The Rise, Fall and Rise Again of the Parachurch Sector
Abstract: Interest has been sparked in recent years by the appearance of religious organizations
existing outside the boundaries of traditional structures such as congregations and
denominations. These “parachurch” organizations have raised important questions concerning
the changing nature of American religion. However, this is not the first time such organizations
have had a significant role in the United States. The early 19th century also saw a large
parachurch population consisting of religious publishing, mission, and moral “societies.” Using
original data from historical newspaper records ranging from 1800 to 1859 I explore the rise and
decline of these societies. I then connect this history to the contemporary rise of Christian
nonprofits using a different original data source on two thousand of the largest such
organizations in the United States. I argue that instead of being disconnected cases of history
repeating itself, the historical and contemporary parachurch phenomena are connected by a
continuous dynamic between religious individuals and congregations and the structures they
utilize for their internal and external needs.
The Rise, Fall and Rise Again of the Parachurch Sector
Moral societies, Sunday schools—tract societies—Bible societies—missionary societies, and
funds to educate and make preachers, are now in the full tide of operation…
--Leland, 1826 (Quoted in Hatch, 1989, Pg. 100)
A new breed of nonprofit organization—the parachurch—is dramatically reshaping the religious
world—and taking religion beyond the walls of the traditional church…
--Willmer, Schmidt and Smith, 1998
A Washington Post article discusses “a nationwide Christian ministry for teenagers with
disabilities” (Horiuchi 2005). CNN features a story about a religious organization serving men
addicted to pornography (Rovou 2007). USA Today contains a story about a ministry trying to
preserve “girls’ chastity by building healthy father-daughter relationships” (Stange 2007).
During the span of a couple months, The New York Times covers a faith-based organization
providing chaplains for corporations (Banerjee 2006), a youth ministry causing controversy for
its proposed event in San Francisco (McKinley 2007), and the acquisition of decommissioned
Coast Guard ships by a Christian medical relief organization (Henriques and Lehren 2007).
Who are these organizations? They use many of the keywords we associate with
churches or denominations…“faith,” “Christian,” “ministry”…but they are not churches or
denominations in either appearance or action. Their buildings are more likely to contain cubicles
than pews. They are led by CEOs, not ministers. They are focused on everything but weekly
worship services.
Understanding the organizational structure and dynamics of religion has been a central
interest in sociology dating back to the classic discussions of church-sect differences (Weber
1
1985; Troeltsch 1960) and authority types (Weber 1964). The literature on religious
organizations, however, has been narrow in its focus on certain types of organizations.
Congregations and denominations by far have garnered the greatest amount of attention both
theoretically and empirically. The dominance of these units is not entirely unwarranted. The
United States has been called the “denominational society” (Greeley 1972) and congregations
have been labeled the “bedrock” (Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000) and “basic unit of American
religious life” (Warner 1994; Chaves 1999).
As the media accounts above show, these traditional religious structures have been joined
a new type of organization. Many names have been applied to these organizations, such as
“voluntary associations” (Hall 2005), “voluntary societies” (Bullock 1963), “special purpose
groups” (Wuthnow 1988), “special interest groups” (Wuthnow 1994), and “religious non-profits”
(Chaves 2002; Monsma 1996). “Parachurch” is the blanket term used to describe such
organizations outside of the authority or structure of congregations and denominations (Willmer,
Schmidt and Smith 1998; Ammerman 2005). Well-known organizations include socio-political
organizations like Focus on the Family and the American Center for Law and Justice, fellowship
groups such as Young Life and Promise Keepers, relief and development agencies like Heifer
International and Operation Blessing, publishing and broadcasting houses such as the Bible
League and the Christian Broadcasting Network, and thousands of other organizations of varying
sizes and missions.
The parachurch sector is not trivial whether measured by the number of organizations or
the amount of money going to them. The over 2,000 members of the Evangelical Council for
Financial Accountability, a professional organization for many parachurch organizations,
collectively represent over $17 billion in annual income and $30 billion in total assets
2
(Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability 2006). This is undoubtedly a major
undercount since it does not include thousands of organizations that do not belong to ECFA.
