The latest research on faith and belief in New Zealand has just been released: commissioned by the Wilberforce Foundation, undertaken by Australian research company McCrindle. It explores attitudes towards religion, spirituality and Christianity.
I love this stuff! Research like this helps clarify the picture of the state of things, which can then lead to greater and more sensible engagement.
Firstly, thank you to the Wilberforce Foundation for taking the initiative and making this happen. Secondly, don’t just read my blog post about this, please download the actual report and read it for yourself (it’s a 67-page free PDF online at https://faithandbeliefstudynz.org). Share it with your church leaders, small groups, and denominational leaders – talk about it!
The report is hot off the press – in this post below I share some initial thoughts and reflections.
With my own interest in the communication of the church, and the perceptions people outside the church have of the church, I was most interested to see the outcomes of this piece of research with its objective being:
“To investigate faith and belief blockers among Kiwis and to understand perceptions, opinions and attitudes toward Jesus, the Church and Christianity.”
It’s no census, but a quantitative survey of this size (1007 “nationally representative” New Zealanders) is considered significant and ample enough to draw conclusions from.
This research also included 3 focus groups with “non-Christians”; a group of 24-38 year-olds (Generation Y), a group of 39-53 year-olds (Generation X), and a group of 54-72 year-olds (Baby Boomers). 26 people across these three focus groups. Again, a significant piece of qualitative research.
Christians and church attendance
This is a great infographic. “Christianity” comes in at 33% of the population. This should actually be called “Christian Affiliation” which in the most recently published census results of 2013 was 43% of the population. We’re still waiting on the most recent census results, and Christian Affiliation is predicted to be following its decline of the last 60 years.
My suggestion is to not pay too much attention to “Christian Affiliation” or this 33% “Christiantiy” figure. We’re currently experiencing something of a correction and the steep decline will eventually align with what McCrindle call “Church Goers” (16%). I have commentated about this recently in a post called What will the church look like in 100 years?
It’s the 16% “Church Goers” (at least monthly), which include the 9% “Active Practisers” (extremely involved) that should interest us the most:
This 16% is The Church in New Zealand.
And contrary to popular belief, this figure of 16% is only half of New Zealand’s all-time peak church attendance, which was 30% in the 1890s (see my graph here…)
This data from McCrindle is the clearest snapshot of church attendance I have seen. I hope this helps us Kiwis see how much of a minority the church is in New Zealand: 16% of the population is very much a minority – we must remember this when we’re making public statements expecting the rest of society to follow our lead.
Confession
I have to be honest: some of my excitement about this McCrindle research is because it supports my own thesis and commentary on church and society. Thank you McCrindle!
Another 2018 publication
The recently published (2018) New Zealand Church Survey 2014: Report by Patrick and Taylor (MissionKoru) point out figures suggesting 10-16% of Kiwis attend weekly. In their study they suggest there are many independent churches, a high proportion being ethnic churches, operating under the radar in which there is little or no data available, so the figure could be higher. I wonder if the size of McCrindle’s study would have flushed them out?
Negative influences to Christianity
Again, here is another big affirmation of my own research on the church/society relationship in New Zealand. I came up with a list of 9 perceptions that people outside the church have of the church. McCrindle’s list below, is pretty much a re-wording of my own list:
- Church abuse
- Hypocrisy
- Religious wars
- Judging others
- Issues around money
- Authoritarian style
- Exclusivity
- Outdated
The report shows how influential each of the above are, ranked in a graduated influence scale.
For example, only 10% of Kiwis are not influenced negatively by the perception of ‘church abuse’ – which includes priests abusing children, through to church leaders being involved in scandals. For 57% this perception is a “massive negative influence.”
90% of Kiwis are negatively influenced toward Christianity because of “church abuse.”
This observation alone should stop us in our tracks.
I don’t think this is even on the radar of my local church or denomination – what about yours? Perhaps it should be if we have a concern about church/society engagement.
I suspect the influence of the church in New Zealand will continue to struggle until we corporately address this and these other negative perceptions.
Blockers to Christianity
I really like how the term ‘blocker’ is used as a way of describing what prevents positive engagement with the church and Christians.
The church’s teaching on homosexuality is the biggest blocker to Kiwis engaging with Christianity. It is the top blocker for the youngest three generation groups (this is shown in a chart below). This is the biggest blocker to half of my own generation group (Gen X, 50%).
The graphic above shows that this is a blocker for 34% of “non-Christians who are open to change from exploring Christianity”. It was a blocker for 66% of all participants.
