Census of Religion Shows Growing Nondenominational, Non-Christian Segments in the U.S.
by AT News Team
Updated May 5.
Every ten years the major religious bodies in the United States collaborate to conduct a census of congregations and adherents. The 2010 Census of Religion was released this week by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB). The data show that nondenominational, independent congregations and the Mormon and Muslim religions have been the fastest-growing segments over the past decade. A little less than half of Americans are claimed by a local congregation of any religion.
The Catholic Church remains the largest faith community with 59 million adherents though it is in decline. It has lost about five percent from 2000 to 2010 or a total of three million people.
The largest Protestant denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention with 50,000 congregations and 20 million adherents. It too has lost ground in the last decade despite its long-standing emphasis on evangelism and church growth.
About four percent of Americans now belong to nondenominational congregations. This segment is among the top five religious groups in every state but two and in 88 percent of U.S. counties. This development shocked researchers with its rapid rise, although there have been hints in this direction in several recent surveys. “I simply had not seen before how large the nondenominational movement is in this country,” said Dale Jones, one of the coordinators of the project and a research executive for the Church of the Nazarene.
“These congregations should be seen as a separate and distinctive religious reality,” says Scott Thumma, a sociologist at Hartford Seminary. “If we begin to think of them as not just individual, isolated congregations, but rather as a unique religious phenomenon, we can begin to address the question of why they have become so popular in the past few decades.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called Mormons, has grown to more than six million adherents and has established congregations throughout the traditionally Evangelical “Bible Belt” of the South and Midwest, and as far away from Utah as Maine. It has grown by 50 percent in the ten years from 2000 to 2010 and is the fastest-growing group in 26 states
Growth in the number of Seventh-day Adventist adherents over the decade was about 30 percent, the highest growth rate among Christian denominations with more than a half million members. Last year USA Today published a report listing the Adventist Church as the fastest growing Christian denomination in America and these data sustain that description. The Adventist growth rate is less than that of the Mormons, but most researchers do not list the LDS Church as a Christian body. A comparision of the data from the U.S. Council of Churches in the USA Today story and the U.S. Religious Census data also reveals that the two studies count different things. It is the standard “apples and oranges” issue in statistics. The USA Today story was about membership and this report is about adherents. What’s the difference? A count of “adherents” includes the children of members and the Mormons have a much higher birth rate than do Adventists in America. Both reports are entirely accurate.
The 2010 Census of Religion found about 1.2 million adherents to the Adventist Church in the United States. There were Adventist congregations in 1,827 of the 3,033 counties in the nation or about 60 percent of these local government units. Los Angeles County in California had the largest number of Adventist congregations (140) and adherents (44,377). Walla Walla County in Washington state had the biggest percentage of Adventist adherents in the local population, a total of 11.4 percent compared to less than a half percent across the country.
One of the most unexpected things to emerge from the Adventist data is the way the Adventist membership has shifted from a largely rural and small-town base to a largely urban base. A total of 73 percent of Adventist adherents in 2010 were connected with congregations in metropolitan areas, nearly 60 percent in metropolitan areas with populations over one million. Only 12 percent of the Adventist adherents are connected with congregations in rural areas and another 15 percent in what the U.S. Census calls “micropolitan areas” or small towns.
The Census of Religion has published a series of maps showing the location of Adventist adherents and congregations by county and city. The vast majority of Adventist congregations are clustered along the coast of California, Oregon and Washington and in the Washington DC to Boston corridor on the east coast. Eight other metropolitan areas have large concentrations of Adventists; Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Dayton, Miami, Minneapolis, and Orlando.
The Mormon growth comes at a time when it appears that an LDS member, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, will be the nominee for president of one of the two major political parties. And a major Broadway play about Mormon culture has had a successful run for much of the last year. Many writers have remarked that “the Mormon hour” has come while most Protestant theologians still consider it less than a fully Christian faith.
Non-Christian religions have had even more rapid growth in the last decade. The Muslim population, for example, is growing at a faster rate than the general population in America. This study found 2,100 Muslim centers with more than 2.6 million adherents. This represents an increase of 67 percent since 2000.
A total of 236 religious bodies submitted data about the location and number of adherents in each of their congregations for this study. They represent more than 90 percent of all the individuals who participate in religious groups in the country. The Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America is one of the participating bodies.
This research program has been known as the Religious Congregations and Membership Study (RCMS) until the most recent round when it became the U.S. Religious Census. It originated in 1952 after the official government census bureau decided that it would no longer collect information about religion because of concerns about violations of the First Amendment. It was replicated in 1971, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
A summary report and a number of maps for each of the 236 participating religions can be downloaded at www.rcms2010.org and detailed individual reports for each county, metropolitan area and state will be published by the Association of Religion Data Archives at www.thearda.com.
