Church scandals have damaged trust, but they cannot explain the whole decline of Christianity. A believer’s criticism raises a harder question about the people who speak in Jesus’s name.

A Christian reader recently responded to my article about Europe’s declining religious faith. He was not worried about the growth of Islam.

He was angry about what some Christians had done with their own religion.

Greg Counts criticised ministers who pursue wealth and people who use Christianity to protect their social position. He also questioned whether attending church and identifying with a denomination amounted to genuine Christian faith.

Then he wrote something I had not expected from a discussion that began with European religious demographics: “Islam isn’t the threat.”

I had been examining why Christianity was losing followers while Christian identity remained politically useful. Greg was asking something more personal. What happens when religious leaders preach the teachings of Jesus but appear unwilling to live by them?

I am Muslim, and I do not share every aspect of Greg’s theology. But I recognise the problem he describes.

Religious institutions ask people to trust them. Their leaders often claim a moral authority that goes beyond ordinary professional responsibility. What happens when that trust is betrayed?

The Gap Between Christian Teaching and Religious Power

The Gospels contain some demanding teachings about wealth. In Matthew 25, Jesus identifies care for people in need with service to him. The passage concerns how people respond to hunger and suffering.

Greg referred to this tradition when he criticised Christians who ignore those he called “the least of these.”

His argument does not require Christians to reject money or property. A church needs funds to maintain its buildings and support its work. Many Christian organisations run hospitals and food banks. Others provide education or assistance to families who cannot afford basic services.

The problem arises when religious authority shields financial decisions from scrutiny.

A minister may ask followers to donate generously while refusing to explain how the money is spent. A church may speak about humility while giving its leaders privileges ordinary members could never afford. These examples describe potential conflicts between preaching and conduct. They do not establish wrongdoing by any particular church.

I would want evidence before accusing a named minister of exploiting believers. But I see no reason why the administration of religious money should be exempt from ordinary questions about accountability.

If a congregation funds an institution, its members have a legitimate interest in how that institution operates. Greg’s criticism becomes especially serious when we move from money to the protection of people.

What France’s Catholic Abuse Investigation Revealed

In October 2021, an independent French commission published the results of an investigation into sexual violence within the Catholic Church. The commission, known as CIASE, examined abuse between 1950 and 2020.

Its findings were grave.

Using a population survey, archival material and other research, investigators estimated that approximately 216,000 people living in France had suffered sexual abuse as minors by priests, deacons or members of religious orders.

The estimate increased to approximately 330,000 when abuse committed by laypeople working in Catholic institutions was included. The figures were statistical estimates, not a register of individually verified criminal cases. The commission reported uncertainty around its calculations.

The investigation also examined the conduct of Church authorities. For many years, according to the commission, the institution concentrated on protecting itself while failing to respond adequately to victims.

The report acknowledged preventive measures introduced in more recent decades. It nevertheless found that reforms had often arrived late and had not been applied consistently.

I read those findings as an institutional failure extending beyond the crimes of individual perpetrators. Children and their families had trusted people who occupied positions of religious authority. Some Church authorities then failed to protect those who had placed themselves in their care.

The moral problem is difficult to separate from the institution’s public teachings. A church that tells believers to care for vulnerable people must also answer for its treatment of vulnerable people within its own institutions.

A cathedral can remain a place of worship after such revelations. Its priests can continue to celebrate Mass. Believers may still find meaning in its teachings. Trust is another matter.

For victims, an institution’s willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing and provide redress has consequences that no public declaration of faith can replace.

Why People Actually Leave Christianity

Greg believes that Christianity’s decline reflects a loss of genuine faith among people who still call themselves Christian. That is his religious interpretation. Surveys offer a different kind of evidence. They ask people why they changed their religious identity.

In 2018, Pew Research Center published a major study of Western Europe based on interviews conducted in 2017. Researchers asked adults who had been raised in a religion but no longer identified with any religion to explain their departure.

The answers did not point to one cause. Across the 15 countries surveyed, a median of 68% cited gradually drifting away from religion as an important reason. A median of 58% mentioned disagreement with religious positions on social issues. Another 54% said they no longer believed in their childhood religion’s teachings. Scandals involving religious institutions and leaders were cited by a median of 53%.

Each percentage represents the median of the country-level results. Respondents could identify several reasons, so the figures should not be added together.

The findings were especially revealing in historically Catholic countries. In Spain, 74% of formerly religious adults who had become unaffiliated cited scandals as an important reason for leaving. The equivalent figure was 60% in both Italy and Portugal.

These numbers support part of Greg’s concern. Institutional misconduct has influenced the religious decisions of many people.

But the survey also shows that religious change cannot be explained by scandals alone. Some people simply stopped believing. Others gradually lost interest. A person might have left Christianity even if every minister in their childhood church had behaved responsibly.

I think that distinction matters because it prevents a serious criticism of religious leadership from turning into an exaggerated explanation of secularisation.

The American Evidence Tells a Similar Story

The United States offers another opportunity to examine the relationship between religious belief and institutions.

In February 2025, Pew Research Center reported that 62% of American adults identified as Christian in its 2023–2024 Religious Landscape Study. That was down from 78% in 2007.

Yet Pew also found that the Christian share had remained relatively stable since around 2019. The longer decline was real. Its recent pace had changed.

A separate Pew report published in December 2025 examined why some Americans had left the Catholic Church. Among former Catholics, 46% said losing belief in the Church’s teachings was an extremely or very important reason for leaving. Scandals involving clergy or religious leaders were cited by 39%. Another 37% identified disagreement with the Church’s positions on social or political issues.

These were American findings from a different survey. They should not be treated as directly comparable with the earlier European percentages.

