How Liturgical Are Today’s Christians?

Research Releases in Faith & Christianity • February 13, 2018

Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, the inauguration of the forty-day liturgical season of Lent, observed with the marking of ashes to the forehead. This ritual and other practices for congregational worship like readings, confessions and creeds are part of what is known as Christian liturgy. Though practiced for centuries, these traditions are mostly absent from many contemporary worship expressions today. But just how familiar are practicing Christians (those who attend a religious service at least once a month, say their faith is very important and self-identify as a Christian) with the concept of Christian liturgy? What is their personal experience with it and what rituals do they take part in as a church community? In this new study, explored at-length in Barna Trends, here is what Barna learned about American practicing Christians’ current commitment to a particular style of service or spiritual expression.

For more clink this link.

Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z

Research Releases in Millennials & Generations • January 24, 2018

t may come as no surprise that the influence of Christianity in the United States is waning. Rates of church attendance, religious affiliation, belief in God, prayer and Bible-reading have been dropping for decades. Americans’ beliefs are becoming more post-Christian and, concurrently, religious identity is changing.

Enter Generation Z: Born between 1999 and 2015, they are the first truly “post-Christian” generation. More than any other generation before them, Gen Z does not assert a religious identity. They might be drawn to things spiritual, but with a vastly different starting point from previous generations, many of whom received a basic education on the Bible and Christianity. And it shows: The percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the U.S. adult population. To examine the culture, beliefs and motivations shaping this next generation, Barna conducted a major study in partnership with the Impact 360 Institute, now available in the brand new Gen Z report. In this release, we take a look at their views on faith, truth and the church in a time of growing religious apathy.

For more clink this link.

Most Pastors Feel Energized and Supported

Barna Research Releases in Leaders & Pastors • October 10, 2017

Each October is Clergy Appreciation Month, and October 8 is Clergy Appreciation Day. These are opportunities to recognize and honor the work of ministers, pastors and priests across the country—to express gratitude for one of the toughest jobs around.

The call to pastoral ministry has its unique benefits and challenges, which Barna explored in partnership with Pepperdine University in a major study of how Protestant senior pastors in the U.S. navigate life and leadership in an age of complexity. Previously on barna.com, we’ve covered pastors’ cultural credibility, their experiences and timing of the call to ministry, the aging of pastors and the health of pastors’ relationships. Now, in an effort to acknowledge the risks and rewards of being a church leader today, this infographic examines the general wellbeing of pastors: Are they satisfied with their quality of life? How is their physical, emotional and spiritual health? Are they motivated and supported, or do they struggle with exhaustion and feelings of inadequacy? Take a look at this link.

Bryden Black Responds To The SWG Interim Report

A Response to the Interim Report of the Working Group

I’m not certain whether this “accommodation” is “beautiful” or not. It is certainly an accommodation. That is to say, it is an organizational, and therefore political, solution to a perceived human problem. And as such, it might indeed have much to commend it (e.g. Orders of Consecrated Life; Respectful Climate). Whether it is also an appropriate and due Church solution - that is something else again, entirely.

 

A. I shall address to start with the matter of koinônia, the first key finding of the WG. This is hardly surprising, given two key things. Firstly, the Gospel is surely all about koinônia, either of the sort 1 Jn 1:1-4 depicts or Phil 1:5 specifies, to say nothing of Eph 4:3ff. And so secondly therefore, the perceived desire for “unity” across the ACANZ&P, which is a profound Gospel calling, is laudable—indeed, the entire mandate of the WG, and its solution, is geared towards this second thing - in one form anyway.

And yet, and yet ... There is koinônia, and there is koinônia, just as there is unity, and there is unity. For what does it mean for one to “participate in the Gospel” (Phil 1:5)? What does it mean to so receive the Holy Spirit (Gal 3) that this hallmark of the Gospel engenders that form of unity and koinônia created by the Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah of God, as per 1 Jn 1? For are there alternative ‘gospels’ out there? Clearly St Paul thought so, viz. Gal 1:6-12, 2 Cor 11:4. Many parts of Paul’s correspondence with his churches we have in the canon of the New Testament witness to the occurrence of such “perversions” of the Gospel, the Gospel Paul dared to call “my Gospel” (Rom 16:25), and of which he was “not ashamed” (Rom 1:16). Nor should any of this surprise us. After all, the Christian Church of the time took over a word already in common currency. There was uppermost that ‘gospel’, that ‘victory’ of Roman ‘peace’ and ‘salvation’ sanctioned by Augustus, who was precisely so-called by the senate when Octavian brought stability to ‘the world’, the oecumene of the day. And it is most helpful to set these Recommendations of the WG, and their rationale, alongside just such a political alternative to the Gospel of Jesus.

