Statistics about American belief

Gallup, one of the most reliable pollsters, offers some useful and intriguing statistics about the state of religious belief in America. This remains a very religious country, especially compared to our peer nations, but there has been some slippage. Excerpts from the report:

About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion. That includes 51% who said they were Protestant, 5% who were “other Christian,” 23% Roman Catholic, and 3% who named another Christian faith, including 2% Mormon.

Because 11% said they had no religious identity at all, and another 2% didn’t answer, these results suggest that well more than 9 out of 10 Americans who identify with a religion are Christian in one way or the other.
. . . . . . . . .
The percentage of Americans who identify with a Christian religion is down some over the decades. This is not so much because Americans have shifted to other religions, but because a significantly higher percentage of Americans today say they don’t have a religious identity. In the late 1940s, when Gallup began summarizing these data, a very small percentage explicitly told interviewers they did not identify with any religion. But of those who did have a religion, Gallup classified — in 1948, for example — 69% as Protestant and 22% as Roman Catholic, or about 91% Christian.
. . . . . . . .
Sixty-two percent of Americans in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted in December, say they are members of a “church or synagogue,” a question Gallup has been asking since 1937. . . . In the 1937 Gallup Poll, for example, 73% of Americans said they were church members. That number stayed in the 70% range in polls conducted in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. By the 1970s, however, the number began to slip below 70% in some polls, although as recently as 1999, 70% said they were church members. Since 2002, self-reported church membership has been between 63% and 65%.
. . . . . . . . . .
in general, year after year, roughly the same percentage of Americans — in the low 40% range — report to survey interviewers that they have gone to church within the last seven days.
. . . . . . . . .
This year, 56% of Americans have said religion is very important. Only 17% say religion is not very important. . . A couple of measures of this question from the 1950s and 1960s indicated that at that time, over 70% of Americans said religion was very important in their daily lives. That percentage dropped into the 50% range by the 1970s, and since then it has fluctuated somewhat, but has generally been in the 55% to 65% range.

There is much to talk about here, and feel free to raise what issues you wish, but notice that Protestantism seems to be slipping, while those with no religious identity are rising. But how does that jibe with all of those megachurches that are everywhere using all of these techniques to make church more palatable to the unchurched?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • EconJeff

    I don’t think you can draw any valid conclusions regarding church-growth/megachurch techniques from this article. There is no mention about which churches the non-religious are coming from. They could be coming from solidly orthodox churches. Additionally, the megachurches could actually be stopping the flow of losses from churches overall. This data doesn’t address your question. You may be able to make guesses regarding what’s going on, but that’s all they’ll be.

    The other post on the Baptist study is more revealing, although it too doesn’t say anything about the doctrines of the churches they left (at least in the brief summary posted and the link). Those leaving could be from solidly orthodox congregations which the individual still feels is too judgmental for other, personal reasons.

  • EconJeff

    I don’t think you can draw any valid conclusions regarding church-growth/megachurch techniques from this article. There is no mention about which churches the non-religious are coming from. They could be coming from solidly orthodox churches. Additionally, the megachurches could actually be stopping the flow of losses from churches overall. This data doesn’t address your question. You may be able to make guesses regarding what’s going on, but that’s all they’ll be.

    The other post on the Baptist study is more revealing, although it too doesn’t say anything about the doctrines of the churches they left (at least in the brief summary posted and the link). Those leaving could be from solidly orthodox congregations which the individual still feels is too judgmental for other, personal reasons.

  • Bror Erickson

    Econjeff,
    I think you are right overall, the data doesn’t quite address the issue raised. But it still raises the question. If we are to believe the incredible numbers of people “coming to Christ” in these churches. How is it that protestantism is slipping? Why isn’t there at least some nominal growth, of one or two percent?
    I don’t know that we could answer that question from the data, but the data might lead us to ask the question.
    As far as loss of teenagers from the church addressed in the other thread, that has been a cross for the church to bear for a long time. That began long before mega churches came on the scene. And I don’t know that there is a cut and dry answer to that problem. But hey, the parents can always blame the pastor, and go to bed with a clean conscience. Luckily for the pastor, he can do the same to the parents.