Comparatively, the over 43,000 churches of the Southern Baptist Convention had a total annual
income just under $11 billion in 2006 (Lindner 2007). American colleges and universities raised
$28 billion in 2006 (Kaplan 2007). In short, the parachurch population is significant whether the
comparison is to a religious or secular population of organizations.
The impact of the parachurch population is not entirely encompassed by the number of
organizations or the size of their bank accounts. Many have noted the potential sociological
importance of these organizations. Robert Wuthnow describes these organizations as leaders in
creating a “public religion” (1994: 88). Others have presented them as important contributors to
religious innovation (Finke and Stark 2005: 252; Finke 2004) and builders of social capital
(Foley, McCarthy and Chaves 2001: 237). They have been identified by William Martin as
mobilizers of resources and support in the political sphere (2003: 335).
As Chaves (2002: 1524) summed up the situation, research on this sector needs to be the
“highest priority” for those interested in understanding the religious structure of the United
States.
Rise or Revival?
As we have come to recognize these different forms of religious organization, we have
come to appreciate the “structural adaptability” of an institution often associated with tradition
and stability (Warner 1993: 1064-1065). It is easy to come to the conclusion that this
organizational flexibility is new. This would be historically short-sighted. Individuals and
3
groups have frequently created new organizational forms to help accomplish their religiously
inspired goals. Indeed, many of the organizations that we have come to take for granted as
“traditional,” such as denominations, were themselves innovations at one time. Although still an
understudied development in American religion, several authors (e.g. Winter 1967; Primer 1979;
Chaves 1998) have traced the creation of denominational “agencies,” such as publishing houses,
relief agencies, and education programs, during the mid 19th century. Prior to this denominations
were limited to dealing with issues of intra-group authority and lacked the action or outreachoriented organizational structures they have today (Chaves 1998).1
This does not mean that religious groups were inactive or had no way to organize their
outreach efforts. Prior to the rise of elaborate denominational organizations, religious pursuits
were organized in an entirely different manner. Instead of centralized denominations serving as
the coordinators of religious outreach in the United States, various voluntary associations or
“religious societies” were organizing outreach. These societies were typically specialized around
one goal, such as publishing Bibles and religious tracts, or conducting domestic and international
missionary projects, or advancing socio-political issues like temperance and abolition. These
organizations served as the outreach arm of the “Church,” whether that outreach was targeted
towards conversion, charity, or communications. In short, a parachurch population existed long
before the one we are witnessing today that is garnering so much attention by the media, public,
and scholars alike.
1
Why denominations lacked large administrative structures is in itself an interesting question, but somewhat beyond
the scope of this paper. Two hypotheses clearly present themselves, though. First, the growth of denominational
bureaucracies could simply parallel the larger trend of organizational history by which many sectors came to be
dominated by large-scale organizations beginning in the late 19th century (e.g. Warner, Unvalla, and Trimm 1967;
Galambos 1970). There is also the role that church-state relations had on the structure of denominations in the early
United States. Since many denominations had official relationships with colonies\states there is a possibility that
this hampered their motivation to create their own organizational structures (see Finke and Stark 2005).
4
As with contemporary parachurch organizations, it would be a mistake to dismiss these
19th century organizations as insignificant in either size or sociological importance. The 19th
century parachurch organizations were some of the largest creators of printed material during
their time, producing “millions of tracts, pamphlets, hymnbooks, and devotional books, as well
as journals, magazines and newspapers” (Hatch 1989: 141). The “flood” of material created by
religious societies has been pointed to as the origin of mass media in the United States (Hatch
1989: 141; Nord 2004). Similarly, Young (2006) argues that anti-slavery, temperance, and other
evangelical societies of the early 19th century represented the “birth of the American social
movement.” They also placed a central role in education in the early United States, as Sunday
School societies worked to provide literacy and knowledge to the working classes (Boylan
1988).2
All of this makes the “burgeoning” and “proliferating” nature of contemporary
parachurch organizations seem like a case of déjà vu (White 1983: 35; Willmer, Schmidt and
Smith 1998). However, the 19th and 21st century parachurch sectors are not disconnected
instances of history repeating itself. The rise, fall, and rise again of the parachurch sector
represents a continuous narrative in the changing organizational structure of American religion.
