Nonverts: The Making of Ex-Christian America

by Stephen Bullivant

An entertaining and insightful exploration of the American ex-religious

The United States is in the midst of a religious revolution. Or, perhaps it is better to say a non-religious revolution. Around a quarter of US adults now say they have no religion. The great majority of these religious "nones" also say that they used to belong to a religion but no longer do. These are the think "converts," but from having religion to having none. There are currently has about 59 million of them in the United States.

Nonverts explores who they are, and why they joined the rising tide of the ex-religious. One of world's leading experts on contemporary atheism and nonreligiosity, sociologist and theologian Stephen Bullivant draws on dozens of interviews, original analysis of high-quality survey data, and a wealth of cutting-edge studies, to present an entertaining and insightful exploration of America's ex-religious landscape. Bullivant criss-crosses the country, talking to everyone from ex-Mormons in Utah to ex-Catholics in Pennsylvania, from ex-Evangelicals in Georgia to ex-Muslims in California, showing not only what they have in common but also how the traditions they left behind continue to shape them.

While American religion is not going to die out any time soon, ex-Christian America is a growing presence in national life. America's religious revolution is not just a religious revolution--it is catalyzing a profound social, cultural, moral, and political impact. Nonverts will serve as an indispensable guide to this shifting landscape, as well as the future of American life.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Sociology, History, Christian, Christianity, Politics

267 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 1, 2022

About the author

Stephen Bullivant is Senior Lecturer in Theology and Ethics in the School of Education, Theology and Leadership. He joined St Mary's in September 2009, after completing his DPhil at Oxford University on the Second Vatican Council's engagement with atheism. In June 2010, he was awarded the Catholic Theological Society of America's 'Catherine Mowry LaCugna Award for New Scholars'.

He is currently Programme Director for the MA in Theology, for which he teaches the 'Scripture and Systematic Theology', 'Themes in Contemporary Theology', and 'Research and Reflective Practice' modules. On the BA Theology and Religious Studies, Stephen teaches both historical and doctrinal topics (inc. 'Foundations in Christian Theology', 'Trinity', 'Vatican II') and religious studies modules ('Atheism and Nonreligion'). He also teaches 'Christ and Christian Ethics' as part of St Mary's well-established foundation course in Youth Ministry.

In addition to his ongoing theological work on - inter alia - the Christian engagement with unbelief, new evangelization, dialogue, and aspects of Catholic Social Teaching, Stephen publishes regularly on the social-scientific study of unbelief and secularity. From 2008 to 2014 he was a co-director of the international Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network. Between 2011 and 2014 he was a committee member of the European Society for Catholic Theology, serving as its delegate to the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology.

A popular speaker and writer, Stephen has appeared on BBC Radio 4 and Vatican Radio, and has written for (among others) New Scientist, The Guardian, America, and Strange Notions. He has also given invited talks and lectures in the United Kingdom, Finland, Italy, Brazil, the Philippines, and the USA.

Reviews

[Jenna ❤ ❀ ❤ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nonvert: One who goes from having a religion to having no religion.

The U.S. is far more religious than other wealthy countries. In fact, according to a 2018 Pew study, the U.S. was the only country out of 102 surveyed to score higher-than-average on both religiosity and national wealth.

In recent years however, the numbers of the non-religious, the "nones", have been growing, mainly because of nonverts, those leaving the religion they were born into and/or raised with. 

In this book, author Stephen Bullivant examines why the number of "nones" (those who check 'none' when asked for their religion) in the U.S. is rising. 

He interviews many nonverts, those who've left behind a variety of religions from Catholics to Mormons to Protestant evangelicals, finding myriad reasons why people leave their religions behind.  

He shows how much easier and more acceptable it is today to not be affiliated with any religion than it was even just 20 years ago (around the time I realized I'm atheist though a few years after I'd left Christianity).

The author points out though, that the majority of these nonverts are not atheist or agnostic. The nonreligious now make up 33% of the population but atheists and agnostics only 8%. Many of the nonverts believe in a higher power and even pray to it.

As Mr. Bullivant notes, "the Dutch have a word for it: ietsism, which translates as “Something-ism."

It was interesting to hear the reasons individuals left their religious affiliation behind and see how much more acceptable it has become to be nonreligious, even if atheism is still a small minority, unlike in other industrialized nations. 

None of this was earth shattering or news to me, being a nonvert myself, but the author wrote well and held my interest. It was a bit repetitive at times which is understandable given that individual religions -or those who left them- were given their own chapters, and there are only so many reasons why people leave religion. 

For me, raised Fundamentalist Baptist, it was hypocrisy; judgmentalism; hatred of others outside our religion, gay people, etc (cloaked, of course, in the asinine "love the sinner hate the sin" mantra); and the fact that none of it made any sense whatsoever. 

Talking snakes, virgin births, angels, demons, a purported all-loving creator that tortures people for all eternity simply because they didn't believe in it, Bible stories that contradict each other (beginning in Genesis where there are actually two creation stories), etc. 

My rational brain cannot accept any of that.

If you're interested in the changing tide of religion in the U.S. and why it is changing, or if you have left your faith behind and like to hear the reasons other have too, this book is worth reading. 

I'd have enjoyed it more if I'd learned more, but I'm still glad I read it. 3.5 stars rounded up.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Phenomenon of Non-version

Conservatively speaking, at least 59 million American adults are now currently unaffiliated with any organized institution of faith. A minority of those people, less than 18 million, had no religious upbringing whatsoever. That means that the majority of “Nones” in the USA (41 million+ adults) have left their respective churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques. These are the apostates, the lost lambs, the heretics, the prodigal sons (Luke 15:11–32), the freethinkers, the dissenters, and the nonconformists. Author Stephen Bullivant has auspiciously dubbed them the nonverts*. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), only a small percentage are professed atheists or agnostics. Most still hold either a belief in God or a belief in some other sort of supernatural force or power.

“. . . there are a whole lot of nones, and a whole lot of those nones were once religious. And they are in the process of fundamentally and decisively changing the face of American society.” (pg 7)

*nonvert: someone who was raised in a religious denomination but has since disassociated themselves from its institutions and public practices.

Bullivant’s research is eye opening. There is a lot here to unpack and, judging by the reviews, a lot of information that is of interest to both the churched and the unchurched among us. Being a nonvert myself (ex-southern baptist), I found this to be an honest and (mostly) unbiased examination of who we are and why we’re currently the fastest growing minority in America.

