I'm delighted to see gen Z men flocking back to church – I just hope it's for the right reasons
For decades, there has been a cultural narrative that the church is a declining institution, which has been backed up by data that shows fewer and fewer British people are attending services. You might expect churches to be busy over festivals like this past Easter weekend, or Christmas, but with otherwise sparse crowds and aging parishioners for the rest of the year.
However, a recent survey entitled The Quiet Revival, commissioned by the Bible Society and conducted by YouGov, shows that church attendance in England and Wales has actually increased by 50% over the past six years, and that young people aged between 18 and 24 are the second largest demographic in attendance (behind those who are 65 and over). The trend is especially strong with young men, with 21% aged 18 to 24 saying they attend church at least once a month, compared with 12% of young women. The data also shows that generation Z are particularly drawn to Roman Catholicism, which accounts for a significant rise in the number of Catholics in England, almost closing the overall gap between those who identify as Catholic and those who identify as Anglican.
England and Wales are not alone in seeing more young men attending church, with the New York Times religion correspondent, Ruth Graham, reporting that the same trend can be seen across the US. Graham is blunt in her proposed reason for this, stating that men are less educated than their female peers, while also placing a higher value on traditional family structures, meaning that they find encouragement and reinforcement in conservative church communities.
This is a somewhat unsympathetic reading of the circumstances, but when attempting to locate the possible influences on these young men, the landscape does look bleak. Thanks to the recent Netflix show Adolescence, there has been much public reckoning with the radicalisation of young boys and men through online spaces and podcasts that are overtly misogynistic – and plenty of these masquerade as platforms of Christian, specifically Catholic, values. The Instagram page warrior.4.christ acts as a Catholic 'meme page', with openly homophobic, antisemitic and culturally conservative content, posting quotes about anti-abortion movements and generally being against 'liberalism'. There is very little interaction with actual biblical scripture or Catholic practice, beyond using a vaguely defined idea of it to justify a celebration of rightwing ideas and talking points.
Tristan Tate, brother of the infamous male lifestyle influencer Andrew Tate, has also been vocal about his conversion to Christianity. The Tate brothers reside in Romania (where they are facing charges of human trafficking, which they deny), and Tristan has spoken about the strong belief in God among Romanians that encouraged him to convert. He also identifies abortion as one of the topics that he now 'takes seriously'. Tristan Tate and other influencers place emphasis on the real misogynistic or reactionary elements of some Christian movements, and make them part of their wider ecosystem of influence on young men and boys.
The Bible Society's report states that more research is needed to fully discern where a desire to join Christian faith communities has stemmed from. The murkier corners of the internet are very probably a factor, but I can't help but remain cautiously optimistic about the findings. The report also highlights how a significant concern for all of the gen Z participants interviewed is social activism, with far more churchgoing interviewees recording that they do frequent community and charity work compared to those who are not church members. This work is recorded as donating to food banks, financial donations to charities, voting in elections, writing to local representatives and communal work such as litter picking. These are hopeful statistics that demonstrate a positive participation in society that is encouraged by churchgoing.
What both of these possible influences highlight is an overriding wish for community, whether in the more rigid boundaries of the Catholic church, or in the collective work that English and Welsh churches of all denominations encourage and facilitate. An instinct towards a collective with a solid foundation is understandable in an age bracket that has had its education, whether in secondary school or university (or both), disrupted by a global pandemic. Where school or university should have provided a social outlet for young people alongside their education, necessity meant that they instead had isolated experiences.
On top of this, years of austerity in England and Wales has meant that community centres and public halls have drastically declined in numbers, with spending on libraries, theatres and museums falling. Young people looking for community may find that a local church or cathedral is the only place close to them with regular opening hours and people ready to talk and listen. That these same churches and cathedrals very often organise group charity work is a clear plus. In my own constituency area of Liverpool Riverside, Micah is the charitable arm of Liverpool Cathedral and other churches, providing food and financial aid to local people in need, and it was a big reason for my own initial interest in joining the church.
