Give, and You Will Receive
Rebecca A. Glazier November/December 2024The unexpected benefits for congregations willing to put political divisions aside to engage in their communities.
In the city of Little Rock, Arkansas, there is approximately one place of worship for every 570 people. For context, the city of Boston has one place of worship for every 1,107 people and is ranked tenth in the United States for major cities with the most religious venues.1 For a scholar of religion and politics, Little Rock is a great place to study the intersection of faith and community engagement. On any given weekend congregations might be hosting health clinics, participating in neighborhood cleanups, or joining a march on the capitol. Places of worship are touchstones of community life, but their engagement presents a social science puzzle. Between caring for their members, proselytizing, and organizing Vacation Bible School, they can get stretched pretty thin. Why would they spend their limited resources on people and neighborhoods beyond their own members?
Since 2012 I have directed a community-based research project in Little Rock. For more than a decade my research team and I have used surveys and interviews of clergy and members in diverse congregations across the city to understand how and why places of worship engage in the community. The long-term, community-centric nature of this project has generated a rich resource of both qualitative and quantitative data I explore in a new book, Faith and Community: How Engagement Strengthens Members, Places of Worship, and Society. Our results indicate that community engagement offers a wealth of benefits, but that overt political action may not be the best path to reach them.
Congregations under Pressure
A welcoming neighborhood congregation—the kind that hosts a food pantry or provides hygiene kits to the unhoused—may come immediately to mind at the mention of faith-based community engagement, but such programs are not central to many places of worship. Data from the National Congregations Study shows that only about 2 percent of congregational budgets, on average, are spent on social programs like these.2 Instead of focusing on community engagement, congregations often find themselves beset with other priorities.
For one thing, many congregations are struggling with decreasing membership. In 2020, 47 percent of Americans said they belonged to a church, mosque, synagogue, or other place of worship, down from 70 percent in 1999 and below a 50-percent majority for the first time.3
This decline is especially marked for younger generations. Religious affiliation for 20- to 29-year-olds has fallen off a cliff in recent decades. According to the General Social Survey in the United States, in 1986 only 10 percent of those in their twenties said they were not affiliated with any religion. By 2016 that number was up to 36 percent.4 By 2022 it was 46 percent.5 Simply put, the religious “nones” are on the rise,6 posing an existential threat to organized religion and leading some places of worship to feel as though they are doing triage on their own membership. Under such circumstances, congregations may struggle to find the resources for community engagement.
An additional challenge is the fact that partisan hostility in the United States continues to intensify. The year 2022 saw double-digit increases in the percentages of both parties who say that members of the other party are dishonest, immoral, unintelligent, and closed-minded, compared to 2016.7 Leading a congregation under such circumstances can be a very demanding job. And it has been getting more difficult. In 2022, 42 percent of Protestant pastors said that they had given “real, serious thought to quitting the full-time ministry,” an increase of 13 percent from the previous year.8 And 38 percent of those pastors said “current political divisions” were one reason they were considering stepping away from the ministry. Even among those who haven’t considered leaving, 32 percent said political divisions negatively impacted their ability to lead.9
With membership dropping and politics making every sermon feel fraught, community engagement may be the last thing that clergy and their members are thinking about. Our data indicate they should think again.
Is Community Engagement the Solution?
Community engagement by congregations can take a variety of forms. In the United States in the 1800s, for instance, places of worship were a key means of support for seniors, before the government implemented Social Security.10 In modern times, research suggests that congregations are stepping in to “patch the social safety net” as government services change and crises like the great recession impact communities.11
We continue to see diverse forms of engagement today, such as congregations hosting small groups to discuss local concerns, adopting a neighborhood elementary school in need, or opening their doors to share meals with those who are hungry. Congregational community engagement is about reaching beyond membership to serve or connect with the broader community. And our data indicate that such engagement efforts have a number of upsides. When people of faith get involved in their communities, everyone benefits.
Most immediately, individual people benefit. Getting to know and serve your neighbors leads to happier, healthier lives. Sometimes called “the paradox of generosity,” people who voluntarily give their time and money to help others have higher levels of personal well-being.12 Unsurprisingly, community-engaged individuals report spiritual benefits as well. They are more likely to say they feel close to God and experience moments of deep spiritual peace.