[SPOILERS REMOVED]

5 big stars.

[Ginger Griffin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever seen a Christian strongman bend iron bars for Jesus? Yeah, me neither. But that bit of evangelical subculture is just one of the oddities I learned about from this interesting book.

The author's analysis of why America is secularizing so rapidly is argued well, and probably gets as close as anyone is going to. His thesis: Much of American religiosity during the mid-20th century was driven by the Cold War (no one wanted to be seen as a godless commie, even if they had their doubts about religion or didn't much care). The end of the Cold War made religion less important as a cultural marker. It also roughly coincided with the rise of the internet (where atheists were among the first to stake out space, and where religious questioners of all types could soon be found in abundance). Then came 9/11, courtesy of religious fanatics. Not to mention a never-ending stream of sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and sleazy revelations about televangelists. All these developments fed into a cultural shift that has accelerated the rise of religious Nones (those who claim "no religion" when asked).

The author focuses in particular on people who were raised with religion but now have left it (what he calls "Nonverts"), who currently make up about 65 to 75% of Nones in the US. As the author notes, his book probably reflects a narrow slice of time, a transitional period during which many Nones were raised Christian, but no longer are. More members of the next generation will have little personal memory of religion, which they'll mostly associate with their grandparents. (If you're an atheist like me, you may already have noticed this among younger nonbelievers.)

The secular trend could reverse, of course, with people suddenly deciding to return to religion _en masse_. There's just no evidence of that happening, especially with secularism having reached what seems to be a tipping point among younger Americans.

The author has a lively wit and approachable style. His tangents are often interesting. I had, for instance, never heard of a 1928 film about the "menace" of atheism called _The Godless Girl_, Cecil B. DeMille's last silent picture. It flopped in the US but apparently was a big hit in Germany (Adolf Hitler wrote the film's star a fan letter after seeing it).

The author notes churches' attempts to stem the tide of secularism, without going into much detail -- probably because nothing seems to work. Liberalizing hasn't helped mainstream churches. But moves toward conservatism have also driven many people away from religion, while serving mainly to radicalize the angry core who remain.

Until recently, evangelicalism appeared to be holding up better than other Christian brands, but that seems to be changing too. Growth in evangelical churches often comes from cannibalizing other congregations rather than making new converts. And many churches seem to be surviving mostly on the strength of their extracurricular activities. One woman interviewed by the author continued to affiliate with her church for several years after she'd stopped believing in God because she enjoyed putting on their Jesus-themed puppet shows.

Most Nones say they still believe in God, though what that means is hard to discern from the data. Nones aren't necessarily atheists, but they don't seem likely to warm pews again either.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interestingly, I read a book last week called “Faith No More,” it was written 10 years ago, and acted as a precursor to this book. It looked at the world by prioritizing the religion before the person rejected the religion, while this book modernizes the subject by considering it more appropriately by seeing the world from the point of view of ‘nonverts’, and their experiences as non-believers as the new default position within society.

Do you believe in leprechauns, or do you believe in fairies? Most people would just say no, but when it comes to ‘do you believe in God’, only 3% of people will answer no according to a survey from 2018 as cited in this book. I’ve never been able to answer yes to that question since in the absence of special pleading the burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion. I do not believe in leprechauns, or fairies or God when nothing but feelings are asserted for a proof. That is my story, and this book tells mostly former members of some religious sect and how for them the special pleading got to be too much.

Always, in books like this one appealing to anecdotal stories, there are some people who tell the story about how religion making homosexuality a sin was just a bridge too far. I don’t think this book mentioned transgender the current boogeyman for Republicans and religions, but it just beggars’ belief why some religions give a damn about how I identify myself and want to inspect my genitals or look at my birth certificate before I use a bathroom. They are nuts.

There’s a weird overlap between Fascists MAGA hat morons and religion, and this book does look at the nexus. MAGA morons want to inspect my genitals or look at my birth certificate when I need to enter a public restroom, but oddly not all MAGA hat morons are religious, the evangelical bible thumper, and as this book mentioned even the Pope will say homosexuality is wrong and is a sin and so on, but the overlap between the non-religious American Firster and religious folks doesn’t compute in my mind.

This book mentioned the Qanon cult and how the author did not think of them as a religion. I think the author is wrong on that one point. MAGA at its heart is a cult and is made up of people who believe strange things. I recently read a book called “American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology” that made the great point that it’s not the UFO that matters for believers, but the fact that there is something behind the UFO phenomena thus giving meaning to their life beyond the profane as if there must be more to life than meets the eye. MAGA, Qanon and other cults are acting as a replacement for the dying of organized religions, and unfortunately, when religious faith wanes Fascists can replace that superstition with another superstition. We are not out of the woods by any means, since beliefs in those conspiracies are just as deadly as excessive religious zeal.

Overall, a highly entertaining book and worthy of consideration today. The author makes the very good point that the ‘mainlining’ of protestant denominations that reflected the normalization of societal norms led to the decay of those denominations and that the more extreme the church the more the success it is having in today’s environment.

[Kurt Douglass · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stephen Bullivant explores the rise of the "nonverts", i.e. those who grew up in a religion, but left it when they became teens or adults. They "deconverted" as it were and now belong to the so-called "Nones", i.e. those with no religious affiliation and thus answer "none" when asked some variant of the question "What is your religion?". It is a broad category, and includes everything from the "spiritual, but not-religious" to the hardcore atheist. I don't like the term for this reason, though I do like Bullivant's "nonvert".

Bullivant examines the decline of Christianity in America, focusing on nonverts from four Christian groups: Mormons, Mainline Protestants (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.), Evangelicals, and Catholics. Bullivant realizes that some readers may question why he included Mormons since many consider them a separate religion from Christianity; I certainly questioned it, and while I understand Bullivant’s reasoning, I don’t wholly agree with it.

Regardless, he devotes two chapters to each group respectively, the first relating personal accounts of nonversion in that group, and the second delving into the reasons why so many people are leaving that group. The first chapters were the most interesting and relatable, and I wish Bullivant had included more accounts and more details on the ones he did include. The second chapters are more academic and while they offer a lot of solid data on the de-Christianizing of America, they are not as engaging.

