I was quite disappointed in the tone of the article that purported to investigate the reasons people were returning to churches. The first 95% of the article focused on sociological and psychological reasons why people were re-entering mainstream religion, completely missing the true focus of any church--God.
Most of the people I know go to church to worship God. The benefits of a church family, truly intimate friendships and crisis support all spring from God who is the initiator and sustainer of church fellowship. For myself as a Christian, I know that the central issue of church fellowship isn't how well I get along with other church members or what has the church done for me lately, but rather what is my relationship to Christ.
But that certainly was not the thrust of the article: "Yuppies are finding that church feels like home" or "a socially active church symbolizes some connection with a social conscience awakened in the '60s" were the tone that was set. Only at the very end was there mentioned an active God who directs people to himself, and that was diluted with the word wryly with which the author chose to characterize the witness of Liz Danziger to something bigger than herself. The word God wasn't used until the fifth paragraph from the bottom.
Next time The Times chooses to write about churches and what they do for people, maybe you can remember to include the living God who is the alpha and the omega of church life.