But individuals aren’t the only ones to benefit. Our research also shows significant benefits flowing to places of worship. For instance, community engagement is positively associated with more frequent worship service attendance. Clergy who report that attendance at their worship services has increased over the past two years offered an average of 4.6 social or community programs, compared to 3.2 programs for congregations whose attendance didn’t change and only 1.2 programs for those with decreasing attendance. Our rich qualitative and quantitative data, explored in my book, allow us to dive deeply into the causal processes, accounting for size, resources, and clergy leadership in demonstrating just how critical community engagement is.
Finally, these benefits aggregate up to improve society at large. People who are engaged in their community feel a greater sense of political efficacy—that their voice matters—so they are less jaded and disengaged.13 They feel a greater sense of warmth and connection; they are more likely to vote and provide needed help in their community. Essentially, they are building social capital.14 Thus, engagement can help us create the kind of society and democracy many of us long for.
But not every congregation will view every community project the same way. Packing Narcan kits to distribute to drug addicts may prove more controversial than packing snack kits to distribute to elementary school kids. How can congregations reap the benefits of community engagement while avoiding potential pitfalls?
Using Engagement to Counter Political Division
Community engagement may be just what shrinking, divided congregations need. But how can they do it right in today’s challenging political climate? There’s no question that at this particular moment in history, some forms of community engagement might be perceived as political—and many congregants may want to avoid the very appearance of politics. A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found that 63 percent of respondents want places of worship to stay out of politics.15
Perhaps unexpectedly, engagement can be a solution to society’s political divisiveness. As people sort themselves into more homogenous neighborhoods and social groups,16 places of worship are one location where people can have positive interactions with those who hold different political views than they do.17 These kinds of places are becoming increasingly rare in the United States. As one religious leader in our study put it: “I’m reluctant to get entangled in the political space as a church . . . there’s a place for people at [our church] who vote blue and red, and I’d be careful about alienating either—there are too few places in our society where they mingle as it is!”
But one great way to build congregational warmth and fellowship is to do service together.18 More than any trust fall or ropes course, bringing members of a congregation together to serve and give back to the community will unite them with a sense of purpose in doing good, helping them to overcome political differences.
Another key way to counter what may feel like a toxic political environment is to encourage ideological diversity within congregations, while avoiding division. This can be a fine balance, but there are many benefits to diverse congregations.19 Congregations that have both liberals and conservatives at worship services tend to have members who feel more politically efficacious. As opposed to the jaded and disengaged feelings that many people experience in modern society, the people in these congregations believe that their voices matter and that they can make a difference.
Additionally, clergy can avoid potential political minefields by talking about projects in community or religious terms, instead of political terms. Our data suggests that overt political messages, especially on hot-button issues, are unlikely to be well received and can lead congregations to feel more hostile and less warm. For instance, one congregation leader put it this way: “We do not use, and we do not think it appropriate to use, the word ‘political’ to describe social justice advocacy and community engagement. When we engage in issue advocacy, we are advocating for the values of our faith.”
Where Congregations Can Start
Every congregation is different, so getting involved in the community will look different for each place of worship. As a social scientist, I can’t help suggesting that congregations begin with some data collection to get to know what is important to their members. Members will be more likely to care about and get involved in efforts that they are personally invested in. The congregation survey that our research team uses is free and publicly available on our website.20 Any congregation is welcome to use it to survey their members and learn more about the kinds of community engagement they care most about.
Because when it comes down to actually pulling off community projects, members can be vital leaders. Especially when projects are first getting started, it helps to have a champion in the congregation who will spearhead the efforts. But while members can provide the energy and the volunteer hours to keep projects going, if there is a religious imperative for a particular kind of engagement, clergy are often the ones to make that connection. Think of the Catholic Church calling for action on immigration, citing the biblical mandate to care for the stranger.21 Or, in more recent years, clergy who have explicitly named a religious imperative in racial justice and reconciliation work.22 In Arkansas the work of clergy and committed lay leaders on the issue of foster care has dramatically increased the number of foster care placements in the state through a faith-based community organization known as The CALL.23
Finally, especially for smaller congregations, partnerships can make a huge difference. Collaboration is one way to share the burdens and resources associated with engagement. For instance, in Little Rock the leadership at St. James United Methodist Church told us about their partnership with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as part of the Family Promise program to provide temporary housing for unhoused families: “We partner with the Latter-day Saints because we had the facility to house these families. They had the volunteers, but not necessarily a space to have them. So we partner with them, which has been a great, great relationship.”