I am an ex-Evangelical, so I was expecting to be the most absorbed in this group’s chapters, but ironically I did not, and did not find the stories of the Evangelical nonverts relatable. They left either due to the hypocrisy in the purity culture or the rise of Trumpism. I left Evangelicalism for a complex number of reasons, but it was long before the Trump era, so he was never a factor, and the purity culture I experienced was more focused on not having sex before marriage rather than the purity rings, father/daughter dances, and other manifestations enumerated in the chapter. However, I was deeply involved in the Evangelical subculture that Bullivant describes - I too enjoyed being involved in puppet ministries!

Overall, Bullivant’s study offers valuable information and thoughtful analysis both for the practicing Christians and the ex-Chrisitan nonverts alike. It will help the faithful to understand why family and friends left the fold, and hopefully cause them to reflect on personal and public shortcomings. It will validate the nonvert experience and verify that they are part of a larger societal movement away from Christianity. Whether America becomes ex-Christian or not remains to be seen, though considering our history and cultural idiosyncrasies I think it’s more likely there will be ebbs and flows of Christian influence and predominance. But whatever happens, the number of nonverts and nones will continue to grow and change the religious, social, and political landscape of America.

[Bill Kupersmith · Rating 3 out of 5]

When filling up a form asking one’s religious preference, about a third of Americans now check the box labelled None. In my youth it would have been more like 3 pc. Bullivant is a sociologist using the results of mass surveys as well as personal interviews with a wide range of subjects to study the decline of religious practice and belief in America. Which explains why I found this book somewhat disappointing: can a questionnaire account for a spiritual phenomenon? I also had a problem with the author’s use of the term “religiosity” because many use that term to distinguish outward profession from true inner conviction. When I was young, except amongst artists and intellectuals, identification with a faith community was a minimal requirement for respectability, though a certain degree of laxity in observance was tolerated. Bullivant dates the shift from the early 1970s. I agree with him that much of the decline in church membership represents no loss to authentic spiritual practice. But I doubt very much that the shift from religious sectarianism to extreme political partisanship has been a gain for our society. For authentic spirituality, the times scarcely matter. Julian of Norwich knew that all manner of thing will be well during the Black Death plague; Simone Weil and Dietrich Bonhoeffer died during the time of the Nazis. It is perhaps the ordinary contemporary homme moyen sensual who is most deprived by the decline in the church. Perhaps many who say they are “spiritual but not religious” aren’t all that spiritual, and of those who say they “don’t believe in organized religion” one may be tempted to enquire, “All right, so how well is disorganized religion working out for you?”

[Corey Thibodeaux · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the past 20+ years, there has been a surge of people leaving their respective faith. I am not among this group, but the subject is fascinating to me.

Given the timing of when this mass exodus started, I started this book with my own theory: the Internet.

The Internet gave rise to two major shifts:

1. More segmented and niche communities
2. Knowledge

Everyone wants to belong. Religion is one of the great unifiers. But when you are LGBTQ+ or love My Little Pony, a church may not be the place for you (depending on religion and denomination).

And when equipped with the knowledge of the hypocrisy of churches (lavish spending, predatory Catholic priests), it can shake your foundation.

While the Internet was a huge factor, there is much more nuance to this subject.

I admire the people interviewed in this book who left their religion when it went against their personal values. To leave your life and support system takes true courage.

However, this "de-Christening" of America has created great fear in the devout. You can see this when Bible-toters create laws determined purely by their religious principles. Can't say that's winning over any athiests or agnostics.

[Gregory Eakins · Rating 4 out of 5]

That doesn’t mean that it’s illegitimate to talk about American religion in the aggregate—e pluribus unum, and all that. But it’s still an unum with a high degree of variation around the mean.

For those of us who identify religiously as a "none" (not religious) or a "nonvert" (converted from some religion to no religion), this is a long-overdue look at the silent trend towards none-ism in the United States.

Bullivant uses a variety of surveys, studies, and personal accounts to build a clear picture of the current state of religious nonversion. There's great discussion on the why of people leaving, as well as the bigger picture trends and the larger effects on society. Bullivant is honest with the data and what can be pulled from it, and doesn't make too many logical leaps of faith that would bring into question his conclusions.

For those of us who have had some pulse on the changing beliefs of our peers and society, nothing that Bullivant presents is going to surprise you, but this is the first time I've seen it all compiled into one, concise discussion.

Bullivant does get repetitive at times, as even though people are leaving different religions, their reasons are often the same. He also leans harder into some political forces (like Trump) than I think is realistic. On the whole, however, this might be the best look into the changing attitudes of Americans towards religion you'll find.

[✨Arline✨ · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you follow the deconversion world (which is overwhelmingly white) online then nothing will be a surprise. If you don’t, or if you’re still a Christian, you may learn stuff.

Black and Asian American Christianity are glaringly absent from all the research.

[Ethan Moehn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is good, potentially could have been better. I listened on Audible and it was actually enjoyable. It’s sociological analysis with some good humor. Not the most hopeful book.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A STUDY OF FORMERLY RELIGIOUS PERSONS WHO NOW HAVE ‘NO RELIGION’

Author Stephen Bullivant wrote in the first chapter of this 2022 book, “‘Nonverts’ may be a new coinage, and admittedly something of an etymological abomination. But the REALITY it points to, I’m convinced, is indispensable for properly making sense of the present, recent past, and long-term future of American religion. As I hope to show, nonverts are the key to understanding much of the so-called rise of the nones, how and why it happened, who they are exactly, and what it all means for the present and future of America. If that sounds like a lot---well, it is. But then, as we’re about to see, there are a whole lot of nones, and a whole lot of those nones were once religious. And they are in the process of fundamentally and decisively changing the face of American society.” (Pg. 7)

He continues, “Nones account for roughly one in four American adults, or about 59 million people… they are far more diverse than popular stereotypes might have you believe. Furthermore, barring some Great Millennial Revival, this proportion is set to grow for the foreseeable future. According to the biennial General Social Survey, in 2018 a third of 18-to-29-year-olds cited ‘no religion’ as their personal ‘religious preference.’ … Lest you think that that’s just what late-teens and twenty-somethings are like, and that they’ll all come altar-calling back when they grow up a bit… well, the signs are remotely favorable.” (Pg.7-8)