  • Bror Erickson

    Econjeff,
    I think you are right overall, the data doesn’t quite address the issue raised. But it still raises the question. If we are to believe the incredible numbers of people “coming to Christ” in these churches. How is it that protestantism is slipping? Why isn’t there at least some nominal growth, of one or two percent?
    I don’t know that we could answer that question from the data, but the data might lead us to ask the question.
    As far as loss of teenagers from the church addressed in the other thread, that has been a cross for the church to bear for a long time. That began long before mega churches came on the scene. And I don’t know that there is a cut and dry answer to that problem. But hey, the parents can always blame the pastor, and go to bed with a clean conscience. Luckily for the pastor, he can do the same to the parents.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Of course, EconJeff, information does not give us reasons for the information. That may be in the nature of guesses or speculation, and that’s all I’m asking for here.

    But the information does tell us that Protestantism is declining and more people are rejecting religion completely. And yet, virtually all of these Protestant churches–running the whole gamut from orthodox to liberal–have embraced, to one degree or another, the church growth movement, designed to make the church grow. But, though individual churches may be growing, overall, church membership is declining.

    That says something important about the overall effectiveness of these heavily-marketed programs.

    Yes, the percentage decline of Protestantism may have something to do with the growth of Hispanic immigration, which is largely Catholic (though with lots of pentecostal protestants).

    But why the upsurge of “no religious identity”? Can it be that some of the rhetoric and music in church growth congregations, with its emotionalism and subjectivity, actually alienates the truly non-churched and makes them hold Christianity in even more contempt? Might a more thoughtful presentation of Christianity be more effective? Or are the cultural tides so secularist that little can be done?

    Another question we could discuss is this: If 90% of Americans are religious, how can our entertainment, media, educational establishment, etc., be so secularist? How can our culture be both religious and secularist at the same time?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Of course, EconJeff, information does not give us reasons for the information. That may be in the nature of guesses or speculation, and that’s all I’m asking for here.

    But the information does tell us that Protestantism is declining and more people are rejecting religion completely. And yet, virtually all of these Protestant churches–running the whole gamut from orthodox to liberal–have embraced, to one degree or another, the church growth movement, designed to make the church grow. But, though individual churches may be growing, overall, church membership is declining.

    That says something important about the overall effectiveness of these heavily-marketed programs.

    Yes, the percentage decline of Protestantism may have something to do with the growth of Hispanic immigration, which is largely Catholic (though with lots of pentecostal protestants).

    But why the upsurge of “no religious identity”? Can it be that some of the rhetoric and music in church growth congregations, with its emotionalism and subjectivity, actually alienates the truly non-churched and makes them hold Christianity in even more contempt? Might a more thoughtful presentation of Christianity be more effective? Or are the cultural tides so secularist that little can be done?

    Another question we could discuss is this: If 90% of Americans are religious, how can our entertainment, media, educational establishment, etc., be so secularist? How can our culture be both religious and secularist at the same time?

  • EconJeff

    Bror Erickson and Dr. Veith-

    I’m still not sure that we can connect the slippage in Protestantism with the growth of church-growth/megachurches. We would not expect to see a gain from church-growth (CG) if the loss would have been greater without CG. There just isn’t a good control for the counterfactual. So I will have to politely disagree. It does not “[say] something important about the overall effectiveness of these heavily-marketed programs” unless you are presupposing that losses without these programs would not have occured (or not have occured to such a great extent.)

    Maybe this is just my background as an empirical economist. But in economics we spend a lot of time trying to “identify” the relationship and we have a number of techniques for doing that. If we can’t identify the correct answer, we could result in spurious correlations and terrible policy choices.

    And that just seems like what is being set up here. There can be thousands of different reasons for the decline, from demographic shifts to full philosophical shifts. Which is correct cannot be gleaned from these articles. Do they say something given the larger body of knowledge? I’m not so sure about that either. I guess I just get wary because speculation can turn into more than that very quickly.

    As for how we can be both religious and secularist, my guess is that most people’s religion is more like Oprah’s than Luther’s, Calvin’s, or any reader of this blog.

