« Book Review: "Freedom for Mothers" conclusion | Main | Hmmm... »

Feminization and the church, part VI: the statistics

The first step to take when considering whether or not there is a gender imbalance in American Christian churches is to look for reliable evidence. I think it's safe to say that, yes, there are more women attending church than men, based on personal observation, anecdotal evidence, and statistical data. How many more, and whether or not it is a problem, are the pertinent questions to answer.

David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church, can probably be credited with bringing attention to the imbalance and feeding the illusion that the church is feminized. He presents the difference as 39% men, 61% women, taken from the U. S. Congregational Life Survey. This is a 22% gap. Yet on p. 54 of his book, he defines an imbalanced ("gender-gapped") church as one with a gap of only 12% or more. Why? Why is this the magic number, other than "to conform to the findings of the National Congregations Study"? Is an imbalance of 44% to 56% significant enough to qualify as evidence of the church's feminization? It would say it depends upon who (which demographic) makes up that imbalance and why. (At my own church, an old, traditional church, the imbalance is 9-10%. I wrote about this here; the bulk of that imbalance is elderly widows.)

According to the Pew Study, the average imbalance in church affiliation is 6% - 47% men to 53% women. The difference between Evangelical and Mainline Protestant churches is two percentage points - Mainlines slightly higher in number of women - 46% to 54%. Catholics and Mainlines are equal. The greatest gender disparity among American Christian churches is found in "Historically black Protestant" churches and Jehovah's Witnesses, where there are roughly 2 men to every 3 women (40% to 60%). Mormon ratios are slightly higher on the female side than Protestant and Catholic churches as well - 44% men to 56% women.

I realize that these statistics do not represent church attendance, yet it is significant that a person at least identifies with a particular religion. Is this evidence that men are affiliated with yet not attending church? Most likely. Does this mean that more women attend church than men? Yes. Does this mean that the church is feminized? Again, it depends upon how you define "feminized," but still I would say, "not necessarily."

According to the same study, Hindus show 39% women to 61% men - 3 males to every 2 females. Muslims, Buddhists, and "Other faiths" are roughly 54% men to 46% women - roughly the reverse of American Christians. "Unaffiliated" are 59% men, 41% women. Again, roughly 3 men to every 2 women, same as Hindus. Here we see evidence that significantly more men than women choose a non-Christian faith, or choose to be unaffiliated. Does this mean that men are less religious than women? Well, It depends on how you define "religious." Are they less Christian than women? I'll let you decide. Is Christianity more feminized...or are females more "religious," even if only in sentiment or cultural affiliation?

According to the government's website, here are U. S. Population stats:

Population:
303,824,646 (July 2008 est.)

Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.1% (male 31,257,108/female 29,889,645)
15-64 years: 67.1% (male 101,825,901/female 102,161,823)
65 years and over: 12.7% (male 16,263,255/female 22,426,914) (2008 est.)

Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.73 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2008 est.)


Wikipedia gives similar statistics (US demographics):

Age structure: (2007 est.)

* 0-19 years: 27.4% (male 42,667,761; female 40,328,895)
* 20-64 years: 60.1% (male 89,881,041; female 90,813,578)
* 65 years and over: 12.6% (male 15,858,477; female 21,991,195)

Human sex ratios: (2007 est.)

* at birth: 1.05 males/female
* under 15 years: 1.05 males/female
* 15-64 years: 1 male/female
* 65 years and over: 0.72 male/female
* total population: 0.97 male/female


So we see that in the general U. S. population, there are slightly more females than males, even though in the category of youth, there is a slightly higher percentage of males. The reason for the overall higher percentage of females is the significantly higher number of women over age 65. This is also what we see in our churches; mine is a prime example.

The USCLS claims that this is not true. It claims that the 39%-61% difference is present in every age category, "so the fact that women live longer than men does not explain the gender difference in religious participation." But they cite no data nor source. Murrow himself notes that older churches have a greater gender imbalance, explaining that this is because they are declining -- "hemorrhaging members." Perhaps, but where are these members going? Likely to younger, non-denominational churches, which show by far the least gender gap. Who's left, then? In large part, the elderly women.