He goes on, “Attempting to make sense… of how this has come about, and why it did so WHEN it did is one of the overriding concerns of this book… religion is a … more fascinating topic in the United States than in most other countries. So, too… is the story of how large swathes of Americans have lost, or at least substantially downsized, their religious … belonging. One major clue … [is] that… a clear majority of America’s haven’t always felt this way. They are nonverts. That is, they used to be… religious ‘somethings.’” (Pg. 9)

He adds, “But the rise of the nones is not due to a sudden influx from more secular shores. Nor is it down to nonreligious parents typically raising quivers full of nonreligious babies. Instead, it’s primarily due to a vast, wholly unprecedented ‘mass nonversion’ of millions … of Americans who were raised religious. Indeed, if this book contains any single, summarizable argument it is that the USA is in the midst of a social, cultural, and religious watershed---one that … millions of today’s Americans … have actively LIVED OUT in their own stories.” (Pg. 11)

He summarizes, “for all the talk of the ‘nones,’ and as much as they may have in common, it makes no more sense to talk about them as an undifferentiated mass than it would be to talk about, say, Christians that way. The label ‘none’ masks a great deal of diversity… the factors pushing people toward nonversion vary considerably depending on the religious tradition they are leaving, and … those factors linger long after they have left the fold.” (Pg. 15-16)

He notes, “the fact that a person said or ticked or clicked ‘No religion’ does not, in itself, tell us whether or not they believe in God... Whether or not they attend church., Whether or not they believe in Fate or Reincarnation or Astrology. Whether or not they’ve accepted Jesus Christ as their Personal Lord and Savior... Whether or not they pray. Whether or not, it they were raised in a religion, they got married in a church and will quite probably get their kids baptized… Not identifying with a particular religion or denomination is perfectly compatible with all kinds of beliefs or attitudes or practices… Again, this is 59 million American adults we’re talking here. There’s no one type of none.” (Pg. 49)

He observes, “the vast majority of nones do not fit easily into the popular one-size-fits-all image of a rationalist and materialist Atheist-with-a-capital-A.’ Not only are the majority of nones not atheists at all---a consistent finding going back to at least the 1960s---but even many of those who actually are atheists are not THAT KIND of atheist. Not believing in a God… does not preclude believing in all kinds of other supernatural, spiritual, and/or paranormal phenomena…” (Pg. 69)

He points out, “in the fifties, many of the most tenuously religious Americans would nevertheless have identified as some of form of Christian. It is equally true that, today, a good chunk of their contemporary counterparts now identify as nones. However, it does not at all follow that [this]… is an arbitrary switching of labels. The obvious question to ask is why, in the past, did much larger numbers of weakly believing … folks still FEEL Christian enough to think of themselves in that way. One obvious possibility is that … they just felt pressured to say that they did for social reasons… this obviously raised the bigger question as to why they felt they needed to, when today’s nones clearly no longer do.” (Pg. 97) Later, he adds, “a rising level of nones in a population… signals something loud and clear about changes in the surrounding culture… The trend is self-reinforcing: the more nones there are, the more acceptable it becomes to be a none, which breeds more of them.” (Pg. 99)

He argues, “The psychological impossibility of being nonreligious for most people sheds interesting light on two more obvious trends in American religion during these years. The first is the rather colorful period of experimentation with different ways of being religious that sprang up in the sixties and seventies… The second is the extent to which the churches themselves ended up adapting… to a population that was less interested in going to church and yet still felt that maybe they OUGHT to. It is surely remarkable how swiftly… so many American churches started pretending that they were not churches at all…” (Pg. 109)

He summarizes, “In short, the argument is this: 1. Cold War oppositions between ‘godless communism’ and ‘Christian America’ engendered a Pavlovian association between being un-religious and being un-American… 2. … Americans were odds-on to keep thinking of themselves as some kind of Christians even if they no longer believed in classic Christian doctrines or moral teachings… 3. Meanwhile, the cultural fault lines that begin … opening up in the late sixties… kept on widening, with new generations socialized into every more liberal baselines… 4. The Cold War thawed, and secular Soviets were replaced by religious extremists in America’s anxieties… 5. … these various factors … acted as an accelerant for all sorts of social identities, suddenly bringing together all manner of people who had hitherto ‘thought they were the only one’ into … mutually encouraging groups… 6. Finally, once the rate of nones did start rising and begin attracting notice in the press, the ensuing headlines further helped to advertise being a ‘none.’” (Pg. 124-126)

Later, he adds, “This book is… premised on the idea that BOTH ‘the rise of the nones’ AND ‘what it means for America’ can be elucidated by gaining a better understanding of nonverts and nonversion… our nonvert’s-eye-view of religious change is fundamentally acausal one. Religious groupings wax and wane due to various… factors… The single biggest fueler of the rapid growth in those claiming no religious affiliation, however, is … the propensity of people brought up with a religious affiliation to lost it and, having done so, to feel little need do acquire another.” (Pg. 155)

He notes, ‘Even as the nones continue to grow for a while yet, the PROPORTION of nonverts among them will almost certainly fall… In the first place, there are now simply more children being brought up by nonreligious parents… Some will end up raising their kids religiously… The majority, though… will not. Second, as being nonreligious becomes more and more the norm in large parts of American society, it will become easier … for the growing ranks of ‘cradle nones’ to retain this identity into adulthood.” (Pg. 161)

He concludes, “the current Christian decline won’t continue indefinitely: present trends never do… There will be a steady stream of prodigals, since the wider culture will exert a powerful attraction… But… helped along by both immigration and birth rate, the overarching religious subculture will both keep enough of its own and attract a good few others… But this will be… in the secular eyes of most of their fellow Americans, much closer to a medium town on a fair-sized knoll than it is to a city on a hill, shining or otherwise.” (Pg. 218)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying the contemporary church, and religion in America.

[Cheryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Nonverts”may be a new coinage, and points to a reality that is needed to make sense of the present, recent past, and the long-term future of American religion. Nonverts are the key to understaind much of the so-called rise of the nones, how and why it happened, who they are exactly, and what it means for the present and future of the United States. There are a whole lot of nones, and a whole lot of those nones were once religious. And they are in the process of fundamentally and decisively changing the face of American society.

Nones account for roughly one in four American adults, or about 59 million people. In 2018, a third of 18-29 year-olds cited no religion as their personal religious preference. 73% of nonreligious folks identify as white, and so too do precisely 73% of all American adutls. The remaining 27 % of nones are divided nearly equally between Black and other as so does the general population. Gender breakdown is 52% male and 48% women.