In short, is this Report something of which the Church should actually be ashamed? I am forcibly reminded of the likes of Matt 10:33, set within the apostles’ missionary charge, and Mk 8:38, the aftermath to Peter’s Confession and Jesus’ first Passion prediction. These are no light matters. They are rather issues of life and death.

And yet, and yet ... The Church has always been caught between two kingdoms, two ways of organizing itself as the Community of God’s People. It comes with the form of eschatology God himself has seen fit to establish. There is the Way of the Kingdom of God, and there is the way of the world. And whether we are aware of either Augustine’s or Luther’s analysis or not[1] (it surely helps to be guided by them), the true nature of that ‘world’ is only revealed when the Church acts as the Church. Should it then succumb to the wisdom of the world, approving of its diagnoses and solutions, rather than those of the Gospel and its resources, then it will hardly be surprising that the murkiness of the world’s ways will not appear in their muddied and muddled form. After all, even Satan appears as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14, in context, 2 Cor 10-13)! And so, what exactly are we the Christian Community up against here?

B. The answer leads me to the second part of my response.

“Dear Wormwood; I have devised under the inspiration of our Master a new strategy, a new way of steering the Enemy’s People off course. It reeks of their own ideas and yet mixes into them just enough of our own poison that they will be able to swallow this new medicine like obedient patients who realise  a little bit of nastiness heals in the long term. And it’s the long term we have had in mind all along; indeed, we’ve been planning this game for many decades, even centuries. It has to do with their very Image, their very nature as creatures of His. Of course, He is all about Love and Life - supposed to be, that is. And He is certainly all about Holy Integrity (Deut 6:4), His Uniqueness of Justice and Righteousness - which frankly we are well aware of, and which makes us “shudder” [Jas 2:19]. But if we might skew this just enough that their own righteous indignation fires up their sense of loving their neighbours ‘better’, then we can even disrupt their form of life-giving procreation, their naturally sexed identities. After all, what’s wrong with a bit of pleasure, of enjoyment for the sake of coupling, of strengthening two, or more, humans together, that their relationships better reflect seemingly their Maker! So; we are taking their very God-given nature and using it against them. We are taking what is designed for love and life, and using it to eventually bring out hatred and death - and especially the death of the Church, as it learns to hate even its own members, separating one from another. Oh what a muddied recipe we have concocted ...! It looks so ‘compassionate’, so ‘loving’ and generous and kind. And yet all along, it is leading them down the paths of despair and destruction. Our father has really got something clever worked out this time. So; sit back and watch, dear Wormwood! Enjoy the show!

Your affectionate Uncle Screwtape.”

C. What then, thirdly, have been the consequences and/or manifestations of this piece of spiritual warfare (NB Eph 6:10ff, and Revelation generally), a specific strategy which has been going on glacially over many decades, even centuries - although it has speeded up considerably these past 50 years? Perhaps a way into an answer is to ask another set of questions, of the Church now, as we presently find her. There are three in all.

C1.  How did western Christianity finish up here? How did we reach the point we have? This may be framed in the form we are being presented with today: we have a complete stand-off between those who deem homoeroticism per se a sin,and those who desire to see it set within what they suggest is a “reasonable and holy”[2] relationship. [NB I say homoeroticism, NOT homosexuality per se, which though related clearly is something else.] Nor should we fail to note well: neither ‘side’ sees the matter to be adiaphora; positions are therefore held strongly and with seeming strong justification. While the Canadian St Michael Report (2005) saw the issue to be “non-creedal”, it also saw it as more than a mere “pastoral matter” since it implied a change in the doctrine of marriage (and therefore as a specifically political matter according to ACC’s Constitution).