(Murrow's explanation: "...as a congregation ages, it begins to value feminine gifts such as nurturing, stability, and close-knit community...Women stay loyal because of the relationships they've developed, but the less relational men fall away." Um, perhaps the men die off, and the women stay because they're too old to go anywhere else!)

added: I need to clarify that I'm not suggesting that elderly women account for the entire gender gap in the church. But I think it's likely they account for a good part of it in many older churches.

A word on statistics:

In "Statistical Illusion" at ChristianityToday online, Bob Smietana writes, among other things, that

... there's no official, exhaustive list of U.S. congregations, and...not all congregations track attendance.

David T. Olson, author of The American Church in Crisis, gives further details and explains his own research methodology at his website.

The spiritual health of churches is multifaceted, and is obviously much more complex than an attendance trend can portray.

Olson's contention is not with gender disparity, but with the fact that church attendance is not keeping up with population growth.

(For reviews of Olson's book see Brad Boydston and Blake Merwin.)

Comments

Bonnie,

A couple of points:

You state So we see that in the general U. S. population, there are slightly more females than males, even though in the category of youth, there is a slightly higher percentage of males. The reason for the overall higher percentage of females is the significantly higher number of women over age 65. This is also what we see in our churches; mine is a prime example.

Yet, unless I've missed it, the only data you give for the higher % of females in the church, being due to older widows, is that of what you've seen in your church. Did Pew or any of the other surveys account for this?

Also, I think that the notion of a "feminized" church and the phenomenon of "gender imbalance" do not necessarily go hand in hand (something I realize you are not stating). And one must be careful to not get tangled up in a morass of statistics. For instance, how does one compare the national population average of 49% males to 51% females with the religious affiliation rates of: USCLS 39/61, Pew 47/53, Black 40/60, Hindu 61/39, Unaff 59/41?

If you're interested in further study on the role of women in the growth of the early church, I'd recommend Rodney Stark's "The Rise of Christianity"

Posted by: Rusty at June 3, 2008 7:44 PM

Rusty,

I am not claiming that elderly women account for the total gender disparity (of which we don’t really know the true extent), but that they are a factor inadequately accounted for.

Yet you ask a good question about the elderly. The percentage of elderly persons affiliated with churches (Pew Forum) seems to correspond to the percentage of elderly in the general population. Yet many of these are in nursing homes and do not actually attend the churches with which they are affiliated. I don’t know whether there are statistics on age breakdowns of church congregations (attendees), and I don’t know how many of those statistics include children. Yet Murrow’s statistics state that older, smaller churches are more likely to be “gapped” (some of that evidence is self-reported by congregational members; i.e., not based on attendance rolls). Murrow does not give the age breakdowns of those congregations, but in my experience attending churches, the smaller, older ones have had a greater percentage of elderly (and more elderly women than men) than the newer, bigger ones.

(If the notion of a feminized church and the phenomenon of gender imbalance do not go hand in hand, somebody needs to tell the people who started, and are perpetuating, the present movement, such as Murrow.)

In the post I made the point that statistics are not the last word; their use is limited to exactly what they measure, and even then, they are subject to the limitations of the available evidence and procedures used to procure it. Murrow and others base their case upon statistics and try to explain the statistics. I am raising questions about this, about their interpretation of the statistics, and some of the statistics themselves.

(Note that the USCLS study measures attendance; the Pew Forum, affiliation. Actually, the general population age 20 and over is 51.6% female to 48.4% male, and Christian church affiliation (age 18 and over) is 53% female to 47% male, so the disparity in percentage of men affiliated with Christian churches is actually less than compared to the population in toto, and less than if the general population [adults] were 50/50.)

Posted by: Bonnie at June 4, 2008 11:04 AM

Thought-provoking data, and analysis. Thanks!

