Congregations of a Feather? Exploring Homophily in a Network of Religious Congregations

Abstract

Background Homophily, the tendency for relationships to be more common among actors who share similarities, has been observed in social network studies of individuals and organizations. Homophily can encourage close, supportive relationships but limit exposure to diversity. Homophily may have important implications for religious congregations, but research has been limited due to few social network data collections on congregations. Purpose This research note uses a new data collection from an inter-congregational network of religious congregations in eight counties encompassing and surrounding a major metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. Its goal is to identify sources of homophily between congregations as well as types of congregations whose immediate networks, which include the congregations to which a congregation has direct relational ties, differ in levels of homophily. Methods Quadratic assignment procedure correlations are used to identify sources of homophily, and both fractional logistic and negative binomial regression models are used to examine the extent to which congregational characteristics predict levels of homophily. Results Three key sources of homophily include sharing the same religious tradition and family, sharing the same racial composition, and having a smaller geographical distance between congregations. Congregations’ religious family, racial composition, community setting, and the extent to which attenders are younger and newer matter for predicting levels of homophily. The results have implications for: LDS and Church of Christ congregations; multiracial congregations; declining denominationalism; rural congregations. Conclusions and Implications Congregations of a feather do, in fact, flock together. The results inform a variety of practical implications for congregations. Because of the time constraints experienced by many ministers, denominational events might provide some of the most accessible opportunities to build relationships with other congregations. Multiracial congregations often serve as bridges connecting congregations of different racial compositions. Distinctive and centralized religious groups, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, may also effectively encourage relationships across congregations of different racial compositions. Homophily may also impact the extent to which congregations learn about innovations from other congregations and the extent to which collaborations with other congregations are effective.

Homophily and Social Capital in a Network of Religious Congregations

“…Intra-congregational network dynamics also matter for understanding whether members remain at or leave Amish congregations (Stein et al 2020;Corcoran et al 2021). In addition to McClure's previous articles (McClure 2020(McClure , 2021 and Mark Chapman's inter-congregational study of Canadian evangelical congregations (Chapman 2004), this study contributes inter-congregational research to the small but growing social network literature on congregations.…”

“…Past research has underscored the importance of inter-congregational relational ties involving, for example, ministers from different congregations gathering to learn together and to support each other as well as congregations collaborating for joint worship events and for community service opportunities (Ammerman 2005;Chaves and Anderson 2008, p. 434;Marler et al 2013;Fulton 2016;McClure 2020). Due to data limitations, it has not been possible to explore U.S. congregations' relationships within a wider network until recently (McClure 2020(McClure , 2021, which can elucidate the extent to which congregations bridge together otherwise disconnected congregations or are embedded in a tight-knit cluster of congregations. Both of these network dynamics have important benefits for navigating change.…”

Is Together Better? Investigating the Relationship between Network Dynamics and Congregations’ Vitality and Sustainability

“…With additional colleagues, they also explored growth, gender composition, and orientations toward the future as correlates of vitality (Bruce et al 2006; Woolever et al 2006a, b). Building on recent research about an inter-congregational network (McClure 2020, 2021a, b), this article contributes to this research by investigating a network-based predictor of vitality and sustainability.…”

“…xvi–xvii; for examples, see Olson 1989; Stark and Finke 2000, p. 161; Scheitle and Adamczyk 2009; Stroope 2012; McClure 2015). However, there are small, growing literatures that are based on actual network data concerning intra-congregational networks (Lee et al 2019; Todd et al 2020; Stein et al 2020; Corcoran et al 2021) and inter-congregational networks (Chapman 2004; McClure 2020, 2021a, b), and this article contributes to the latter. Third, there is disagreement in the ION literature about the impact of brokerage on organizational outcomes, and this literature does not provide a clear expectation for how brokerage might impact congregational vitality and sustainability.…”

“…Relational connections matter for understanding how congregations navigate this cultural moment because relationships impact organizations’ ability to learn, to adapt, and to innovate by encouraging or constraining trust, cooperation, autonomy, and access to information (Gargiulo and Benassi 2000; Ruef 2002; Kreiser 2011). Previous research has identified a variety of ways in which congregations connect through friendships and collaborations (Ammerman 2005; Chaves and Anderson 2008, p. 434; Marler et al 2013; Fulton 2016), and recent research has begun to understand these relationships as part of a broader relational network between religious congregations, called an inter-congregational network (McClure 2020, 2021a, b). In analyzing an inter-congregational network of religious congregations from eight counties encompassing and surrounding a major metropolitan area in the southeastern United States, this article examines the extent to which congregations’ relationships with other congregations matter for understanding their vitality and sustainability.…”