Melanie Page

I recently completed a 300-level course on Sociology and Religion and wanted to share the papers I wrote here. First, I have a report on any health benefits provided to society by religion. At a later date, I’ll share my argument on Biblical literalism and the desire to church shop.

A Report on Health and Wellbeing in Connection with Religion: 

Religious Communities as Social Support Systems in the United States  

Melanie Page 

Department of History and Contemporary Society, Bethel University 

SOC 301: Sociology of Religion—tutorial  

Dr. Robert Daniels  

December 22, 2023 

Recent sociological studies looking for any connections between religion and health and wellbeing indicate that it is a challenging topic about which researchers cannot say anything definitively. Too many variables affect the data. For example, if a person attends religious services regularly but has poor health, is it that religion has no effect on health, that it decreases health, or something else entirely? However, the researchers included in this paper explained the limitations of their studies and how they controlled variables for more accurate results. When we talk about health casually, we may discuss physical, mental, and spiritual health. However, this paper will specifically address health (i.e., physical health) and wellbeing (i.e., mental health), not spiritual health. Instead, I examine the relationship between health and wellbeing and religion, considering which facets of religious participation have the greatest impact. Overall, it is not faith that has an impact on health and wellbeing, but the network of social support created by religious communities, filling a gap left by government agencies, that has positive consequences, and if that network is lost or unreachable, a person’s health and wellbeing suffer. 

Firstly, how many Americans attend religious services regularly? For comparison, Yamane (2020) learned that religious service attendance and sports engagement had a similar number of participants: “26.3% of adults report playing sports and 30.6% attend sporting events, which is similar to rates of regular attendance at religious services” (p. 69). In a study conducted by Fenelon and Danielsen (2016), their numbers matched Yamane’s findings, and they added that 56% of religious people attended services monthly. On the other hand, the number of people who did not identify as religious doubled between 2007 and 2014, with even more people specifically identifying in polls as atheist or agnostic, as opposed to the more generic “nonreligious” respondents (Hayward et al., 2016). According to Fenelon and Danielsen, of the 20% of people who claimed they had no religious affiliation, 75% of those respondents had been raised in a religion and left it. However, even people who were raised in a religious tradition and identified as nonreligious as adults attended worships services occasionally—40%, in fact. 

Many sociologists’ findings revealed a positive connection between religion and health and wellbeing—but it also depended on where the person lived. In one study, Hayward et al. (2016) revealed that atheists tended to live in western and northeastern states, agnostics were typically in the western states, and those with a religious affiliation and those with “none” (meaning no religious affiliation but does not identify as agnostic or atheist) mostly lived in southern states. There were more health benefits when a person attended religious services regularly but did not live in a predominantly religious American state. Myers (2020) described a puzzling conclusion after researching religious states in the U.S. versus religious individuals living in more secular states. The results showed that highly religious states where people regularly attended religious services had more crime, higher rates of smoking, a lower life expectancy, and more frequent teen pregnancy. However, a person who attended religious services regularly while living in a more secular state would benefit from a longer life expectancy, lower crime and divorce rates, and fewer of these individuals smoke. If a young person attended religious services regularly and lived in a more secular state, they were less likely to engage in premarital sex, though the difference is “modest” (p. 158). Shariff (2020) deemed this The Simpsons effect. In a town full of greed, drunkenness, and lax family values, Ned Flanders and his sons are the happiest. Thus, researchers must be careful with how they present data on the effect of religion on health: “If you want to make religion look good, cite individual data. If you want to make it look bad, cite aggregate data” (Myers, p. 159). 

Still, some health benefits may derive from places of worship preaching, or even teaching, health education. Fenelon and Danielsen (2016) found that certain religious denominations that required a high level of commitment, such as Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons, had specific dietary requirements that did improve congregants’ health. For example, the Seventh Day Adventists church encourages its people to eat a vegetarian diet. Therefore, research showed that people who left one of these religions and became nonreligious decreased in physical health. However, in general, regular church attendance had little or even the opposite effect on weight, diet, and exercise. In fact, Hayward et al. (2016) found in an original study that people who identified with a specific religion had drastically higher BMI results. Furthermore, people who had a religious affiliation had higher rates of disease and chronic conditions. In contrast, consider a theory Hayward et al. posited that people with poor health seek out religion to help them process their illness and discover spiritual comfort—and not that those who are affiliated with a religion are sicklier. On the other hand, Fenelon and Danielsen noted that while people may seek out religion to cope with poor health, having poor health is an obstacle for people getting to physical (as opposed to digital) places of worship that provide a social support system. 