Such an historical exercise will employ both theology and sociology, cultural analysis of the kind often called “the sociology of knowledge”, which itself is a form of hermeneutics and epistemology, via cultural traits both material and immaterial. Essentially, I see the watershed beginning to occur around 1700, finishing up as a debate between starting premises mostly: revelation versus human experience.

That is how I expressed it in my summary memo to Justice Judith Potter, 9th December, 2012, and the Ma Whea Commission.

[See for example John Milbank’s Theology and Social Theory, NT Wright’s and Alister McGrath’s oeuvre, Michael Polanyi and TF Torrance, to name but a few: I’d also nail my own colours to the mast, by avowing an a priori perspective of “critical realism” - contrary to a good deal of what passes for socalled “Critical Theory” in the world of literature and/or contemporary philosophy[3] - even though some of their insights might be helpful. The date of 1700, by the way, is derived from Paul Hazard’s book, originally in French and published in 1935, La Crise de la conscience européenne, ET The European Mind: 1680-1715 (Penguin, 1973).]

C2. To be quite specific, noting the Christian Faith as an Incarnational Reality, we here in ACANZ&P are presented with this core to the GS Motion 30, 2014, and which determined subsequently the premise for the WFG’s Report, and subsequently the WG of 2016:

1. This General Synod/Te Hînota Whânui resolves to appoint a working group to bring and recommend to the 62nd General Synod/Te Hînota Whânui:

  1. A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-genderrelationships is contrary to scripture, doctrine, tikanga or civil law, will not be required to perform any liturgy for the blessing of same-gender relationships, will continue to have integrity within the Church, and will remain compliant with the parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction;
  2. A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-genderrelationships is consonant with scripture, doctrine, tikanga and civil law may perform a yet to be developed liturgy for blessing same-gender relationships in a manner which maintains their integrity within the Church, is compliant with the parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction, and can remain in communion under scripture, doctrine and law; including

(i) A proposal for a new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender relationships;

(ii) A process and legislation (whether church or parliamentary) by which a new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender relationships may be adopted;

Now; much could, and no doubt should, be said re such things as what on earth is meant by “right ordered same-gender relationships”? Huge things are presupposed right here, as other commentators have pointed out, especially when trying to consider what on earth was meant by the final “Therefore” resolution re “recognition” of same-sex relationships: what form(s) of recognition are being contemplated, and what not, and on what basis? This piece of (interim) history is now resolved - but only to a point, for the moment, probably! - as the 2017 WG has “recommended” there be “no alteration to the formularies of this Church” re “marriage”, while also recommending “bishops [be able] to authorise individual clergy within their ministry units to conduct services blessing same gender relationships.”

What drives this outcome was the desire - by all - to try to remain together (for as long as possible, in good conscience ...? See too H2). Yet my question is this. Granted (for the moment) each ‘side’s’ respective “integrity”, how do we move from this mere phenomenon of (a) and (b) within a single organization to an evaluation of that organization? By what criteria or frame of reference might we truly conduct such an evaluation? This is a truly basic dilemma! For related to it is the other question: supposing any ‘successful’ outcome, and a ‘new’ organizational body, with these two parts (and multiple forms in-between), comes into existence - as now specifically recommended by the WG - what of the “integrity” of the eventual structure that seeks to house BOTH of these stances, together? How on earth might we ‘read’ the integrity of this new whole?! For the Christian Faith is in the end an essentially moral entity. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church, of which the AC, and its constituent members like ACANZ&P, claim to be a part (cf. the opening pages of our Constitution), necessarily embodies and reflects the character of the Living Triune God. Christians do NOT subscribe to a monist ethos and world-view, which seemingly allows such contradictions to sit side by side. E.g. Hinduism’s neti neti ... More of this below.

C3.  These two sections 1 & 2 lead to an interim conclusion; I say interim as I am trying (still!) to sit also with this “process”, which is now taking shape, without preempting its outcome, notably re our GS 2018 (let alone further down the track).

