Strict Church Theory: Behind Conservative Churches’ Prevail and Liberal Churches’ Decline

If you look into some statistics from 1990-2010, some of the more liberal or moderate-leaning Christian denominations are losing followers quicker than a cat loses interest in a laser pointer, at the meantime,  the conservative and stricter denominations like Evangelicals are holding strong or even growing.

So why this is happening,  let’s find out with PAA.

Hi, I am Shao Chieh Lo, welcome to what people also ask, where I search something seemingly obvious and share with you some of its PAA, aka People Also Ask, which is a feature telling you what other people are searching on Google that relates to your query

Today’s query is “strict church theory”, a theory that suggests that strict religious are stronger. We will also explore if this theory can explain the decline of liberal-leaning churches in the United States with relevant research and online articles.

So let’s start with our first question

 

What is strict church theory?

According to an article titled “The Power of the Mustard Seed-Why strict churches are strong.”published by Slate,  the strict church theory, as explained by economist Laurence Iannaccone in his 1994 essay “Why Strict Churches Are Strong,” suggests that people choose to join strict religious communities because of the quantifiable benefits their piety affords them.

 

Laurence Iannaccone is an American economist who has extensively studied the economics of religion. He, alongside other scholars, has developed a theory called the “supply-side theory of religion”, which suggests that religious groups can be analyzed like other economic organizations, such as firms or markets.

 

According to Iannaccone, the devout person is willing to pay a high financial, social, and emotionally  price to participate in strict religion because he believes he buys a so-called “better religious product”.

 

A better religious product, as Iannaccone defined, is one that is more costly to produce and consume. He argues that higher costs can signal a stronger commitment to the group and its beliefs, and therefore result in greater participation and loyalty from members.

 

For example, a religious group that requires members to attend frequent meetings, make significant financial contributions, and adhere to strict behavioral guidelines may be seen as offering a “better” product than a group that has few requirements and little commitment from its members.

 

The rules discourage free riders aka the people who undermine group efforts by taking more than they give back. The strict church is one in which members with weak commitments have been weeded out, resulting in a community of passionate members who are deeply involved in one another’s lives and more willing than most to come to one another’s aid. 

 

In this way, religion is seen as a “commodity” that people produce collectively, and the benefits of strict religious observance are thought to extend beyond the afterlife and into secular day-to-day life even the participant might not aware of its secular value.

 

However, it’s important to note that Iannaccone’s theory has been subject to debate and criticism from other scholars in the field of religious studies, who argue that it oversimplifies the complex nature of religious experience and community. Which we will discuss later. But before that, let’s talk about 

 

What are some examples of “strict churches”?

 

Here are some real-life examples of how the theory applies to different religious groups:

 

Amish: The Amish are a Christian denomination known for their traditional, conservative lifestyle. They live in tight-knit communities and adhere to strict moral codes, such as dressing modestly and abstaining from modern technology. The Amish church demands a high level of commitment from its members, including regular attendance at church services and adherence to strict behavioral guidelines. The high cost of joining and remaining in the Amish community may be seen as a reason why the Amish have been able to maintain a strong and cohesive community over time.

 

Hasidic Jews: Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism that emphasizes the importance of spiritual growth and religious observance. Hasidic Jews are known for their distinctive dress, their emphasis on prayer and study, and their strict adherence to Jewish law. The Hasidic community demands a high level of commitment from its members, including regular attendance at synagogue services and strict adherence to dietary laws and other religious practices. The high cost of membership in the Hasidic community may be seen as a reason why the community has been able to maintain its distinctive identity and a strong sense of community over time.

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian denomination known for their evangelistic zeal and their emphasis on door-to-door preaching. The Jehovah’s Witnesses church demands a high level of commitment from its members, including regular attendance at meetings, adherence to strict behavioral guidelines, and a willingness to devote time and resources to evangelism. The high cost of membership in the Jehovah’s Witnesses community may be seen as a reason why the community has been able to maintain a strong sense of identity and purpose over time.

 

What are some criticisms of strict church theory?

 

There are many criticisms and discussions that challenge the assumptions of strict church theory, for example, one study titled “Are strict churches really stronger? A study of strictness,congregational activity and growth in American Protestant churches” published by West Virginia University in 2010 examines the relationship between strictness, congregational activity, and church growth. While some indicators of strictness and congregational activity are positively associated with growth, most do not have strong associations with it. The study suggests that other factors or church characteristics may be better predictors of church growth, but strictness and congregational activity are indeed correlated with growth. However,  it appears that a strong sense of purpose and mission is more important for growth than strictness itself. Overall, strictness appears to be associated with growth, but promoting solidarity may be more important than strictness in particular.

 

There are also many logical criticisms of this theory, and I have compiled some of them as follows:

 

1. Causal ambiguity: It is not clear whether the success of strict religious communities is due to their strict practices or other factors, such as their geographic location, historical context, or the specific beliefs of their members.
2. Selection bias: The strict church theory tends to select successful religious communities and attributes their success to their strict practices while ignoring the many unsuccessful communities that also have strict practices.
3. Ethnocentrism: The strict church theory tends to focus on Protestant communities in the United States, ignoring other religious traditions and communities around the world.

 

And even if the strict church theory does hold water to some degree, it’s obvious strict churches do have some limitations. So

 

When would a strict church fail to attract followers?

 

The strict church theory suggests that strictness in religious practice can be beneficial to a religious organization. However, this theory has its limitations. One limitation is that strictness can be counterproductive if a church fails to provide acceptable substitutes for what it asks its members to give up.