Religious congregations in the United States face many challenges today—from declining membership to toxic political anger. But community engagement is one way that congregations can help their members, their own institutions, and society. Our research demonstrates just how valuable engagement is—and that is something you don’t have to live in the Bible Belt to believe.
1 Matthew Speiser, “The U.S. Cities With the Most Religious Venues per Capita Aren’t Quite What You’d Expect,” Business Insider, June 3, 2015.
2 Mark Chaves, Joseph Roso, Anna Holleman, and Mary Hawkins, National Congregations Study: Waves I-IV Summary Tables (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Department of Sociology, 2021).
3 Jeffrey M. Jones, “U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time,” Gallup, Mar. 29, 2021.
4 Lisa D. Pearce and Claire Chipman Gilliland, Religion in America (Berkley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2020).
5 Michael Davern, Rene Bautista, Jeremy Freese, Stephen L. Morgan, and Tom W. Smith, General Social Survey 2021 Cross-Section (machine-readable data file). 1 datafile (68,846 cases) and 1 codebook (506 pages) (Chicago: NORC ed.)
6 Ryan P. Burge, The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2021).
7 “As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration With the Two-Party System,” Pew Research Center, Aug. 9, 2022.
8 “Pastors Share Top Reasons They’ve Considered Quitting Ministry in the Past Year,” Barna Group, Apr. 27, 2022.
9 Ibid.
10 Mark Chaves, Congregations in America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), p. 85.
11 Emily J. Warren, Melody K. Waring, and Daniel R. Meyer, “Are U.S. Congregations Patching the Social Safety Net: Trends From 1998 to 2012,” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 46, no. 3 (2019): 39.
12 Christian Smith and Hilary Davidson, The Paradox of Generosity: Giving We Receive, Grasping We Lose (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2014).
13 Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995).
14 Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
15 Gregory A. Smith, Claire Gecewicz, et al., “Americans Have Positive Views About Religion’s Role in Society, but Want It Out of Politics,” Pew Research Center, Nov. 15. 2019.
16 Bill Bishop, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009).
17 Paul A. Djupe, Jacob R. Neiheisel, and Anand E. Sokhey, “Reconsidering the Role of Politics in Leaving Religion: The Importance of Affiliation,” American Journal of Political Science 62, no. 1 (2018): 161-175.
18 Magdalena Wojcieszak and Benjamin R. Warner, “Can Interparty Contact Reduce Affective Polarization? A Systematic Test of Different Forms of Intergroup Contact,” Political Communication 37, no. 6 (2020): 789-811.
19 Kevin D. Dougherty and Kimberly R. Huyser, “Racially Diverse Congregations: Organizational Identity and the Accommodation of Differences,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47, no. 1 (2008): 23-44; Hansong Zhang, Joshua N. Hook, Jennifer E. Farrell, David K. Mosher, Daryl R. Van Tongeren, and Don E. Davis, “The Effect of Religious Diversity on Religious Belonging and Meaning: The Role of Intellectual Humility,” Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 10, no. 1 (2018): 72-78.
20 Surveys can be accessed for free at this site: https://ualr.edu/lrcs/2024/02/26/surveys/.
21 Stephen J. McKinney, Robert J. Hill, and Honor Hania, “Welcoming the Stranger: New Testament and Catholic Social Teaching Perspectives on Migrants and Refugees,” Pastoral Review 11, no. 6 (2015): 50-55.
22 RNS Staff, “One Year After George Floyd’s Murder, Faith Leaders Continue the Call for Racial Reckoning,” Religion News Service, May 25, 2021.
23 Benjamin Hardy, ”In Arkansas, One Faith-based Group Recruits Almost Half of Foster Homes,” The Imprint, Nov. 28, 2017.
Article Author: Rebecca A. Glazier
Rebecca A. Glazier is a political science professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She is director of the Little Rock Congregations Study, a longitudinal, community-based research project on religion and community engagement. She is the author of Faith and Community: How Engagement Strengthens Members, Places of Worship, and Society (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2024). More information about her research is available on her website: http://www.rebeccaglazier.net/.