Family Formation and Close Social Ties Within Religious Congregations

Abstract

The study of family and religion has yet to elaborate on the social ties that connect these two important and changing institutions. Specifically, how does family formation (i.e., marriage and childrearing) impact social ties to religious communities? Using longitudinal data from the Portraits of American Life Study (2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) and fixed effects regression models that control for time-stable heterogeneity (N = 1,314), this study tests the effects of marriage and childrearing on changes in close congregational social ties. Fixed effects estimates suggest that marriage actually decreases close social ties to religious congregations, whereas rearing children within marital unions increases them. Thus, it is children, not marriage per se, that actually integrates married couples into religious communities. These contrasting effects tend to be the strongest among young adults, but they weaken with age as well as marital duration.When individuals age and start to form families of their own, the integration into social networks becomes vital for family well-being. Becoming a spouse or a parent entails a variety of new roles and responsibilities, and supportive social networks tend to provide guidance and may buffer any potential stress as a result of newly

Church attendance and alloparenting: an analysis of fertility, social support and child development among English mothers

“…Although there have been several cross-cultural studies of social support and fertility across societies, few have investigated how religious and secular support networks may have different effects on a woman's fertility. Religious people tend to have higher overall levels of social support [ 31 , 68 , 69 ], the number of within-congregational social ties for mothers increases when she has a child [ 70 ], and mothers receive more social support from co-religionists than non-mothers [ 71 ]. Moreover, childless members of religious groups tend to engage in more alloparental support than their demographically similar secular counterparts [ 33 ].…”

Eating Your Cake and Having it Too: US Megachurches and Factors Associated with Attending Multiple Congregations

“…Many Black church congregants have less need for assistance with visa paperwork and language interpretation and more need for support in managing racism in daily life (Fitzgerald and Spohn 2005 ). For working class and married, young adult congregants, the presence of a children’s ministry is vital (Gurrentz 2017 ).…”

What God has Joined Together: Family Formation and Religion among Young Adults

“…This type of programming can provide couples with a place to belong and connect within the larger congregation, and offer opportunities to build relationships with other couples in the congregation, making congregations more welcoming for married couples than they are for single people (Stolzenberg et al 1995; Wilson and Sherkat 1994). Wuthnow (2007) reports that married people in their twenties are 10 percentage points more likely than those who are not married to have at least five friends in their religious congregation, though recent evidence suggests it may actually be childbearing driving this relationship (Gurrentz 2017).…”

“…Marriage's positive connection to religious participation may also result in greater private personal religious commitment. Heightened involvement in a religious community likely leads to increased investment in religious capital and fosters closer social ties to community members, which may in turn lead individuals to value their faith more highly (Stark and Finke 2000; but see also Gurrentz 2017). Married individuals may also benefit religiously from having a spouse who values their faith and who encourages them to do the same.…”

“…In addition to marriage, parenthood may also tie young adults to religious institutions. The desire for children's religious socialization and religious rites leads many parents to be involved in religious communities (Albrecht et al 1988; Dillon and Wink 2007; Hoge 1981; Ingersoll-Dayton et al 2002; Manning 2013; Petts and Knoester 2007; Stolzenberg et al 1995; Sullivan 2008; Gurrentz 2017; Schleifer and Chaves 2017).…”