There are three questions which come up in relation to the growth of religious movements, particularly the Christian faith. How would you answer each of these?
a. Why is Islam growing in the UK and in the world at the moment?
b. What was the primary reason for the growth of the early church?
c. Why in the West do conservative churches generally resist the decline that affects more liberal ones?
Now these are big questions, and the answers are bound to be complex. But generally in answer to (a) most people will reach for an explanation around the rise of fundamentalism and a global rejection of Western liberal values. In answer to (b) many will think about the cultural and religious distinctiveness of the early Christian movement, and its appeal in relation to the cruelty and fatalism of much pagan religion. And in answer to (c) many will reach for ideas of commitment and discipleship which resist the corrosion of modern individualist and consumerist culture.
But there is a good case to be made that all three have the same explanation: childbirth.
Let’s consider Islam. Although the Muslim population is set to increase because of immigration, a much more powerful longer-term factor is differential rates of childbirth compared with the indigenous UK population.
The Muslim population of the UK is set to triple in 30 years, according to projections from the Pew Research Centre. Under the model which assumes median migration levels, the number of Muslims in the country would rise from 4.1m in 2016 to 13m in 2050. It said the research followed a “record influx of asylum seekers fleeing conflicts in Syria and other predominantly Muslim countries”.
The UK also has one of the largest gaps in fertility rates between Muslims and non-Muslims, with Muslim women having an average of 2.9 children compared to the 1.8 had by non-Muslims. This means that even if migration were to stop completely, the group’s population share would rise by more than 3 per cent in the UK, as well as in France, Italy, and Belgium.
In contrast to growth through migration and birthrates, only 2.9% of UK Muslims consider themselves to be ‘converts’. The same is true globally; the primary reason why Islam is growing around the world is that predominantly Muslim countries have a lower average age and higher fertility rate than non-Muslim countries.
In 2006, countries with a Muslim majority had an average population growth rate of 1.8% per year (when weighted by percentage Muslim and population size). This compares with a world population growth rate of 1.1% per year. As of 2011, it was predicted that the world’s Muslim population will grow twice as fast as non-Muslims over the next 20 years. By 2030, Muslims will make up more than a quarter of the global population.
Secondly, what about the early Christian movement? Rodney Stark, in his The Rise of Christianity, offers some fascinating analysis of what we can discern about the way in which growth happened, including the nature of their message, the integrity communicated by martyrdom, and the difference that care and compassion made when disaster struck, especially in the form of plagues. But childbirth is a significant contributor. Tim Chester, in his critical review, summarises:
Chapters four and five are more compelling. But what is striking about these chapters is they offer more historical evidence, both from Christian and pagan sources. Here Stark argues that Christianity grew because of its response to epidemics (more of this below) and because it gave women higher status and produced higher fertility rates. Men outnumbered women in the Roman empire, largely due to female infanticide and mortality during abortions. In the church, however, women outnumbered men because Christians rejected infanticide and abortion, and because more women converted. (Stark provides plenty of compelling historical evidence of these claims.) As a result, fertility rates among Christians were higher, contributing to an increase in the proportion of Christians in empire.
It is interesting to note here that ‘women outnumbering men’ has often been seen as a challenge to the church, with concerns about potential feminisation of church culture and the possible implications of that. But as Stark points out, it is women who have children (!), and if those children grow up in the faith, then that will have a significant impact on intergenerational church growth.
Thirdly, why have conservative churches generally been better at resisting decline than liberal churches in the West, including the UK? I would want to argue on several fronts: those who proclaim a faith that is more distinctive from surrounding culture actually have a message which might draw people; there is strength in drawing people together with a shared belief; consistency provides a welcome refuge from the unending changes and challenges of the world around; and the message might actually be true! Deep down, people are drawn to what they perceive is true. So I was rather taken aback to read Steve Bruce’s argument about the power of social-scientific research in relation to religious belief, to promote his book summarising a lifetime of such work Researching Religion: why we need social science. He begins with challenging some fondly-held beliefs:
Consider four common assertions about religion in Britain.
- People become more religious as they get older because their approach to death makes them mindful of their souls.
- Wars and other social crises provoke religious revivals.
- Religion is not declining; it is just changing its shape. Traditional Christian churches may be in trouble but Pentecostal, charismatic and independent evangelical churches are recruiting the religiously indifferent and the New Age spirituality milieu is attracting large numbers of seekers.
- The British have stopped belonging to churches but they are still believing. What has declined is not religious sentiment but the willingness of people to associate.
Each of these assertions sounds plausible and might well be true. We could draw on our own experience, on biographies, or on small-scale ethnographic studies to demonstrate their validity.
They are actually false. And we can prove that with large-scale statistical data.
In amongst the assumptions he challenges are the ones about conservative churches resisting decline.
I began my career as an ethnographer, scornful of conventional social science and rude about statistics. I only gradually converted as I repeatedly made mistakes. To explain just one, I and many others spent a good part of the 1980s arguing about why conservative churches were growing while liberal ones were declining. We debated just which features of ‘strong’ religion explained its appeal. Turned out we were wasting our time. Demographers demonstrated that the most significant difference between conservative and liberal Protestantism was not their relative appeal to the unGodly but the typical family size of existing adherents. Conservatives had more children. Even if both sides had been equally good at recruiting their own children, the liberals would have declined faster. An ethnographer who studied a conservative and a liberal church might just have spotted that (though none did!) but it took the statistical analysis of large-scale data sets to show we were not just barking up the wrong tree but barking in the wrong forest.
That is not to suggest that the other factors are completely unimportant in contributing to church growth (after all, the big ‘if’ here is ‘if both sides had been equally good at recruiting their own children’ and there are all sorts of factors at play here), but that rates of childbirth and family size are significant—and usually feature nowhere in the discussion.