As a regular churchgoer, it would be lovely to celebrate the findings of The Quiet Revival and to leave it at that. However, the data is so unusual and unexpected that it invites analysis – and when digging for clues, not all of them are positive. What can be discerned is that more people are searching for meaning in an ever-changing and demonstrably politically unstable world, and they are finding this in multiple forms of Christianity. This is good and should be celebrated – but as people who have a vested interest in our neighbours, we should also look out for signs of possible online radicalisation and tendencies towards hateful speech in the guise of Jesus's influence.
Jessica White is a writer based in Liverpool
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
PM may be weak, but rebels have shown our democracy remains strong
An alternative and, at a time of deep disillusionment and cynicism with politics, more optimistic, reading of the situation is possible, especially in relation to the issue of disability benefits. Here is a case of a government with a large majority being compelled to reconsider a central aspect of its policy. It is a case of the Executive being closely scrutinised, even overruled, by the Legislature. If the theory of British government that Parliament is sovereign is sound, this "rebellion" can only be regarded as positive. The role and place of MPs has long been a matter of constitutional debate, especially with regard to where their ultimate loyalty should lie: to their party; their constituents; their own consciences? This seems to be a welcome, if rare, example of the last two trumping the first. Fear of Whips and concerns over future prospects of promotion seem on this occasion to have been set aside. Keir Starmer and his Government may well be weak and lacking in direction but there are aspects of last week's actions by many Labour MPs which have political and constitutional significance. Brian Harvey, Hamilton. Don't write off Fergus Ewing I read with interest Mark McGeoghegan's column ('Why I think the odds are against Fergus Ewing', The Herald, June 27). Mr McGeoghegan seems to think that people vote for the party rather than the candidate. That is not always the case, as my own experience proved. I had the privilege of representing my constituents in the House of Commons for over a quarter of a century. During that time, I observed a massive increase in control freakery whereby the party Whips instructed members how to vote on virtually every issue and the vast majority of MPs did what they were telt, even if they were voting against the interests of their constituents. That trend has continued both at Westminster and Holyrood, although the recent rebellion by 129 Labour MPs on the issue of welfare cuts is a welcome sign that some may be discovering they have a spine. Read more letters In the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Labour Party barred me from being a Labour candidate despite the fact that I had the support of 97% of party members in my constituency. When I stood as an Independent, a major part of my campaign was getting across the message that a Parliamentarian should be first and foremost a representative of the people rather than a party puppet. My constituents elected me with the biggest majority in Scotland in 1999 and again in 2003. I served in the Scottish Parliament for eight years along with Fergus Ewing. I did not always agree with Fergus but he is no puppet and he has a track record of fighting for his constituents. Only a fool would write him off. Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn. Roddick does not deserve support In Kathleen Nutt's interview with Emma Roddick ("On gender and fox hunting, I am opposite of Fergus, says Roddick", The Herald, June 30), she argues that Inverness and Nairn voters should vote for her, not for Fergus Ewing, if they want independence and 'even greater powers for the Highlands'. She clearly has a sense of humour, albeit a warped one. The track record of her party in government since 2007 has been one of centralisation. The Highlands and Islands have lost their regional police and fire services. Local government – which is particularly important in rural and island areas – has seen its share of Scotland's financial cake steadily cut, so reducing council's power to act. The SNP has packed the boards of quangos serving the Highlands and Islands, such as CMAL and HIAL, with people with little real understanding of the needs of the Highlands and Islands. The SNP is now a party of the Central Belt. It has such an appalling record of ignoring the needs of the rest of Scotland that Mr Ewing, a long-term loyal party member, is driven to oppose it. It is sad that the party desperate for power to be transferred from London to Edinburgh puts the principles of devolution into reverse when it sucks power into the centre from Scotland's peripheral regions. But the message has to be that, if you want greater powers for the Highlands (or the Islands or the Borders), the SNP does not deserve your vote. Alistair Easton, Edinburgh. How to fix voting system Guy Stenhouse correctly identifies the voting system for MSPs as the underlying problem in the operation of the Scottish Parliament ("Can anyone truly say that the Scottish Parliament has been a success?", The Herald, June 28). The MSPs, both constituency and regional members, are too beholden to their parties and not sufficiently accountable to their electorates. But the solution is not to tinker with the regional list component of the Additional Member System. Instead, the