The discussion that follows has two aims. First, I present a historical analysis on the
development of one of these specialized pursuits and the societies it produced. I examine the
spread of Bible societies in the United States from 1800 to 1859 based on original data collected
from newspaper records along with other supplemental sources. Second, I look to provide some
context for the discussions and analyses of contemporary “parachurch” organizations by placing
them in a larger “parachurch history.” I argue that the decline of the 19th century parachurch
They were originally called “Sunday” schools not because of their association with churches but because their
target audience, the poor working classes, only had time for education on Sundays as it was their only day off from
work (see Boylan 1988).
2
5
sector is directly related to the increased organizational dominance of denominations in
American religion in the mid-19th century. In turn, the rise of the contemporary parachurch
sector is directly related to the decreasing organizational dominance of denominations. I begin
by outlining some of the theoretical dynamics underlying the relationship between the
parachurch and ‘Church,’ or more traditional religious organizations like congregations and
denominations.
Church-Parachurch Dynamics
At its core, religion is focused on cultivating personal beliefs and worshipping with
fellow adherents. Small groups of believers, or congregations, are ideal conduits for pursuing
these goals. However, Christianity, if not religion in general, has always been about more than
belief and worship. It is also about outreach efforts aimed at conversion, community-building,
and charity.
The religious desire to reach beyond the congregation, and the frequent need for unique
organizational structures, has been recognized by sociologists and theologians alike.
Representing the former, Zald (1982) argues that all religious groups hold “theological and
ideological beliefs about the relation of individuals and groups to each other, to society, and to
the good and just life.” Unless those beliefs call for a complete retreat from the world, the group
is usually inspired or compelled to try and shape the world into that vision. Understandably, a
local church may be limited given such world-changing goals. Winter, a theologian, argues that
the ‘Church’ has always consisted of a local church arm and a missionary (i.e. parachurch) arm
(1973). He calls the former the “modality” and the latter the “sodality.”
Many find precedents in the Bible and in history for activities and organizations existing
outside of the control of local churches. Paul, for instance, is pointed to as the father of
6
independent mission agencies (White 1983: 36-37). He founded and “strengthened” several
congregations during his travels,3 providing the Biblical basis from which many contemporary
church planting agencies draw from in their mission statements.
Paul was “sent off” not “sent out” by the Antioch congregation. He may have reported back to it
but did not take orders from it. His mission band (sodality) had all the autonomy and authority of
a local congregation.
From the communities of “desert ascetics” in the third century to mendicant orders, the
Catholic Church also provides examples of various movements that could be considered
‘parachurch.’ Many of these might not have truly been ‘parachurch’ since they were usually
within the official boundaries of the institutional church (Finke and Wittberg 2000). In fact,
some have argued that there is something uniquely Protestant about the parachurch phenomenon.
Telford Work states that the Reformation was based in a suspicion of church structures and an
emphasis on personal salvation.
Ecclesiology takes a back seat to soteriology, and the Church becomes merely an external
instrument—perhaps even a dispensable instrument—of salvation. The earthly Church is to
salvation as wineskin is to wine; its job is to dispense grace to needy souls and stay out of grace’s
way.
This produced an “action-oriented” Protestantism that views churches as stagnant
vehicles for that action, leading Protestants to find numerous other routes for their efforts (Work
3
See Acts 13-15.
7
1999). Ralph Winter calls this “the other Protestant schism” (Winter 1980). Comparatively,
Winter refers to the “enviable Roman Catholic synthesis” of church and parachurch structures.
Indeed, when divided into separate organizational structures, the relationship between
parachurch and ‘Church’ becomes delicate and produces feelings of ambivalence on both sides.
On the one hand, parachurch organizations, whether 19th century religious societies or
contemporary nonprofits, share similar goals and hold similar identities as denominations and
congregations. It would seem that as long as they can agree upon their respective ‘territory,’
then the parachurch and ‘Church’ could cooperate harmoniously. As we will see, this was the
situation in the early 19th century as religious societies covered activities that denominations
were unable or uninterested in doing. But the relationship can easily turn competitive if
parachurch organizations, churches, and denominations all want to conduct their own operations
for the same activities.