So it appears that, from the contemporary growth of Islam, from the historical growth of the early church, and from recent experience in Western culture, one of the best long-term strategies for church growth is to encourage Christians to marry and have children, and have more than average.
There are a number of serious objections to adopting this as a church growth strategy.
The feminist objection argues that focussing on childbirth affects women more than men, and taking this approach will push us back into a patriarchal culture in which inequality between the sexes grows again. Taking time off to have children is in fact the biggest factor in the so-called ‘gender pay gap’—but what if women do actually want to have children? In what way is it ‘feminist’ to deny them this—or create a culture in which they have the double pressure of parenting and working, rather than being rewarded for taking time off for the family? And why do we assume that fathers should not also be involved? We had three children, and my wife continued as a partner in her GP medical practice because I worked part-time from home and her parents also provided support.
The pastoral objection is that many churches already focus too much on the nuclear family, to the point of appearing to proclaim salvation by childbirth and parenting, in which the single, the infertile, and the divorced are hurt and marginalised. I think that is a serious danger, and needs to be addressed at every point.
The environmental objection is that there are already too many people in the world, and we are destroying the planet by exhausting its resources. If anything we should be having fewer children, not more. But that simple claim omits four important facts. First, as the late Hans Rosling graphically illustrated, population growth is primarily caused at present by the bulge in young people, and this settles down as populations escape poverty, so that the global population is already set to level off. Secondly, Western countries already face a major challenge in their declining fertility and declining indigenous population, which will lead to the demographic ‘time bomb’ of an elderly population with insufficient resources in the working population to support them. Why would we want to contribute to that problem? Thirdly, the primary issue in population is the differential rates of population growth around the world. And finally, if we all cut our eating of meat, and were more vegetarian, many of the resource challenges would be dealt with.
Fourthly, there is the theological objection. Where there is death, there needs to be marriage and procreation, since there is no other way to preserve one’s name for posterity. This is the theological and anthropological assumption behind the first commandment that we find in the Bible:
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Gen 1.27–28)
But for Christian, we are living under the (re)new(ed) covenant in Jesus. We worship a single saviour, and the apostle who wrote much of the New Testament was also single. Our new task is not simply to procreate, but to evangelise; our new family is not simply those we are related to by blood, but those we are related to by discipleship; growth comes less by having physically children, but by having spiritual children, which explains some of the extraordinary language in the New Testament.
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt 12.48–50)
My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you… (Gal 4.19)
To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (1 Tim 1.2)
But the reality is that we are not simply inhabitants of the age to come; we are also at the same time inhabitants of this age. So, although we live under the dynamics of the kingdom of God, we also continue to live under the dynamics of the created world. We are not yet completely free from the obligations set out in the creation narrative. Only when there is no more death will there be no more marriage and procreation.
So what would it look like to adopt this church growth strategy?
First, it would require explicitly countering our cultural narrative that we find fulfilment in success, in career development, and in the acquisition of stuff. As Will Jones points out, there are all sorts of cultural reasons behind the decline in family and childbirth in Western culture. But for me, the main ones are around the fact that having children is expensive and inconvenient if your goal in life is material prosperity.
Secondly, it would need positive teaching about the value and reward inherent in Christian teaching about family and sexuality. This would need to include teaching on the importance of parenting for both men and women.
Thirdly, it would need an essential both/and approach in relation to questions of family, singleness, and the healing of broken relationships. We live in the overlap of the ages, so family and parenting is important and to be valued, as is singleness. It is worth noting that having families has in the past been highly valued within Christian discipleship, but so has the example of singleness modelled in mission and leadership (think John Stott).
Fourthly, we need to provide for non-Christian spouses of Christians, and in particular for non-Christian men of Christian women in a positive and open way.
Fifthly, it would need to include a strategy of reaching young people in their teens and twenties, perhaps through culture change in the church effected by church planting. I find it curious to talk about ‘attracting children to church’, when in fact it is not children who bring themselves. Our churches will be full of children if and when there are young people in our congregations who get married and have families. That is how it has mostly happened in the past.
Sixthly, we need to take seriously the challenge of parenting through adoption, as exemplified by the remarkable work of Krish Kandiah and Home for Good (as well as others).
Seventhly, we need to provide patterns of discipleship for children which are integrated with, rather than disconnected from, family life. This is the best way to encourage children to grow in their faith.
However it happens, this doesn’t appear to be optional if we want to see the church grow again. There is even a name for it in the church growth literature: biological growth. The evidence strongly suggests that the future belongs to whoever takes this seriously.
You might want to raise further objections, or suggest other things that are needed. Fire away in the comments!
(Published previously in 2018—when it provoked a lively debate in the comments!)
Globally the birthrate is in decline, with some exception for Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians and Muslims. Of course one of the highest birthrates in the world is in Afghanistan, which not only bans abortion but prevents women attending university and restricts them from getting jobs beyond roles such as cooking connected with homemaking so they have to get married and have children from an early age instead.
For most of the world however more women want to get educated and have a career first before having children and do not want more than 1 or 2 children when they do have them. Churches may grow via birthrate where the birthrate is stronger in their denomination as above but the global trend is there
I disagree. One good protestant preacher can make more converts in an afternoon than even the most fecund Catholic couple can procreate in an entire lifetime.
As for the questions,
Why is Islam growing in the UK and in the world at the moment?
Because secular multiculturalists who hate traditional Western society deliberately opened the door preferentially to Islamic immigration in order to foreclose that society (an act of treason for which they should be held accountable). But they should be careful what they wish for. Islam continues its rise here for the demographic reason stated, and also because Muslims, rightly disgusted by the secular lifestyle, refuse to integrate. Christians should ask themselves why Jesus Christ, who holds all authority in heaven and on earth, is permitting the rise of a faith that denies his divinity and atoning death on the cross. One answer is that Islam represents impending judgement on that lifestyle, specifically on the sins underlying family breakdown (which has rocketed from 3% to nearly 50% in one lifetime).
b. What was the primary reason for the growth of the early church?
