polarization” to describe how people now organize themselves spiritually.  This sifting discloses two notable trends.  First, we see the elevation and prioritization of the individual over the collective (the institutional)[8]:

What’s emerging from this sorting is a religiously polarized landscape. At one pole stand those committed to traditional religious authority and institutions. At the other are those embracing what sociologist Robert Bellah and colleagues called “the sacredness of the individual” — prioritizing personal authenticity over institutional directives.[9]

Second, one of the key driving forces impacting this sorting and polarization centers on sexuality:

The individualization process becomes most visible in regard to moral questions, particularly LGBTQ+ inclusion.[10] 

In sum, the data show trends in both metaphysics and ethics: (1) as to metaphysics (what is real?) – a focus on prioritizing the Self; and (2) as to ethics (how should we act?) – a focus on expressing “anything goes” sexual autonomy.  These data befuddle and baffle “the experts.”  The experts can describe what’s occurring, but they struggle to provide a coherent theory explaining why it’s occurring.  They should have asked the Apostle Paul.

Paul, the Theological Sociologist

Understanding Paul’s worldview comprehensively explains what we see sociologically in culture today.  And knowing this cultivates our being prepared for cultural apologetics, that is, giving a defense for the hope that is within us.[11]

First, Paul situates his thinking to Scripture’s overarching narrative:  God the Creator and His created order; Paul is neither a Gnostic nor a Pollyanna priss.  Paul’s message no matter the audience or context is laden with God, the creation, and creational norms.[12]  This is his metaphysics, his “real reality.”

Second, because mankind is created imago Dei, humans are inherently religious.  They can’t not be religious, even if they claim to be secularists.  They may suppress that reality, but they can never obliterate it.[13]  This too is a metaphysical reality.  The secularization thesis is mistaken because it utilizes a false anthropology, denying the religious roots of humanity.  A human can in no way be non-religious any more than water can be non-wet.

Third, being inherently religious means that humans are therefore inherently worshipful.  This is an ethical reality.  Humans can’t not worship; the only question centers on what comprises the object of their worship:  the Creator God or an idol derived from creation.  Paul’s reasoning is worth noting:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.[14]

Paul took these metaphysical and ethical realities “to the streets.”  In Athens the city’s idolatry – not secularity! – was palpable: 

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.[15]

Accordingly, Paul addressed his audience as being religious, and this included those identified with distinct sophisticated philosophical schools and systems, the Epicureans and the Stoics.  They were not “secular” or non-religious philosophers – they were religious though clothed in philosophical garb.  One could say they were “furiously religious.”  Paul then pressed the radical Creator-Creature distinction, showing how their idolatry – worshipping the creation – confirmed their inherent religiosity:

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God[16] who made the world and everything in it,[17] being Lord of heaven and earth,[18]

Fourth, the worship of creation tends to manifest itself ethically in unrighteous sexual practices.  False worship leads to and expresses itself in deviant sexual practices, particularly homosexuality:

For this reason [their false worship] God gave them up to dishonorable passions.[19] For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.[20]

Why?  Because homosexuality, by disregarding the creational distinction between male and female, seeks to deny the fundamental binary distinction between God and creation, what Dr. Jones calls Twoism.[21]

Recall that the sociologists’ “sorting” and “polarization” pivots on LGBTQ “inclusion.”  Scripture, in contrast, teaches that it’s the Kingdom of God which is inclusive – all kinds of people will be redeemed.  Therefore, true sorting depends on redemption – being ransomed by the Lamb of God – not sexual ideologies:

And they sang a new song, saying,

      “Worthy are you to take the scroll

            and to open its seals,

      for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God

            from every tribe and language and people and nation,

      and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,

            and they shall reign on the earth.”[22]

The Scripture in righteousness does sort based on sexuality and sexual practice, but it’s a sorting unto judgment, not “affirmation” – a function of ethical, not sociological – polarization:  ultimately Heaven and Hell.  Make no mistake:

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”[23]

Accordingly, Paul’s faithful spiritual sorting excludes idolatrous sexuality, coarse speech, and vile practices from God’s Kingdom:

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. . . . For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.[24]

All this to say that Paul is not – nor should we be –surprised about “sexual sorting” that occurs culturally. It flows from God the Creator working in Creation, Fall, and Redemption.  The Christian worldview perfectly comports with and explains “the why” that sociologists describe, but can’t explain with any real satisfaction. 