We can think of this dynamic in ecological terms (Hannan and Freeman 1977), with the
religious market consisting of various activity “niches” (McPherson 1983; Hannan, Carroll and
Pólos 2003). Both historical and contemporary parachurch organizations tend to be specialized
around particular activities, while denominations and congregations have tended to be generalists
who take on a wide range of activities. In the 19th century denominations were not engaged in
many of the outreach activities that we associate with them today. Religious societies filled
these open market spaces unopposed and even sanctioned by denominations. As denominations
began to create their own “agency” structures, the resulting overlap in niches led to increased
competition. Resources previously monopolized by the parachurch societies began to be taken
by denominations.
8
<INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE>
The overlapping nature of parachurch and ‘Church’ niches has continued to create
tensions between the two populations. Today, many have referred to the “uneasy marriage”
between parachurch organizations, congregations, and denominations (White 1983). Implicitly
invoking the concept of niche overlap, some have argued that parachurch organizations should
only exist for functions that congregations and denominations are “unable or unwilling to
undertake” (Williams 2002: 12).
In trying to understand the development of the parachurch population, whether historical
or contemporary, these ideas give us a place to start in understanding the dynamic that drives
growth or decline in the parachurch sector. Given the overlapping niches and target resources of
the parachurch and denominations, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the growth of
denominational structures came, at least in part, at the expense of the parachurch population.
The reverse is also possible. That is, any decline in denominational activities could create
openings for parachurch organizations. This is the general proposition that will be explored here
by tracing the rise, decline, and rise again of the parachurch sector from the early 19th century to
the present day.
The First Parachurch Era
While one could clearly trace parachurch organizations back further, the direct ancestor
of parachurch organizations in the United States were the 18th century British religious
“societies” conducting missionary work and distributing scripture. The earliest example was the
9
Company for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England. Founded in 1649 and later
renamed as The New England Company, it worked among the Native Americans in the
American colonies (Bullock 1963). It still exists today as a grant-making agency to students and
pastors in Canada and the Caribbean. This was followed in 1691 by the Society for the
Conversion and Religious Instruction and Education of the Negro Slaves in the British West
India Islands.
It may not have been the first, but few of British religious societies would match the size
or influence of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (the S.P.C.K.). The S.P.C.K was
a voluntary association founded in 1698 with the goal of producing and distributing Christian
literature to alleviate the “gross ignorance of the principles of the Christian religion” both in
Britain and overseas. The S.P.C.K was joined in 1701 by the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.). Both of these organizations were the creation of Thomas Bray.
Bray began his career by creating libraries in the America and England would come up with the
idea for an independent religious outreach organization in his A General Plan of the Constitution
of a Protestant Congregation or Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which could be
seen as the founding document for the contemporary parachurch sector.
The British missionary, Bible, and religious tract societies would serve as the inspiration
for similar societies that began to flourish into the United States in the late 18th century and early
19th century. A 1796 letter to the editor in the Boston-based Columbian Centinel responded to
the creation of a Bible society in London by asking (Columbian Centinel 1796):
“Might not a Bible Society in America, be very useful in counteracting the effects of Anti-Bible
Societies, who are industriously circulating in every part of our country, the poisonous works of
Tom Paine?”
10
It did not take long for this call to be answered. Soon, announcements about religious tract and
Bible societies began appearing in newspapers across New England. The Massachusetts Society
for Promoting Religious Knowledge in 1803, The Connecticut Tract Society in 1807, The
Philadelphia Bible Society and the Vermont Religious Tract Society in 1808, the New York
Bible Society in 1809, and so on.
These societies modeled themselves after their British counter-parts and their activities
were provided legitimacy through those earlier organizations. The 1811 report of the
Connecticut Tract Society argued that distributing tracts has (Connecticut Journal 1811):
“peculiar advantages. It has, for a number of years past, been pursued with great success in
Great-Britain. Several millions of tracts have been there distributed. The salutary effects have
been clearly perceived.”
At the same time these Bible and tract societies were being founded in New England,
American mission societies modeled after their British counterparts were appearing. A 1796
article in the Centinel of Freedom noted that the clergy and laity of several churches had created
the New York Missionary Society to “send the gospel to the Indian tribes” (Centinel of Freedom
1796). Somewhat after the appearance of the mission and publishing societies, religious
societies began to form around certain social issues, particularly with combating slavery and
immoral behaviors (Young 2006).