It was persecuted, meaning that everybody in it was willing to suffer for their love of Jesus Christ. How many churchgoers today would persist under persecution?
c. Why in the West do conservative churches generally resist the decline that affects more liberal ones?
Because God is removing the lampstands of liberal churches.
The first half of your first paragraph could be made by Rupert Lowe or Nigel Farage
So what?
Farage is what on his thrid or fourth marriage now – hardly an example of a good nuclear family guy – neither is Boris, neither is Trump.
T1 mentioned Farage. I didn’t. Talk to him about Farage. Or talk to me about the content of what I wrote.
The content of what you wrote there is basically straight out of the Rupert Lowe or Tommy Robinson playbook. There is no evidence that Muslim immigrants have been prioritised, they still have to meet the same visa wage requirements as any other immigrant to the UK and are restricted on bringing in dependents now too
Simon/T1: great numbers of Muslim Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were admitted to Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of them were poorer, less educated people. Hindu and Sikh Indians by contrast were better educated and from wealthier backgrounds or were from the business classes.
So there is a great cultural, social and economic difference between the two communities to this day. This is the source of a major division in British society. It was a self-inflicted wound by British politicians who despised traditional British life. Five MPs of Muslim background were elected purely over the Israel-Gaza War. The problems of the Islamic world have been imported into Britain.
It is also the case that after the Iranian Revolution in 1980, Muslims became increasingly radicalised and anti-western outlook, even as they lived here and benefited from our far better social, economic and educational provisions. Those who promoted multiculturalism thought the immigrant population would become secular like them. They were seriously wrong. An RE teacher in Batley is in hiding to this day.
T1: Your reasoning, even when invited to do better, is this: Anton shares some views with Farage (and some others). I don’t like Farage. Therefore Anton is wrong.
If you wish to show yourself incapable of reasoning in a public forum, that is your affair. I was saying these things before Farage and Lowe, and before Robinson gained a public profile. None of the men you name is even asking – let alone suggesting an answer – why Jesus Christ, who holds all authority in heaven and on earth, is permitting the rise of a faith that denies his divinity and atoning death on the cross. What is your answer?
And here is another question for you: What is your opinion of the Islamic attitude to LGBT?
So as you also point out Hindus and Sikhs came not just Muslims
They are suggesting an answer, Lowe and Robinson at least, an end to all Muslim immigration to the UK, something you clearly agree with. It isn’t Jesus Christ who directs immigration policy to the UK but the UK government. The Islamic attitude to LGBT is not much different to the African uber evangelical attitude, see Uganda
Most of Anton’s comment could have been written by the extreme right. It’s an odious ideology and as about as far away from scripture as one can imagine. Of course much of the far right is now arrayed on borrowed Christian plumes.
Odious to you (although it is hard to picture you as a sympathiser with Islam) but not to the majority of British people who consider mass Muslim immigration to Britain (and to Europe generally) to have been a disaster. And it’s not about “race”, it’s about culture, a human assemblage of facts, not a biological condition. Nobody is really bothered by the Hindu and Sikh communities in Britain because these communities are generally prosperous and law-abiding and, in general, don’t demand that the host community submit to its sensitivities. Most of the terrorism in Britain in the past 20+ years and our slide into a security state has arisen from the actions of Islamists and Muslim immigrants. I would have thought a British woman would have understood that easily enough.
But we know the reason behind all this: the left, especially the Labour Party, considers itself the ‘owner’ of the immigrant vote, and indeed 70% of Muslims vote Labour. They are an essential voting block in London, Birmingham and northern towns. This is not your father’s Labour Party. The left today is a tenuous coalition of identity politics (racial, religious, sexual), public service unions and the underclass.
As for being “about as far away from scripture as one can imagine”, I think you tailor your comments to your targets. Given your liberal approach to the nature of the Bible, I am sure you find whole swaths of the Old Testament exclusionary and racist, privileging the Jews over all other peoples. But today you want to pray ‘scripture’ in aid. Until the subject changes.
1) I have Muslim family
2) the majority believe no such thing
3) blessed are the poor
4) yes the HB is sometimes racist and xenophobic, but because the Bible isn’t univocal, there’s lots about welcoming the refugee too.
And my father wasn’t a racist
Islam is antithetical to British values, which were founded on Christianity. Islam is antithetical to women’s rights and to the rights of non-Muslims. Islam denies central teachings of the Christian faith. It is a false religion that subjects women and promotes tribalism.
Whenever Muslims reach a critical mass in society, they end up in conflict with others (and usually with themselves).
The impact of Islam on Britain has been overwhelmingly negative. I think most British women understand that.
British values are a shibboleth from the far right playbook. Most religions are ‘false’ for Christians. You may want to eradicate them. I don’t. And Islam isn’t ‘antithetical’ to women’s rights. Some Muslim cultures are. As are some Christian ones – mostly of a conservative evangelical bent.
Penelope, you say that Islam isn’t ‘antithetical’ to women’s rights. What about the right of a man to take up to four wives (Q4:3)? What about a man divorcing his wife by triple talaq? What about beating a wife merely on suspicion of being rebellious (Q4:34)? What about a woman’s witness being worth half a man’s in sharia law?
You espouse a strange form of feminism.
