Fluxions in Fickle Faith

"'Look at the parallels between religion and marketing, and it's almost identical. People become attached to a religion in the same way someone takes on a brand,' said Mara Einstein, author of Brands of Faith, and associate professor of media studies at Queens College. She and others contend that it is marketing, and our consumerist society, that has given people the idea they have a divine right to choose whatever they like -- and to treat faiths just like they'd treat any other brands, switching religions or choosing to have none."

This is a quote from an AdAge article I just read, detailing how religions are trying to get into the consumer conversation by implementing new campaigns (such as the United Methodist Church's "Rethink Church" campaign) to turn once-apathetic 18-34 year olds into avid believers. The article examines religion's decline in recent years; now, 62% of young people ages 18-34 identify themselves as "spiritual," while only 43% have prayed in the last two months (all this information is taken from AdAge). More people than ever are seeing themselves as "non-affiliated."

The ways in which religion works in the mind of the people today is simple: take what you like, don't take what you don't. In other words, religion has become a brand. And not necessarily a luxury brand, either; these decisions don't seem to be too highly involved. On the other contrary, they represent a well-I-feel-like-this-now-but-may-not-later-so-I-think-I'll-try-on-another-one-for-size attitude that has permeated the ranks of this age group.

One of my best friends is half-Catholic, half-Jewish. She was Bat Mitzvah'd, but not Confirmed; however, on Passover, she's Catholic, and on Lent, she's Jewish. It's handy, and it's definitely not bad (at least in my own point of view. But then again, I'm not too terribly religious either), but it does seem to promote the give-and-take that religion has become, the commitment-phobia that's really only prevalent when we have to pick something to believe in.

I think it's very interesting how religions now must promote themselves through the very mediums which they once condemned. Not only is it ironic, but it shows the development of our society through which people are free to choose their beliefs as they see fit. Whether they actually commit to those beliefs is another issue (see above paragraph), but the fact is that we can now actively decide what we want to follow and when we want to follow it, no matter how "sacreligious" that makes us.

According to the article, most people are on the flux with religions up until the age of 24, in which they get serious about picking one that seems reasonable. By the age of 36, most of them have settled on the set of beliefs that they will live by for the rest of their lives, and by 50 these beliefs are almost impossible to change. So these establishments already know their target market of ages 18-34, and they know what they have to do to cater to people of these ages.

However, this pandering does raise several questions: by conforming these religious institutions into belief-ified entertainment centers, are they becoming as superficial as people tend to actually believe they are? In this age of skepticism, is this same superficiality taking away from peoples' own tendencies to believe, thereby adding to religious decline itself? Or is it the phenomenon of marketing altogether, and the fact that we've spoiled ourselves into choosing and getting what we want, when we want it, that is spotlighting this issue?

On one side, it's great that these once-archaic churches, temples, etc. are now getting up-to-date on their social and traditional forms of media and are learning how to reach out to people without merely preaching in the middle of a plaza; however, on the other hand, it is pandering to the wants of fickle individuals who may not necessarily know what they want until they absolutely have to, and even then, the commitment is shaky.

I guess all they can really do is reach out and have faith.