Places of worship also preach good health and wellness through behavior changes. Ellison (2020) revealed “regular churchgoers” (p. 111) were more likely to avoid smoking, drinking, drugs, and promiscuity. Hill et al. (2020) researched biomarkers for physical health and discovered being involved with a religion could positively affect blood pressure and other indicators of a person’s stress levels, which is known as their “allostatic load” (p. 18). Hays and Costellow (2023) agreed that religious groups promote positive health; their research showed churches can promote health by addressing problems like cardiovascular health and cancer. Shariff (2020) added that religious prescripts affected hygiene. 

Furthermore, regular worship attendance could affect the physical health of those not yet born through education. Hill et al. (2020) determined regular religious attendance could protect against pre-term and low birth weight babies, thanks possibly to the support system provided by a religious community, such as information about mental and physical health care, programs to teach about the negative effects of drinking and smoking on pregnancy, and a safety network in other congregational members. 

On the other hand, some people of faith see a conflict between religion and science that may impact public health. Oberlin (2020) found that people who regularly attended religious services did not trust science as much as other groups did. While people who occasionally attended religious services were more likely to view the Bible as educational stories, those who attended church regularly read the Bible literally. For example, according to Hayward et al. (2016), some denominations, like Christian Scientists, believe God is in control of their health; therefore, they do not seek medical care and may have poorer health as a result. Thus, the conflict between religion and science could hypothetically lead to negative health consequences, such as a distrust of vaccines, doctors, or modern medicine. In fact, “highly educated political conservatives” (p. 52) were less likely to make public policies using information gathered from science. The conflict between science and religion may be a reason some people disaffiliated from the religion in which they were raised, which may lead to negative health consequences. Fenelon and Danielsen (2016) conducted research that demonstrated people who disaffiliated were likely to have poorer health and wellbeing because they left the social network provided by church attendance. In contrast, for those raised with no religion who continued to identify as nonreligious, as well as religious individuals who continued to identify as religious, there were no negative health effects. 

Also, if a person felt doubt about their faith or tension between themselves and their place of worship, there were resulting negative health effects. Agnostics demonstrated worse mental health scores than people who attended church regularly because agnostics may be occupied by crippling doubt and feel anchorless without spiritual direction (Hayward at al., 2016). Still, Ellison’s (2020) work suggested that those who did attend church regularly could feel the same sense of instability. Negative effects on health happened when people who identified as religious had a challenging relationship with God, kept doubting religion, struggled with the politics behind their church organizations, or were overly concerned with sin and punishment. The mental benefits of praying, Fenelon and Danielsen (2016) pointed out, largely depended on the relationship a person had with God. Is God more of a close and trusted confidant, or is he a far-off ruler? The relationship’s closeness affected any mental health benefits a person experienced, so anyone creating a relationship with a deity may have to navigate possible negative consequences on their wellbeing. 

Is the same tension regarding religion felt by people without a religion, or who left a religion, and is their health and wellbeing affected? Hayward et al. (2016) learned that atheists did not suffer the same negative mental health effects as agonists because atheists were more rooted in the secular institutions in which they did believe. People who left a religious community had some of the worst mental health/wellbeing rates. In Fenelon and Danielsen’s (2016) research, they found that Evangelicals had reduced wellbeing when they disaffiliated. Catholics and mainline Protestants had some reduction in wellbeing. However, people who left religions that require strong commitment—Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.—had negligible impact on their wellbeing. On a positive note, if young adults attended religious services regularly, they were most likely to experience improvement in wellbeing, which improved the wellbeing of their families and others close to them. Yet overall, results showed that those who attended religious services or are nonreligions (but are not agnostic or atheist) had better mental health (Hayward et al., 2016).  

