March 30, 2025 - 1:00pm
A few years ago, research by the Church of England’s General Synod found that more than one third (38%) of CofE congregations had no members under 16. 68% had fewer than five. I would imagine that broadly similar figures obtain across many different Christian denominations, with the possible exception of various independent and Evangelical congregations, and perhaps some redoubts of Catholic traditionalism. In the contemporary world it is clearly very difficult for Christians to keep their children in the church.
I can well believe, therefore, a new study that shows that most self-identified non-believers say they were raised in the faith. The grim joke in many Catholic and Church of England circles is that Confirmation — a ceremony usually gone through in the early teens — all too often means an exit from regular church attendance, rather than the entry into a deeper and more adult involvement. University is another notoriously difficult transition period; anecdotally I have encountered many cases of people who lapsed in those early adult years.
Why is it so hard for churches to hang on to their young members? The fundamental answer is that Christianity is strange and hard. It asks people to believe propositions which seem highly implausible, to accept a whole sphere of existence beyond the normal human senses. This is an obstacle for Christian apologists because over the last century or so, the lives of people all over the planet have been made longer, more comfortable and safer by technological and scientific advances premised on a materialist understanding of the world. If we can manage such improvements without invoking metaphysics, then why bother with anything more elusive and spiritual? Similarly, the so-called Darwinian revolution in our understanding of the natural world appears to have removed the need for God as creator.
Of course, there are good Christian responses to these kinds of questions. But in contemporary Britain, even to go looking for those answers requires a level of swimming against the cultural tide that few people are able or willing to undertake. Relatively few Christians are equipped to respond to such questions in a compelling way, with the result that most young people, even those in churches, just don’t encounter that many well-informed believers who can set out the case for, say, the compatibility of faith and science.
The other unavoidable part of the puzzle, when it comes to churches losing younger people, is that Christianity makes demands on people which go entirely against the grain of contemporary society. We might think immediately of demanding — and to the modern mind, offensive — sexual ethics, but that is only part of the story. There is a general expectation within Christianity that you no longer live for yourself, which is understandably a daunting prospect for young people, who tend to be full of their personal ambitions and schemes and ideas.
It is genuinely difficult to adapt your life to Christian living: to commit to a community full of people whose company you might not have chosen for yourself, in which you must regularly recognise your own flaws and weaknesses and cruelties. Forgiving other people is hard, but so is asking other people to forgive you. The long social dominance of Christianity in Europe has tended to obscure the fundamental oddness and difficulty of Christian observance.
It doesn’t help that well-meaning Christian attempts to appeal to reach out to young people have often been rather inept, often because they lack the confidence to just let the truths of the faith speak for themselves. Most people who grew up in churches will have their own stories of cringeworthy attempts by church leaders to get down with the kids, usually just a decade or two behind the times. Disco cathedrals are a hard no.
There are no easy answers. What works in one place, with one set of kids, may not work in another. Quite likely the much-mocked rainbow guitar straps have appealed to plenty of teenagers in their time. But, ultimately, no Christian congregation can avoid the question.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis was a very interesting event, imo.
I was initially skeptical because of Sarah Ditum’s article in Unherd this week based on her participation in this event. I suspected the event would be nothing more than a giant pity party. I was wrong.
The first part of the event was mainly the participants explaining how they were cancelled and the practical and emotional effects that had on them. I think it’s important for all of us to understand the real world consequences of cancellation. I was particularly struck by Jess de Wahls recounting how she’s been the subject of cancellation efforts for a couple of years and it’s clear some people actively track her life and attempt to cancel her at every opportunity. This type of behavior is truly corrosive.
For me, things didn’t really become interesting until the participants began discussing how to fight cancel culture. I have so much respect for Jess de Wahls. She stands tall and strong and faces down these bullies. It’s clear she pays a price but I think her most telling comment was that if we don’t start standing up to these people and challenging the nonsense they preach then where do we expect society to be in five or ten years? This week there’s an article on Unherd titled “The Dangers of Twitter” that considers the possibility that the verbal abuse associated with certain vocal groups on Twitter might ultimately lead to violence. If we don’t stand up to these people now that’s likely where we’ll end up.
A couple of participants briefly referred to having received legal advice in connection with their cancellation. I would love to know more about legal courses of action against those who practice or enable cancellation. The law of libel and defamation are obvious starting points, but what about torts such as intentional interference with business relationships when cancellation deprives people of their livelihood? Also, does human rights law have a role to play here? It would be interesting if Unherd interviewed a legal expert about these issues. Perhaps they could tempt Lord Sumption to offer some analysis.