There is much discussion about the novelty of contemporary parachurch organizations.
Ironically, this is not the first time these discussions have occurred. Despite having precedents in
England, these early American parachurch organizations viewed their activities as being cutting-
11
edge and potentially controversial. The 1797 Report of the Directors of the New York
Missionary Society noted the innovative nature of their organization (New York Missionary
Society 1797).
“An institution so novel in this country, and so much beyond the ordinary habits of religious
enterprise as the present Missionary Society, could hardly expect to enjoy immediate and universal
support. Yet it is not without peculiar satisfaction, that the Directors find, that in proportion as it
is understood, it recommends itself to the approbation and affection of Christians of different
denominations.”
Denominational Origins of Religious Societies
While most religious societies were officially non-denominational, they were not entirely
about cooperation between different denominations. An equal motivation was to compete more
efficiently. In fact, most societies were actually strongly rooted in two denominations. Being
increasingly challenged by “upstart” Methodists and Baptists, Presbyterians and
Congregationalists felt the need to present a united front (Finke and Stark 2005: 64). This led to
the Plan of Union in 1801, which was an agreement between Presbyterians and
Congregationalists to cooperate in missionary efforts (Latourette 1941: 208). Not coincidentally,
many of the religious societies were partly the product of this cooperation. Young notes that
these societies “emerged through the creative and coordinated interaction between Presbyterians
and Congregationalists” (Young 2006: 72). The societies were so dominated by Presbyterians
and Congregationalists that many refer to them “Presbygational” (Boylan 1998:37). In short, the
Presbyterians and Congregationalists were utilizing the religious societies as denominational
agencies.
12
As Primer (1979) and Chaves (1998) have both documented, denominations in the early
to mid 19th century lacked the outreach structures that we have come to associate with
contemporary denominations. There were no official denominational publishing houses, mission
agencies, education offices, or any other denominational organizations. Instead, Presbyterian
and Congregational adherents and churches channeled their outreach efforts through these
grassroots religious societies.
The marriage between these denominations did not last long. Groups on both sides of the
Presbyterian-Congregationalist association became perturbed with what they perceived to be a
dilution of their identity and\or ineffectiveness within the union. By 1840, both sides began to
resign their membership from the Plan of Union (Latourette 1941: 209-210). To replace the
activities previously organized through the religious societies, denominations began to create
their own publishing and missionary agencies (Primer 19179; Chaves 1998). For example, the
Presbyterians created agencies such as the Presbyterian Board of Domestic Missions, Board of
Church Erection, and the Presbyterian Publishing House (Latourette 1941: 213). N
Religious societies of all types felt this shift in the structure of American religion. The
American Bible Society, for example, had always had issues with ‘free riding’ local societies.
However, the ABS began to realize that their list of auxiliary local societies was increasingly
dominated by non-active and\or non-supporting societies. At several points starting in the 1830s
the national society discussed ending their reliance on local societies, but decided against it for a
lack of good alternatives (Dwight 1916: 125-126). By 1900 the lack of activity and support at
the local level led the ABS to take steps to become a much more centralized organization instead
of simply the face of many local societies.
13
A laundry list of explanations was given for the decline of the local Bible societies,
including (Dwight 1906: 456-457):
“immense changes in transportation...the development of the use of mail….the distribution
effected by great department stores and mail order establishments…the change in character of
American communities…the moving about from place to place of families…the demands upon
churches for the support of new enterprises…and the spirit of the times.”
While some of these reasons may have had a role, they miss the larger story that was
occurring. Namely, the organizational center of American religion had shifted. Religious
societies were the product of a time when denominations either did not have their own agencies
or were using religious societies as de facto denominational agencies. As denominations began
to create their own agencies, the individuals and churches that had formed the basis of the
religious societies were drawn into them and away from the societies. Not all of the religious
societies, especially the national organizations, went away due to the rise of denominational
agencies. However, they could no longer count on being a pseudo-denominational agency for
individuals and congregations. Instead, they were competitors to those agencies.
