Social Scientists and Congregational Vitality
While these missional themes are “external” in the sense that they are community-focused, they do not emphasize the same external factors as the social scientists examine. In fact, social scientists would argue that what is happening (in the community and country) outside the church is more important than what is happening inside the church (Inskeep, 1993).
The external factors emphasized by the social scientist stream include, first, national trends such as cultural attitudes toward church, or demographic trends such as immigration patterns and birth rates. Second, they look into local contextual factors, such as whether the community around the church is growing or shrinking. A third set of factors are related to the religious denomination or tradition. For example, some denominations emphasize evangelism more than others, and some are able to maintain a higher commitment level among affiliates than others. Of course, the social scientists recognize that factors internal to the church, including leadership and worship, matter as well, but research shows that these external factors have a greater impact on church vitality or growth (Roozen and Hadaway, 1993). A thorough literature review is impossible here, but I will present two common sets of theories among social scientists today.
Many proponents of “rational choice” or “market” theories of religion argue that churches and denominations have vitality if they are strict.(2) Originating with Dean Kelley in the 1970s (see Why Conservative Churches Are Growing, 1972), this theory has been developed by Stark, Finke, Iannaccone, and others. Strict churches, or churches that are in tension with the society, are more likely to grow because they offer higher rewards (such as rewards from a highly responsive, personal God) but at high cost (a God that requires devotion and separation from the world). High-cost religion results in a committed laity, because they maintain tension with the world, which makes “heavenly” rewards more appealing than “earthly” ones. Strict churches also screen out “free- riders,” or those who attend but don’t contribute. Free-riders compromise the overall value of the rewards enjoyed by a church’s committed members. Since growing churches need resources such as volunteer time and money from their congregants, those churches that are demanding are more likely to grow because of the sacrificial giving of its more committed laity (Iannaccone, Olson, and Stark, 1995; Stark and Finke, 2000).
The “organizational ecology” theories focus on factors external to the congregation. These supra-organizational factors include the number of similar organizations in the area, since churches, like all voluntary organizations, compete for the time and money of people in their “market niche.” If there are many similar congregations nearby and a congregation fails to establish its own unique niche, it is less likely to survive. Churches, then, are more likely to grow if they are in an area where there is an ample population of potential affiliates in their “niche” without too much “niche overlap” with competing congregations (Baum and Singh, 1994; Hannan, Carroll, and Polos, 2003; Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Scheitle, 2007).
Organizational ecology postulates that churches will tend to have a curvilinear growth pattern, as they balance the tensions between legitimacy and competition. As they start, they lack legitimacy because they are relatively unknown, so growth is slow. In mid-life, growth is faster because of increased legitimacy and low competition. Then, as other congregations recognize the opportunities in the area, competition increases, and thus growth slows. Ultimately, some congregations die off and are replaced by congregations that are better fit for the changing environment (Scheitle and Dougherty, 2008).
Both of these theories are bolstered by substantial empirical support. The upshot is that external factors matter.
Since external factors are so important, evangelical churches can show great vitality but end up closing because of external factors such as a shrinking local population or a glut of similar churches nearby. Another church can grow quickly mainly because of internal birth rates or because they have many Evangelicals moving to the area. Consider, for example, that the lion’s share of North American church growth, evangelical or otherwise, has been shown to be directly related to birth rates and immigration (Bibby, 2011; Hout, Greeley, and Wilde, 2001; Roozen and Hadaway, 1993). Now that birth rates among Evangelicals are shrinking and immigrants are not primarily from Christian countries, growth does not come as easily.
In spite of the importance of external factors, many studies, whether scientifically or religiously motivated, ignore them. This is mainly because they interview or survey those within the organization itself (as we did for the CECS). In addition, the church can do something about the internal factors, but little about external factors (unless they relocate).
One such internal factor measured in all the operationalizations of church health I reviewed (Schwarz, 2006; Bellamy et al., 2006; Macchia, 1999; Woolever and Bruce, 2004) was “empowering” leadership. Studies of other organizations, such as hospitals and schools, agree that good leadership is necessary for healthy organizations (e.g., Arnetz and Blomkvist, 2007; Korkmaz, 2007). In their extensive research on organizational health, Quick et al. (2007) state: “We suggest that the healthy leader is at the heart of organizational health, is the touchstone for organizational health, and is the seed that gives rise to individual and organizational health” (193). Furthermore, this is the factor emphasized by denominational leaders we interviewed. All but one mentioned pastoral leadership as primary when asked about the qualities of healthy churches (or failing churches). Naturally, then, measures of church vitality should pay attention to leadership, including vision, empowerment of laity (to work in and develop their gifting), and innovation.
Footnotes:
(2) Rational choice theories fit into the third set of external factors, since denominations or traditions as a whole tend to be strict, even though there is some diversity within denominations. Also, strictness, or tension, has an external focus in that it is always in relation to other religious denominations and the culture as a whole. For example, Catholics may have little tension with Canadian society, but would have much greater tension in Iran.