Correlation, Causation and Church Conservatism
I only ever attend church or synagogue these days for family-related reasons, so consider the following speculations tentative. I’d love the perspective of active churchgoers like Thoreau, Gene Callahan and Lee M on where they think the following is on-point or off-base, and what I’m missing. I’d also love to hear from Jewish or Muslim readers who actively attend services to see how applicable this all is beyond American Christianity. Starting point: especially for whites, as discussed yesterday, religiosity correlates with familistic and bourgeois values and with income [PDF]. Let’s think about bad reasons for that, cause we’re skeptical liberals.
- Bottom-up funding. Churches go as their collection plates. Member contributions fund everything from the minister’s salary to the church’s capital-improvement campaigns to its charitable works. Poorer members are objectively less valuable to a church in a fiscal sense than wealthier members. So poorer members might drop out from shame and wealthier members and church officers may resent or just “write off” (however unconsciously) poorer members.
- Fiscal triage. Churches do charitable work, but on limited funds (which mostly come from members). There are only so many parishioners in fiscal crisis any given church can tide over rough times. This problem compounds when rough times stretch out, a consequence of contemporary long-term unemployment. And there may be more prestige in providing charity to those people over there – that downtown soup kitchen; that Ugandan orphanage – than to these people next to us. In one case, you can show slides! In the other, everyone just kind of avoids talking about it.
- Poverty is inconvenient. As is relative poverty. Poorer people have worse work schedules and less reliable transportation. They work weekends. They take the bus or drive beaters. They have less time to do everything, and everything they do takes more time than it would if they had more money. It’s just harder to get to services every weekend, let alone to actively participate in membership.
- Social discomfort across class lines – actually called out in the linked paper on page 8. Churches become self-reinforcing circles of the successful.
- Single people are a social threat. In a context where married families predominate, such as the typical church roll, unattached women and men represent potential sexual competition, temptation and contagion.
- Divorced people represent church failure. Clergy marry couples and typically counsel them beforehand to ensure the couple is compatible. Churchgoing couples in crisis may well seek clerical counseling before divorce. So any divorce potentially reflects badly on the cleric, at the very least reminding them of their limitations. And once the breakup happens, it’s unlikely both ex-partners are going to want to continue seeing each other Sunday morning. It’s also unlikely that the laity will be comfortable dealing with seeing both of them every Sunday. This last is just another facet of “Who gets to keep which friends?”
- Theologies of hardship as sin. The “prosperity gospel” is the most straightforward example. God wants His people to achieve worldly success. Corollary: if you’re not successful, you must not be one of His people. A weaker dynamic still applies to the “bourgeois values” version: if we work hard and play by the rules we will do well; if you are not doing well you must not be working hard and playing by the rules. Either can lead to ostracism or self-ostracism.
The upshot of the above is that churches become self-selecting circles of the economically and socially successful, even despite intentions to the contrary. And there are not always intentions to the contrary.
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
August 30, 2011 @ 8:41 am
“Churches go as their collection plates. Member contributions fund everything from the minister’s salary to the church’s capital-improvement campaigns to its charitable works.”
That’s not necessarily the case.
Just as an example:
That’s from “Church Investments, Technological Warfare & the Military-industrial Complex,” published 40 years ago.
A lot of the bigger churches have investment arms that were originally subsidized by member contributions, but that may now very well dwarf such contributions.
Comment by TGGP —
August 30, 2011 @ 8:57 am
The first one sounds like it would result in adverse selection, unless the church was able to screen out people.
For another paper, see The Political Economy of Beliefs: Why Fiscal and Social Conservatives and Liberals Come Hand-in-Hand.
Comment by TGGP —
August 30, 2011 @ 9:02 am
I wish the paper you linked had broken down further between just highschool and some college. Also, perhaps distinguishing those who’ve just gotten a bachelor’s from those who’ve gotten further education.
In the spirit of Knapp’s comment, a classic in the Protestant Churches are Behind the New World Order genre.
Comment by Ginger —
August 30, 2011 @ 9:08 am
I think I’m far more interested in the deltas here than in the current state. I keep going back to college as a question of credentialism in general as well as some general Strauss and Howe type generational difference approaches to reconcile this paper with the idea that in previous generations college educations made people more liberal.
Comment by matthew h —
August 30, 2011 @ 9:16 am
Without agreeing whilly with the analysis, I think the paper linked by TGGP shows a key correlation. The tendency of churches to serve as non-sate welfare backup institutions creates and reinforces government fiscal institutions because governent institutions are seen as unnecesary or even subsidizing the lack of community based support networks.
