Populists in Europe and North America like to claim that Christianity in the modern world is on the retreat against a resurgent and confident Islam. Even observers who do not subscribe to the idea that a “clash of civilizations” is occurring often conclude that Christianity is on the decline.
At first blush, the facts at the world level might seem to support this view. Between 1950 and 2015, according to census figures gathered by the World Religion Database, a large comparative project based at Boston University, the share of the world’s population that is Muslim rose from 13.6 percent to 24 percent. Over the same period, the share that is Christian fell from 35 percent to 33 percent.
However, this is no open-and-shut case. The same trends look different when broken down by region. Christianity has grown slowly since 1950 because in that year it was concentrated in two types of regions: those, like Europe, that were populous, but growing slowly, and those, like Sub-Saharan Africa, that were fast-growing but still small. Islam has grown quickly since 1950 because it was concentrated in populous regions that were destined to grow fast over the subsequent 65 years, particularly in Asia (contrary to a widespread stereotype, roughly 80 percent of the world’s Muslims are not Arabs). Christians made up less than 3 percent of Asia’s population in 1950. So, although this share had risen to 9 percent by 2015, too many of the world’s babies born in the intervening period were never going to be Christian anyway.
CONVERGENCE
However, the world is converging demographically, and fast. One of the only iron laws governing human societies is that when women are both educated and free to work for money, they choose to have fewer children, whatever their bishops and imams might say. Fertility in Muslim-majority Iran fell as fast in the 1980s and 1990s as it had done in Communist China under the one-child policy a decade earlier. In the 21st century, demography will lose almost all of its earlier importance in shaping the relative growth of the world’s religions.
One way to see the importance of demography up to now is to calculate what would have been the shares of Christianity and Islam in the world’s population in 2015 had the number of each religion’s adherents simply grown at the average rate of the population in their own country since 1950. Islam would have had a share of 20.2 percent, so its share of 24 percent is indeed a lot higher than expected, but Christianity would have had only 27.7 percent, so its actual share of 33 percent is also much higher than expected.
To understand what has been going on, consider Africa. In 1950, Muslims represented 36 percent of Africa’s population, a share that had risen by 2015 to 41.8 percent. Christians represented a mere 21 percent of the population in 1950, but by 2015 this had risen to an astonishing 48.5 percent. Much of this reflected the massive expansion of evangelical and pentecostalist churches across the continent, from Abidjan to Zanzibar. So, if Islam and Christianity were both getting a bigger share of the pie, who was losing out?
The answer is a large number of different religions that the World Religion Database classifies as “Ethnoreligions.” These local and folk practices encompass everything from spiritual healing to rites of passage, fortune telling, and preparations for love, death and war. They might recognize gods of the village, the river, the forest and the mountain. While they commanded the allegiance of 42.6 percent of Africa’s population in 1950, this share had dropped to a mere 8.6 percent by 2015.
Africa is not alone. Asia has also experienced a sharp fall in the share of the population professing adherence to local and folk religions, notably those that commanded the allegiance of many Chinese in spite of efforts by centralizers from Confucius (孔子) to Mao Zedong (毛澤東). In Latin America, where the Roman Catholic Church made inroads much earlier, most ethnoreligions disappeared in the 19th century.
CORPORATIZATION
In short, the big religion story in the past century is not one of ideological struggle between Christianity and Islam, with Islam winning. It is a story of growing corporatization, with local and folk religions everywhere being gradually, but inexorably replaced by churches and mosques that are affiliated with two of the world’s main religious brands. Hinduism and Buddhism, the two other main brands, have been much slower to respond, but they are starting to change and the growing religious assertiveness of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is just a foretaste of much bigger things to come.
This phenomenon is the religious equivalent of the displacement by Walmart and Target of local grocery stores across the US. You might regret it or welcome it, but it has proved unstoppable.
Historically, religions have competed in three main ways: war and conquest, demographic rivalry and persuasion in the marketplace of beliefs. War and conquest were overwhelmingly the most important vehicle of religious competition throughout history until the 19th century and demographic competition was overwhelmingly the most important for most of the 20th century. Despite the turbulence in the Middle East, war and conquest have declined massively in importance as a vehicle of religious competition in recent decades and demographic competition will fade as the world’s female children gradually have fewer of their own.
On a world scale — whatever populists might say — Christianity is not struggling; it is in more vigorous shape than it has ever been. The marketplace is where most of the religious action is going to take place in this century. As in many other marketplaces, there are large returns to scale for those who can work out how to exploit them. That is why corporate religion is here to stay — and why we should expect it to consolidate its dominance.
Paul Seabright is director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, France.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations