“Winning” in American Religious Tradition

When it comes to religion, what does it mean to “win,” and how do we quantify and measure success? Religion is something personal and often hard to fully categorize or compare, particularly in the United States. The Churching of America by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark seeks to answer this question by challenging long-held ideas about religion in the United States. Finke and Stark not only present their findings but attempt to explain them in terms of economic principles. This approach allows for comparisons between both “winners” and “losers” in the history of religion in this country. While the doctrine of growing churches may be very different, there are key commonalities that make them winners. Ideology coupled with presentation and approach can make or break a church.

In oversimplified terms, the winners are those with the greatest growth and who hold a large percentage of the public, while the losers may still be active churches with members, but they have failed to successfully create and sustain long-term growth and retention. I say growth in terms of population because a church can grow its membership at a significantly slower rate than that of its competitors. While their numbers may have increased they have lost any position of prominence in the greater community as the percentage of adherents goes down. There are many factors that come into play in determining whether or not a denomination or church will win or lose in America. Given the large amount of competing Christian denominations, their growth, and their far-reaching history in the U.S. Finke and Stark have focused mainly on comparing the strategies and success of different denominations within this particular framework. 

Nostalgic views of the role of religion in the U.S. has lead to widely accepted claims that have been damagingly inflated. Many religious leaders hold that religion is dying thanks to the rise of secularization, but this is simply not the case. While children may not pray in public schools anymore that is not a demonstration of how religious the country is as a whole, and becomes even less interesting when compared to how many people are actively involved in their local congregations and the importance of this involvement. This was the greatest myth dispelled by the text. I have never felt comfortable with the idea that Christians, in particular, are losing anything but perhaps that is because I have a very general view of what “Christian” means. Catholics are Christians, as are Mormons this has always been an accepted fact in my mind, and I become quite confused when others disagree. A single mainline denomination may be losing members and on the decline, but Christianity is not; this idea is presented throughout the text. Secularization gives rise to a revival, not a decline in religion. When people think of U.S. history, they think of a country founded by Christians and an unstable untamed land being claimed by those who persevered West and stayed strong thanks to their faith. This is a great image, but it ignores the countless individuals who were not religious. Research suggests that far fewer people were actively engaged in religion in both the eras of the Revolution and the Civil War than they are today. 

I was born in the U.S., and outside of a couple of short visits to Mexico with my parents when I was very young, I have never left. I am accustomed to the religious landscape of this country and particularly the landscape of the South Western region. I’ve grown numb to the number of churches on the corners, particularly in the smaller towns, and while I understand that other countries have state-run religions and nationally sanctioned churches, the effect of that has been largely lost on me. The U.S. has a free market when it comes to religion thanks to the separation of church and state, and it is this type of market that has created a religious environment unlike any other. A denomination or sect will succeed or fail based on its product and ability to appeal to the population. There is no room for lazy or disinterested clergy which has given rise to enthusiastic and enigmatic leaders who often come from the community they preach to and are better able to relate to their members. Clergy do not work to become wealthy, they work for very little monetary or worldly gain, which makes them even more trustworthy to the average individual. 

The video lecture also highlighted how religion comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. This helps to explain why less educated individuals can be some of the most successful preachers. When thinking of individuals as consumers, it only makes sense that they would demand a particular product that a successful clergyman would understand and provide, while the unsuccessful ones would be those who missed the mark entirely. This is so important because it is so unique to America. Previously, the clergy were well-educated individuals who acted as teachers who were prone to complacency, now they are highly adept salesmen who see a demand and fill it. Sects where the community needs are the most important focus and where the leaders are relatable and understand those needs develop into very successful churches. 

The video lecture discussed a few key concepts, but the one that I found the most interesting was that of the importance of structure. The larger and more rigid a hierarchy is, the more likely a sect is to become a major movement. I think this fact, more than any other, highlights the great need in the market; people want answers they can understand and relate to, but they crave order. The structure of a church plays a very large role in whether or not it will be successful. Another key factor that was discussed was the importance of tension. Personally, I find the concept of religious tension unsettling and tend to avoid places of worship where the congregation seems to be full of individuals who reject the day to day world outright. However, it would seem that being at odds with those outside of the church is what keeps the members of a sect invested. Thinking on this idea more, it seems completely logical that those who are looking for a greater purpose would be encouraged by their differences from others and consider their sect special instead of problematic. The more liberal a church is, the more likely it is to see a decline for many reasons, not the least of which is that there isn’t a large enough market, and the investment from individuals just isn’t as high. 

It is very important to remember that initial success does not guarantee long-term success. If complacency is damaging when present in clergy, it is a swift and effective killer when placed amongst the laity of a bottom-up religion.  I often joke that a town is not a town until you have a gas station and at least three Baptist Churches. Why three Baptist Churches? They are EVERYWHERE in my mind because I have seen so many in passing throughout my life. But Why are they everywhere? I must admit that I never thought about this question with any actual depth. Clearly, Baptists are winners. Finke and Stark agree with that point. After reading this book, I have come to think about what that means and what people are looking for when it comes to a church home. A key concept is that of apathy and its destructive nature when it comes to an organization. When one denomination becomes too big or too worldly, its members begin to lose interest. If the focus of a church remains on fire and brimstone and the stakes are high so is the investment. This makes a lot of sense as there are a lot of people looking for greater meaning and purpose. Strict requirements and expectations in a sect provide greater purpose and attract those who will be devoted and invested in its growth. There is a large market for those seeking greater purpose and excited participation, which also explains the success of evangelicals, where the idea of proselytizing is considered a community mandate from God, this allows for every enthusiastic parishioner to have a stake in the future of the faith.

The idea that success or failure is measured by the numbers is a simple enough concept. It seems unreasonable to think there will ever come a time when religious ideology is no longer present in society, but it also seems unreasonable to think that there is room for every denomination. Finke and Stark show that, to some degree, there is a shared methodology that the winners have in common. It can initially be very easy to dismiss smaller sects as fanatical or a passing phase since they are outside of the mainstream, but having a mainstream audience and wide acceptance isn’t necessarily a recipe for success. In the end, it comes down to the ability of a church to compete in the free market. Their product, appeal, and perseverance all play far greater roles in determining success or failure than mass acceptance. Winning or losing comes down to one thing: the long-term sustainability of a movement.