I am not sure why my library is carrying so many British authors lately, but I felt this was worth a try and overall interesting, but there is a lot to ignore. For example, the author used Americans to refer to citizens of the U.S., which has fallen out of favor due to its presumption to be more important than Central or South Americans, and it grated over and over again. I will leave it as is. There was also overlap with nonverts and nones, which was confusing but when he wrote cradle nones, that helped but was awkward. The author appears to have the necessary credentials and interviews but is clear this is his theory only.

I am a nonvert as defined by this book, raised Catholic and remember saying in college I was leaning away from church but wasn’t sure I could ever deny Jesus or the existence of God, but I do now, easily. I believe in love, in human beings, in nature. I think there is a thread of holiness and some things that seem to be in a flow, but not a supernatural one. I am fortunate and privileged to be able to express my beliefs, and I think one day, I won’t be an a-anything or a non-anything, and not measured as if religion was the norm and I was deviating away.

A clear majority of American’s nones haven’t always felt this way. They are nonverts. That is, they used to be- and saw themselves to be- religious “somethings.” In most cases, this was the “something” they were brought up as. One of America’s roughly 16 million nonverts who say they were brought up Catholic; 7.5 million ex-Baptists, 2 million ex-Methodists and Lutherans, and 2 million were brough up in non Christian religions. Roughly 30% of America’s religiously unaffiliated adults say they were brough up as nones; adding up to 41 million nonverts, roughly equal to the adult populations of California, and Pennsylvania combined.

The rise of the nones is not due to the sudden influx from more secular shores. Nor it is down to nonreligious parents raising non religious babies. It’s primarily due to a vast, wholly unprecedented “mass nonversion” of millions of Americans who were raised religious. The earliest example of the term “nones,” is from a 2003 report called “Living the Religious Life of a None” by Dan Lattin.

By foregrounding nonverts specifically, over and above nones-in-general, I’m attempting to stress something significant that is often overlooked. Sociologists have been aware for some years that “ex-“ identities are no simply descriptions of people’s past; in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways, they influence people’s current personalities, beliefs, feelings, circumstances, relationships, and a great deal else.
The Dutch have a word, “ietism,” which translates as “something-ism.” It’s a belief that there’s a something out there, though not a something that is felt to jive easily with any of the off the rack religions options. There is more than an echo of this when people express gratitude to the Universe for having helped bring about some favorable outcome.”

I do have some something-ism, but it is because as long as humans have been on the planet and as long as we have had language and writing, we seem to have some religious impulse, and I respect all religions and the humanness they reflect; it is a nod to the fact that we aren’t in control of everything, and there is mystery. I love to learn about wisdom traditions and take the wisdom without the nonsense.

There are several theories out there in scholarly books and journal articles by academics, but I’d like to present my own, considered take, like a Grand Unified Theory. The increase in American adults claiming no religious affiliation is nor mere matter of appearances. Not everyone agrees with this. Are purely nominal Christians feeling more able to be honest to tick no religion? Atheism was associated with communism which was too abhorrent to admit? Identifying as a none and being atheist are not the same thing. I think the experimentation of the 60s with different ways of being religious and the ways churches tried to woo people to stay contributed more. There’s an impressive body of sociological literature arguing that the rise of the nones is a reaction against the Religious Right.

[Matthijs · Rating 5 out of 5]