If there is indeed an essential link between history, and the ontological and the logical, in the final analysis another set of questions arises: how do people become sincerely mistaken? NB: I do not say “are” mistaken; I am being resolutely historical here. For all humanity is comprised of both personal, little histories (all our multiple little histories, as well), and our respective cultural histories—all set within that Grand Story that is the Triune God’s Economy of Salvation. Add to which now our 21st C as a polyglot confluence of many cultural strands, which we fondly term the postmodern.

This last series of questions, under 3, seeks to probe the very possibility that either one or the other ‘side’ in this stand-off is indeed mistaken. In fact, it might be that BOTH are mistaken, to varying degrees. It is this third section’s questions which have prompted my own frail attempts these past 25+ years to get to the bottom of our present ‘dilemmas’ and their supposed “accommodation” (viz. a version of answering C1). To be sure; I tend strongly to a particular conclusion at the present time; more of this below. For all that, this is not (yet) the Eschaton; there is even about my own judgments a certain eschatological reserve - imposed by the very Economy in Whom we all live. And yet again; Jesus has clearly said, he will “not leave us as orphans”: we are not adrift in an alien cosmos! [This last quote from John 14 presupposes indeed an entire hermeneutic about how the Upper Room Discourses give rise to both the canon of Holy Scripture and our ‘reading’ of it by means of the Holy Spirit’s corporate guidance - for another day!]

D. What this set of three questions really prompts is the theme of an article I wrote for Taonga late in 2009, after the release of the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant: “Why the Anglican Communion Covenant is a Good and Necessary Thing.” The key to the article is encapsulated in the two words “recognition” (taken from the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams) and “authority”. What we have today in both the AC world-wide, and more locally in ACANZ&P, is a Crisis of Authority.[4] Not just authority itself, yet surely that, but also how to concretely recognize that authority, and so to practise legitimate forms of common life and faith. The WG’s Report attempts to be just such an answer this crisis. Yet its very mandate and brief ensures it fails from the start - as a due approach for the Christian Church. Let’s be clear here. I quote from the Report:

Its mandate as set out in Motion 29 [of GS 2016] was tightly focused and its task was to consider possible structural arrangements within our Three Tikanga Church to safeguard both theological convictions concerning the blessing of same gender relationships. ... Our mandate was not to consider the differing theological positions or to interpret scripture on this point. Instead we had a very specific task of considering what arrangements and safeguards could be put in place to hold us together within the same ecclesial family so that no one was forced to compromise sincerely held beliefs. We were asked to find structural solutions which would hold our Church together in that unity which Christ expressed, and which He has gifted to us.

So the aim is deemed to be to offer the means to “hold us together” - as the Church. YET the Church, like any organization, has an ideology (in the neutral sense of that term). That Christian ideology we call “theology”. But the Report, and the long, meandering process that has led up to it, with its proposals for sundry resolutions at GS 2018, is predicated not just upon a diversity of theologies, but upon blatantly contradictory theologies, together with their opposing premises. “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mk 3:24-25, and NB the context in relation to section B above), says our Lord, the Head of the Body, the Church. It’s all very well to propose a political, worldly solution to what is deemed an organizational problem. However, that approach is doomed to failure, certainly long term if not imminently, when that Body is actually the Church of the triune God, as revealed in the Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

When the Background states, “We were asked to find structural solutions which would hold our Church together in that unity which Christ expressed, and which He has gifted to us” (emphasis added), despite the initial seemingly neutral theological stance of the WG, they in fact presuppose an ecclesiology, a form of Church, which they seek to manifest. And so the question becomes: Do the recommendations of the WG truly and really reveal “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” as per our Constitution which marks of the Church Christ truly expressed, and with which he has gifted her, and to which he calls her?[5] Frankly, given the inchoate and muddied and muddled set of premises which stand behind the various ‘sides’ in the debate, given the forms of legitimation each and everyone seeks to bring to bear, how may any objective observer offer a positive answer. For crucially, as was asked earlier in C2: “By what criteria or frame of reference might we truly conduct such an evaluation” - any evaluation of the nature of the integrity of the new organizational body, as now proposed? “This is a truly basic dilemma!” For we may not employ either C2a or C2b, each of which stands on their own as being most partial, from any objective stance. Nor is there any other form of legitimation being cogently offered. The WG Report deliberately eschews any - supposedly! Not least also, as the GS of ACANZ&P has explicitly rejected any form of Anglican Communion Covenant - which might have come to our aid. The conclusion then is this: By what due Christian authority might we recognize the WG’s recommendations? We may not, even organizationally, “drift” (Heb 2:1) with a supposed neutral ideology—for no such thing in fact exists!