Bible Society Activity
To examine the above historical story in more depth, I created a dataset based on
mentions of Bible societies in historical newspaper records. I began by searching for “bible
society” from 1800 to 1859 in the America’s Historical Newspapers (AHN) database produced
by Readex. The AHN database contains digitized records of over 1,100 newspapers ranging
14
from 1690-1922. Over 19,000 individual articles were examined from 1792 to 1859. The full
text of articles was searched for appearances.
The first instance of an American Bible society appearing in the newspaper record was
1808. Each society was marked as “appearing” in a particular year if it was mentioned in an
article dated in that year. Typical forms of appearances were announcements concerning the
creation of a society, announcements concerning annual meetings of the society, or annual
reports of the society. Annual reports occasionally mentioned other societies that had received
or given donations to the society in that year. Such secondary mentions were still marked as the
society “appearing” in the historical record for that year. From this I was able to create measures
for the first and last appearance of all societies. This process identified 643 unique societies.
These data were supplemented with an index of local society records contained within the
American Bible Society’s library. This index contained listings of each historical record the
ABS has on file for its local auxiliary societies, such as annual reports, newspaper clippings, and
correspondence between the local and national society. Any society not discovered in the
newspaper collection was added to the database with its first and final appearance in the ABS
records. A society that was discovered through the newspaper and also appeared in the ABS
records had its activity dates adjusted if the ABS records indicated an earlier beginning or later
ending of activity. However, it was found that the information collected from the newspaper
database produced much more complete and extensive records than the ABS index. Only 83
societies were added from the ABS index to the final file, producing a total of 726 unique
societies, although many of these societies appeared in multiple years. The mean length of
appearance is 8.3 years and ranges from one year to fifty-one years.
15
Admittedly, these data do not necessarily and likely do not represent all of the Bible
societies that ever existed. As the data collection lends itself to measuring activities by Bible
societies that left a public record, these data are likely biased towards larger and more active
societies. Small societies or those that did not exist for a long period of time are less likely to
have left an imprint in the historical record. Nonetheless, these data do provide some insight into
the level of activity and presence of Bible societies during the period in question.
Appearances and Density
The graphs shown in Figure 2 display the number of first appearances and the density of
Bible societies by year and region. The density of Bible societies is computed by taking the
number previously existing societies, adding this to the number first appearing in a particular
year, and subtracting those whose final appearance in the historical record occurred in the year.
There are a few interesting points to note in these graphs. First, Bible societies were by far most
active in the Northeast. This is both a function of population totals and the religious
demographics of the regions. The Northeast is where Congregationalists and Presbyterians were
most dominant (see Finke and Stark 2005: 33). As discussed above, both groups were key to the
creation and support of many religious societies, including Bible societies.
<INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE>
In the Northeast, rates of first appearances peaked in 1816-1817, which coincided with
the creation of the American Bible Society. The creation of a national society and the publicity
surrounding it likely inspired many local groups to create their own local society to join the
16
national society. It also created a system that allowed local societies to overcome the economic
and technological obstacles to printing their own Bibles since they could now purchase books
from the national society. Furthermore, the creation of a national society helped define roles
within the population. Organizational ecologists argue that the rise of a large generalist
organization can fuel the growth of smaller specialist by partitioning the resources in the
environment (Carroll 1985; Carroll and Swaminathan 2000). The presence of a national Bible
Society allowed smaller societies to focus on more reasonable goals and activities. In other
words, the creation of a national society allowed each local society to act like a local society
instead of each trying to be a national society.
The density of societies reached its highest point in 1819-1820. There was a slight
rebound in first appearances and density in 1828. However, the density and rate of new
appearances steadily declined throughout the first half of the 19th century. This decline occurred
despite growth in both the population and geographic size of the nation.
The pattern is similar in the South, although on a much smaller level. The Midwest saw
the same initial burst around the creation of the national society, but also saw a slight increase
towards the end of the period. The West did not see any activity until the 1840s, reflecting its
frontier status for most of this time.
As argued above, the 19th century parachurch sector took advantage of a gap in the
religious market created by the lack of denominational organizations. The closing of this gap
had a significant effect on the size and activities of the religious societies. For example, Figure 3
displays the overall density of Bible societies, new appearances of societies, and the amount of
money spent on mission activities by Presbyterian denominations (in constant 2008 dollars).4
4
Presbyterian data taken from Presbyterian Statistics Through One Hundred Years 1826-1926 by Rev. Herman C.