Outside of worship services, religious communities often provided a social support network that improved health and wellbeing. For instance, Ellison (2020) stated churches can provide food, advice, friendship, a feeling that a person is part of a group, counseling, and even money. The result was better wellbeing, including people having good self-esteem, feeling like they can control themselves and their goals, and feeling like they are important. To be clear, Shariff (2020) pointed out that the mental and physical benefits of religion were more linked to places of worship providing social assistance rather than faith itself. In a sense, the nonreligious may pay a price for not being part of the social network built in houses of worship. Fenelon and Danielsen (2016) agreed that while religious attendance benefited congregants because they socialize and develop friendships, the same health benefits are derived from secular volunteer engagement.   

While the findings connecting regular religious worship attendance and mental health benefits are not without doubt, evidence suggests religious communities benefit public health. Hill et al. (2020) confirmed in their findings that there is no “consistent empirical evidence” (p. 19) to show that regular religious attendance will increase a person’s physical health. However, Ellison (2020) also concluded that the more challenging a person’s situation was, e.g., being a racial minority, location, money, etc., which leads to more stressors, the more religion benefited them. If Ellison is right that regular religious attendance helps those most vulnerable, Hays and Costello (2023) bolstered Ellison’s research with some history on the effects of religion on public health. When the government did not respond to poor health in communities, churches built hospitals. In fact, minority groups, particularly African American, Asian, and Hispanic populations in the U.S., seek out church social services because churches are thought to be more trustworthy and less likely to turn away needy non-parishioners. 

In addition, church influence can reduce violence, which improves public health. American inmates are deemed a vulnerable population, and they, too, saw health benefits from religious influence. Johnson (2020) claimed inmates joining a prisoner-led Bible study group decreased instances of arguing, which had a ripple effect that reduced physical fighting. Less fighting makes prisons safer for inmates and corrections staff. Shariff (2020) also found a decrease in physical violence related to church influence that affects public health. Because single young men are the most likely to commit violence, the push by many religions to get married leads to a reduction in violent behavior, improving the physical and mental wellbeing of those who would have been victims of violence in the community. Iyer (2020) studied the ways in which “all religions provide religious and nonreligious services” (p. 184). To be clear, Iyer did write all religions, not just Christians. If the government left a gap in social services that caused negative health effects on the public, religious institutions tended to fill the gap, which Iyer described as a sort of “insurance” (p. 184). 

Although the research between religion and health and wellbeing is ongoing, and sociologists are especially interested in any trends they may see resulting from the New Atheist movement, for now, there is a lot of doubt about the correlation between health and wellbeing and religion. Instead, researchers appear to agree that social services provided by places of worship have the biggest effect on health and wellbeing. It is possible there is a relationship between religion and health and wellbeing because the government has not, or cannot, step in to provide the same level of support. Consider who may be deemed the most vulnerable today—people who are disabled, immigrants, and war refugees—and look for more research on religion’s influence on their health and wellbeing in the future. 

References 

Ellison, C.G. (2020). Religion’s contribution to population health: Key theoretical and methodological considerations. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 105-125). Baylor University Press. 

Fenelon, A., & Danielsen, S. (2016). Leaving my religion: Understanding the relationship between religious disaffiliation, health, and well-being. Social science research, 57, 49–62. 

Hays, K. & Costello, J. (2023). Churches as agents of community change: An introduction to the issue. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 51(1), 1–6. 

Hayward, R. D., Krause, N., Ironson, G., Hill, P. C., & Emmons, R. (2016). Health and well-being among the non-religious: Atheists, agnostics, and no preference compared with religious group members. Journal of religion and health, 55, 1024-1037. 

Hill, T.D., Bradshaw, M., & Burdette, A.M. (2020). Health and biological functioning. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 11-28). Springer. 

Iyer, S. (2020). The economics of religion in developing countries. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 179-188). Baylor University Press. 

Johnson, B.R. (2020). Offender-led religious movements: Identity transformation, rehabilitation, and justice system reform. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 127-143). Baylor University Press. 

Myers, D.G. (2020). Some big-data lessons about religion and human flourishing. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 145-163). Baylor University Press. 

Oberlin, K.C. (2020). Science. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 47-65). Springer. 

Shariff, A.F. (2020). On balance. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 189-205). Baylor University Press. 

Yamane, D. (2020). Sport. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 67-87). Springer.