In 1972, Dean Kelley published a now-famous book called Why Conservative Churches Are Growing.
At that time, everyone was talking about a striking trend in American religion: People had stopped going to church. The mainline Protestant denominations had been losing membership since the 1950s. The most obvious explanation was that society was just getting more secular. Wealth and education made religious belief less relevant. But it turned out that story couldn’t be right, because some churches were growing—and growing pretty fast. Guess which churches? The most conservative and strict ones. Some of the fastest growing denominations are the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of the Nazarene, and the Assemblies of God.
These trends were obvious to everyone in 1972, and the same trends have continued since then. During the last five years, only four of the top 25 denominations experienced any growth, and guess which ones: the Mormons, the Assemblies of God, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Church of God. Unitarian Universalists aren’t in the top 25, but the United Church of Christ, the most like UUs among the top 25, declined in membership 6 percent just in 2008!
Why are conservative churches growing while mainline denominations are shrinking? Back in 1972, Kelley made a shocking claim: because the most strict churches were growing the fastest, he argued that strictness caused church growth.
Strict churches proclaim an exclusive truth, a closed, comprehensive, and eternal doctrine.
Strict churches demand that members follow a distinctive faith, morality, and lifestyle.
Strict churches condemn deviance, push out dissenters, and reject the outside world as corrupt and/or evil.
Strict churches frequently embrace eccentric behaviors such as a distinctive diet, dress, or speech.
For mainline Protestants, Kelley’s 1972 book was like holding a big red flag in front of a bull. Especially for UUs; the last thing we want is for a church to tell us how to act and think. Kelley’s “strictness” hypothesis seemed to attack the very core of liberal theology. A lot of scholars started working hard to disprove his explanation by developing other explanations for the trends.
One theory was that mainline denominations declined because they engaged in social action, and members left because they weren’t interested in social action or because they were politically opposed to it. But research showed social action wasn’t the cause of church decline.
A second theory was that churches declined if they were “ecumenically inclined”—meaning they were trying to bridge the boundaries between Christian denominations, emphasizing what they shared, rather than what separated them. There’s some evidence for this; one study (Hoge, 1979) of 16 different religions found that more exclusive churches grew much more rapidly than more ecumenically inclined churches. But research showed that although ecumenism correlated with church decline, it wasn’t the cause of it.
***
Despite decades of criticism, Kelley’s strictness explanation is still alive and strong. In an influential 1994 scientific article, the economist Laurence Iannaccone gave a convincing argument that Kelley was right.
Iannoccone measured strictness in economic terms, as the cost a church imposes on members. By “cost” an economist doesn’t only refer to money; cost includes effort, time, energy, and emotional investment. Why would someone join a church that imposes higher costs of membership?
Economic theory says that they’d only join if they got some greater benefit in return. Iannoccone proposed that strictness enhances the net benefits of membership, because it reduces “free riders,” people who use the church’s services but don’t contribute very much. Free riders attend services, eat the donuts and drink the coffee, and call on the minister when they’re in the hospital, even if they don’t contribute anything.
Strictness screens out free riders. And that’s good because your religious experience is heightened when everyone else around you is more enthusiastic; if everyone sings the hymns with more feeling, you have a better experience Sunday morning. If everyone attends Fellowship Hall after the service, and everyone is equally friendly and truly concerned about other church members, then each person has a better experience.
Strictness is associated with just about any measure of church success that you can think of. What about the number of services the typical member attends in a year?
One graph in Iannoccone’s article shows that the UU church is at the bottom in strictness, and that it’s also at the very bottom in the number of services a member attends per year (just over ten). The plot of all the other denominations forms a straight diagonal line moving up and right away from the UUA, showing a very high correlation between lifestyle distinctiveness and church attendance, with the highest on both variables being the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. (p. 1191).
What happens when you ask church members how strongly attached they feel to their church? About 40 percent of UUs say they are “strong” members, higher than Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopals, but equal with Catholics. And again, the strict churches are way up at the top.
What about annual contributions? Strict churches lead the pack. Contributions as a percentage of yearly income are lowest in the least strict denominations, about 2 percent.
After reviewing all of these numbers, Iannoccone has a simple two-word conclusion:
“Strictness works.” (p. 1183)
***
I know what you’re thinking. You would never choose a strict church. Iannoccone wouldn’t be surprised at your reaction, and here’s why: The research shows that the right level of strictness depends on the socioeconomic status of the members. UU congregations have high income and education levels. Across all the denominations, the strict religions have congregations with the lowest income and education levels. The people who join strict churches are the people with the least to lose. You’re less likely to join a strict church if you have lots of social ties to friends and family outside the church. And you have less to lose if your pay is low and your educational level is limited.
It takes strength and courage to pursue your own spiritual path. It’s easier to adopt someone else’s gospel. It’s hard to think for yourself and find your own spiritual way. Strict churches provide members with the benefit, if you can call it that, of not having to think that hard about what they believe.
So my message today isn’t that First Unitarian should become more strict. That’s a good thing, because you’d probably kick me out of the church if I said that! But there is a lesson for us.
Back in 1972, Kelley was careful to point out that strictness doesn’t mean harsh, punitive, and authoritarian. And Kelley also said it’s not necessarily about conservative churches. The Quaker dot on all of the graphs is closer to the strict churches than to the mainline denominations, and they’re probably politically more like UUs than anyone else. The reason why strictness works is because it leads to a church that is serious about making meaning. Kelley argued that churches decline when they don’t help people to understand “the meaning of life” (p. 38). What’s important isn’t growth itself; the important thing is the strength of the church community. If we’re a strong spiritual community, growth will take care of itself.
The Rev. Harland Limpert, the UUA’s director of district services, says “A congregation that has a clear understanding of who they are and what their purpose for existing is, is more likely to grow.” (Skinner, 2009)
The Rev. Peter Morales, our current UUA President, says “Growth happens naturally when congregations meet the spiritual needs of their members and when they make room in their hearts for newcomers.” “We will only revitalize our movement if we have a widespread sense of urgency—a sense that we are called to house the spiritually homeless.” (Skinner 2009)
UU churches haven’t suffered the same dramatic declines as the mainstream Protestant denominations and the Catholic church. In the last six years, we’ve grown a bit or stayed flat. And that’s because we provide a vision of how to make meaning together. It’s a vision that’s very different from the conservative, strict churches.
The UU vision is one of a community of spiritual seekers, people who’ve joined together in covenant to explore our spiritual nature together. People who care deeply about each other, and about the world we live in. People who care enough to dedicate their time, their presence, their gifts, and their service to First Unitarian.
Our liberal theology is deeply rooted in meeting the spiritual needs of our members, and our potential new members.
We need a spiritual experience in church every Sunday morning. We come to First Unitarian because the spiritual dimension of our nature is touched and enhanced.
We need to be a part of a community. We come to First Unitarian to commune with one another, to share and support each other, to feel that we are not alone in the world.
A church that’s strong is one in which we help each other to find meaning; a church in which each member progresses down their spiritual path; a church in which we join together in a community. Let us be that church.
Hoge, D. R. (1979). A test of theories of denominational growth and decline. In D. R. Hoge & D. A. Roozen (Eds.), Understanding church growth and decline: 1950-1978 (pp. 179-197). New York: The Pilgrim Press.
Hoge, D. R., & Roozen, D. A. (Eds.). (1979). Understanding church growth and decline: 1950-1978. New York: The Pilgrim Press.
Iannoccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1180-1211.
Kelley, D. (1972/1986). Why conservative churches are growing: A study in the sociology of religion. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Skinner, D. E. (2009, May 11). Membership growth in UUA slows down. UU World.