  • EconJeff

    Bror Erickson and Dr. Veith-

    I’m still not sure that we can connect the slippage in Protestantism with the growth of church-growth/megachurches. We would not expect to see a gain from church-growth (CG) if the loss would have been greater without CG. There just isn’t a good control for the counterfactual. So I will have to politely disagree. It does not “[say] something important about the overall effectiveness of these heavily-marketed programs” unless you are presupposing that losses without these programs would not have occured (or not have occured to such a great extent.)

    Maybe this is just my background as an empirical economist. But in economics we spend a lot of time trying to “identify” the relationship and we have a number of techniques for doing that. If we can’t identify the correct answer, we could result in spurious correlations and terrible policy choices.

    And that just seems like what is being set up here. There can be thousands of different reasons for the decline, from demographic shifts to full philosophical shifts. Which is correct cannot be gleaned from these articles. Do they say something given the larger body of knowledge? I’m not so sure about that either. I guess I just get wary because speculation can turn into more than that very quickly.

    As for how we can be both religious and secularist, my guess is that most people’s religion is more like Oprah’s than Luther’s, Calvin’s, or any reader of this blog.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    I know what you are saying, EconJeff, and you are, of course, right that these statistics cannot show us causality or any particular reason or correlations. And more information that the polls COULD give us would be helpful: For example, how many churches are there? Are there fewer but larger churches? My suspicion, which has been borne out by some studies, is that the growth of the megachurches comes mainly not from new converts but from the members of smaller congregations who are attracted to these big churches for various reasons. Christians are getting recycled from church to church, but the culture as a whole is not being impacted much.

    I worry that fewer but bigger churches means that individual Christians are not getting the pastoral care they need, since one can hardly have a personal relationship with one’s pastor in a church of several thousand members.

    These all have a bearing on the strength and presence of Christianity in our culture. Right, these statistics give no answers, but they can surely provoke questions. I also think your comment about Oprah’s religion is especially on target!

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    I know what you are saying, EconJeff, and you are, of course, right that these statistics cannot show us causality or any particular reason or correlations. And more information that the polls COULD give us would be helpful: For example, how many churches are there? Are there fewer but larger churches? My suspicion, which has been borne out by some studies, is that the growth of the megachurches comes mainly not from new converts but from the members of smaller congregations who are attracted to these big churches for various reasons. Christians are getting recycled from church to church, but the culture as a whole is not being impacted much.

    I worry that fewer but bigger churches means that individual Christians are not getting the pastoral care they need, since one can hardly have a personal relationship with one’s pastor in a church of several thousand members.

    These all have a bearing on the strength and presence of Christianity in our culture. Right, these statistics give no answers, but they can surely provoke questions. I also think your comment about Oprah’s religion is especially on target!

  • Joe

    How can we be both secular and religious at the same time? I think because for many people their religion has become secular. I don’t mean to generalize or take a shot at any particular church but I grew up in an ELCA church and my parents still belong to it. Since I left home, I have not been to it often. But the last few times I was there, nothing was being taught. It was all ceremony and no theology. It was a show to make people feel good for an hour and then get back to their daily secular lives. There would be absolutely no reason you could not get on the secular train and still be an active participant of that congregation. This is one example from my personal experience but I think it is indicative of a general problem. I won’t blame it on Church Growth because the church I just described is not a Church Growth type church. I actually think Church Growth is a symptom of the secularization of Christianity. Church Growth, in my opinion, only became possible after seminaries stopped teaching young men God’s Truth.

  • Joe

    How can we be both secular and religious at the same time? I think because for many people their religion has become secular. I don’t mean to generalize or take a shot at any particular church but I grew up in an ELCA church and my parents still belong to it. Since I left home, I have not been to it often. But the last few times I was there, nothing was being taught. It was all ceremony and no theology. It was a show to make people feel good for an hour and then get back to their daily secular lives. There would be absolutely no reason you could not get on the secular train and still be an active participant of that congregation. This is one example from my personal experience but I think it is indicative of a general problem. I won’t blame it on Church Growth because the church I just described is not a Church Growth type church. I actually think Church Growth is a symptom of the secularization of Christianity. Church Growth, in my opinion, only became possible after seminaries stopped teaching young men God’s Truth.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Wow, Joe, you may have just coined the phrase that names the problem: “the secularization of Christianity.”