E. So at this stage of the process, I have to conclude we are being driven, as a church organization, firstand foremost by our pragmatic Kiwi culture. Some have tried to couch it all as seeking to sustain friendly relationships across imponderable boundaries. A laudable goal perhaps. Yet what sort of friendships are we to properly contemplate - in the Church?[6] When Jesus calls us his friends in Jn 15:14-15, such a form of friendship is based on obedience and revelation, that form of grace and truth in the Spirit of the Gospel to which the entire Johannine body of literature witnesses (Jn 15:26-27). Do the recommendations of the WG reflect this canonical testimony? I remain rather unconvinced ... And I’m far from convinced, at this stage of the process, what might truly sway me otherwise—given what has actually transpired to date, both short term and especially longer term, over the decades and even centuries, among the Anglican churches of western societies, of which I happen to be a member by desire and conviction.

Rev Dr Bryden Black, Christchurch, July 2017

 

[1] . I am thinking of course of Augustine’s De Civitate Dei and Luther’s notion of the “Left Hand of God”. See e.g. “Temporal Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed” (1523). While eschatology sees human society, and even the Church, to be necessarily “mixed” (Augustine) until the End, love of neighbour, and especially one’s non-Christian neighbour, means Christians should serve the State and even its “sword” as justly as possible, although without ultimate compromise.

[2] . This references of course Tobias Haller’s book, Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality (Seabury, 2009)

[3] . See Michael Walsh, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West (New York: Encounter Books, 2015).

[4] . See Robert Runcie, Authority in Crisis? An Anglican Response (London: SCM, 1988). However, in hindsight, his particular approach seems woefully inadequate, even while it begins to ask the right questions. In which light too, we might be better warned of our “accommodations” and compromises.

[5] . While The Windsor Report (2004) does refer to these four marks or notes of the Church, more fulsomely see Aidan Nichols, Figuring out the Church: Her Marks, and Her Masters (Ignatius Press, 2013), albeit from a Roman Catholic perspective at key points.

[6] . I am aware of the likes of Aelred of Rievaulx’s Spiritual Friendship (Liturgical Press, Cistercian Publications, 2010).

Two-Thirds of Christians Face Doubt

Barna Research Releases in Faith & Christianity • July 25, 2017

Experiencing spiritual doubt can be lonely, but according to a new study from Barna, it’s much more common than you think. Most Christians have at some point experienced a time of spiritual doubt when they questioned what they believed about their religion or God. But many make it through stronger for having faced their honest questions, especially when they have a community to guide them through it. So how pervasive is doubt, and what is the most common response to it? Whom do people turn to along the way—and how many make it through with their faith intact?

The Myth of the Lazy Teen

Barna Research Releases in Family & Kids • September 2, 2016

There’s been plenty of debate about teens and their social justice “slacktivism,” but how much truth is there to the claim that young people are only taking action with 140 characters or less? A new study from Barna shows that teens are actively engaged in service and volunteer projects and youth ministry is a primary channel through which they serve. In partnership with Youth Specialties and YouthWorks, Barna conducted a major study on the state of youth ministry in the United States, which included a look at service and volunteering trends among teens. Here are some of the key findings:

Teens Are Active Volunteers
Volunteer and service projects are a foundational element of youth ministry programs in churches across the country. According to their parents, a majority of teens (68%) are fairly active when it comes to volunteering at least once every few months: a little less than one fifth of teens (17%) volunteer once a week, one-quarter (25%) volunteer at least once a month, another one-quarter (26%) volunteer once every few months, and about one-third (32%) say they volunteer less often than that.

Other topics covered by the article:

  • Teen Volunteering Focuses on Church Service and Poverty Alleviation
  • The Church is Central to Teen Volunteering Efforts
  • The Goals of Service Are to Love and Serve Others
  • Debriefing and Follow-up are Important After a Trip

What the Research Means

“On the one hand, our society tells teens that service and volunteerism are important hallmarks of a well-rounded individual,” says Brooke Hempell, vice president of research at Barna Group. “College-bound teens know this is an important element of their school application portfolio, and social media reinforces the idea that social justice and activism are “trendy.” On the other hand, each generation demonstrates an increasing self-absorption that runs counter to this trend—many Millennials say volunteering is more talk than action.