De Verenigde Staten hebben te maken met een ingrijpende godsdienstige verandering. Waar andere delen van de westerse wereld met ingrijpende secularisatie te maken kregen, was dit in de VS anders. In de laatste decennia heeft ook de VS met secularisatie te maken gekregen: het aantal Amerikanen dat aangeeft niet bij een godsdienst te behoren, neemt de afgelopen tijd snel toe. Tot die groep, die aangeeft nergens bij te horen, zijn degenen die zonder godsdienst zijn opgevoed. Tot die groep behoren ook Amerikanen die wel een godsdienstige opvoeding hebben gehad, maar zichzelf niet meer als godsdienstig beschouwen.
De godsdienstsocioloog Stephen Bullivant is geïnteresseerd in die laatste groep: Amerikanen die wel een godsdienstige opvoeding hebben gehad maar zichzelf momenteel niet meer als godsdienstig beschouwen. Hij deed met name onderzoek naar degenen die een christelijke opvoeding hebben gehad. Hij duidt hen aan als nonverts: een combinatie van converts (bekeerlingen) en nones (degenen die nergens meer bij horen). Voor zijn onderzoek hield hij veel interviews met nonverts. Hij sprak onder andere met ex-mormonen, ex-protestanten, ex-katholieken en ex-vangelicals en publiceerde daarover een boek: Nonverts. The Making of Ex-Christian America. Hoewel dit boek gaat over Amerikaanse ex-gelovigen zijn een aantal inzichten ook voor Nederland relevant.
Zo geeft Bullivant aan dat de groep van degenen die zich niet meer als gelovig beschouwen een gemêleerde groep is. Ook de redenen om zich niet meer als gelovig te zien kunnen heel divers zijn. De een is verhuisd en kon geen aansluiting vinden bij een nieuwe kerk en kwam tot de ontdekking het ook zonder kerk goed te kunnen redden. Een ander nam afscheid van de kerk vanwege de ethische of politieke standpunten die in een kerk werden aangehangen. Een derde kwam als kind en jongere nauwelijks in de kerk, waardoor er geen binding met het geloof was gegroeid. Opvallend is dat veel van de geïnterviewden aangaven dat ze zich niet als atheïst wilden zien. Ook gaven de meesten aan dat het afscheid van de kerk en het geloof ook een gemis geeft. Een deel houdt er rekening mee dat ze op termijn weer bij een kerk aansluiten als ze er de tijd voor hebben of als ze een kerk vinden die bij hen past. Voor Bullivant was het een ontdekking dat voor een aantal van degenen die hij sprak het niet-meer-gelovig-zijn een momentopname is: op dit moment zijn ze geen lid van een kerk en op dit moment doen ze niet iets actiefs met hun geloof, maar het vuurtje zou ook wel weer aangewakkerd kunnen worden waardoor het geloof weer een actievere rol in hun leven gaat spelen. Ze hebben vaak ook de band met het geloof en de kerk niet helemaal doorgesneden. Ze kunnen met hoogtijdagen naar de kerk gaan. Ze hebben ook allemaal niet het geloof in God opgegeven en een deel van hen bidt nog geregeld. Ze kunnen ook met nostalgie terugkijken naar wat ze hebben meegekregen in hun godsdienstige opvoeding.
Er is ook een groep voor wie het afscheid van de kerk weinig veranderd heeft aan hun leven. Dat zijn degenen die in de grote protestantse kerken zijn gedoopt, maar in hun leven nauwelijks de kerk van binnen hebben gezien. Hun ouders hadden nog een dun lijntje met de kerk en namen niet helemaal afscheid maar gaven het geloof niet meer mee aan hun kinderen. Zo kan in twee generaties de band met kerk en geloof helemaal verdwenen zijn: De grootouders zijn actief gelovig en gaan elke zondag naar de kerk. De generatie van de kinderen gaat mondjesmaat en wil de band met de kerk niet helemaal opgeven. De kleinkinderen krijgen van dat dunne lijntje nauwelijks meer mee en hebben zelf geen connectie met de kerk en het geloof meegekregen.
Een duidelijk verschil tussen Nederland en de VS is dat tot in de jaren-’60 het christelijk geloof gekoppeld was aan de Amerikaanse nationaliteit: een goede Amerikaan was een christen. Toen de Koude Oorlog ten einde kwam, verdween de noodzaak om als Amerikaan ook christen te zijn. Daarbij kwam ook dat conservatieve christenen zich steeds nadrukkelijker gingen presenteren en steeds meer politieke invloed kregen. Via deze politieke invloed wilden deze conservatieve christenen de secularisatie tegengaan. Zij gingen de strijd met de cultuur aan. Deze cultuurstrijd zorgde een dubbele beweging: Aan de ene kant trokken de conservatieve christenen behoudende gelovigen uit de mainstream-kerken weg die hun kerk te liberaal vonden. Aan de andere kant kreeg de generatie van de kinderen en de kleinkinderen moeite met de conservatieve waarden van deze evangelicale beweging en begonnen zich hiervan te verwijderen.
Als ik het boek van Bullivant lees, maak ik als vanzelf de vergelijking met de situatie in ons eigen land. Het eerste dat ik meeneem, is dat de secularisatie voorlopig nog wel doorgaat. De VS was eerst een uitzondering op de secularisatietheorieën, maar ook hier gaat de secularisatie in ongekende vorm door. Je kunt als orthodoxe kerken in Nederland net als de conservatieve christenen de strijd met de cultuur aangaan, bijvoorbeeld over seksualiteit of gender. Daarmee bind je een behoudende groep, die in kerken met een progressievere koers het niet meer kunnen vinden. Maar je kiest als orthodoxe kerk ook voor een riskante strategie, omdat je een nieuwe generatie, die veel minder nadrukkelijk positie kiest tegen de cultuur, dwingt om te kiezen tussen christelijk geloof en cultuur. Een deel van deze nieuwe generatie zal er dan voor kiezen de weg zonder kerk verder te gaan.
Confronterend vond ik het om te lezen dat in twee generaties kerkgang en geloof compleet verdwenen kunnen zijn. Ik moest daarbij denken aan de jongeren die elke keer wel uitgenodigd worden voor catechisatie. Ze zijn ooit nog wel gedoopt, maar hun ouders zijn geen actieve kerkgangers. Soms ken ik hen nog via de opa’s en de oma’s die op het dorp wonen. Wanneer zij bij ons op het dorp wonen, bestaat de kans dat ze nog een dun lijntje met de kerk hebben. Met Kerst en Pasen kunnen ze soms nog naar de kerk gaan, omdat de rest van de familie ook gaat, maar ze gaan zichzelf typeren als gelovig, zoals hun opa en oma dat wel zouden doen. Wanneer ze gaan verhuizen, is de band met de kerk helemaal verdwenen.
Bullivant geeft aan dat het netwerk vaak bepalend is voor de binding met de kerk. Wie een netwerk in de kerk heeft, zal veel minder snel de kerk verlaten dan degenen die dat netwerk niet hebben. Ik herken uit mijn werk dat verhuizingen een belangrijke oorzaak van kerkverlating zijn. Degenen die verhuizen kunnen lang niet altijd zich aan een nieuwe gemeente verbinden. Dat geldt voor studenten die naar de grote stad gaan. Dat geldt voor jonge gezinnen die verhuizen vanwege het werk van een van de ouders. Dat geldt voor senioren die verhuizen naar een appartement in een andere plaats. De actieve gemeenteleden vinden vaak hun weg naar de kerk wel, maar degenen die een minder sterke band hadden, raken minder snel aangehaakt bij een nieuwe gemeente.
Wat mij opviel was dat lang niet iedereen die van de kerk losraakt ook van het geloof losraakt. Een deel blijft geloven in God en een deel blijft zelfs ook bidden. Wanneer een gemeente in staat is om met deze afhakers in contact te komen bestaat er zelfs een kans dat ze de kerkgang weer actief gaan oppakken. Dat betekent dat een gemeente de mogelijkheid moet hebben voor geïnteresseerde buitenstaanders om voorzichtig aan te haken en langzaamaan wat netwerk in de gemeente op te bouwen.

[Zak Schmoll · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I have been reading about the future of Christianity, I thought that it might be interesting to take a slight detour and read the stories of those who have decided to leave different religious traditions. As he is studying in America, before he chooses are Mormonism, mainline Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and Catholicism. This book reads well as it is a combination of conversational interviews with data analysis. It reads easier than most of the other sociology books out there.

As with any book, there are some problems I have with his work, specifically on the chapters related to Evangelicalism and Catholicism. For example, he prefers to frame Evangelicalism as a cultural identity rather than a doctrinal identity which I think would be more effective, especially given his critiques of mainline Protestantism. He argues that mainline Protestantism is essentially following culture. I agree with that, but if you frame Evangelicalism in that lens, I don't know that there is a meaningful distinction between the two to be had, except of course which political direction they tend to be moving in. Evangelicalism has traditionally stood apart because of its doctrine, so I think we need to recognize that. As in many books of this sort, there is a great unpacking of the relationship between Donald Trump and Evangelicalism. I don't completely buy into his argument, but it is worth noting that it is a whole lot more thoughtful than a lot of the writing that comes out of academic presses in this field.