What waxes and wanes in society is not religion and irreligion, but rather spiritual faithfulness and foolishness.  They are both “spiritual” and can’t not be spiritual.  The sociologists did get this right:  the religious state of America is not one of spiritual decline, but one of spiritual difference.  Why does this matter? 

Because we know from Paul that ultimately only two religions exist[25]:  One rooted in the Truth and the other rooted in the Lie.  There is no third “secular” option.  The sociologists in this sense help faithful Christians “do apologetics” because their research affirms the reality of Paul’s assessment.  EVERYONE is, and can’t not be, spiritual, whether they acknowledge it or not.  Let’s graciously probe whether their spirituality is true or false – only the Truth sets us free[26] and sanctifies us.[27]  May we therefore strive to be “fellow workers for the truth.”[28]  TxC can assist you in this mandate – let us know how best we can serve you and please, support our work with your prayers and treasure.

[1] Belief in some sort of after life has increased:  https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/belief-in-an-afterlife-is-increasing?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1561197&post_id=158861295&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=3tzms&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[2] https://religionnews.com/2025/04/14/america-isnt-becoming-less-spiritual-its-becoming-differently-spiritual/

[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/decline-of-christianity-in-the-us-has-slowed-may-have-leveled-off/.  These secularists turn out to be unwitting “false prophets” – ironic for not being “religious.”

[4] Referenced by Linda Woodhead, https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/podcast-linda-woodhead-on-the-secularisation-thesis/

[5] https://religionnews.com/2025/04/14/america-isnt-becoming-less-spiritual-its-becoming-differently-spiritual/

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] I have demonstrated elsewhere that these “poles” actually converge:  The Idol of the Self seeks to have the Idol of the State stamp, validate, and enforce its choices and preferences.  (Romans 1:32).  See, Jeffery J. Ventrella, Christ, Caesar, and Self – A Pauline Proposal for Understanding the Paradoxical Call for Statist Coercion  and Unfettered Autonomy (2016), https://www.lulu.com/shop/jeffery-j-ventrella/christ-caesar-and-self/paperback/product-22589926.html?srsltid=AfmBOopcQxJpBzxckpMIdYeNfmZof5V683uMErtCsjGp-z-lwgtVsuzK&page=1&pageSize=4

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] 1 Peter 3:15

[12] See, e.g., Acts 17: 24, Romans 1:20, 8:19-23, Col. 1:15, 1:23

[13] Romans 1:18

[14] Romans 1:22-25

[15] Acts 17:16

[16] This use of language, “the God” [ton theon, Gk.] seems to parallel how Paul taught the Romans regarding the pagans.  He says as translated in English “they knew God”, literally “knew the God” [gnostes ton theon].

[17] Notice the overt invocation of the true God being the Creator God.

[18] Acts 17:22-24

[19] Note:  Paul’s ethic knows nothing of “sexual orientation” or “neutral” desires.  Thus, even if this could be determined, it would be ethically irrelevant.  See, e.g., Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality:  A Biblical View (1978).   The sexually disordered desire is itself sinful, contrary to the Counter reformation teaching of concupiscence.   See also, Col. 3:5

[20] Romans 1:26, 27

[21] Peter R. Jones, One or Two:  Seeing a World of Difference (2010).  Note too, that while many other sins and vile practices exist, they do not cause idolatry but rather stem from it:  “They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,  slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,  foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” (Romans 1:29–31)

[22] Rev. 5:9, 10; in this same vein, Paul notes that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

[23] Rev. 21:8

[24] Eph. 5:3-5,12; this passage also demonstrates that ungodly sexuality is a “salvation issue.”  See also, The Malcontents of Calvin University:  Is Sex NOT a “Salvation Issue?”  https://truthxchange.com/the-malcontents-of-calvin-university-is-sex-not-a-salvation-issue/

[25] Peter Jones, Only Two Religions, https://www.amazon.com/Only-Two-Religions-Peter-Jones/dp/1567695248

[26] John 8:32

[27] John 17:17

[28] 3 Jn. 8