Penelope
Where are your feminist credentials? Did you catch the live Service for Eid broadcast on the BBC from Bradford Mosque? Not a woman in sight! Men and boys on their prayer mats bowing down to Allah. What about FGM, or not being allowed out unless fully covered or walking 2 paces behind your husband through Leicester, as I have witnessed often. What about honour killing which I have experience of the dangers of whilst working at a University in the 1980s and girls going in to hiding? It infuriates me, but you accept this!
What about the barbaric treatment of Christians and other groups in Syria at the moment.?
Penelope writes:
“British values are a shibboleth from the far right playbook.”
– ‘playbook’ is an Americanism (from gridiron?) that I don’t use. ‘British values’ is actually a leftist slogan in many circles. I worked a bit in a secondary school which is as lefty (multi-culti, rainbow logos everywhere) and the walls are emblazoned with ‘British values’ or tolerance and equal rights etc (but no reference to Christianity).
“Most religions are ‘false’ for Christians. You may want to eradicate them. I don’t.”
– note the immediate move to an ad hominem attack. Sadly, this is so typical of Penelope’s contributions here. She simply assumes her beliefs are correct and anyone who disagrees with her is stupid or evil or both. Penny is unable or unwilling to engage with other viewpoints, she simply resorts to personal attacks. That is why it is not possible to debate with her, only to point out her errors. But since this is ‘Psephizo”, a forum for conservative orthodox Christian debate and not “Thinking Anglicans”, why does she bother showing up here? Is it just to sneer? To be the spectre at the feast? That’s not a mature Christian outlook.
“And Islam isn’t ‘antithetical’ to women’s rights. Some Muslim cultures are. As are some Christian ones – mostly of a conservative evangelical bent.
– The extent to which a “Muslim” culture or state affirms the social equality of women and men is the extent to which Islam has been privatised and made a matter of personal observance. But since Islam is much more a social order than an individual’s personal piety, the subservience of women within Islam is very obvious to any observer. Anton has detailed some examples from Leicester – and the further into Asia and Africa we go, the more egregious it becomes.
All this is a matter of public record, inconvenient as it may be for the left. The truth is, as I mentioned above, that up to about 1980, the Islamic world was westernising and women were freer, then the Iranian Revolution unleashed a tsunami of Islamic fundamentalism on the world. You see the fault line in Turkey, between the secular Kemalists and the Islamist supporters of Erdogan.
Lots of assumptions there Tricia. Who said I accepted these things?
Though I can’t see anything wrong with bowing down to Allah. Something more Christians would do well to imitate?
James
Please calm down. There were no ad homs in my reply to you so do stop being so fragile.
It’s interesting that you believe Psephizo to be a forum for conservative Christians (I will ignore your colonisation of the term orthodox); I’m sure Ian wants it to be read more widely than that. Otherwise you are all living in a little echo chamber reinforcing each others ideologies and prejudices.
I don’t think you’re stupid or evil BTW, just in error. But, unlike many here, I don’t believe that error puts you outside God’s grace. And, since I write theology, I spend my life engaging with other views.
The best strategy for church growth is to repent from dishonesty, abuse and aloofness.
Conservative churches do better because they exert more pressure on people to actually attend and more pressure to stick with their particular church.
You forgot to mention: to repent from disobedience to God’s Word.
You know why the aged and childless Episcopal Church has shrunk to insignificance and lives only on dead men’s money.
I’d much rather live on dead men’s money than trample on the lives of vulnerable Christians.
Living on dead men’s money? That’s not very feminist.
What happened to living by your own efforts and achievements?
Christianity isn’t a capitalist meritocracy
You missed the point, again.
Hint of Pelagianism there.
A good British chap he was, too. British values, even.
But once again your attempt at theological allusion misfires. A Christian lives gratefully by the grace of Christ, not ungratefully by the achievements of people he despises.
Which dead men do I despise, now I’ve changed gender?
I have made assumptions have I Penelope? Would you accept being segregated in church? Would you accept walking 2 paces behind your husband fully covered or not being allowed out on your own? What about FGM, is that Ok? Sharia law is being imposed on Syria at the present time and all those opposed are being slaughtered. Oh what a peaceful religion!
I sit segregated from men every time I go to a Greek Orthodox church. And not all Muslim women walk two paces behind their husbands or don’t go out alone. My DIL certainly doesn’t! Just as not all Muslims practice FGM – it’s a cultural rather than a religious issue.
James
The Bible condemns the things I listed.
If you don’t have honest leadership then you’re not being obedient to Biblical teaching, unless you’re dishonest about what Biblical teaching actually entails.
James
The CofE is also elderly and would be as insignificant as TEC were it not for its role in the English establishment
Peter: it is certainly headed that way, at least in about half the parishes where there are no children. We are going to see many parishes closing in the next 5-7 years.
Another issue is that a couple of thousand clergy will retire in this period and only a few hundred ordinands are in the pipeline to replace them.
But younger evangelical parishes are not likely to be pressed in this way. The HTB family and the Co-Mission network healthy and planting new churches.
Surely the best strategy for church growth is to have God on your side so that he blesses your preaching to the world.
To have God on your side you will need to be faithful to what God wants, which in turn means being faithful to biblical teaching. Why would God bless people who don’t trust his word?
This will mean being faithful in areas like sexuality.
But the biggest one to my mind is that we need to go back to the Bible on Church/World Church/State relations, become the independent international church taught in the NT. This is particularly important in relation to Islam which is very much a state/national religion. That Christianity does that dierently should be the big difference between Christianity and Islam, and our biggest argument to show that Islam is not as it claims a legitimate successor in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
As I read this blog I kept recalling the encouragement that I have received from my links with the movement Christian for Men (CVM). Statistically, they claim, if you evangelise a child, young person or mother, in most cases their families will not follow. However, if you evangelise a father, the likelihood that the rest of the family will follow increases markedly.