However, that being said, overall, this is a very interesting read, and it is eye-opening. The author is very cognizant of the fact that it is important to realize what religious tradition people are departing from, and that helps you understand a little bit more about them and their newfound unbelief. Someone who departs from mainline Protestantism will probably have a different relationship to religion than someone who departs from Mormonism. The subtitle is a bit more provocative than the book itself, which is quite thoughtful and relatively nuanced.

[Jeremy Garber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why are so many people raised religious no longer identified with their upbringing? Stephen Bullivant explores this important phenomenon with humor, style, and extensive research. Bullivant combines qualitative and quantitative research to look at the big picture and the individual stories of no-longer-religious people in the United States. He includes chapters on ex-Mormons, ex-evangelical and ex-mainline Christians, and ex-Roman Catholics. Interspersed with these people's lives are Bullivant's compelling analyses of large data gleaned from official surveys over time. The essential thesis is that the "nonverts" (Bullivant's charming neologism for people who have "converted" to no religious affiliation) have a differing and heretofore unexamined relationship with their religion than those raised as atheists or agnostics. He likens it to a relationship with one's ex-romantic partner - there are things you super hate and things you still nostalgically love, but they are a part of you for the rest of their lives.

As a qualitative scholar of religion, I was particularly interested in Bullivant's interviewees. He tells their stories with charm and compassion. Big takeaways for why these nonverts left their particular traditions: 1) Mormons are too intertwined with American cultural conservatism; 2) evangelicals are holding views on subjects like abortion and queer rights that do not resonate with the majority of young people; 3) mainline Christianity is just kinda weak and boring (ouch but true!); and 4) Catholicism is more identified with cultural markers than a sincere religious affiliation. Scholars of religion and religious practitioners alike need to take Bullivant's work seriously. We are indeed entering into an entirely new era of American history - not an apathetic relationship with religion like Great Britain, or a virulently anti-religious one like France, but an uneasy relationship with our ex while still living in the same apartment. As a radical Christian, I suggest that we pay attention to why our young people are leaving - and get back to something real and exciting to help them connect with God authentically and want to stick around as well.

[Brice Montgomery · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stephen Bullivant's Nonverts is a wonderful addition to research on the United States's shifting religious demographics, characterized by a good-humored and genuine sociological interest.

I'm fascinated by this topic, but I find a lot of comparable writing is defined by handwringing or dismissive handwaves—authors either view these cultural changes as a crisis or a coincidence. Conversely, Bullivant seems genuinely invested in religion, both academically and personally, and it lends a depth to his analysis that avoids common simplifications about how politics have undermined religious loyalty. Because Bullivant is less concerned with the social capital offered by religion, he thoughtfully weaves in interviews with people from a wide variety of backgrounds, and the result feels very robust.

I find many books on this subject are fixated on why people leave their faith. Bullivant is more interested in where people go.

With that in mind, he focuses on the communal function of religion and explores the factors that may lead to alternative communities. In particular, he argues that the internet has created more space for people to interrogate their own beliefs with additional social support. That seems like it should be such a "duh" point, but I was surprised because it's not one I've encountered before. This is a book inclined to poke at foregone conclusions.

All in all, this is a breezy synthesis of ongoing research that never succumbs to pop psychology or simplifications, and I really appreciate the humility that animates it.

[Josie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5⭐️
Audio: 4⭐️

Nonverts is an interesting deconstruction of the shifting religious landscape in America concerning the rising population of non-religious/religiously affiliated people. It combines interviews of a diverse sampling of nonverts with survey information that tracks religious demographics, and the stats are interesting and generally incorporated into the prose well.

The book explores the personal reasons many people leave their religion, how the sociological, historical and political climate influences those decisions, and how nonversion influences those elements in turn. Using stats of religious affiliation and population demographics, Bullivant makes several interesting points regarding the nonvert community, cultural shifts, the impact nonversion has, and its negative effect on some religious people. With the rise of diversity in general and the secular population specifically, some react to this like it’s a personal affront and feel they are being replaced and/or persecuted by a type of new world order.

Try as it might, the book can be dry at times. There are points where there are several stats packed together, and I found the idea they were supporting/leading to uninteresting. As a 20-year nonvert, I didn’t find the examination of our identities, motivations, effect of losing/leaving our religion, and difference from “nones” who grew up without religion compelling. However, I enjoyed the book and can see other nonverts and those that want to understand them being enlightened.

[Dale · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was alight, expensive for the length and content. Didn't educate me much I what I have already observed. The book has a good mix of personal interviews and nation wide statistics. America's religious foundation is changing, but what may be reducing in quantity may be improving in quality.

There are some interesting observations.....

1 - We listen more to an ex-drug addict about the dangers of drugs versus the non-user off the street. An interesting but real, reality. For this reason, the rise of the percentage of the population that once had a religion but now has turned to speak down on religion is effective. It exponentially increases the rate of individuals walking away from this needed aspect of the individual and community.

2 - Trends will not necessarily continue. We may be approaching the European-like floor. I will also point out that the Bible points to a remnant, not a majority.

The cross on the cover and the Christian background of the author should not mislead. This book is about a departure of faith across many religions, not just Christianity.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sociological overview of people who have converted from various flavours of Christianity to various flavours of "None" in the United States, a growing group of people. Bullivant goes through the impact that this has had on various sub-religions, starting with Mormonism as the largest and most active source of "nonverts", but also going through mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, and Catholics.

The reasons for the swelling tide given, such as the end of the Cold War where Americans had to distinguish themselves against the heathen Commies (I genuinely did not know that "under God" was only inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50s) and the rise of extreme religion as the new danger in the world with 9/11, the availability of information dispelling the religion and the availability of new communities of exes, and just the general growing acceptance of Nones - were quite well-argued.

I suppose it was relatively entertaining for a mostly academic book, but it was a bit drier than I thought an account of what is for many people a quite violent change in one's conception of one's self and universe would be.

[Art · Rating 4 out of 5]

The United States is in the midst of a non-religious revolution. The number of people identifying as having no religion/nones has gone up exponentially over the past couple of decades. Why? The author scours the country in search of answers. The book includes statistics and interviews with former Catholics, Mainliners, Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. The author speculates on why he believes "nonverts" or "nones" are increasing. The interviews were interesting but are difficult to generalize. In some ways, Mainline Churches have become so bland and lukewarm, people see little reason to attend. Some of their priests/pastors do not even believe in basic Biblical doctrine (i.e. the resurrection of Christ). Members of other groups who "nonverted" either never really believed in the first place, became upset over church scandals/hypocrisy, didn't feel like they belonged, or just didn't want to follow the beliefs and rules of the churches they left. Some are thrilled to be nonverts, others not so much. Apparently, it's complicated. Published by Oxford University Press, the book is an essential guide to understanding the increasing secularization of America.

