Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
The empty me-ism opposed to “MT Deism”

The empty me-ism opposed to “MT Deism”

Last updated on: October 7, 2021 at 10:55 am by Fred Clark

The empty me-ism opposed to “MT Deism” 2021-10-07T10:55:56-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If you’ve crossed paths with a certain strain of white theobro online, then the odds are you’ve seen them employing one of their favorite epithets: “Moralistic therapeutic deism.”

If you’re not sure what they mean by that, don’t worry — they’re not sure what they mean by that either. The substance of this word-collage matters far less than the tone of it — supercilious, sanctimonious, sneering condescension.

This came out the year before the NSYR findings and may provide greater insight into the religious beliefs of American teenagers of the time.

That dismissive tone is ironic considering the source of this phrase-turned-slur. It comes from sociologist Christian Smith’s 2005 book-length write-up of (co-authored with Melinda Lundquist Denton) of their National Study of Youth and Religion. On the one hand, this large-scale study was designed and conducted as a serious and scrupulously impartial bit of social science research intended to measure the religious views and practices of American teenagers. But on the other hand, it also seems intended in part to provide a resource for Christian churches hoping to reach or retain young members.

The timing of this study is interesting in that it came years before the more recent wave of worry about “the rise of the nones.” (That later development accounts for its enduring popularity and influence.) The brief spasm of white Christian concern about “reaching Generation X” had already played out by 2005, but the larger, later panic about the larger, later Millennial generation hadn’t yet begun in earnest. So credit Smith and Denton for paying attention to “Youth and Religion” even when it wasn’t trendy.

Alas, one thing that cannot be gleaned from a long-term longitudinal study of the religious life of American teenagers is how or whether their attitudes differ from the religious life of American non-teenagers. That’s why the findings of the NYSR may not strike you as all that astonishing. The broadly generic description of teenage American religion Smith and Denton provide doesn’t seem to vary much from a broadly generic description of popular religion among American adults.

This folk religion is what Smith and Denton describe (and implicitly criticize) as “moralistic therapeutic deism.” That weird, clumsy phrase somehow caught on — so much so that it now has its own Wikipedia entry, where the broad characteristics of this broad characterization are summarized in words mostly borrowed from the study:

It is this combination of beliefs that they label moralistic therapeutic deism:

A God exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.

God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.

The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.

God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.

Good people go to heaven when they die.

To be clear, this isn’t what the study said that most young people believe. “Deism,” for example, is absolutely the wrong word for a study that found two-thirds of teenagers claiming to have a “personal” relationship with a “personal” God. And unlike many of their fans, Smith and Denton understood that their data involved constricted, quantifiable responses to multiple-choice survey questions supplied by the researchers. When you say, “We will provide you with a very short list of categories and you must squeeze yourself into one of the options we provide” you can’t very well turn around and pretend that respondents have freely volunteered such categorization as their preferred, self-created sense of identity.* There’s a huge difference between “If I had to pick one of the following to define myself, I guess this one would be closest” and “This is how I choose to define myself.”

But that five-point list does fairly summarize a cluster of beliefs held by a minority of American teenagers. Christian churches hoping to communicate effectively with that minority of young people, then, might constructively try to learn from this description. I don’t think any sincere efforts to do so have been aided by the awkward and misleading characterization-turned-insult that Smith and Denton provided in “moralistic therapeutic deism.” That muddle of lightning-bug words distracts from an accurate description and an accurate understanding of the study’s actual findings. (The difference between the right word and the wrong one, the old joke says, is like the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug. Or like the difference between “moral” and “moralistic.”)

I suspect the judgmental, pejorative aspects of that unfortunate phrase contributed to its eventual weaponization and its current usage. The phrase is now primarily employed for precisely the opposite of what Smith and Denton originally hoped. Now instead of a phrase intended to help Christians understand the folk religion of their neighbors (young or old), it’s primarily a phrase employed by Christians to condemn, mock, dismiss, and push away those same neighbors.

Or, to return to the revealing cliché that arises whenever panic over the loss of younger members strikes, it illustrates the problem of “droves.” Young people are always said to be leaving the church “in droves,” and yet those most loudly lamenting this never seem to wonder who it is that’s driving those droves. These days, the drove-drivers are largely the very same people huffily sneering at “moralistic therapeutic deism.” (Git along! Get a move on! Git!)

These drivers include pretty much anyone still using the phrase “moralistic therapeutic deism.” These are Christians who reject as illegitimate anyone who does not also reject as illegitimate all of the folk/popular religious beliefs that Smith and Denton described.

They are, in other words, Christians who do not believe that “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other.” This is why they view “moral[istic]” as a self-evidently negative aspect of MTD. And these are Christians who do not believe that God wants people “to be happy and to feel good about oneself,” which is why they regard the unambiguously positive adjective “therapeutic” as though it were somehow obviously ridiculous.

If one’s goal is to reach young people in a way that makes them want to believe what you believe and to belong with you in belonging, then it’s not helpful to begin by telling them that only godless fools would think being “good, nice, and fair to each other” was important or by suggesting that being happy or feeling worthy are somehow goals to be mocked.

Yes, I get it. Soteriologically obsessed Protestants always get freaked out when they encounter the folk-religious belief of “Good people go to heaven when they die.” They’ve spent 500 years railing against such notions of “works righteousness” and it makes them want to scream. That screaming may not be quite so off-putting if what they end up screaming is all about God’s overwhelming grace or about our overwhelming need for it. But when, instead, they wind up raging and shouting that there’s no such thing as good people and no such thing as being good and no such thing as goodness or fairness or justice, then they should probably learn to take note of the looks of horror this shouting inevitably produces (and deserves).

Because when normal people hear anyone shouting like that — when they hear someone sanctimoniously sneering at morality and healing, derisively dismissing justice and the pursuit of happiness — those normal people are going to be driven away in droves. This is not because they are lost and depraved sinners, but because they are creatures bearing the image of God and recipients of the common grace that allows us all to recognize that morality, healing, fairness, and happiness are not Bad Things.

All of which is to say that if you encounter any of these perverse theobros in the wild — people unironically using “moral[istic] therapeutic deism” as an insult and an epithet — then steer clear and feel free to ignore them. They’re not serious people. Goodness and happiness are always going to elude them (and vice versa).

* For an example of that effect in this survey, consider the extreme individualism of the answers provided by the young people who participated in this survey. Every consideration here — providence, the character of God, goodness, fairness, happiness — is expressed in exclusively individualistic terms. That seems to say something significant about the religious beliefs of all of these young people, but only until you realize that all of the questions and all of the answers available to them were also expressed in those same individualistic terms and didn’t allow for much of anything else as a response.

evangelicals

church

religious right

Previous Post

October 6, 2021

Tim LaHaye and white evangelical anti-vaxxer nuttery

Next Post

October 10, 2021 The monsters of Rutherford County

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who brought to Jesus the woman taken in adultery?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Apostles The Pharisees The Publicans The Disciples