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Wow, Joe, you may have just coined the phrase that names the problem: “the secularization of Christianity.”

  • kerner

    I think that, over the last 50 years, there has been a clear shift in American culture which has caused a much more subtle shift in the Church.

    In 1957 I believe most people still considered the USA a “Christian nation”. If you listen to the statements of a lot of American Protestant types (I haven’t read anything from Manxman on this blog for awhile, but he took this position a lot) the USA is in danger of divine retribution because we, as a culture, have fallen away from the faith. This implies that prior to this the USA WAS a Christian nation and our faith as a culture was Christianity. The attitude was: “If I’m an American, and I’m not Jewish, then I’m a Christian”.

    In the 60′s that situation changed. American Culture did, in fact, become much more secular. People no longer think of themselves as Christians by default, at least not as much. We Lutherans experience this in the form of not feeling so German or Scandinavian that we have no other options than Lutheranism. Americans don’t think they HAVE TO be Christians to be good Americans.

    On the other hand, Americans don’t think they have to stop being Christians either. Unlike Europe, in which a lot of people think you have to be either secular OR a Christian, I believe that the United States has become a society that is secular officially, but in which the majority of the population is religious. As the statistics show, most people identify with some form of Christianity (or some religion that calls itself Christian, even if it really doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for accurately doing that). Of the remainder, many identify with some other religion or some form of new-age spirituality.

    In a way the Church in America has returned to the status the Church had before Constantine. We have no official status as far as the government is concerned, but we have so many individual adherants that our influence in a democratic form of government cannot be ignored by the powers that be. As a Lutheran, I don’t completely identify with the sense of dismay expressed by many American protestants at the loss of such things as prayer in the public schools or other official indications that the USA is a Christian nation. It was never a Lutheran nation, and Lutherans never trusted public schools with their prayers. Oddly, maybe Lutherans will make the adjustment with less strain than that felt by other Christians.

  • kerner

    I think that, over the last 50 years, there has been a clear shift in American culture which has caused a much more subtle shift in the Church.

    In 1957 I believe most people still considered the USA a “Christian nation”. If you listen to the statements of a lot of American Protestant types (I haven’t read anything from Manxman on this blog for awhile, but he took this position a lot) the USA is in danger of divine retribution because we, as a culture, have fallen away from the faith. This implies that prior to this the USA WAS a Christian nation and our faith as a culture was Christianity. The attitude was: “If I’m an American, and I’m not Jewish, then I’m a Christian”.

    In the 60′s that situation changed. American Culture did, in fact, become much more secular. People no longer think of themselves as Christians by default, at least not as much. We Lutherans experience this in the form of not feeling so German or Scandinavian that we have no other options than Lutheranism. Americans don’t think they HAVE TO be Christians to be good Americans.

    On the other hand, Americans don’t think they have to stop being Christians either. Unlike Europe, in which a lot of people think you have to be either secular OR a Christian, I believe that the United States has become a society that is secular officially, but in which the majority of the population is religious. As the statistics show, most people identify with some form of Christianity (or some religion that calls itself Christian, even if it really doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for accurately doing that). Of the remainder, many identify with some other religion or some form of new-age spirituality.

    In a way the Church in America has returned to the status the Church had before Constantine. We have no official status as far as the government is concerned, but we have so many individual adherants that our influence in a democratic form of government cannot be ignored by the powers that be. As a Lutheran, I don’t completely identify with the sense of dismay expressed by many American protestants at the loss of such things as prayer in the public schools or other official indications that the USA is a Christian nation. It was never a Lutheran nation, and Lutherans never trusted public schools with their prayers. Oddly, maybe Lutherans will make the adjustment with less strain than that felt by other Christians.

  • http://blog.faith-filled.com/ Stephenie

    I think another problem is that many Christians treat their faith as a Sunday-only event.
    They may say church is important, but it is an appointment they keep on Sundays, not an integral part of their everyday decision-making process.
    That’s how you can say you’re religious while you drive drunk on the way to the strip club.

  • http://blog.faith-filled.com/ Stephenie

    I think another problem is that many Christians treat their faith as a Sunday-only event.
    They may say church is important, but it is an appointment they keep on Sundays, not an integral part of their everyday decision-making process.
    That’s how you can say you’re religious while you drive drunk on the way to the strip club.

