The Church of Nones
If you were to build a temple as a gathering place for those who get categorized as None on surveys related to religious practice, the congregation would be comprised of roughly a fourth of all Americans. It’s people would be made up of people who identify as Atheist, Agnostic, or Nothing in Particular. America’s Nones reflect a number of motivations for identifying this way. Perhaps they don’t believe in a higher power, or they do, but don’t call that being a name that matches the language of any existing organized religion. Or maybe they feel that their faith practice is a private relationship, unnecessary to share publicly in a faith group. Some Nones could have originally identified strongly with an organized faith but found that, when they challenged parts of it, the foundational principles no longer had footing for them. Many Nones have departed a faith system when its leaders stood in opposition of a social issue about which they felt passionate, and some Nones never identified with a religion to begin with.
Wherever their origin, the Church of Nones is growing in membership. About one in four of American adults identify with no religion and many of them identify has “spiritual, but not religious.” Nearly eight of every ten Nones grew up in an organized faith system and chose to step away for reasons ranging from disbelief to not having the time to attend religious services. Those who identify this way are more likely to be younger and on the more educated side, sighting the concept of questioning faith authority and dogmatic teachings to be one of the more significant reasons to live separately from a religious system.
Considering that you are a reading a Medium article (making you likely to be college-educated, aged 18–34, and progressive-leaning), I am sure that this is not news to you. You might know more Nones than not. In many contemporary circles, religious titles and groups have become synonyms for people who are antiscience, sexist, supremacist, conservative, homophobic, transphobic, or not good at discerning conspiracy theories. Conversely, you have the religious folks who are generalized as being naive, overly-using the word love (or various Greek translations of it), or politically disengaged. Those on the receiving end of these generalizations are often put in the position of defending their faith system, or at least themselves, with a, “But not all Xes are like that you know.”
No one thing or person can be entirely good or evil, and that includes systems that have a history of moralizing and classifying in extremist language. Though it may seem counter intuitive, for the purpose of considering the societal impact of these systems, I ask you to set aside the sacred nature of religion so that we can take a look at the profane. When I say profane, I of course do not mean in the sense of profanity, but rather as a way to describe the dealings and systems of mortals. Religious systems may center themselves on a belief in a higher power, but their manifestations and expressions are entirely human. Let us sever the inclusion of the sacred for a moment to evaluate some of the societal elements of religious systems because, when those systems drop in participation, many profane needs go unmet.
For hundreds of years in the US, religious groups have served as a one-stop-shop for many health and social needs: counseling, food and housing insecurity, literacy and broader education, access to the arts, disseminating information, childcare, healthcare, and end-of-life care. Particularly in rural areas that have long not had access to government agencies that could provide these resources, places of worship have been for many a multipurpose organization that applies to essentially all areas of their life from what feeds them spiritually to what feeds them literally. Beyond that, religious institutions have been for many a place to insight political and social change in their communities as well as provide a space where people can gather and organize.
What then happens when Americans walk away from these institutions? It doesn’t seem to be merely coincidence that, with a rise in Nones that there has also been a rise in popular opinions around access to higher education, supporting veterans, shared public spaces, and health care. All of these needs are ones that are shifting away from the receiving point of local congregations to public agencies. Social needs, as well, have shifted toward more individualistic provisions met more often by social media. Even behind the screens of our phones, people desire communal connections that nourish us mentally and emotionally. The practice and rituals may have shifted from ones that are God-centered to human-centered ones, but the fact still remains that humans crave communal association in order to feel that they are thriving.
Religion, which takes its roots from Latin’s religare, meaning “bound” or “obligated,” can be subjective to each person. Religion can be visualized as a simply-drawn flower (think of one you would have drawn as a kid). There are the petals surrounding the large circle in the middle, without which the petals would fall apart. Religion is the thread that is running through all of the pieces that make up your life — family, career, health, learning, etc. — without which, these elements would not connect. One’s religion may be the biggest, clearest thing people see from the outside, or it may be unapparent. Your religion may be the pursuit of righting a social injustice, or it may be your family history. What binds you might be the community you share in a particular building on a Friday night or a Sunday morning, or it could be the drive to experience life on every continent before forty. Whatever it is that keeps you together, that is your religion.
If we as a county are stepping back from organized religions, we must see look back to those institutions not merely as existing outside of society but as key parts to it. When a person leaves a faith system, it may be liberating or heartbreaking. It could be the severing of traumatic experiences or the loss of family or much-needed social services. In any case, if these organizations are being left for the Church of None, the communal need does not disappear, it only evolves. How will we meet the needs of our congregants?
