Guest Column: Why Gen Z “Nones” Are Reconsidering Religion

Mar 25, 2026John StonestreetChristianity, ChurchChristianity, Church Ambassador Network

Gen Z is the least religious cohort in American history. 43% of this generation born roughly between 1996 and 2012 identify as religious “nones.” While there have been many reports since Charlie Kirk’s assassination indicating increased interest in religion and increased church attendance, according to statistician Ryan Burge, there is not yet statistical evidence of religious revival among young people.

There is, however, ample evidence that these Zoomers are looking for meaning and willing to reconsider religion. Specifically, though these trends may not be large enough to be captured in statistics, there seems to be a growing interest in more rigorous forms of faith.

In a recent article in Tablet magazine, Ani Wilcenski, a Zoomer herself, examined this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Gen Z is less religious than previous generations, Wilcenski, researched those bucking that trend, including converts to Islam, Jews who are becoming more observant, Latin Mass Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and others who are joining stricter, more traditional religious groups.

According to Wilcenski, Gen Z has been raised with the “illusion of infinite horizons,” and grew up “without sturdy institutions or fulfilling rites of passage.” As a result, for this generation, “[e]verything—career, identity, relationships—unfolds as a series of self-directed experiments,” something that has been labeled “liquid modernity.” Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman coined that phrase to describe the experience of life as unstable and non-permanent, without fixed distinctions, and no foundation for cultivating identity.

The experience of “liquid modernity” is why, according to Wilcenski, the ideological capture of Gen Z has been so comprehensive. For example, nearly one-quarter of the generation identify as LGBTQ, up nearly 20 points from previous generations. Ideology gives the illusion of a solid cause and offers a purpose for life where otherwise there is none.

Of course, that is the role religion traditionally played in Western culture. As Wilcenski noted, the draw of religion is that it provides a firm source of virtue and belonging, focus, and a sense of permanence. That’s what the Zoomers who are exploring more demanding forms of faith are most likely seeking.

As Wilcenski put it,

These faiths don’t adapt to the age—they expect the age to conform to them. Their rituals inconvenience, their authorities override preference, their truths don’t negotiate. And in a society allergic to absolutes, that refusal to dilute themselves holds a powerful magnetism.

As an example, Wilcenski quoted a 23-year-old woman who explained her decision to join a Carmelite monastery in Plough magazine: “I figured if I was going to do something crazy for our Lord I might as well go all in.” Like Wilcenski, the Plough article noted that young women who join strict religious orders are committing to something stable and permanent.

According to Wilcenski, when the Gen Zers turning to religion offer reasons why, they

sound more like escapes from modern chaos than declarations of faith…. [T]heir newfound religiosity is less about belief than about orienting life around something ultimate—something greater than the self.

That, of course, also leaves them vulnerable to religious falsehoods. Remember, Wilcenski not only researched conversions to Christianity but also to conservative forms of Judaism and Islam. The desire to escape “liquid modernity” says nothing about the genuineness of any faith that follows. The same motivation can explain the growing number of young men who are embracing political extremism, from Antifa to white nationalism.

It has long been the case that laxer forms of religion have declined while more demanding forms have grown or at least declined more slowly. The divide within this segment of Gen Z seems to be even more pronounced. This group will not be interested in churches that accommodate themselves to American culture. The seeker-sensitive model will not work. It probably never has.

The Church must be countercultural, unapologetic about even the weird things we believe, and unafraid to ask for serious commitment from people. It needs to explore the depths of the Gospel; it must explain life and its meaning, including hard truths about the human condition, rather than offer only shallow therapeutic or pragmatic applications. A church that does this will not only be able to counter destructive ideologies vying for all generations but will also be able to offer meaning and stability to a generation that is looking for both.

Guest Column: Jesus Would Have Baked the Cake

Mar 18, 2026John StonestreetLGBTLGBT, Same-Sex Marriage

. . . and other nonsense Jesus would not have done.

On a Saturday morning in 2012, sitting on my porch reading an actual newspaper, I first learned of a Denver baker named Jack Phillips. A gay couple, having been “married in a different state,” asked Jack, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to custom design a cake for their same-sex “wedding” celebration. Jack offered them service and any cake in his store that was already made. What he could not do, he said, was use his creative talent to communicate a message that violated his conscience and said what he knew to be untrue.

To say that a lot has happened since is, to put it mildly, an understatement. He was harassed by the state of Colorado, specifically the Civil Rights Commission. He was slandered online and subjected to death threats against him and his family. He was sued, not only by the state but also by a man—who claimed to be a woman—who repeatedly asked him to bake perverted and disgusting cakes. In the end, his case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, has been pivotal in advancing the rights of conscience, suppressing state hostility to religion, and attracting many to Christ.

But I also remember the chorus of voices, many of them Christian leaders, saying at the time, “Just bake the cake.” Or even, “Jesus would’ve baked the cake.” Jack was accused of hate, intolerance, and bigotry. But he stood courageously, even in the face of great criticism from brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thank God he did. Recently, at an event hosted by Colorado Christian University and featuring the brilliant Ayaan Hirsi Ali—one of those who was inspired by Jack’s story—I asked Jack, and Kristen Waggoner, Jack’s attorney and CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom what he thinks now as he looks back on the past decade and a half.