whole voting system should be changed to elect all MSPs by STV-PR. Then all MSPs would be elected on the same basis and all MSPs would be accountable primarily to the voters who voted for them. Then the parliament would function as originally intended, with MSPs and committees holding ministers and the Government effectively to account. James Gilmour, Edinburgh. Fergus Ewing is standing as an Independent at the next Scottish election (Image: PA) SNP folly on defence If there is one issue that exposes the silliness of SNP policy, it is defence. The party is a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons, and many of its members believe that it is wrong to spend substantial sums on defence when there is poverty and deprivation at home. These people do not realise that the first duty of government is defence of the realm. You cannot secure health, education and other domestic benefits if you are not able to defend your shores. Now the party that has affected a largely pacifist posture, while expecting to shelter under Nato, is beginning to recognise reality with voices within it justifying more spending on defence in the context of wars in Europe and the Middle East ("Former Westminster leader calls on SNP to support UK defence industry", The Herald, June 30). Above all, the ban on providing public funds for the manufacture of weapons needs to be abandoned. Doing so can be justified on grounds of providing well-paid jobs. Yet the SNP will feel the pull of the irrational forces in our polity yet again if in 2026 it falls short of a majority and requires to seek coalition allies like the pacifist Greens. The way to make Scotland, as part of the UK, safe, is to vote for parties other than the SNP and the Greens. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Swinney should be replaced First Minister John Swinney, in protecting the status quo, with his quiet courtesy, is not what is needed right now. With the forthcoming Holyrood election in mind, the SNP must work with the Yes campaign, Believe in Scotland and others in putting independence first along with the good governance of the country. Scotland needs a strong and forceful leader, with the confidence and competence of an Alex Salmond to lead and unite the country. Sadly this SNP-led Scottish Government with many prominent members retiring, is short on such leadership contenders. However there is the articulate honesty of Kate Forbes, whose early ministerial years have been tempered by diplomacy. The tenacity and eloquence of Stephen Flynn must feature along with the brilliant Stephen Gethins. One person who should be listened to is Alba leader Kenny MacAskill, whose vast experience should be called upon to galvanise a listless and dispirited Scotland. What is surely self-evident is that the status quo is not an option and will not excite or persuade people that independence is the only way to a prosperous and fairer Scotland. In fact English nationalism is also contributing to the breakup of the British state – the English have always been confused about being British. Grant Frazer, Newtonmore.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Northern Ireland is still paying a heavy price for Brexit
This week heralds the arrival in Northern Ireland of yet more overregulation, bureaucratic overreach, and political incompetence. No, Keir Starmer isn't making an unannounced visit to Belfast. From this month, many thousands of food products imported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will have to display warnings on their packaging highlighting that these goods are not to be brought into the European Union. The reason why is essentially a bungled Brexit deal for which thousands of business – and millions of customers – will pay the price. It is yet another reason for British firms to stop doing business in Northern Ireland The Windsor Framework – the result of the UK's Northern Ireland-focused post-Brexit legal agreement with the EU – ensured that Northern Ireland remained within the EU single market for goods. This meant that products can flow freely throughout the island as no hard border exists between Northern Ireland and the Republic. At least that's what was promised in theory. In reality, this soft border has made trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland increasingly difficult. Confusing and unworkable regulations have stymied the flow of goods to Northern Ireland as checks on arrival take an increasingly long time, packaging requirements are different, and costs are increased. From October 2023, meat products entering Northern Ireland had to be labelled as being 'Not for EU' in order to ensure they weren't being sold in the Republic of Ireland; these rules were expanded to include dairy products from October 2024. And now, from this month, the scope of these regulations will be drastically increased as the Windsor Framework's implementation reaches its final phase. Packaged fruit, vegetables, and herbs; fresh, frozen, and processed fish; honey; eggs; chilled, frozen, or shelf-stable composite products, such as ready meals and jars of sauce; all will be subject to new rules which change their packaging to ensure no Pot Noodle bound for Belfast is sold south of the border. This matters because it is yet another reason for British companies to stop doing business in Northern Ireland. As Stuart Machin, the CEO of Marks & Spencer, explained on Friday, this regulatory expansion just adds 'yet another layer of unnecessary costs and red tape for food retailers like M&S.' Machin went on to state that over a thousand more M&S products will require alternate packaging specifically tailored for Northern Ireland, while an additional four hundred products will have to undergo extra checks in what has become known as the 'Red Lane' – the customs channel for goods deemed at risk of entering the EU. In short, Machin said, it's 'bureaucratic madness'. All of these additional regulations in Northern Ireland undermine the idea of the Union, dissuading British businesses from offering goods and services in a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It has had a measurable impact, too, as the Office for National Statistics found recently. Between 2020 – the final year before the Northern Ireland Protocol on the Brexit withdrawal agreement came into effect – and the start of this year, the percentage of retail, wholesale, and car repair businesses in Great Britain which sold goods into Northern Ireland had decreased from 17.5 per cent to only 12.4 per cent; the percentage of manufacturing businesses which sold to Northern Ireland decreased from 20.1 per cent to 12.9 per cent. The issue of the effectual trade border in the Irish Sea is a politically contentious one in Northern Ireland. It highlights the difference in treatment of people in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom – raising questions about whether the initial idea of Brexit as 'taking back control' ever materialised. Jim Allister, a Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) MP, and one of the fiercest critics of the Windsor Framework, said that British businesses 'will have to play by EU rules to trade within their own country. That's a fundamental breach of sovereignty.' I spoke to another elected representative from the TUV about the new rules, who decried them as little more than 'ridiculous and unnecessary bureaucracy forced upon us', highlighting that 'Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit the United Kingdom voted for as a nation'. Many of these issues could quite easily be solved if a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal were to be signed between the UK and the EU; this would align the regulations between the two bodies and make trade easier. Naturally, however, this also goes against the ideals of what Brexit was portrayed to be, as while it doesn't exactly hand over our sovereignty on the issue, it does ensure the UK and EU are treading the same line. Labour announced a deal on this back in May, however this has yet to materialise and negotiations are, allegedly, still ongoing. Given Starmer's record of negotiating, it is not difficult to imagine how little say we might have over our own internal trade regulations as a result; the Prime Minister is no stranger to dismantling British sovereignty, as Chagos and Gibraltar show. In the mean time, internal trade within the United Kingdom is likely to get harder before it gets easier. If the past decade of politicians were supposed to be acting in favour of British interests, they are doing a good job of hiding it.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier
The new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (Firs) comes into effect from Tuesday, requiring anyone carrying out 'political influence activities' on behalf of a foreign power to register with the Government or face prosecution. The rules, which cover activities such as political communications or lobbying, were introduced in 2023 as part of efforts to strengthen national security amid concerns about covert action by foreign governments. Security minister Dan Jarvis said: 'We welcome legitimate engagement with all countries, but we will not tolerate covert attempts to manipulate our political system or society. 'The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme gives us the tools to confront growing threats to our national security, one of the foundations of our plan for change, without compromising the openness that defines our democracy.' The new rules also include an 'enhanced tier', which requires anyone working for certain states to declare any activity, not just political work. Mr Jarvis said: 'This is about creating accountability and visibility so that covert influence operations have nowhere to hide, and ensuring we have the tools to detect and disrupt them.' Failing to register with Firs carries a maximum sentence of two years, or five years for agents of states in the enhanced tier. So far, only Iran and Russia have been placed in the enhanced tier, with both nations accused of operating covertly in the UK to shape public opinion and intimidate opponents. But despite calls from some MPs to include China in the enhanced tier, Russia and Iran remain the only nations on the list. Beijing has been repeatedly accused of seeking to covertly influence British politics and academia. A 2023 report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee found China had engaged in 'aggressive' interference, including seeking to 'penetrate or buy academia to ensure that its international narrative is advanced and criticism of China suppressed.' Following the announcement in April that Russia would be included in the enhanced tier, Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said it was 'astonishing' that China had not received similar treatment and accused the Government of 'prioritising economic links over national security'. At the time, Mr Jarvis replied that the Government had a 'consistent long-term and strategic approach' to the UK's relationship with China. He added: 'The Government's policy is clear – we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.'
