By Brian Hollar
As COVID-19 rapidly spreads around the world, the sphere of life most are used to living in has rapidly contracted into our homes. Businesses, schools, and religious services have all quickly moved online. No one knows exactly how long our physical and social distancing will last — or what the short-term and long-term effects this will have on the economy. While many pundits are discussing the wide-ranging effects on the economy, and on both physical and mental health, another key question to ask is how the coronavirus will affect religious life?
In normal times, church attendance is used by sociologists and economists as a proxy for religiosity for Christianity. But how do we measure religiosity in a time when people are self-isolating? Should churches use views of their YouTube or Twitch videos? And in a time when people should not meet in large groups or even leave their homes — what does church attendance even mean? And how will the coronavirus affect religious practice of other religions around the world? In this article I will explore these questions with particular reference to the case of Christianity in America.
Several forces are simultaneously at work that could impact religiosity. First, many people have more time on their hands and so the opportunity cost of time spent in religious activities has decreased. This will be particularly true for people who have seen interruptions in their employment because of decrease in economic activity. If everything else was equal, we would expect this to lead to a rise in church attendance.
But everything else is not equal right now. As the uncertainty of the coronavirus pandemic continues to grow, people with religious backgrounds will likely turn to their faith to find comfort and solace in this time of distress. In recent years, however, regular church attendance as a percentage of the population has steadily fallen in the United States (with even more pronounced drop-offs in many European nations). And the percentage of the population identifying as having no religion has been growing. This decrease in societal religiosity means that fewer people today than in times past will likely turn to religious institutions for solace during this pandemic.
Dr Brian Hollar
Additionally, the pandemic is causing the social element of church participation to decrease significantly. If a service is being live-streamed, congregants are likely not going to see anyone but their clergy on a screen on Sunday mornings. If a church has no streaming service or if many congregants are not online (due to factors such as age or income), then social distancing may rapidly translate into rapid reduction in the social benefit of being involved in church. If this pandemic lasts more than a few weeks, some very critical social capital might be lost which may impact churches long-term after they attempt to re-gather once the social restrictions from the pandemic lessen.
Utilizing services like Zoom or Skype to conduct interactive Sunday school or Bible studies may help to mitigate these effects, but having less opportunity for spontaneous, in-person social interaction may weaken social bonds within churches the longer the pandemic lasts. The more successful churches are at offering ways for people to continue to interact in real-time with one another during the pandemic, the less social capital they should expect to lose. The less successful churches are at providing a genuine sense of community, connectedness, and support during this crisis, the more they will find themselves competing with other streaming media for the attention of believers.
Depending on how many churches react during the crisis may shape public perception of religion. Both internationally and domestically in the United States, there have been several examples of religious services turning into “super-spreading events” have occurred. A religious group in South Korea (Shincheonji Church of Jesus) in Daegu originally tried to defy their government and resisted sharing attendance records which slowed government response to a COVID-19 outbreak in their country. A choir practice in Washington state turned deadly as 45 out of 60 people present at the practice are now confirmed to have COVID-19 — with 3 hospitalized and 2 who have already died. A pastor in Florida was recently arrested for continuing to hold services at his megachurch in defiance of public health warnings. Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, an Evangelical school, stood out as a notable exception when they were the only major university in Virginia to have students return to campus after spring break in late March — well after other universities closed their doors and moved classes online. If stories like this become a pervasive narrative, this may negatively impact society’s view of churches once the pandemic is over.
In contrast, there are also many stories of churches being among the first in communities to practice social distancing — long before governments have moved to enforce various forms of social distancing. Many churches have also been very active in making sure members are well taken care of and find physical, mental, and spiritual support for their members during this time of isolation. If these examples become more prominent than the negative stories above, this may have a strong positive effect on the public’s perception of Christianity and desire to strengthen their connection with local churches in the midst of lockdowns.
Christianity has a long history of believers risking their lives during pandemics to minister to the needs of others. There are many areas today that Christian organizations can also help, but much of the aid given by Christians in the past is now provided by government. In the current pandemic, healthcare workers are now the ones who are seen risking their own lives for others. These “crowding out” effects may reduce the need for individuals to rely on the ministry of churches to help them through times of crisis and rely more on government and medicine than in times past.
And what if the lockdowns due to COVID-19 last for months rather than weeks? Will churches begin to hold two services – one in person for those who are confirmed to be immune and another online service for those who are still vulnerable? What will that do for the long-term viability of many churches? What if vulnerable populations are told to still shelter at home after society slowly re-emerges from social distancing? Older individuals are more likely to be active in church, but also are more likely to be vulnerable to the coronavirus. If this scenario plays out, their absence in churches may negatively impact both the social fabric and financial viability of many congregations.
Megachurches with large buildings, which require large budgets funded by an assumption of high attendance, may be particularly impacted. So too might smaller churches in rural regions or poorer urban areas, with congregations whose livelihood may be more impacted by the economic slowdown. Rural churches would also be less likely to have congregants who have active internet use with broadband connections at home. Less connectivity may also be an issue for many Mainline denominations who have congregations who are older than the general population.
Putting all of this together means that COVID-19 may have an overall negative effect on societal religiosity. Many congregations are likely to face severe challenges ahead as they attempt to deal with and later recover from the coronavirus. Life may be very different after people begin to slowly come out of lockdown. The uncertainty of the duration and magnitude of the effects of the coronavirus have already caused a severe change in social and economic behavior in countries around the world.
Churches that successfully adapt to these new realities will be most likely to sustain active participation from their congregations during the pandemic and beyond. If physical distancing lasts for a long time, we may see significant religious contraction as well as economic contraction around the world.
Brian Hollar (@brianhollar) is an Associate Professor of Economics at Marymount University. His areas of research include the economics of religion, law and economics, public choice, and economic development.