Here’s Jack:

God tells us to live by a truth. He says we need to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. Jesus is the Truth, and we just have to know Him. And we get to know Him better and more clearly through His Word, through good teaching, and by spending time with Him. The more time you spend with Him, the better you know Him, and you don’t want to disappoint somebody you know well.

It would have been a huge disappointment to Jesus if I’d have [baked the cake] when He’s given us the power to live by what He says. And people want good news. There are tons of people who I’ve talked to who have been encouraged by this story. I think if I had made the cake . . . I don’t know because we’ve had so many things that have just happened that have been so good. Tonight is one of them.

Kristin Waggoner added more context:

In Jack’s situation, Jack modeled tolerance, and the other side did not. And so, it’s not about refusing to serve, because Jack serves everyone. Everybody. But when the government can compel you to speak messages and affirm lies that violate your conscience, then there is no limit to the government’s power. . .. So that’s really what that was about—it was “the message” that Jack was being asked to communicate.

I can tell you, having talked to hundreds of people over the last 10 years, that they have said that courage begets courage. And they’ve modeled that because they heard of Jack’s story, and it caused them to consider Christ and come to salvation. But it also caused them to be courageous in their moment.

One example that comes to mind is Sher Lori from Downtown Hope Center. She runs a homeless shelter in Alaska, and a man who identifies as a woman wanted to come into that shelter sleeping three feet away from the women in the shelter. As she’s coming down the stairs, she knows that the man is at the door wanting to come in. He had a reputation that would suggest that would not be a good thing. Even aside from the fact that he’s a man, he had violent tendencies and things like that. And what goes through her mind is, remember the baker. So, she gives that man cab money to go to the hospital to get his wounds cared for because he was in a fight earlier. But she does not let him in. She keeps that safe space for those women. So that’s what I think of; all the people who were inspired by Jack as well.

Praise God. The entire conversation, preceded by a stunning and brilliant speech by Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, is now available on YouTube. And, of course, the stories of Jack Phillips and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali are told in Truth Rising: The Study and the Truth Rising documentary. Learn more at colsoncenter.org/truth.

Western Civilization is Worth Defending: Guest Column

Mar 2, 2026John StonestreetCurrent EventsCurrent Events, Western Civilization

Marco Rubio has made a name, and a meme, for himself as the indispensable figure in the American government. Last week, the Secretary of State added to his reputation at the Munich Security Conference, offering a statesman-like defense of the West, emphasizing the historic and religious foundations shared by America and Europe. He also critiqued a false and misleading view of civilizational history.

The fall of the Soviet Union, Rubio said, led to the dangerous delusion,

that we had entered, ‘the end of history;’ that every nation would now be a liberal democracy; that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood; that the rules-based global order—an overused term—would now replace the national interest; and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.

Here, Rubio referenced, without naming, political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis. Fukuyama adopted G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophy of “History,” as the record of inevitable human advancement from one age to the next.

Though Fukuyama’s view helps explain why progressive politicians constantly claim to be on “the right side of history,” Rubio soundly rejected such thinking as “a foolish idea that ignored both human nature and . . . the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history.” Such thinking, Rubio added, “has cost us dearly.”

Like Winston Churchill’s 1941 appeal to the United States—where he rallied the New World to partner with the Old World amid World War II—Rubio grounded a similar call in our shared heritage:

The men who settled and built the nation of my birth arrived on our shores carrying the memories and the traditions and the Christian faith of their ancestors as a sacred inheritance, an unbreakable link between the old world and the new.

We are part of one civilization—Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir . . .

We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it.

Rubio’s speech appealed to a different understanding of civilizational history and stressed two key points. First, civilizations decline if they are not stewarded and protected. They must be protected from threats from within. Second, civilizations conflict with other civilizations that are built on alternative visions. Thus, they must be defended from threats from without.

In response to Rubio’s speech, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) stated that Western culture has a “thin” foundation, and that culture itself is an “evolving thing that is a response to the conditions that we live in.” Instead, it is “material, class-based” interests which should prevail.

Ocasio-Cortez’s views of social Darwinism and neo-Marxism also adopt a Hegelian philosophy of “History.” All is explained by the economic class struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. After stumbling around a good bit, the Congresswoman advocated a rehashed form of Critical Theory, which radically misunderstands human nature and historical facts. For quick reference to the terror, torture, famine, massacres, and atrocities that result when history and culture are reduced to class struggle, see The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University.

In contrast, Rubio spoke to why America was committed to defending Western Civilization. Because doing so was defending “a way of life” that provided more freedom and opportunity than any other civilization in history. While not perfect, Western civilization “. . . has every reason to be proud of its history,” Rubio said.

Even more, it is the choices we make, not blind historical trends, that will shape the future. According to Rubio, “our predecessors recognized that decline was a choice, and it was a choice they refused to make . . ..[W]e in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.”

Christians should be the first to defend and promote what is good and worthy of preserving. We should also reject the delusion that blind historical forces canbring inevitable progress to the world. As Os Guinness and others articulated in the recent documentary Truth Rising, Western civilization is at a critical moment. How will we respond?

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Andrew Carico.