My experience in visiting some California Mega Baptist churches is that a large number of attendees are not concerned about identifying as Baptist. Many mega churches will invite individuals to be part of their choir or other positions without being baptisted members. These mega churches typically have very low administration overhead. One Baptist church told that they pay their Conference about 15.00 a year per member.
One Mega Baptist church with weekly offerings of about $40,000 a week, two of the pastors I spoke with were not even Baptist. Most attendees regard themselves as Christians and the church they are attending is meeting their needs, should this change, they will migrate to another congregation. I believe in reality that there is a larger number of “just Christians” then surveys reveal.
This news account brings back recollections of the evolution of Adventist public relations work, as I experienced it from 1976 to 2003. For a period of time between 1950 and 1995, there was considerable interest in the Adventist Church in promoting and entrenching the brand name "Seventh-day Adventist" in North American culture. "Awareness" in fact was seen as extremely important, and as late as 1975 general "positive awareness" of Adventists was measured scientifically as well above 50% in North America, a strong showing. But near the end of that time period, it became evident that a reaction was setting in, in North American Christian culture, against denominationalism (a kind of "Occupy Christianity" anti-corporatism) and during that time "awareness" advertising virtually ceased for the Adventist church, the "Communication Department" of the denomination began focusing more and more on internal communication with Adventist membership, and some Adventist churches began minimizing or even removing from their church signs references to the "Seventh-day Adventist Church."
Even so, there still seems to be a strong, lingering presumption at the General Conference level that growth in corporate (book) membership is a strong indicator of how far we have come, and how far we have to go to "finish the work." While I am not opposed to record-keeping, I do believe we harm ourselves by reading too much "spiritual truth" into raw membership figures. Sharing the gospel of the kingdom, with the warning/promise of the Lord's soon return, would seem to be largely non-measurable by membership numbers. Will the Lord come ONLY after, say, 5% (one in 20) of the world population is securely Adventist? 10%? 100%? What is the minimal numerical attainment correlative with a "finished work"? Frankly, none seems to stand out as intuitively representative of completion. And with the apparent de-emphasis on denominationalism, it would appear that this kind of monitoring of numbers becomes more and more meaningless in terms of measuring attitudes, across the expanse of the denominations. To know the trends is instructive, but less and less definitive of actual "strength" of the dominant messages of these churches.
At this stage, it would seem that the census-takers should consider altering their future questions to inquire about the Christian population's acceptance of certain dominant Christian motifs, such as belief in the return of Christ, pre-destinarianism, leanings toward and away from theocratic nationalism, and support for and opposition to various flavors of evangelicalism, and even growth or decline of deistic/agnostic unitarianism. The breadth of opinion even within Adventism itself is now so broad, numbers alone say less and less about the presumptive beliefs held even by active membership. It would seem that we would be well advised to begin to move toward a psychographic profiling of religious belief and practice, rather than denominationally-pegged numbers. It would seem to be a better investment in long-term assessment of how various dominant strains of religious thought are faring overall in North America—how well the “messages” are permeating the population to which we minister.
Edwin,
A thousand questions can be asked to measure a hundred different things, but what do the answers really tell us?
First, the rise in nondenominational churches shows growing disenchantment with traditional or mainline churches. Second, Adventist growth parallels national growth so it is not growing in relation to the general population. Third, our church has become insignificant.
That last point highlights your description about the reaction to public relations efforts by the church in the past. All the PR professionals I know stress one point as absolutely essential if your PR efforts are going to succeed: you must be able to demonstrate your claims as real, attractive and available to the recipients of the message. In the vast majority of cases our churches preach a particular message but do little or nothing more. Telling people about community services work and health seminars that aren't happening here damages your credibility and nurtures negative reactions. That is exactly what happened in the time period you described.
The bottom line is, if we want to be believed and seen in a positive way, then we must be doing things that the public sees as positive. Our concepts about the doctrines we want them to believe are irrelevant unless they deliver real and positive benefit to the public.
It would be GREAT sometime to discuss here at atoday.org the impact and expectation for Adventist communication efforts (evangelism, press-agentry, Web sites, media ministries, the whole picture). The primary point I make (above) is that sometimes we can assess, count, and interpolate figures that may buoy the soul and spirit, but in reality say less and less about the bottom-line accomplishment of a church. Inherent in that Census report is an internal contradiction: While the tallies were expresssed along denominational lines, in reality American religious practice today is expressed less-and-less in those terms. Perhaps this is the time to start thinking about modification of the Census is some areas, as we move toward 2020. And as book membership of the Adventist church becomes less and less stable in attendance and other modes of participation, perhaps we too should begin to use other measures of viability internally and externally to assess our condition.