Comment by matthew h —
August 30, 2011 @ 9:17 am
“whilly” = wholly and non-sate=non-state and governent= government and unnecesary = unnecessary; sorry, that was all unecesary.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 30, 2011 @ 9:41 am
Sorry I can’t provide the insight you were hoping for, Jim. My wife and I aren’t terribly active in a parish these days. However, the reasons might actually back up your hypothesis:
Though we are doing very well on the education scale and OK on the income scale, my wife juggles multiple part-time jobs. Also, to save money, we only have one car. And while my specific hours can be flexible, the total hours are long. Put it all together, and active participation in anything other than Sunday services is hard.
At the peak of our religious participation, we were a 2-car family, both of us in some sort of volunteer activity, and my wife had a full-time job with more-or-less-predictable hours.
Comment by adam s —
August 30, 2011 @ 10:50 am
self-selecting circles of the economically and socially viable
that is totally the vibe I get when I attend Christmas-ish services at my wife’s Methodist Church in the South. their services are. . .trite, and I consider their church a social institution, not a religious institution. their interpretation just doesn’t have enough. . .bite. what colors my perception of course is my Northeast Catholic upbringing, ha! I worked at the Soup Kitchen and volunteered and whatnot, Catholic schooled though we did not have money. my Mom worked in the lunchroom. I think of the sacrifice of the Catholic School teachers I had over the years, living the $30k/year dream! raising their own families on that money! you see that I am definitely biased. and I’d say that from my perspective growing up (no longer am I affiliated with a parish – nor organized religion for that matter), the Catholic Church and its policies and overall structure kept a lot of those seeking economic and social rewards from participation in the Church Goings On from the satisfaction and admiration and status they were seeking. that thin white collar line! lol. there was a big to-do I recall (from my 12 year old eyes) regarding school vouchers, and many families were put off with the Church’s attitude regarding this. “why don’t you fight for the families that pay taxes and for Catholic School!” though the guilt kept them coming back to Mass. ha! but I’m not sure I have the perspective to fully compare it with your points here. though, it probably doesn’t line up, because I mean, it is the freaking Catholic Church, with its own social and economic machinations.
Comment by Teresa Nielsen Hayden —
August 30, 2011 @ 11:13 am
Being a Christian is hard enough as it is. Where do these people get the time and energy to worry about stuff like being made uncomfortable by people who belong to other social classes, or having adult singles in the congregation?
Besides, if you’re not making a place for the poor, the needy, and the sinful, you’re not doing it right.
Comment by someotherdude —
August 30, 2011 @ 12:11 pm
Some observations. Claiming that depravity leads to poverty, as suggested by our conservative blogger, Mr. French seems to totally ignore the depravity of the wealthy. If it is the case, that church attendance leads one out of poverty, what does that say about the many wealthy that do not go to church? Furthermore, which religious sect is the most wealth enhancing? If the Gospel can lead one into the middle-class, what does that say about Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, non-Trinitarian Pentecostals, secular Protestant denominations, etc? And if poverty is a sign of depravity, wouldn’t that also mean that Mary, Joseph and Jesus were extraordinarily depraved.
Church is a source for social capital, whether he like it or not. Middle-class climbers are in need of social capital, more than the poor or the wealthy. US churches, especially Protestant churches, are better at maintaining redistributing the social capital within its sanctuaries. However, if one is poor or wealthy, that type of social capital is useless.
I find it ironic that Christianity, especially traditional Protestantism, which is known for its anti-materialism, both in the philosophical sense (ie, the material world is the only source of reality) and common usage (ie, money, and products) materialist yardsticks to measure one’s spiritual health.
The other irony, is Mr. French, claims that he and his wife, together put the “T” in TULIP. The classic Calvinist theological formulation, aka TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints). Of course, he seems to play with the category; however he is also critical of “mushy-minded seeker-church sappiness” churches, ie “Liberal Churches”. This may seem like splitting hairs, or even taking him to seriously. I am very familiar with the Calvinist tradition; the term “depravity” is as serious as a heart attack. And, according to that formulation, all men and women are totally depraved.
I honestly don’t know what to make of his observations. On the one hand he criticizes churches for understanding theology “liberally” and on the other he “liberally” uses a “mushy-minded seeker-church sappiness” to understand a term taken seriously among Calvinist.