Great event, Unherd. I hope this is the first of many such events and articles in which you explore how to fight back against cancel culture.
I watched the whole thing
So what I got was Lefty/Liberalism is running its course. These guys were part of it, and Lefty/Liberalism is obviously an illness. But what are its symptoms? What harm is it doing? And what is its R-factor, how fast is it spreading? About 2016 it appeared as we now know it, and … well, you know.
See Liberalism is entirely focused externally. It is all about Correctness, and some concept of ‘Social Injustice’ which others cause, and yet others then suffer from, and You need to fix. It is never about how you can be better, it is about making ‘Them’ better. This means it is redistributive, it is a Zero Sum Game where some have more, some less, and this is unfair and needs fixing as obviously the ones with more have some of the stuff which belongs to the one with less.. (education, status, money, houses, jobs, and so on)
Where a Right, or Conservative see inevitability in much unequal distribution, Look at a sports Star, the guy on stage there, the Doctors, Stock Brokers, Business owners, and just the millions of youth who did their homework 2 hours every night, did 4 hours a night at university, and then seriously put their nose to the grind stone in the job market – Right Wing have no issue with inequality of outcomes, (but kind of balk at gross inequality of opportunity).
A Conservative sees someone ignorant and lazy and thinks ‘what a loser’ wile a Liberal thinks ‘This guy has been wronged by us all, and so needs some of that guys money.’
You build an entire Creed around scrutinizing every person and every situation’ to root out ‘Social Injustice’, and you will find plenty of it. It is a cult of redistributive Justice, or SJW as we know them. Canceling is just a way of redistributing social credit, weird as it sounds.
Everyone in that room is one of these believers, just some more, some less – and they have, like Jess said, let the monster grow by not speaking up till it is devouring them all.
The thing which disappoints me is why Unherd did not get some Right Wing guy who is canceled to also be up there. I mean he is the actual ‘Fair Game’ of the vigilantes – and so to play this you need some of those, not just the ones hurt as ‘Collateral Damage’ Think of the President of USA during his vital Election! Canceled by some Lefty/Liberals from ALL Social Media, wile huge Social Media bias is given to his opponents – and so loses his job.
Several people asked this panel what is to be done, to general shrugs and vagaries as answer. Wrong answer. Attack them back. That is what needs figuring out. (and I am always amazed when I log on and find I still can post – that Unherd actually allows my side is a great credit to them, and unique in the industry as everywhere I post eventually cancels me.)
Great post
Yup, great post. I hadn’t really thought about it but you’re right that all three participants are members of the left-wing establishment. They are social provocateurs in their own ways and now they’ve been beaten at their own game (although let me be clear, I strongly disagree with their cancellation).
You make a very good point about interviewing a more right-wing figure who has been cancelled. But the reality is there seems to be very little sympathy for them, even on Unherd.
Anyway, I really hope Unherd picks up on the theme of fighting cancel culture and we see much more coverage of that issue. My sense is they haven’t quite figured out what sort of publication they want to be, and maybe leading the fight against censorship will give them a niche in the hyper-competitive media market.
I enjoyed this. 3 very different perspectives. I could identify with Mr Marshall…the trip wires…when I least expect it. Centrist types cop it from all sides. Character building? Yes. We are all fallen, we all fly. All the best to all at Unherd.
A good portion I watched wile my mop like wire haired Jack Russel would hop onto my lap, and then my little dachshund would stand up attack his feet and legs to try and play battle to pull him down, with great roars and snapping on each side. A perfect counter point to the docility of the people on the talk.
I liked one bit, where Jess said Germans have a history of letting things get out of control by not speaking up soon enough, how modern people think they would have spoken up if they had been there – but how in reality they would have said nothing either.
I watched this evening and thoroughly enjoyed it. I had something pertinent to comment on, something Winston said…. It will hopefully come back.
I do think we need to re-think our labelling. As became evident in the discussion, yesterday’s liberals (I am one), find that the fit with the left isn’t comfortable any longer – as the liberal values of inter alia tolerance of free speech and debating and individualism are now being attacked to the extent that speech is violent and actions aren’t. Even if you are not old enough to be yesterday’s liberal, many thoughtful people from the centre right to centre left are finding it difficult to find a political ideology that appeals.
One of those quotes is attributed both to winston & Jess
‘Art is dead’ and ‘History is Bunk’
I’m afraid the two words ‘art’ and ‘arts’ are confused in the title. It should be ‘art’, not ‘arts’.