Edwin,
I agree with your desire, but feel there is plenty of information to show why the church is failing or succeeding. All we need to do is look at the churches that are dying, then contrast them with the ones that are vibrant and growing. The contrast will highlight the path forward. Unfortunately, it is the path the dying churches typically are completely unwilling to pursue.
Church clerks know that perhaps 50% of the listed members are non-attending, so membership numbers are essentially meaningless. Attendance is a more accurate record of sustained growth and overall growth. The church I used to attend nearly always had more in attendance than were on the books, in contrast to many large churches where the reverse is seen.
It is interesting that the SDA church has shifted to being an urban church without any change in our basically anti-city rhetoric. How long can we remain an urban church while preaching to leave the cities?
In the past 50+ years there have been tremendous changes in our lives, perceptions, interests and pursuits unimagined a half century ago. The survey records those changes.
Preaching the imminent Second Coming may have aroused folks when the church began 150 years ago–an entirely different world that would not be recognizable to us today. The evidence confirms that people choose a church to ATTEND for entirely different reasons than doctrinal beliefs and much more on the available services for different groups and for those who want such a church to provide these. None of these reasons were for "true" doctrines. What someone believes is no longer a criteria for church membership; attendance, not official membership is usually numbered.
Elaine coalesces the essential argument. That is people do not come to a particular church for "true" doctrines. The reasons are many and complex. I am still amused by this idea that somehow when "we finish the work" Christ will come. There are over 2 billion christians and the "work" still is not "finished." The finishing is a nonsensical discussion because it can never happen. People are being born everyday and do they have to "hear the gospel" before god calls time? One thing is for sure that the human journey on this earth will end, the only remaining issue is when. I do not understand this idea that somehow we can "hasten" what has not happened for over 2000 years now. I would love to be alive in 10,000 yrs and hear the batanage that will be invented to explain why the 2nd coming has not occurred. Maybe it is not coming at all?
Doctorf,
Our primary reason for coming to church should not be for doctrinal instruction, but a chance to join in communal celebration of and adoration to God. How many elements in your church's worship service allow or encourage us to express back to God? Some years ago I found that, on average, less then five minutes out of a typical 90 minute service at my church were any form of expression back to God. Yet we still claimed it was "worship."
The sermon is not a particuarly effective tool for teaching something new (some people need to be reminded about Sabbath School and mid-week meetings, as well as Bible studies, so they don't expect the worship service to be all these things). It is, however, quite useful and effective for reminding people of what they already know (which we all need) and for moving people towards considering the implications of what they believe. Preachers at my church usually manage to do that in 20-25 minutes, which leaves enough time for other things.
It was Zwingli, and to a lesser extent the city fathers at Geneva (against Calvin's advice), who reduced worship to (short) prayer and (long) preaching. But, if you take the Calvinist/Reformed position that the whole duty of man is to hear the word of God and obey, then little else is really needed. 5 minutes is more than enough time for things of 'lesser imortance'.
Too many of our worship services fail because those planning and leading do not really know what they believe worship is intended to achive, nor what purpose any part of a particular service is meant to achieve. I heard one pastor say that the purpose of the sermon was for him to say what he believed God wanted him to say. Any songs (as few as possible) prayers (as short as possible – and only one per service), etc were merely to assist him in saying what he had to say. He was known to re-preach half his sermon in his benediction, just in case we didn't 'get it' in the previous 50 minutes. Having said it, he believed the purpose was achieved. Any change in knowledge, belief or behaviour was between God and the congregation, and not his concern. Many song leaders/musicians are as bad when they choose songs because they like them, or they are favourites with the congregation, without considereing what part they play in the overall service.
A good preacher or worship planner/leader, like a good teacher, knows exactly what s/he wants the congregation to know, feel, believe and do by the end of the service. I fear we have few preachers or worship planners/leaders who could tell you that about anything they do or say. When you get someone who does – even if only subconsciously – the worship service flows better and is more likely to achieve its purpose. It is the Holy Spirit who really makes worship 'work', but I suspect even he finds it easier to do his work well if we put thought and effort into ours.
Kevin…I really appreciate your points. The reality is that the SDA Church has not invested in this area. I know that some of our larger congregations do hire an assorment of pastors with various roles; however, it is not the norm and these specialized ministers must go elsewhere to get their training. I theorize that our defining purpose – telling the world that Jesus is coming soon – has stood in the way of making broader plans for types of ministry.
Which congregation do you attend and are you involved in the worship planning?