I believe that, like the problem of global warming and of which alternate energy supply is best, the answer to failing growth in churches is to look at multiple factors and discern which are the ones that affect a community the most. The village church where I live has an ageing congregation that is predominantly female and is very much in decline – a problem that is exacerbated by the liberal theology of its clergy and the lack of any Gospel proclamation. Each community will have its own problems and the identification of those local issues will help to focus on (a) their root causes and (b) how best to address them – so long as the congregation is willing, that is!
The New Testament church grew, not necessarily because of wider sociological issues, but from “the ground up” with local people being effective in showing the love of Jesus Christ to others. Is it therefore “from the ground up” that churches should be looking to grow?
Or am I being naive?
Whilst those of us in conservative evangelical churches should be thankful of a generally higher birthrate than that of the general UK population, I question how sustainable this is. We need to be concerned about the impact of growing support for male headship thinking in the last decade or two. In my view this is increasingly driving young professional women away – but not young men. Since joining an evangelical church 43 years ago in student days, and having since joined 4 other churches in 4 cities and read many online comments on the subject, I’ve never heard a Christian woman in a managerial/professional job express support for male headship thinking. Single men tend to support it, as do men and women in male breadwinner/housewife marriages. Such couples tend to marry young, have more children than average and for now keep our overall birthrate healthy. But what of the other young adults? Neither of my sons (25 and 31) have ever been on a date with a Christian woman, and in a church of 250 members in recent years we’ve attracted about 4 times as many young, single men as women. I’ve seen similar patterns in other conservative evangelical churches. And due to the declining willingness of such churches to allow women to lead services, preach of perform other up-front functions, I do not foresee any change on the horizon. Therefore in my view our situation is less healthy than it may appear, and I suspect that before long we’ll become demographically narrower, with more men in involuntary celibacy until they can marry over the age of say 35, when there still does seem to be more single women than men in our churches. But by then the women tend to be beyond childbearing age…
I suspect this is a reflection of a more general problem in Western cultures of young women becoming extremely liberal compared to young men. This is creating a huge discrepancy between the sexes. Many of these young women don’t just want women leading services, they want full blown “inclusive church”. I don’t think a few small changes in leadership patterns would attract them back – and it would carry the risk of alienating quite a lot of conservative young men.
45 may be beyond childbearing age, 35 isn’t
Simon: fertility goes into sharp decline after 31. At 35 it is down to 15% monthly.
https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/fei/at-what-age-does-fertility-begin-to-decrease/
Delaying marriage and childbearing until one’s 30s significantly reduces the likelihood of motherhood.
This is a fascinating perspective. It’s not surprising that well educated, professional women are opposed to the male headship/ complementarian theology; what does surprise me is that so many younger men support it. It reflects a wider pattern as far as I can see replicated in other faiths: the more ‘conservative’ a faith tradition of whatever kind the more firmly delineated are the respective roles of men and women and the more traditional are the expectations of women. So in orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jewish communities, in strongly Sunni Muslim areas and in very conservative evangelical churches women have clearly defined roles and families are larger. Often this is ascribed to a the natural, God-given order that is embedded in creation and believed to be immutable and so applicable in all contexts. To challenge this order is to challenge God and so be heretical or less than obedient.
Tim
Back in my student days – more than 20 years ago now – out of a Christian Union of around 100 (mostly some flavor of evangelical because it was UCCF affiliated), we had 2 people who believed in male headship- one man and one woman.
This was at a “new” university. The red brick nearby had much stronger support for male headship and, I’m pretty sure, didn’t allow women speakers at their events.
I think there’s a lot of different factors at work in who supports this and why. And what, if any, practical impact it has on real lives outside the church, especially now we no longer have a female head of state or prime minister
I think churches need to be careful that they are not teaching Andrew Tate or Russell Brand when it comes to these issues.
Thanks, Peter. I am very puzzled about the support for male headship in 2025. It wasn’t an issue in the CU I attended, but we managed to avoid close control by the UCCF and had a very ‘progressive’ local evangelical church which many people attended. Why are those evangelicals who are fully supportive of women’s ministry not more outspoken about this issue as they are about others. Any thoughts?
Although an Anglican priest for the last 30 years, I come from a Roman Catholic family. My late father was one of eight siblings, my late mother one of three. At the family’s peak, I had 36 first cousins. If, for example, all of them had had two children, there would now be well over 100 direct first, second and third generation descendants of my four grandparents, not counting fourth generation, of which there is a myriad too many to count. A great church growth strategy? As far as I know, many/most of my surviving cousins and their offspring have nothing to do with church, other than weddings and funerals. So, although I find your analysis attractive, my experience suggests it may not hold true for subsequent generations in active church involvement.
The Roman church of course still forbids the use of artificial birth control, hence the traditionally large family sizes we used to see, and still sometimes do.
Yes, I would say it’s necessary, but not sufficient. You need to actually disciple and catechise those children in the faith well. This is something that evangelicals do a far better job of than Catholics, by and large.
And yet Catholics have a large network of church schools with religious instruction and worship, and I have taught for a stint in one of them. I thought the pastoral care was very good but the RE wasn’t cutting it with the kids. What is the problem with Catholic catechesis of their schoolchildren? To this outsider, three issues may be in play;
1. The clerical abuse scandals and the failure of the hierarchy to deal with them properly.
2. Many children in Catholic schools seem to be from non-churchgoing families.
3. The approved Catholic RE syllabus is a boring mixture of 1960s social activism and liturgical stuff that doesn’t engage with the questions adolescents ask (‘Does God exist?’ ‘Who is Jesus?’ ‘Why is there suffering?’). Catholic schools in Britain today also avoid the hot potatoes of abortion and homosexuality.
My Anglican church actually has a significant outreach to a local Catholic secondary school and is planning a a Youth Alpha to reach these youngsters.
Agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I have a tremendous amount of respect for some of the institutions that Catholics have built in this country. Excellent schools, abbeys, etc. I went to a catholic sixth form and it was fantastic. Very few of the other pupils in my year group were believers, the main exceptions were from evangelical families.
Evangelicals know how to teach in a way that’s truly accessible. They run camps, they hire youth workers, run Sunday school classes and clubs, even the parents are more engaged with teaching their children the faith, buying children’s bibles for them and so on. Catholics need to improve in a lot of these areas.
This is a sound, balanced argument.
Always a good sign when a writer raises the principal objections to his own case himself — then makes concessions and / or answers them accordingly. (How I wish more did the same!)
Back in 2010, the academic sociologist Eric Kaufmann (no great sympathiser of religion) wrote the methodologically impeccable “Shall The Religious Inherit the Earth?” — using observations very similar to yours — and gave the regretful answer to his own question: Yes, definitely.
(My own, far more back-of-an-envelope case along the same lines had been made in 2004, in the later chapters of my “Why the Rest Hates the West”.)
Perhaps the early church grew because they were filled with the power of Holy Spirit and great signs and wonders were done among them.
The action points are good but we also need to encourage mean and women to positively value marriage and family as a key part of God’s will for their lives and for His benefit to the community. Part of this is having a strong sense that God is integral to your marriage – in the centre. This is obviously theologically true but knowing it also helps you to remain committed during trials. A point on demographics, a friend lamented that they have 10 children/nephews/nieces over 20 – only 2 are married and there is only 1 offspring.
I have just finished reading “The Lost History of Christianity” by Philip Jenkins, in which he looks at the spread of Christianity (and its later decline under Islam) in the areas east of the Mediterranean (from Turkey even to China) over 1,000 years after Constantine. Interestingly he picks up on most of the issues Ian has debated, but from the point of view of historical analysis. The church was far more widespread and successful (dominant even) in these areas than I had ever realised, and its eventual decline (eradication in recent years) under Islam makes for sober reflection. Jenkins himself asks reflectively at one point why did God allow it, but does not offer an answer, his aim is to record history rather than explain it. Nevertheless, these factors which Ian has raised and others are debating are discussed in context.
Excellent book. That people – Nestorians east of the Greek-language churches – who believed in the Trinity and believed that Christ was both divine and human were counted as non-Christian and written out of European church histories, merely because they took a different view of HOW He was both God and man, is a lasting disgrace. Scripture says nothing about how. Cyril of Alexandria has a lot to answer for.
Two works touching upon this theme which made a great impression upon me were, first, the late Speros Vryonis, Jr’s ‘The Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century’ (1971): how did a region described as ‘das Christliche Land’ by Adolf [von] Harnack in his celebrated ‘Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten’ (1902) cease to be so?
Second, Richard W. Bulliet’s ‘Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: an Essay in Quantitative History’ (1979), which touches upon the disappearance of North African Christianity (outside Egypt), and which covered the regions most affected by Donatism.
Both works may be compared with Clive Field’s triptych: ‘Secularization in the Long 1960s: Numerating Religion in Britain’ (2017), ‘Periodizing Secularization: Religious Allegiance and Attendance in Britain, 1880-1945’ (2019) and ‘Counting Religion in Britain, 1970-2020: Secularization in Statistical Context’ (2021).
In the case of Anatolia and North Africa Christian populations abandoned the faith due to several primary reasons: (i) the memory of oppressive imperial (Melkite) government, which was especially problematic for Monophysite populations; (ii) the gradual collapse of cities under the combined pressure of heavy taxation and the transfer of power to nomadic peoples; (iii) the common belief that God was on the side of the victor; and (iv) the jizyah or poll tax which Islamic governments imposed upon their Christian and Jewish subject peoples. Bulliet noted that Islamicization proceeded rapidly in a species of geometric progression (and corresponding Christian regression) until only a trace element of Christianity was discernible, if that. Vryonis had already reached many of the same conclusions, noting that a de-Hellenised and de-Christianised population had simply concluded that ‘life was full of changes’. Of course, it should be noted that in Anatolia – at least up until the forced transfer of populations following the Treaty of Lausanne 1923 – there were a significant number of scattered hold-outs, with some greater concentrations such as in Pontus or Izmir (Smyrna); these were studied memorably, and in the nick of time, by R. M. Dawkins (‘Modern Greek in Asia Minor’ (1916)) and F. W. Hasluck (‘Christianity and Islam Under the Sultans’ (1929, posthumous)).
Field has noted the same geometric regression, and has predicted that Christians – even nominal or ‘cultural’ Christians – will soon account for little more than a small trace element within the population. Specifically, he noted that the process commenced in earnest with the Act of Toleration 1689, which effectively ended coerced church attendance, but that the collapse became most evident from the third quarter of the 19th century, each generation haemorrhaging the faith. Indeed, the greatest losses arguably occurred between the 1870s and 1930s, followed by a brief period of relative stability, and then another crash and remorseless diminuendo after about 1963 (which, according to Hugh McLeod’s ‘The Religious Crisis of the 1960s’ (2008), was *the* key year).
Thanks for this fascinating historical perspective. I am writing this from Morocco, so it seems especially pertinent!
Interestingly, though, in England and Wales, Christian faith is not in decline, and appears to be sitting around 10% who attend monthly.
Jenkins is writing about Christianity east of the ancient Roman Empire not Christianity in the eastern part of the empire (i.e. Asia Minor).
Have you read Benny Morris’s Book “The 30 year genocide” about how the Turks enacted a holocaust on their Christian minorities in three phases between 1890 and 1930? Most Westerners know only about the middle phase, the Armenian genocide, but there were two others. Not being efficient like the Nazis, the Turks did not neatly gas them and note down their names; instead there were death marches into remote areas without food and water until all were gone.