  • fw

    I am willing to bet BIG money that these polls are heavily tilted ethnically. One of the fastest growing churches in the usa is the Church of God in Christ COGIC. Yet they rarely show up on anyone´s raidar. they are powerful indeed.

    second: has anyone ever heard of the “Iglesia Universal del Reino de Deus”? Because they do all their work in spanish they seem to be invisible to anglo black and white christians.

    This sect from the very depths of hell postures as a penticostal church . The are so not penticostal or christian in any way that I can see. They are not trinitarian. some have told me that only Jesus’ spirit rose in the resurrection!

    their message, usually delivered by some sad looking old woman at their commercial breaks is a simple one “Parrar de sofrer (e mande tu dinero)! ” “Stop suffering (and send us your money!)”

    It is NO accident that their pastors all have a heavy Brasilian accent. This church is the fastest growing sect here in Brasil. They are run by a single man, alot like chuck smiths church , but chuck smith looks like solid orthodoxy compared to this pond scum. (can I say that without violating the 8th commandment?) . No is the bacteria that eats the pond scum. lower than that actually. they sell cups of water for about $US 5.00 with a picture of a soul rising out of a sleeping body called “cure the soul water.” the minimum wage here is $US 300.00 per MONTH. People but this water and skip groceries. (and it gets really hot down here. sad not to have beer money, but then i digress) You must 10% to get saved. they encourage people to go into debt to give money. They put “Jesus is Lord” on the side of their churches and tell people that the bible says that ONLY true believers can say those words as proof that they are true believers of Jesus. whew.

    They play perfectly into the Brasilian tendency towards mysticism.

  • fw

    I am willing to bet BIG money that these polls are heavily tilted ethnically. One of the fastest growing churches in the usa is the Church of God in Christ COGIC. Yet they rarely show up on anyone´s raidar. they are powerful indeed.

    second: has anyone ever heard of the “Iglesia Universal del Reino de Deus”? Because they do all their work in spanish they seem to be invisible to anglo black and white christians.

    This sect from the very depths of hell postures as a penticostal church . The are so not penticostal or christian in any way that I can see. They are not trinitarian. some have told me that only Jesus’ spirit rose in the resurrection!

    their message, usually delivered by some sad looking old woman at their commercial breaks is a simple one “Parrar de sofrer (e mande tu dinero)! ” “Stop suffering (and send us your money!)”

    It is NO accident that their pastors all have a heavy Brasilian accent. This church is the fastest growing sect here in Brasil. They are run by a single man, alot like chuck smiths church , but chuck smith looks like solid orthodoxy compared to this pond scum. (can I say that without violating the 8th commandment?) . No is the bacteria that eats the pond scum. lower than that actually. they sell cups of water for about $US 5.00 with a picture of a soul rising out of a sleeping body called “cure the soul water.” the minimum wage here is $US 300.00 per MONTH. People but this water and skip groceries. (and it gets really hot down here. sad not to have beer money, but then i digress) You must 10% to get saved. they encourage people to go into debt to give money. They put “Jesus is Lord” on the side of their churches and tell people that the bible says that ONLY true believers can say those words as proof that they are true believers of Jesus. whew.

    They play perfectly into the Brasilian tendency towards mysticism.

  • fw

    #7 Vieth

    Andrew Sullivan , the Atlantic Monthy´s Libertarian, conservative, roman catholic christian gay commentator calls secularized, governmentized christianity with the word “Christianism.”

    I find this term to be worth and useful.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html

    Please don´t let the important points that you (and I!) disagree with him on (examples: true islam by definition conflates faith and politics and is violent as in kill the infidel, and views on gay marriage…) , detract from the excellent main point he is making.

  • fw

    #7 Vieth

    Andrew Sullivan , the Atlantic Monthy´s Libertarian, conservative, roman catholic christian gay commentator calls secularized, governmentized christianity with the word “Christianism.”

    I find this term to be worth and useful.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html

    Please don´t let the important points that you (and I!) disagree with him on (examples: true islam by definition conflates faith and politics and is violent as in kill the infidel, and views on gay marriage…) , detract from the excellent main point he is making.