“The church, and youth groups in particular, have a unique opportunity to stand out as an authentic example of love through service by being the hands and feet of Jesus to those in need,” Hempell continues. “Parents and Youth Pastors alike know the importance of this, and many find service and missions trips more engaging to youth than trying to compete for being “the coolest place to hang out on a Friday night.” Further, through these experiences, teens learn first hand what the Gospel is and have tangible life lessons to reflect on in the weeks, months, or years that follow. It is clear that service is an important element to any successful teen discipleship effort.”

Read the article

6 Tech Habits Changing the American Home

Barna Research Releases in Culture & Media • April 18, 2017

Parents today believe it is harder than ever to raise children. The number-one reason? Technology.

That’s a key finding at the heart of The Tech-Wise Family: Everyday Steps for Putting Technology in Its Proper Place, a new book by Andy Crouch.

Two years ago, as we dreamed of partners for upcoming book and research projects, Crouch was at the top of our list. Crouch—a leading cultural commentator, one-of-a-kind speaker, senior communication strategist at John Templeton Foundation and former executive editor of Christianity Today—shares a different side of himself in this book: a dad who, alongside his wife, Catherine, has learned firsthand the challenges and rewards of engaging with technology intentionally (or sparingly) as a family. This book combines Crouch’s clear and incisive thinking with original Barna research among parents, who are feeling the tensions of parenting in a digital age.

In this sneak peek of The Tech-Wise Family, we look at some of the top revelations about how parents and kids relate to their devices and to each other

Read the article

Pastors and Parents Differ on Youth Ministry Goals

Barna Research Releases in Family & Kids • March 22, 2017

A few years ago, The Atlantic ran a cover story called “The Overprotected Kid.” The piece argued that a preoccupation with safety has stripped childhood of independence, risk taking and discovery—without making it safer. The ensuing discussion raised a number of questions about the tug-of-war between a parent’s protective instincts and their desire to raise fearless kids. This dynamic plays out in schools and child care centers across the country, but is acutely felt in youth ministries. Are the parental priorities of safety shared by youth pastors and leaders? Whose goals take precedence? In partnership with Youth Specialties and YouthWorks, Barna conducted a major study on the state of youth ministry in the United States, which included a look at the expectations of pastors, youth leaders, and parents.

The Priorities of Senior Pastors & Youth Ministers
Barna researchers found that senior pastors and youth leaders are generally aligned when it comes to their thinking about what youth ministry should accomplish. When they are asked to identify the top two goals of youth ministry, a substantial majority of church leaders choose “discipleship and spiritual instruction” as one of their highest priorities. Seven in 10 senior pastors (71%) and three-quarters of youth pastors (75%) say this is one of their top goals.

Outlining Parent Expectations
Parents have their own set of priorities when it comes to their kids’ youth ministry experience. Most parents have a hard time narrowing them down! A majority of parents whose teens regularly attend youth group rate each and every feature as either “very” or “somewhat important.”

Safety is of paramount importance to virtually all parents (96% very + somewhat important). Presumably this would include their kids being kept safe from physical harm, but many parents may also think of safety in emotional terms, especially since the recent introduction of “safe spaces” on campuses across the country.

Read the complete article

The Credibility Crisis of Today’s Pastors

from Barna Group - 17 March 2017

The good news: Most people don’t dislike pastors.
The bad news: They just don’t really care about pastors either.

In Barna’s The State of Pastors report, produced in partnership with Pepperdine University, the reception of pastors was generally lukewarm. One-quarter of all U.S. adults (24%) holds a very positive opinion of pastors in general. Meanwhile, roughly the same proportion reports a negative opinion (28% “somewhat” + “very” negative). Similarly, one-quarter of the population has little regard for the pastoral influence in their city or neighborhood (23% “not very” + “not at all” influential), while one in five adults (19%) goes so far as to call pastors very influential.

See the full report

Pages