I am surprised in answer to b) that there is no mention of Constantine. The church grew not as a consequence of persecution but when persecution ceased!
Written before Frank Booth appeared.
Ken
Numerical growth post-Constantine was not necessarily due to true rebirth.
The ‘growth by having children’ thing has an obvious problem – it may increase numbers, but it isn’t growth outside the Church, it isn’t growth by calling people out of the world into the kingdom of God. And if it’s not growth beyond, it’s also not a good expression of the love of God for all of humanity.
The growth Frank Booth refers to above, of a Church ‘established’ in the world, a church in a legally/constitutionally ‘Christian country’ can be deceptive in another way because it is likely to confuse the need to be ‘born again’ by the Spirit as distinct from being only ‘once born’ in a worldly way – it may produce large numbers of professing but unreal Christians. It is also likely – and this has a lot to do with both the state of the Church in former ‘Christendom’ generally and the state of the CofE specifically – to produce a pressure to conform to the world, thinking that will be successful, but again is such ‘success’ real or perhaps illusory.
A church that thinks it can make up the faith to suit itself, so that in areas like sexuality it effectively tells God to “Go jump, we know better” – well that might bring some worldly popularity, but will it have God supporting the growth. Not to mention that people are likely to realise that a church in that situation is going for popularity rather than being truthful….
So, I submit, it’s as I said above – the best strategy for growth will be God on our side, and that will only happen if we are biblically faithful; and growth based on anything else will be largely illusory ….
.” I find it curious to talk about ‘attracting children to church’, when in fact it is not children who bring themselves.”
This…. I still hear it said. It was debunked in the 1970s… though it should be obvious. I’ve known the odd exception (child causes adult to come)
Declining birth rates are themselves only a symptom of a deeper problem, which is decadence. A decadent people with guarantees of support from the government or a wildly generous economic sector have no need to bear what seem to be twin burdens, child-rearing and religious obligations. The decadence of Rome caused its collapse and nothing emerged to re-instill it until the industrial revolution. In between we were religious. We are now rich and decadent. Islam will not be immune – is not immune. Islamic terrorism is rooted in nihilism which is a produce of decadence.
Decadent societies are never religious societies.
‘Birth rate’ is no solution to anything much to do with the church except perhaps institutional survival. ‘New birth rate’ is everything to do with the future of the people of God, and that is the Spirit’s gift not ours. Perhaps that has some bearing on current stories of and responses to numerical decline and growth?
That said, James Davison Hunter in his book ‘To Change the World’ offers what is to my mind a powerful and incisive sociological and cultural analysis of the difficulties facing traditional Christian belief in the hyper-modernity in which we live, even though it is written to engage primarily with American evangelical thinking. His voice is worth listening to in thinking about how to respond, as it points out many things (truths?) the Western church doesn’t even have on its radar yet, but which are gradually and inevitably destroying it as it has historically been
Chris’s point above re professional women not being attracted to very conservative/ complementation churches is interesting. But why are men attracted to them as he claims? There’s also a pattern in very conservative religious groups (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) of strongly delineated roles for men and women with the expectation of large families with women having the primary caring role. It’s usually backed up with a theology grounded in the ‘natural/ creation ‘ order – this is how God wills it.
No, that’s just the most widerpread international way of looking at things. And even more so historically.
We used to send missionaries to Islamic countries. We ought to welcome their presence here which makes it easier to evangelise to them.
Question begging re church.
Strategy for ‘growth’ has already started in the CoE under trope of ‘repurposing’, seen in Cathedral use, pluralism, syncretism, embrace of culture and secularism
and same/b as set out in the following article. Anything except what is unique to Christ in the Triunity of Christianity.
A gospel vacuum is thereby filled.
Geoff – bearing on the good will of Ian Paul (who doesn’t want me to comment here) – I’m responding to you, because in times past you showed that you have really got the point, when you pointed to Sinclair Ferguson and his discussion of indicatives (stating what we are in Him) followed by imperatives. This is precisely the grounding I received in Romans back in the late 1980’s, listening to a two-year long series of Sunday evening sermons delivered by James Philip (at Holyrood Abbey).
I therefore see you as on the same ‘wavelength’ as myself and would be happy if you were to get in touch with me on
[email protected]
I understand that I landed at ‘psephizo’ by mistake – and if I had done my homework (and been aware of this post about church growth when it was first published in 2018) I would have concluded that this web site did not represent my own faith at all in any way – I would have avoided it and I wouldn’t have darkened the comments section with contributions. So my apologies to Ian Paul – I hadn’t done my homework about the past history – the fault is entirely mine.
In the whole article there seems to be absolutely nothing about the Christian mission of pointing lost souls to Christ – nothing about conviction of sin, coming to an understanding that my own personal sin is so serious that the crucifixion was necessary to deal with it (he bore my sins on the cross) – and that in the resurrection I see that He has dealt with my sin (so that I bear it no more), which is what belief in Him (John 3:16) is all about.
In this article, Muslims aren’t seen as lost souls to be evangelised, but rather somehow as ‘the enemy’; in fact, taking the gospel message of our need of redemption (we are sinners) and God’s redemptive plan to those who need it seems to be out of the window. Instead, Christian women are treated as cows whose main job is to produce babies, or at least more babies than their Muslim counterparts – and to make the church grow that way; we’re in open competition with the Muslims.
Indeed, there isn’t any basic definition in the article about what a Christian is (clue: forgiven sinner – at the very least acceptance of the fact that he is a sinner who is deserving of eternal separation from God – and who believes that his sin was dealt with in the crucifixion and resurrection) – and how bringing a child up in the faith will lead the child to such an understanding of himself.