  • fw

    “Another question we could discuss is this: If 90% of Americans are religious, how can our entertainment, media, educational establishment, etc., be so secularist? How can our culture be both religious and secularist at the same time?”

    The protestant reformation was the dawn of classical liberal arts education. it was a boon for all the arts. Don´t we actually WANT to see our culture in a very important way be religious AND secularist at the same time? And yes, James Madison, and T Jefferson (the fathers of the constitution) both used the term “wall of separation” in speaches about their intent on the 1st amendment. The SBC up to the 50′s very very agressively seconded this idea. Billy Graham was who turned them from this.

    So I am not sure I understand your point here Dr Vieth.

    My personal life cultivates ever aspect of the secular. I dive into it. It is my personal “Where´s Waldo” game, where Waldo is Jesus. I always without fail do find Him in amazing places.

    yes even in a crucifix placed in a jar of urine and claiming to be art.

    I can use that. So can my God. Our God is so much more powerful than that Allah that would kill over a cartoon of his prophet. He can work even with “let His blood be us and our children!” My AWESOME God!!!!!

    but…

    at EVERY meal and in EVERY place i say my grace and make the sign of the holy cross. After all.

    It is not like people are going to praise me for prayer with a physical gesture following. So just because the bible points me to the closet here, my context is a different one than that biblical one. I have different uses for closets it seems… :) (flavor of this: Close friends at a gay bar/restaurant: “You are doing that HERE??!!”)

    I may never mention my faith beyond that to my dinner guests, but I doubt that they miss the crucifix hanging in every room of my home. And we DO say grace together. I don´t insist. I just do. It is my home. Jesus is here. and my friends respect me for that and even have reminded me ( a Norwegian MUSLIM one!) when I forget over a quick lunch! so “Come Lord Jesus….” I am waiting for the HS to get her to move her hand first to her forehead…….

    Sometimes they ask.

    You would all be more than surprised at my extreme economy of words when that happens that is exactly (I hope) tailored to each person´s situation and usually is designed to leave them not sure that they know what they THINK they know about Jesus. Or the church. Go figure.

  • fw

    “Another question we could discuss is this: If 90% of Americans are religious, how can our entertainment, media, educational establishment, etc., be so secularist? How can our culture be both religious and secularist at the same time?”

    The protestant reformation was the dawn of classical liberal arts education. it was a boon for all the arts. Don´t we actually WANT to see our culture in a very important way be religious AND secularist at the same time? And yes, James Madison, and T Jefferson (the fathers of the constitution) both used the term “wall of separation” in speaches about their intent on the 1st amendment. The SBC up to the 50′s very very agressively seconded this idea. Billy Graham was who turned them from this.

    So I am not sure I understand your point here Dr Vieth.

    My personal life cultivates ever aspect of the secular. I dive into it. It is my personal “Where´s Waldo” game, where Waldo is Jesus. I always without fail do find Him in amazing places.

    yes even in a crucifix placed in a jar of urine and claiming to be art.

    I can use that. So can my God. Our God is so much more powerful than that Allah that would kill over a cartoon of his prophet. He can work even with “let His blood be us and our children!” My AWESOME God!!!!!

    but…

    at EVERY meal and in EVERY place i say my grace and make the sign of the holy cross. After all.

    It is not like people are going to praise me for prayer with a physical gesture following. So just because the bible points me to the closet here, my context is a different one than that biblical one. I have different uses for closets it seems… :) (flavor of this: Close friends at a gay bar/restaurant: “You are doing that HERE??!!”)

    I may never mention my faith beyond that to my dinner guests, but I doubt that they miss the crucifix hanging in every room of my home. And we DO say grace together. I don´t insist. I just do. It is my home. Jesus is here. and my friends respect me for that and even have reminded me ( a Norwegian MUSLIM one!) when I forget over a quick lunch! so “Come Lord Jesus….” I am waiting for the HS to get her to move her hand first to her forehead…….

    Sometimes they ask.

    You would all be more than surprised at my extreme economy of words when that happens that is exactly (I hope) tailored to each person´s situation and usually is designed to leave them not sure that they know what they THINK they know about Jesus. Or the church. Go figure.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X