For Kiwis who regularly go to church, the church’s stance on homosexuality is also their biggest blocker (21%) – this means a fifth of people who make up the Kiwi church are negatively affected by this issue not being adequately addressed.
This needs further comment, perhaps I will blog on this another day… I will at least say this: in my opinion, the movement of churches I am part of, NZ Baptists, our processing of this issue to date has not been adequate.
Generational differences
Occasionally the results in this McCrindle report are broken down by the age generation groupings listed above. I found this one of the most insightful parts of the presentation of results. Look at this example below showing influences for each generation to think about spiritual, religious or metaphysical things (coloured highlights are my addition).
This shows how differently the approach needs to be to relate or connect across the different generations.
Death is the only common theme across all generations, and lower down for the younger ones – many of whom may not have yet experienced the death of someone close. On the other end, Boomers and Builders are likely to have experienced the death of both parents, and possibly a spouse.
Look too at the consistency of “personal unhappiness” and “conversations with people”. The key to church/society engagement is right there.
Who makes the decisions in your local church or denomination?
In the church setting, if all leaders/influencers are from just one generation group, eg Baby Boomers, this research suggests if they do not have an appreciation of the nuances of other generational groupings, they are likely to fail in their communication and planning when seeking engagement beyond their own generational group.
You might say that’s obvious. Here we have NZ data that supports this.
See how the top three belief blockers stack up across the generations:
Bible in schools
Interestingly, the Wilberforce Foundation included some questions around Bible in Schools. Except it this research it isn’t called “Bible in Schools” but: “Non-compulsory religious instruction.” I think this terminology and lack of definition in the report is problematic.
“More than half of Kiwis are open to the discussion of spirituality and religion in state schools (55%).”
It would be possible for that statistic of 55% to be used in support of Bible in Schools. Compare that to the 16% of church goers and it doesn’t line up. Unless it’s not actually Bible in Schools the research participants were thinking about, but actual religious education.
Would the Churches Education Commission be happy if say only 1 out of 10 non-compulsory religious instruction sessions were on Christianity, and the other 9 were on other religions and spiritualities? I suspect not.
This is an interesting section and worth looking into as it touches on another hot topic that overlaps church and society.
As an aside: I am totally pro teaching Christian education in state schools, but in an opt-in capacity outside of normal class time, eg, during lunch-time, or before or after school. I have written about that here: Christendom is over: the end of Bible classes in schools.
Super Rugby
I hate to acknowledge the existence of rugby or its significance to New Zealanders, so I didn’t warm to the results of the question “Which Super Rugby team do you support?”
I’m sure some preachers will get some mileage out of this from the pulpit on Sunday.
Terminology
I have a concern with some of the terminology throughout the report and the lack of definitions. There are 4 main “segmentations” in this research and I assume participants could fit into more than one:
- Kiwis who identify with Christianity
- Non-religious
- Spiritual but not religious
- Non-Christians
The biggest definition of any of these segments is only 10 words long. I wonder if the participants had more to go on when deciding how to define themselves.
Sometimes the report mentions “faith” – which is also in the report’s title.
“Two in five Kiwis believe faith is very important for mental health, personal growth and overall wellbeing” (pg 22).
“Faith” is not defined, or its relationship with religion or spirituality.
Christianity is portrayed as a religion but not a spirituality. I wonder if active-Christian-faith-community-participating-Jesus-followers would define themselves as “religious” or “spiritual”. I think this matters – maybe not so much in the snap-shot this research offers, but definitely in the church’s engagement with society.
I feel some of the terminology use in this report doesn’t offer enough understanding or acknowledgement of the different ways the various segmentations use and understand these terms.
I have the same critique of Statistics New Zealand’s census. This report is far more insightful than the census on this topic.
One step further
This report looks like a piece of work from an off-the-shelf commercial research company. It looks good, and it is what it is.
My understanding is Mark McCrindle himself, and all employees are Christian. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect McCrindle doesn’t employ any experts in theological reflection or the sociology of religion.
The design, analysis, and presentation of this report lacks a missiological guiding influence that could have taken it one step further.
It’s a 67-page document. It would have been excellent to have seen 6 or 7 full-page reflections on the data and analysis by 6 or 7 New Zealand experts in the topics of church, society, religion, and spirituality.
I hope this research is repeated in 5 years time – this 2018 report will make a great base-line to compare against. My hope for the next report is the inclusion of some local expert voices engaging with the material.
Download it
There is some gold in this report. It is an excellent piece of work. Please download a copy from the official website (it’s free) and read it through yourself.
I will be interested to hear your thoughts – please come back here and share them.