Comment by Edward —
August 30, 2011 @ 12:52 pm
As an atheist, I don’t know much about church life but there are and have been politicized versions of Christianity that focus on issues of justice and equality. I am thinking here of the Liberation theology of Latin America and MLK. As I recall, 19th century England had a very strong Christian socialist movement. Chris Hedges has written scathing criticisms of American Christianity for fitting the description you have offered.
Comment by Teresa Nielsen Hayden —
August 30, 2011 @ 1:43 pm
The theology summed up in the TULIP formulation is perfectly appropriate for those who await the Second Coming of Cthulhu, but it’s not really suitable for anyone whose beliefs don’t jump straight from “God is infinitely powerful” to “God must be an arbitrarily cruel and capricious monster, and we unworthy of Him; wherefore let us worship Him with unceasing dread.”
Comment by drkrick —
August 30, 2011 @ 2:26 pm
As someone who has been active in churches of a couple of the mainline denominations for a good chunk of my adult live, not much of this aligns well with my own experience. With the caveat that cultures across churches of the same denomination, let alone of different denominations or faiths, can vary quite a bit, I’d observe the following:
Bottom up funding – I’ve seen very little of the kind of selection proposed here. Known big givers get a bit more deference, although in the better run churches relatively few people know for sure who they are beyond the top few. Sometimes the poorer members are the ones with time to make the programs the richer members are funding actually run.
Fiscal triage – I’ve never been in a church where financial support of members of the congregation was a focus of church giving, so it’s not been a factor. I don’t know how typical a church in that situation would be.
Poverty is inconvenient – no more than highly demanding jobs. A lot of circumstances prevent people from being as active as they’d like to be.
Social discomfort across class lines – Bingo. The don’t call it the most segregated hour in America for nothing, and it’s not all about ethnicity.
Single people are a social threat – Every church I’ve been part of is dying to attract single people – especially young ones who might be pairing up and having children soon. They’re sometimes a bit clueless about how to welcome and support them, but it’s not out of reluctance to have them around.
Divorced couples represent failure – In my experience, the discomfort of the divorced partners to be around each other in general, let alone in the same church, far outweighed any discomfort on the part of the church in having them stay.
Theologies of hardship as sin – The kind of mainline churches I’ve been a part of don’t preach this. From the looks of the folks I’ve seen in the congregations of prosperity gospel TV preachers, those that haven’t gotten the golden ticket yet appear to be more than welcome to keep hanging in there, but that probably varies from church to church.
Comment by Jonathan Goff —
August 30, 2011 @ 3:19 pm
Jim,
I think historically and scripturally several of the reasons you’ve mentioned have been at play, but at least from my observations, both here in the States, and previously on a mission for my church in the Philippines, I think the third explanation is the one that resonates the most with my experience. A lot of people I’ve met who “fell out of activity” with a church were at least partially due to economic hardship. As you say, when you’re having to work crazy hours and weekends to survive, making the conscious decision to forgo the income you could get by working Sundays requires a huge leap of faith.
The other reason I’ve seen for people falling-out with a church is “getting offended”, but I have no reason to think why there’d be a correlation between thin-skinnedness and wealth. If anything, I’d think wealthy people would be more easily offended.
~Jon
Comment by Wonks Anonymous —
August 30, 2011 @ 4:14 pm
Lovecraft’s pantheon is sort of take on more familiar deities written by a gloomy materialist. Human beings serve terrible human leaders, why not a horrifying god?
Comment by Barry —
August 31, 2011 @ 8:15 am
Ginger:
“I think I’m far more interested in the deltas here than in the current state. I keep going back to college as a question of credentialism in general as well as some general Strauss and Howe type generational difference approaches to reconcile this paper with the idea that in previous generations college educations made people more liberal.”
I tend to dismiss anything S&H say (I found their first book to be a bunch of anecdotes disguised as data and analysis). As to the changing impact of college – we’ve gone from a society where going to college was very much the except to the point where it’s done by close to 50% of the appropriate age groups.
That’s taken college from a marker of being in the top third or quarter of society to being a middle class marker.
Pingback by Church, class, and bourgeois virtue | A Thinking Reed —
August 31, 2011 @ 10:10 am
[...] Henley cites some recent research showing that church attendance correlates with income and “familistic [...]
