I, too, noticed that. I read an article indicating that only 5% of churches are racially integrated. I am blessed to attend one of those minority of churches. Sadly, it’s so rare that my church was actually featured in a national newspaper because of its ethnic diversity. This NY Times article (and its photos) touched on numerous issues that I have with modern Christianity in the U.S.
There have been churches where men have done terrible things to others (whether to women or children of all genders) and where church leaders have tried to hide the damage and protect the victimizers. Horrifyingly, that is the truth. I still believe, however, that the vast majority of churches in the U.S. are not like that. Additionally, most churches now have safe sanctuary policies that require multiple vetted adults to be in the room at the same time as whenever there are minors present. Terrible things have happened in the past, but the vast majority of churches are trying to make sure that those terrible things don’t happen in the future.
When a natural disaster hits, Evangelical Christians are often among the first out there providing food and bottled water, hosting people whose homes are uninhabitable, gutting damaged homes, etc. I may take issue with many Evangelicals’ interpretation of dogma and how some of them act it out, but I would never say that they are apt to turn their back in the face of people in crisis. Just because one person with a characteristic does something does not mean that everybody who shares that characteristic should be painted with the same brush.
You might be surprised at how many “traditional” practices are spread across the spectrum of practicing Christians. But yes, many conservative Christians are polite and perform far more community service than many other individuals in our society.
I live in Southern suburbia where evangelical Christianity rules (Christian prayers in public school settings are common and teachers collecting money for their private mission trips from their public school email account are tolerated) . We are not a Christian household and often discuss religion with our kids, because we are always the odd ones out.
Coincidentally I had a discussion with my HS junior son about his friend group yesterday. His three best buds are what he called “very secure in their (evangelical Christian) faith”. They attend church and church affiliated functions several times a week. Two come from strongly religious backgrounds, one does not and discovered his faith through friends. I can see all three of them developing into the young men described in this article. Looking at my community and the two high schools my kids attend(ed). They seem to represent the dominant culture among white suburbia in our area (I don’t have data though)
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your post, but noting that the “The Survey Center on American Life” is part of The American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative center-right/right-wing think tank.
Look a furniture business owner let people stay in his stores in Houston compared to Joel O who locked his doors.
It is a known fact in Evangelical Churches the whole production is centered around separating you and your cash.
Plus the fact that they want put religion in public schools is a freaking joke. Or the latest trend private school vouchers which is just a way for churches to get more money.
Somehow it became important for God & Jesus to have your money even though they have no use for it.
I think that this has been the case since the dawn of time. In Jesus’ day, and I assume well before he was born, there were money changers in the temple who took advantage of people financially. The whole point of Jesus getting angry with the money changers was because he didn’t think that was okay. Churches that exist to take money but use it to enrich themselves, rather than to lift up the least of our brethren, are Christian in name only. There are many, many churches (and temples and mosques) that focus on being a light to the world.
For whatever reason, people gravitate to groups that will fill a void in their lives. The groups that they join sometimes lift them up and sometimes drag them down. I hope that what the young men attending church find is a group that helps them to feel good about themselves and to reflect the love of Christ in their relationships and in the community. I am sure that some churches may preach male dominance, but not all are like that.
Problem is, it is the churches or their leaders who have scandals or loudly preach restrictive social limitations and hot-button politics who make the news, while those focused on charitable and service activities get less attention.
But I expect they are far more likely to find a “traditional” spouse in those churches as opposed to on dating apps or in college dorms. And if “few” women attend then they will be much in demand.
As Willie Sutton supposedly said when asked why he robbed banks: “that’s where the money is”.
What I find so misleading about the title of the article is that it seems to equate churchgoing to being religious. I know that being part of a church community is integral to organized religion, but that doesn’t mean that those who don’t regularly attend church are not religious. And from what I have noticed in my own walk on this planet, regular attendance at church does not necessarily mean that the person is religious.
Just to do a little fact checking — the writer of the piece claims that liberal churches are in steep decline. Funny thing, evangelical churches have had a steeper drop in the last decade. The mainline churches had sharp drops earlier but have slowed that, while the evangelical churches are now experiencing decline.
I’m not sure it’s healthy for anyone to be part of a group that tells them they are more special than those of another gender or race. I know young men like to hear that they were born to be the leaders, to be in charge, but it’s not a healthy way to build self esteem or find meaning. Also, Christian Nationalism is evil and present in many of these conservative churches.
I really never cared what my children(2 daughters) did for work as long as they could support themselves. Being a ‘trad’ wife is just too risky for a woman. Husband can leave you and you don’t have an skills to support yourself and children.
That only makes sense if the young women are attending those churches to meet men. It is a terrible strategy for the young men to attend those churches if they want to meet women (too few).
Where else do you suggest those young men go to find prospective “trad wives” if that’s what they are seeking? Even if they don’t find them it seems like a much healthier community than going down the “Andrew Tate” road instead…
Well, I’d tell them the same thing I’d tell anyone looking for a SO.
If you aren’t finding potential significant other(s) at the activities you enjoy, or at work, or at church/temple/mosque where you worship - you need to figure out if what you are looking for actually exists and/or if you really want a significant other (aka a fully formed adult with their own opinions, thoughts and desires as imperfect and wonderful as we are all).
If there are lots of men looking for ‘trad wives’ and they can’t find them anywhere (including trad churches) - it sounds like there aren’t that many women looking to be ‘trad wives’.
It sounds like you’d tell them they are wrong to have traditional beliefs, despite the fact that the article does cite a guy who met his current partner through the church, and his main aim is to get a good job so his prospective spouse can be a SAHM “if that’s what she wants”:
Mr. Parks, a computer science major, would like to get married and have children someday. First, he wants to get a job where he earns enough to support a family.
“I want to be the sole provider if that’s what she wants,” he said, but has no problem with his wife working outside the home. He is in a new relationship with a woman he met through a “Christ-centered” campus choir, so he is confident she shares his values.
I don’t believe that I gave any opinion on ‘traditional beliefs’.
As a SAHM, I’m biased to it being a wonderful option with plenty of benefits our family has enjoyed because of the choice DH and I made decades ago.
It also has a lot of risks for the AH parent unless both partners work to make sure that the AH parent is equitably taken care of financially as well as in other areas.
I am not grouping SAHM with trad wives. My better half was a SAHM for 7 years. But she established herself in her career along with her degree. If we had gotten divorced she would have been fine.
Getting married at 17-19 yo with no skills is a terrible decision.
There are many decisions that are worse. Like having a kid “at 17-19 yo with no skills” and no spouse.
And if you are going to get married, surely much better to do it with someone who believes that marriage is sacred and so (hopefully) won’t just give up when things get difficult. Especially if that spouse is motivated to “get a job where he earns enough to support a family” before having children.
The problem is young men who aren’t motivated and would rather just sit at home and play video games instead of getting a job, and then get resentful and radicalized because they feel they are missing out on things like finding a girlfriend. That is leading to all sorts of problems (mass shootings and attempted assassinations for example).
Implying that young men going to church are doing something wrong or have the wrong attitude (because they have “traditional” beliefs) seems like a distraction (though I guess NYT doesn’t want to just write the same well-covered story and to be fair doesn’t write this article in a patronizing tone)