Actually, I don’t really see this as a strategy for growth of Christianity (although it does lead to church growth), because what often seems to happen is that a child is brought up to Obey All The Rules – and then he quietly assumes that he is in Him through obedience to the rules – without actually appropriating in a real and personal way that ‘all have sinned’ includes him and that ‘the wages of sin is death’ should refer to his wages. the ‘all have sinned’ business remains a theoretical abstract concept which applies to others.
I’m sorry to say things that are negative about the host. I came here in the first place under the mistaken assumption that my own views fitted into the ‘conservative evangelical’ framework (without spotting that the definition had changed drastically over the last 40 years). I’d prefer to desist from saying anything at all that is unwelcome here. But if you have appropriated what Sinclair Ferguson has to say about Romans – where the indicatives come from (what is true of us, having come to believe) – that the indicatives come before the imperatives – then we’re basically singing from the same hymn sheet – but this article about church growth seems to be from a completely different hymn sheet.
If you think that, then you need to read a bit more.
Ian Paul – I’ve read more than enough, thank you – I’d probably make a reciprocal suggestion that you need to read (and, in so doing, engage with the empty philosophies of men) a bit less.
But I don’t really want to engage with you here, since I’m convinced it wouldn’t do either of us any good.
While I think you are dead wrong on this issue (in a way that betrays problems that I would consider pretty fundamental), I do recognise that you are doing a lot of good work on other things and ‘fighting the good fight’ within the C. of E. and I don’t want to discourage you from this.
It might help if the Church of England did not divert funds intended for church repairs to its ‘slavery reparations’ program, as has been alleged in Parliament.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIbXx2QqU0U
A wise essay titled “Abuse within evangelical churches and organisations: Addressing the vulnerabilities”:
https://www.cambridgepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CP-Mar25-Abuse-and-evangelicals.pdf
A few observations:
1. You’d need to be addressing and attracting ‘young’ people a lot younger than you think, if the aim was to increase the Christian birthrate. I decided very clearly by age 4 that children were not for me. (My mistake was admitting this in a Christian family!). Apparently I was not untypical. Recent research (eg Anna Rotskirke(?) of Finland in advice to the EU etc) shows children often decide about children, yes/no, how many, at age 4-8. Probably based on how viable/good/safe parenthood looks among the adults around them.
2. In my ‘youth’, 30 years ago, protestant Christian women my age outnumbered men my age roughly 6 to 1. It was pretty much accepted that to be a protestant Christian woman was to accept an unacknowledged nun/celibate future.
3. Anecdotally this proved true. I remember hearing a married-with-children, male preacher about 15 years later, pray for ‘the families in the church’. Clearly describing families like his own. And counting that at least half of the congregation in front of him were unmarried women, with most of the rest widows, divorced women, elderly, and a childless couple.
4. It was also observed, that not only were any young Christian men who wanted to be, married, any who were single had a wider pool of women to choose from. Because women typically valued a relationship very highly, non Christian women were typically open to converting to their boyfriend’s religion. Christian women, on the other hand, were typically not considered for relationships, by non Christian men, as these men expected premarital sex, often very early in a relationship. Even Christian men sometimes preferred dating non Christian women, in the belief that they’d be less judgemental, more fun, have fewer religious abuse hangups, and be less naive about how important sex is to men.
5. In C.U. 30 years ago, male headship beliefs were rare but not unknown. Although rarely extreme.
6. Further to the childbearing decisions mentioned above, in many European countries 25% of young people plan to have no children. 40 years ago this was about 5%. Although this is partly driven by not wanting to have children they can’t afford to bring up well, there are other reasons.
7. In my parents’ youth, it was possible for a woman to leave school at 15, or College at 20, and have a job until 25. Then get married, have children at a healthy age (before 30). And then have a job or second career again from late 30s until 60. Retire, and help with the grandchildren. Now, a woman is likely to be in education until 23 or 27, and not have their career established or secure housing until 35. Children are already becoming unlikely and pregnancy high risk for both by that time. Thus ‘having it all’ is actually measurably harder than two generations ago.
8. Also in relation to childbearing decisions, my root reason for deciding ‘no’, was that I could not, and still cannot, imagine a scenario in which I’d have the necessary emotional support to take such a risk or survive the pressures. A lack of supportive wider family nearby, a lack of grandparents, a lack of supportive community, not merely the question of an emotionally supportive spouse, were all factors. Again, I’m not alone in that. A church would need to build a very strong community before young women would trust their environment as a safe place to voluntarily get pregnant.
9. I HAVE met one young professional woman who is pro male headship. A dentist married to a clergyman. They have several children.
10. Feminists typically have no problem with women wishing to focus on family, provided it is a genuine choice not an imposed assumption.
11. I suspect the article puts the cart before the horse. If the church was genuinely healthy, rather than being at least as unhealthy as the society around it, then marriage and procreation would likely increase naturally without any deliberate targeted action. People are mammals after all, despite our ‘special’ God given ‘status’. When mammals are healthy, feel safe, have sufficient resources, few predators, secure nest sites, low stress levels, they do what comes naturally. They ‘go forth and multiply’. Humans, at population level, are no different.
12. Also worth pointing out that ‘the church’ still doesn’t seem to have caught up with the fact that up to 1 in 6 couples have fertility issues. Or the fact that the majority of people are well aware of factors affecting their fertility long BEFORE they are in a sexual relationship. The unexpectedly infertile, ‘tragic surprise’ couple, is an outdated assumption, if it was EVER accurate. It is patronising to hear it trotted out from preachers, who haven’t bothered to consider medical reality. Just because not everyone advertises their fertility status, doesn’t mean many young adults haven’t had to negotiate tricky, rejection-risk conversations for the last 50 years or more.