Comment by albatross —
August 31, 2011 @ 11:03 am
My experience in the relatively liberal Catholic parishes I’ve been a member of is that there is a core community in the church, made up of people who are involved in a lot of its activities. They’re the people who volunteer to teach RCIA, or baptism prep class, or as eucharistic ministers, or as sunday school teachers, or ushers, or lectors. They’re the people who dedicate a bunch of their time to running the week long daycamp in the summer, or the big yearly celebration for the patron saint of the church. Those people who volunteer set the tone for what happens, in ways that are at least as important as anything the parish priest might say or do.
Our experience when we joined the parish was that we definitely felt a little bit on the outside of the community–like we didn’t know quite what was going on. That changed as we became involved.
In my parish, there are actually two such communities, with limited overlap–broadly, the English speaking part and the Spanish speaking part. The two communities share a lot of values and goals, and seem pretty broadly to like and support each other, but they also have really different concerns, and operate somewhat independently, with different events and concerns. FWIW, my family is part of the parish community in our parish, though I am more involved on the Spanish speaking side.
There’s a core community of people who volunteer regularly–people you keep seeing at church, especially if you also volunteer much, or if you or your family are involved much in church activities. I knew the wife of my son’s T-ball coach from chatting while waiting for our kids’ choir practice to end. My wife knew a bunch of the kids and parents on his T-ball team, because she has been teaching 3-year olds’ Sunday School for several years now. And so on.
Now, I think there’s all kinds of feedback between different variables at work here. A lot of church activities are done by stay-at-home moms, or by retired people, because they have free time during weekdays, so there’s a social class/economic marker right there.
But there’s also a kind of re-enforcement of values going on. If you’re married and raising your kids in the church, you’re likely to be involved in a lot of parish activities with your kids–you show up for baptism prep classes, you take your kids to Sunday school and the week-long summer day camp and the Christmas nativity play and choir. And very soon, you’re part of a community–people you’ve gotten to know very well are thinking of teaching Sunday school or teaching a baptism prep class, and ask if you’d be willing to be involved. That’s self-reenforcing–the more time you spend at church, the more you’re friends or at least acquaintances with other people there, the more your kids are friends with the kids there, and so the more comfortable and pleasant you’re likely to find it. And that probably re-enforces your commitment to raise your kids in the church–you’re already doing it, so it’s relatively easy to keep doing it or do more of it.
I haven’t noticed any apparent selection for donations at our parish, though maybe it happens and we don’t notice. The only time I’ve noticed anything like that was when we wanted a letter from our priest that we were practicing Catholics and members in the parish, as part of applying for in-parish tuition at a catholic school–he pushed us a bit to set up a monthly donation. I found that annoying (we’re always at church, so it’s not like we’re not active members), but I suspect the issue there is how much the parish gives to the school–we set up a monthly donation that offsets the tuition break we get from the school for being parish members.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
September 1, 2011 @ 1:38 pm
Jim, I have no idea.
Comment by Patrick Nielsen Hayden —
September 1, 2011 @ 9:39 pm
Jim, if “churches become self-selecting circles of the economically and socially successful, even despite intentions to the contrary”, how do new churches ever get started?
History offers a number of examples of individuals who organized themselves into new religious groups and stuck with them despite those groups having pretty much zero chance of becoming “self-selecting circles of the economically and socially successful” in the lifetime of those individuals. Something was motivating those people beyond the desire to shinny up the greasy pole.
I’m not saying you’re not onto something real; I’m just wondering if it isn’t a set of insights applicable to all voluntary organizations, including stamp collectors, trainspotters, and the organizers of science fiction conventions. People tend to go to extra effort to cling to groups that will enable them to have a “better” kind of social interaction. And, in parallel, voluntary social groupings of economically successful people tend to survive the vicissitudes of circumstance better than voluntary social groupings of people with fewer advantages. I’m not sure what this says about churches in particular.
The churchy people I admire tend to do things like dig wells in impoverished African villages and otherwise actually act as if the Beatitudes were today’s things-to-do list. Not sure where economic and social success comes into this. Mostly these folks get kicked to the curb. But they re-emerge in every generation, and I find that interesting.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 1, 2011 @ 10:19 pm
@albatross: Thanks for the account. That was exactly the kind of experience-based detail I was hoping to solicit.
@Gene: But – you’re a blogger!
@Patrick: I don’t think the observed patterns of contemporary white American Christianity necessarily hold for all religion over all time, or even all Christianity over all time. I think to the extent I disagree with your second paragraph it’s simply on an intentions versus structure level: you’re talking intentions; I’m talking structure. I am definitely thinking hard about your third paragraph, though. It seems like a powerful point.