[Jana Riess · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is it possible for a book of serious sociology to be -- dare I say it? -- fun to read? This book suggests that it is indeed possible. It combines breezy writing (including a lot of interesting pop culture references) with keen observations about religion and nonreligion in America, based on data and interviews. It helps to explain the large-scale trend of declining religious adherence in America, but also challenges some of the usual assumptions of that thesis.

One fascinating and counterintuitive addition Bullivant makes to the literature is to look to the decline of communism as a reason for religious decline -- specifically because with the decline of communism came a decline in anti-communism. And anti-communism, Bullivant argues, was an animating factor in the persistence of religiosity in the US long after secularization had taken hold in western Europe. To be American was to be religious, and vice versa. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Americans lost a key identity marker in that they no longer shared an enemy to define themselves against.

[Philemon - · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why are Americans more likely now to admit they don't go to church? The segment of Gallup pollees who check "none" as their religious denomination has ballooned to near the thirtieth percentile since the early 1990s. The author, a British theologian astoundingly well steeped in American popular culture, has produced an amusingly trenchant analysis of the question.

Part of the answer, unsurprisingly, is that "religion" itself has come to be associated with unpopular policies of the evangelical right. While outright atheism appears to remain distasteful to the great majority, secularization and enjoyment of individual liberties have significantly displaced church membership in how Americans define and present themselves. As Bullivant documents, the Internet has vastly helped people find like-minded fellow travelers in this shift. He emphasizes, however, that if history is any judge, organized religion in America is unlikely to be down for the count. For better or worse, it may rebound.

[Nathan Hoyt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I find this overall topic fascinating.

This take on this dynamic cultural shift going on, and the appropriate label of "nonvert", is a significant set of changes going on in my lifetime.

I found that Bullivant captured the former Mormon story quite well for and "outsider". It helped me believe that his painting of ex-Catholics and Evangelicals is probably equally as realistic.

I was hit by this one passage given by Southern Baptist leader that said “the church is bleeding out the next generation not because the culture is so oppressed to the church’s fidelity to the truth, but just the reverse. The culture often does not reject us because they don’t believe the church’s doctrinal and moral teachings but because they have evidence that the church doesn’t believe its own doctrinal and moral teachings. They suspect that Jesus is just a means to an end to some political agenda to a market for selling merchandise or for the predatorial appetite of some maniacal narcissists."

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

About 59 million U.S. citizens are non-religious. This is a revolution in the religious and social fabric of the nation. Bullivant explores why a quarter of US adults now say they have no religion. The great majority of these religious "nones" also say that they used to belong to a religion but no longer do. These are the nonverts: think "converts," but from having religion to having none.

Why I started this book: As more and more Americans become people who used to go to church, I’ve been looking for explanations.

Why I finished it: Bullivant is British and he brings an European view to the issue… for example he flips the question and asked why did America stay religious in the 1940-1990s while Europe became more and more secular? Instead of why have American “nones” grown from 6-9% up to 20-30% in the last three decades?

[Brad]

The author Stephen Bullivant has a lot of fact-based explanations for why the percentages of Americans who identify as None has risen in the past 40 years, and it mostly boils down to people making rational decisions. I associate this with the Best Picture Academy Award. When I was a kid, I thought there was some sort of mystical quality that made a movie just inherently better than others, and that the Oscars people could identify this quality, and I couldn't. Then, as I got older, I learned that the Oscars are just campaigns, and there is no mystical quality. It's just people voting for the movie they liked, or a person in the movie they liked, or they were convinced by the campaign. It was a choice. The same applies here. Why are people leaving their faiths? It's a choice they make. There's no mystical quality holding them in place.

[Diane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciated Bullivant’s non-judgmental attitude to the many and various ‘nonverts” he met and conversed with. This book was entertaining as well as informative, and contained much food for thought. The author does hint at his own story (raised by secular British parents, and converted to Catholicism as an adult). Although he closes his book with some insights, I was left someone disappointed with his lean toward the Rod Dreher “Benedict Option” for committed Christians of the future in the USA, and his assumption that the hope for the future of “Christian America” rests there. He casts much mainline Christianity as “Luke-warm” and culture accommodating: the truth is so much more complicated than that, as the popularity of ex-evangelical (but still deeply Christian) writers such as Rachel Held Evans can attest.

[Michael Summers · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found Bullivant 's assessment of the secularization of America informative and helpful. His recognizing the lingering residue of religious principles and values in differing degrees among those who have turned away from the faith of their childhood was a nuance that some might not have considered. The angst that this phenomenon of secularization causes for Christian nationalists gets his attention, too. His approach struck me as balanced, sometimes too hopeful for recot, sometimes too pessimistic, with occasional cynicism thrown in for good measure. His focusing on a significant statement predicting religious decline in America made in 1906 hit me ironically because of church history events that I associate with that year that led to significant growth in some churches.

[David Blankenship · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting enough deep dive into the increasing tendency of Americans to self-identify as nones, especially those who once considered themselves religious but have tuned out. I appreciate how he looked at differences in what 'nonversion' means for many types of people. But as this was more a sociological study than a religious one, I came away with a confusion still as to why this is happening. Does it have to do more with an increasing disbelief in God, or is it (as I suspect) a combination of a growing apathy towards religious duty (too many other options) combined with a disenchantment of what Christianity in America has become?

[Emilyn Umbrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars
I enjoyed the information, but had a hard time with the style of writing. This might be one of those books that is better read than listened to. The audible version doesn't include the graphs. Overall, I'm glad I read it. I like studying faith, the many different traditions, as well as the varying factors that play a part in their increase and decrease. I wish his study included information post-covid, but the author claims the covid effect hadn't played out long enough to be included in this book.

[Meepspeeps · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well-written and well-documented commentary on Christianity in the USA. The author adds some humor, most of which represents the “dad joke” category. This is more thoughtful than the “secularization is ruining America” or “Nationalist Christians are ruining America” diatribes peeps can readily access across various sources. I recommend it to junior high and older who want to understand better why there is a “rising tide of the ex-religious” in the USA.