 

For example, cults that lure their followers into the wilderness but provide them with no livelihood soon fade into history.  

 

A good example of the strictness of a church backfiring is Scientology. 

 

Scientology has a reputation for being highly controlling and strict, with strict codes of conduct, intense levels of surveillance, and an emphasis on discipline. While strictness can foster group loyalty, in Scientology’s case, it may have pushed some followers away, who found the level of control suffocating or invasive. 

 

Scientology is known for its high financial demands on its members, including expensive courses and donations required for spiritual advancement. The financial burden placed on members may have discouraged some followers from continuing their involvement with the church.

 

While the overly-strict policies of a church could be counterproductive, a certain degree of strictness can be beneficial in the spiritual marketplace, as it provides an advantage by attracting enthusiastic and committed followers.

 

In America, where there is no state religion and is a truly open market in religion, there are many varieties of fundamentalism and orthodoxy, including the explosive growth of conservative Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and the slow decline of more liberal denominations such as Episcopalianism. This may represent the natural outcome of religious competition.

 

So does that means the religious landscape will gradually be dominated by conservatives? 

 

That is our next question:

 

Would the religious landscape be gradually dominated by conservatives? 

 

Assuming that the strict church theory holds true, it is possible that liberal churches may diminish over time, while conservative and strict churches thrive. The crucial question to consider is what impact this shift could have on the present and future political and religious climate.

 

An article titled “Why IS liberal Protestantism dying, anyway?” published by Patheo argues that conservative churches tend to be better at forming communities than liberal churches. The reason for this, according to the author, is that conservative churches tend to have more rigorous membership requirements, which helps them build a stronger core of committed believers and eliminate people with weaker commitments.

 

If a church demands that members tithe 10% of their income, arrive on time each Sunday without fail, and agree to believe seemingly crazy things, only those who are really sure they want to stick around will stay.

 

This theory has been tested empirically. For example, anthropologist Richard Sosis and psychologist Eric Bressler conducted a retrospective study of American communes in the 19th century titled “Cooperation and Commune Longevity: A Test of the Costly Signaling Theory of Religion” published in Cross-Cultural Research in 2003 found that religious communes whose membership requirements were strict and demanding survived, on average, many years longer than those without strict demands.

 

Overall, the article suggests that conservative churches tend to have stronger communities than liberal churches because they have stricter membership requirements, which helps them build a stronger core of committed believers.

 

But are conservatives actually gradually dominating the religious landscape? 

 

At least in America, not really. One thing to notice is that almost all the previously mentioned articles and research in this video that support strict church theory are mainly citing data from before 2010. But if you look into more recent data, it paints a totally different trend.

 

According to an article titled “The 2020 Census of American Religion” published by the Public Religion Research Institute, the religious landscape in the United States is undergoing a gradual transformation but is not being overtly dominated by conservatives.

 

And notably, White mainline protestants have actually rebounded in recent years. 

 

For those who don’t know, mainline churches refer to a group of moderate Protestant denominations in the United States, which typically hold more theologically and socially liberal views compared to evangelical or fundamentalist counterparts. These churches may support same-sex marriage within their congregations, express more inclusive ideas about eternal salvation, and prioritize social welfare and justice in their political efforts rather than emphasizing strict and conservative moral doctrines.

 

These denominations include the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, among others.

 

According to the data by PRRI, while mainline churches experienced a decline over the past few decades, recent data show that this decline has slowed down and even rebounded, indicating a shift in the trend. 

 

After a decline from 19% of the population in 2007 to a low of 13% in 2016, mainline churches’ proportion has seen a steady increase, reaching 16% in 2020.

 

Younger Americans also display a greater degree of religious diversity, with fewer identifying as Christians and a larger proportion identifying as non-Christian religions.

 

In summary, while the religious landscape in the United States is evolving, it is not predominantly dominated by conservatives. 

 

However, the recent developments in the American religious landscape do not necessarily defy the strict church theory but rather show a more nuanced and complex picture of religious dynamics in the United States.

 

The rebound in more liberal-leaning mainline churches and the recent decline of more conservative and strict religions might appear to challenge the strict church theory on the surface. 

 

However, it is essential to consider that these changes are part of a broader and more complex religious landscape that is influenced by various factors such as demographic shifts, immigration, cultural changes, and intergenerational differences in religious beliefs and affiliations.

 

There may be instances where mainline churches adopt and implement certain practices or beliefs that resonate with their members, leading to a resurgence in their growth. 

 

Additionally, the broader societal context, such as an increased focus on social justice and inclusion, may attract individuals to more moderate religious groups.

 

In addition, one downside of the data in this article is that, except for white Christians, it does not divide Christians in other ethnic groups into more detailed categories, it simply separates say “ black Protestants” into their own group, and then divides the white Christians into various segments, so this trend might not be representative to other minority groups.

 

In conclusion, recent data suggests that the religious landscape in the United States is not predominantly dominated by conservatives, but rather presents a complex and nuanced picture influenced by various factors, including societal context and demographic shifts, without necessarily defying the strict church theory.

 

If you made it to the end of the video, chances are that you enjoy learning what people also ask on Google. But let’s face it, reading PAA yourself will be a pain. So here’s the deal, I will do the reading for you and upload a video compiling some fun PAAs once a week, all you have to do is to hit the subscribe button and the bell icon so you won’t miss any PAA report that I compile. So just do it right now. Bye!