Posted by: Martin LaBar at June 6, 2008 5:51 AM

Unless I'm missing something here, you never directly addressed whether the gender gap is a problem. You may be inferring that because the gender gap can be explained by the large amount of elderly women, it is not a problem. However, you never directly stated that and so I'm not sure. Is that what you meant? I'd love to see some actual conclusions on here...

Posted by: Kate at June 13, 2008 9:22 AM

That's a reasonable request, Kate, and I do plan to eventually present some conclusions. This post is part six in a series that may take some time to complete, and only gives a brief example and discussion of the use of statistics. For explanation of my words on elderly women, please see my comment response to Rusty. I will also revise the post to make that part clearer, thanks.

Briefly, though, my current opinion on the gender gap is that I'm not sure that the gap itself is a problem. It's a good thing that there are many women in church. It would be good to see more men in church, as well as more women, and families. But I think the reasons that there aren't are many, and they are mostly not explained by the current "feminization" rhetoric.

Thanks for reading.

(For more of my thoughts on "feminization" and gender issues, I encourage you to read the rest of this series as well as my and Sarah's posts in the "gender issues" category.)

Posted by: Bonnie at June 13, 2008 4:52 PM

Bonnie,

I am not claiming that elderly women account for the total gender disparity (of which we don’t really know the true extent), but that they are a factor inadequately accounted for.

I can understand (and even agree with) that. But then I wonder why you brought it up at this point in your series?

It seems to me that the statistics presented (as well as those at the referenced sites) are either not as exhaustive as they should be to warrant a comparison. Rummaging through the data I was able to find a significant male/female disparity between Christian and non-Christian churches when compared against the population as a whole. Does this bolster the claim that Christianity in the U.S. is becoming feminized? It would seem to... IF the datasets were comprehensive (and, maybe that's the rub, here), and IF by the term "feminized" one included the characteristic of male/female disparities.

But what is one to make of the man who attends church because his wife makes him? There's a male that is both affiliated and attending church (but doesn't want to). Does that happen? I don't know. Is it a possibility? If so, does it happen in significant enough numbers?

As stated, simple affiliation does not necessarily equate to attendance. And attendance does not necessarily equate to commitment. Although I'm a proponent of the notion that the church in the U.S. has become more "feminized", I wouldn't look to statistical affiliation / attendance data as being necessary indicators of the phenomenon. It seems to me that better indicators would be surveys which ask both men and women why they do or do not attend church.

Posted by: Rusty at June 17, 2008 3:32 PM

Hi Rusty,

But then I wonder why you brought it up at this point in your series?

I guess I’m wondering, why wonder? Why not bring it up? How is it unrelated to the purpose of my post? Besides, I explained in my comment to you why I brought it up.

I agree with what you say about affiliation, attendance, and commitment. I’ve no doubt that many men who attend church don’t want to. I’ve also no doubt that there are women who attend church for the sake of something other than commitment to Christ, or who attend a church they don’t want to (as I have). Reasons for church attendance are complex, but they are ultimately a lot more important than making a big deal about gender gap and genderizing things that have no business being genderized.

Posted by: Bonnie at June 17, 2008 11:59 PM

Bonnie,

I'm not stating you can't bring up the issue. My question had to do with your notion, based on your experience, that elderly widows play a significant part in there being more females in church (albeit inadequately accounted for in the data). Um, perhaps the men die off, and the women stay because they're too old to go anywhere else!


You said, Reasons for church attendance are complex, but they are ultimately a lot more important than making a big deal about gender gap and genderizing things that have no business being genderized.

Well, I guess that's where the point of contention is, isn't it?

Posted by: Rusty at June 19, 2008 6:29 PM

Rusty,

I must confess that I don't understand your question. What do you think is the problem with bringing up the issue of elderly women in church at this point in my series, that you question it?

As to the point of contention, I don't really know where it is, past the fact that I think the "feminization" rhetoric is mostly hogwash erroneous and you don't. But what's the point of pointing out where a point of contention is without explaining what the contention is?

Posted by: Bonnie at June 20, 2008 12:00 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.