I attend Lilydale SDA church in Melburne, Australia. I was involved in worship planing for about 8 years until I took a year off to focus on other things (mainly finishing a PhD). As we are moving at the end of this year, the future is somewhat unclear 🙂
I do not believe we have to lessen our focus on the gospel (including the second coming) in order to improve in other areas. I suspect that improving our worship and other services just might improve our preaching of the gospel as well. Having pastors who specialise could easily be implemented without doing damage to anything we are currently doing. All we would have to do is persuade our churches that the world won't end if they share a team of pastors rather than having one each. We could also try the radical idea of training lay members.
Kevin – we agree. I'm simply theorizing that the reason our seminaries have not trained other types of ministers may be rooted in the idea that it is a waste of effort since Jesus is coming soon. Perhaps our seminiaries and conferences can one day recognize this and do something about it. The real job of a good minister is to equip the lay people to do the work. But continual guidance, education, refinement, and encouragement can make a big difference in the success of the laity. A preaching pastor is hopefully gifted by God differently from a worship pastor or education pastor. Diversity in our pastoral teams is a wonderful aid to the local Body.
Chuck,
To follow on Dawn's comments, do we really know what worship IS? For most people it is something to be endured, a divinely-required drudgery with the possible bonus of a short nap. That's because what we call "worship" today bears zero resemblance to the Biblical model. In short, worship is our expression back to God after having an encounter with Him. Take a look at what we historically call a "worship service" and ask whether each element allows or encourages us to express to God and which do not. You'll find that there is little real worship in what we call a "worship service" and the primary result is preventing people from truly worshipping God. We've got to reform that concept and our practices if we expect the church to grow.
William…I agree 100% that worship is our expression back to God after encountering Him. This is why I always contend that getting our hands 'dirty' in ministry is actually a greater priority than worship services…one of the easiest ways to encounter God is to let him work through us.
That said, there is a well spread myth that praise and worship of the contemporary style is truer to worship than the old 'traditional' model. From a vast experience in numerous denominational settings, I can say that this is false. I've experienced authentic worship in traditional, high church (smells and bells), informal, contemporary praise, contemporary rock, and other models. The profound corporate experience of worship has everything to do with the people who gather together and the effort put forth.
But you are correct that the vast majority of our SDA congregations must reform the concept and practices if we expect the church to grow…but the practices that need reforming have more to do with ministry than worship. It isn't the style that makes worship authentic, it's the people.
Worship works best when it grows out of the experience of the worshippers. We would perhaps learn a lot if we pondered the RC idea that there is a liturgy of life and a liturgy of the church, and they need to work together. It is a continuous spiral of one informing and moulding the other.
And in the process we may discover that the idea of worship being performed for 'an audience of one' is a dangerous myth when taken outside the original concept of confession and applied to worship generally. When true worship occurs – in life or in church – there is no 'audience' and God never accepts anything less than the starring role. When we see ourselves as anything more than supporting cast – mere bit players – we start to get crazy ideas about what worship is and what we should be doing.
It may also revolutionise our worship if we contemplated what a 'liturgy' is literally. If it is indeed a work 'on behalf of the people' by a small group, then perhaps worship is not all about the worshippers. Perhaps, as Schmeemann says in his book, it really is 'for the sake of the world'. Maybe that is why, in the New Testament, the 'liturgy of life' gets at least 10 times as much attention as the liturgy of the church, because it is in the world that we learn that lesson. Maybe John 3:26 has something to tell us about true worship as well as about the heart of true Christianity?
Well said, sir!
That should have been John 3:16, but the passage in which John 3:26 sits is also useful.
Chuck Reid. Interesting church, you describe. Thanks for telling us.
Is anyone just a bit skeptical about data obtained from true believer organizations that self-report? Rates of growth really don't necessarily mean a whole lot do they? I mean, a religion with two adherents that grows to eight, experiences a 400% growth rate.
Aren't there more reliable sources of data, like census bureau statistics? I know these statistics are also based on self-reports. But somehow, I trust them more than I trust biased institutions. At least the census bureau doesn't count the dead as living, except in Japan, where their world class life expectancy rates are inflated by including, as alive, people who have been dead for decades. When data is produced by biased reporters, whether the reporters are governments or denominations or scientists, the results and conclusions should be viewed with a very jaundiced eye, unless the data is subject to independent verification.
Nathan – You raise a valid point, but I doubt even the Barna Research Group would be able to afford an independent study of this magnitude. My own, limited, personal experience leads me to believe the data is pointing in a realistic direction. I just attended the non-denominational church 'International Christian Fellowship Zurich' – and they are definitely packing in over 10,000 on a normal Sunday – not Easter, and in Zurich. Those observable numbers may be more people than all the other churches combined on the same Sunday. Likewise, in 'secular' Seattle, the Mars Hill Church just rented the football stadium for Easter. More than 20,000 attended. I know, it's a little skewed because it was Easter, but it is still an impressive turn out in a city that Adventist church planters say is very hard to reach.