They do, however, reinforce an important point. Religious institutions can lose members because people reject their teachings. They can also lose trust because of what their leaders have done. Sometimes both developments occur in the same person’s life.

A young adult may already doubt religious doctrine when news of misconduct strengthens a decision to leave. Another may retain faith in God while losing confidence in the Church. The institution and the religion are closely connected, but they are not the same thing.

Does Being Born Again Measure Genuine Christianity?

Greg also referred to Jesus’s teaching about being born again. In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells Nicodemus that a person must be born again to enter God’s kingdom. Greg understands this as an essential personal transformation through faith in Jesus.

His position is recognisable within evangelical Christianity. Other Christian traditions approach the language differently. Catholic and Orthodox theology also speaks about spiritual rebirth, but connects it closely with baptism and sacramental life.

People who do not use the evangelical label “born again” may still regard themselves as committed Christians. Greg cited a survey suggesting that fewer than 40% of Christians identify as born again. He did not name the survey or specify its population.

I would not use that number to measure the sincerity of Christian faith. Even if the survey were accurate, the conclusion would depend on how the question was asked and which Christians participated.

Someone may describe a powerful conversion experience and later behave dishonestly. Another may have worshipped quietly for decades without using that language. A survey can tell us how people describe their beliefs. It cannot establish whether they genuinely follow the moral teachings associated with Jesus.

When Christianity Becomes a Political Instrument

My earlier article, Europe Is Losing Its Christian Faith. Why Is It Defending Christian Identity?, examined how Christian identity survives in European politics even as religious participation declines.

A politician may describe Christianity as the foundation of European civilisation while showing little interest in the authority of the Church. Such appeals can serve cultural or political purposes rather than religious ones.

Greg’s criticism offers a challenge from within Christianity. He is not asking whether Christianity should remain part of European history. He wants people who claim Christian faith to live according to its teachings.

I find his argument particularly relevant when political movements invoke Christianity in debates about Islam. Muslim immigration did not cause the abuse uncovered by France’s Catholic commission. Nor can arguments about mosques explain why Europeans who were raised Christian say they no longer believe in their childhood religion.

I previously examined that demographic distinction in France Is Losing Christianity. Why Does Islam Dominate the Debate? Questions about immigration and religious integration deserve examination. But they cannot substitute for an account of what happens within Christian institutions.

A political movement might successfully defend Christian symbols without persuading anyone to believe in Christianity. Political recognition is not the same as spiritual renewal.

Accountability Is Not an Attack on Religion

There is a temptation to treat criticism of religious leaders as hostility toward religion itself. I have never found that argument convincing.

A believer may remain committed to a religion while questioning the people entrusted with administering its institutions. Religious communities have long traditions of internal criticism and reform. Christian history includes repeated arguments about clerical wealth and institutional authority.

Criticism of misconduct is therefore not something that belongs exclusively to atheists or secular campaigners. Greg demonstrates this. He speaks as a Christian who believes that some people have misused Christianity.

His comment does not establish how widespread that misuse is. It offers no figures showing that wealthy ministers are responsible for Europe’s religious decline. But it raises a practical question about the relationship between a religious institution and its followers.

Can members examine financial accounts without being accused of lacking faith? Can victims report wrongdoing without being pressured to protect an institution’s reputation? When a minister enters political life, can followers distinguish religious teaching from personal political interests?

Churches differ enormously in how they answer these questions. Some have strong systems of independent oversight. Others have faced serious criticism for secrecy or concentrated authority. Those differences matter more than sweeping claims about all Christian leaders.

I would apply the same standard to Muslim religious organisations. A claim to speak in God’s name should not place an institution beyond human scrutiny.

Better Leaders Alone Will Not Reverse Secularisation

There is one part of Greg’s argument I would not accept without qualification. Better Christian leadership may help restore trust in particular churches. It does not follow that Christianity would then recover all the followers it has lost.

Religious affiliation changes for reasons that extend well beyond the behaviour of clergy. People form different views about God. They disagree with inherited teachings. Family practices change as one generation gives way to another.

Some remain religious without belonging to an institution. Others leave faith altogether. A church can respond responsibly to misconduct allegations and still experience declining attendance.

The reverse can happen too. A religious organisation may attract large crowds despite serious concerns about its leadership. Attendance alone cannot measure institutional integrity.

Pew’s research makes it difficult to reduce Christianity’s decline to a failure of individual ministers. But it also makes it impossible to dismiss scandals as irrelevant. For some former believers, the conduct of religious leaders was part of the decision to leave.

What Greg’s Comment Made Me Reconsider

I began this series by asking why Islam dominates so many European arguments about Christianity’s decline. The demographic evidence showed a substantial movement away from Christian affiliation, much of it unrelated to the growth of Muslim communities.

I then examined Christian cultural identity and why it remains politically influential among people who rarely attend church. Greg’s comment directed my attention toward the people who still believe.

He is not asking Europeans to preserve Christianity merely as an inheritance from the past. He wants Christians to examine whether their conduct reflects the religion they profess.

I do not share his understanding of Christian salvation, but I understand why institutional conduct matters to him. A religious organisation can publish statements about compassion and raise money in the name of people who are suffering. Those activities deserve scrutiny when serious questions arise about how the organisation treats people entrusted to its care.

France’s abuse investigation showed how costly institutional self-protection can become. The survey evidence shows that many former believers have taken such scandals into account when deciding whether they still belong.

I return to Greg’s words about Islam not being the threat. He was asking Christians to look at their own institutions. I think that is a more demanding question than arguing about which religion will dominate Europe’s future.

A church may preserve its buildings and retain a place in national history. It still has to answer to the people who trusted it.