# How has Christianity fared since the colonial period?



## CharlieJ (May 25, 2011)

Please answer according to your first impression. (Don't go research.)


----------



## NB3K (May 25, 2011)

If we were judging between Edward's Puritan New England & Whitefield's Revivals, let's say they were at the top of the first incline of a roller coaster, from there to now we are at the very bottom of that incline.

Finney has really destroyed alot!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 25, 2011)

American Christianity has remained proportionately stable


----------



## J. Dean (May 25, 2011)

Are we talking about America as a whole, or American Christianity?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 25, 2011)

I went with "proportionally stable," not because I don't recognize there are probably arguments for each of the other cases, but because in each case the definition of "Christianity" is probably going to differ.

I think that the proportion of "strong", genuinely Christian influence in culture generally, as well as among the cultural-elites and leadership (broadly speaking), has declined to the present (including ups and downs), and the more obviously and precipitously in the last half-century. To the point that I see a closer affinity between the spirit of our age and that of the 1st century, than the spirit of our age and that of, say, A.D.1776.

It is possible for certain regions to go from a time of significant Christian influence, to a time of relatively little (direct) Christian influence. I am thinking of the decline of Christianity in Asia Minor (a "playpen" of the church, if not its "cradle"). We might console ourselves with the realization that Christianity waxed stronger in No.Europe in some measure because of this decline elsewhere. One loss meant another gain. We do well to remember that Christianity is a "worldwide" phenomenon. But also, we should remember that even in territory that falls back under the strong sway of godlessness (Islam, for example), no culture in the world is permanently immune from the salutary effects of the salt-and-light of gospel presence.


----------



## torstar (May 25, 2011)

Stable.

The evils of each age are unique.

I wanted to go with " better" considering the use of Scripture to defend the vilest of slave trades back in the day, but stable will do.


----------



## CharlieJ (May 28, 2011)

I asked this question after perusing the quantitative data in Finke's and Stark's _The Churching of America_. They show that the percent of Americans who actually participate in Christian worship has steadily increased since the founding of America. I don't have the book right in front of me now (out of state), but I remember it goes something like this:

In the colonial period, only about 17-22% of Americans were members of a Christian church. By the Civil War, that number had risen to around 37%. It dipped a bit in the War, but recovered quickly, breaking the 50% mark in the twentieth century. There was a small but steady rise throughout the 20th century, hitting 60% in 1980 and remaining pretty consistent since then.

Part of the reason for this is the frontier nature of America. Frontiers always have a higher proportion of irreligious persons and unattached singles. Also, churches, especially established denominations, take time to penetrate new areas. This drags down the ration. I was surprised, though, by their research into Congregational New England. They assert that although the culture was controlled by a highly religious minority, the majority of citizens were not attached to a Christian church and did not attend worship. Of course, in the colonial era, New England was frontier-like, so the prior sociological analysis accounts for some of that.

Of course, there is more than one way to interpret "How has Christianity fared," but the quantitative data suggests that, at the very least, much more of the population is "churched" now than used to be.


----------