Weber. 1927. The General Council of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Includes combined numbers from the
17
The greatest amount of Bible society activity occurred when mission activity by the
denomination was virtually non-existent. As the denomination began to spend significant
amounts on their own mission efforts, Bible societies declined dramatically.
<INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE>
Analysis
To examine these data and patterns further, I conducted a discrete-time logistic regression
predicting the hazard of each society existing in any particular year. The outcome indicates each
year a society existed, measured from the first to last appearance from 1800 to 1859. The
standard errors are adjusted for the clustered nature of the data (i.e. there are 60 years of
observations for each society). The analysis was completed in Stata 9.2.
Measures
Because larger counties and population growth are likely to provide more resources and
demand for a society, I include a measure for the county’s total population, which was acquired
from historical Census records.
Ecological studies of organizational populations have noted the curvilinear “density
dependence” pattern in populations of organizations (Hannan and Freeman 1989; Hannan and
Old School and New School Presbyterians after their 1937 schism. To extend these data to missing years observed
years were used to predict the unobserved years. This was done by modeling the natural log of the amount spent as
a function of time and taking the exponentiated predicted values. The correlation between these imputed variable
and the observed variable is .97. Conversion to constant dollars was done using Consumer Price Index data from the
Federal Reserve located at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/hist1800.cfm
18
Freeman 1987: 915; Aldrich 1999: 270). It is argued that in the beginning the presence of very
few organizations hampers the growth of the population as there is little support and legitimacy.
As a critical density develops there is a large increase in the number of organizations. However,
as more organizations are created in an environment fewer resources exist for further growth. In
short, population density increases growth up to a point, but then it actually reduces growth. To
address this effect a variable was computed that denotes the number of societies in each state for
each year. Once a society has had its last appearance in the newspaper record it no longer
‘counts’ in its state’s density total). A curvilinear term was then computed from this number to
account for the expected non-linear effect of population density.
Another measure was created to denote that a state-level bible society existed in the
previous year. The presence of a state society could increase the likelihood of societies existing
as the state society can institutionalize procedures for creating a local society and help publicize
the effort to distribute Bibles in the state.
Given the above theoretical arguments concerning the decline of the 19th century
parachurch sector, a measure is included to account for the growth in denominationally
organized outreach. This measure is the amount of mission expenditures by Presbyterians from
1800 to 1859 (Weber 1927; see note 9). Since Congregationalists also had a large role in the 19th
century parachurch sector it would be beneficial to have a measure for their denominational
activities. However, given the decentralized nature of Congregationalists, especially in the 19th
century, it is more difficult to acquire comparable data.
Since the graphs in Figure 1 show significant regional differences in the numbers of Bible
societies, regional indicators are also included.
19
Finally, to account for duration dependence, the overall hazard or density trend seen in
Figure 2 was modeled using five time period indicators. These period indicators mark
significant shifts in foundings over the years under observations. The periods are 1800-1814,
1815-1820, 1821-1827, 1828-1830, and 1831-1859. The first period covers the relatively low
density before the creation of the American Bible Society. The second period covers the sharp
rise in density around the time of the ABS’ creation. The third period covers the decline seen
after the second period, while the fourth denotes the slight rebound in density occurring before
the steady decline covered by the fifth period indicator.
Results
The results of the analyses are shown in Table 1. The results are shown as odds ratios for
the effect each predictor has on the likelihood of a society existing in each year of observation.
Model 1 enters only the time period indicators. These indicators show a peak of Bible societies
in the period of 1815 to 1820 with a steady decline after that point, which is the pattern seen in
Figure 2.
Model 2 introduces regional variables. These show significantly reduced odds of Bible
societies existing in the South and Midwest relative to the Northeast. This is not entirely
surprising given the graphs in Figure 1 that showed many more societies in the Northeast. The
West does show lower odds of society existence, but it does not reach statistical significance.
This has more to do with the very few cases in the West making it difficult for the difference to
reach significance than with the West having the same number of societies as the Northeast.
Indeed, Figure 1 showed very few societies in the West.
20
<INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE>
Model 3 introduces the measure for county population, which as expected shows a
positive effect on the odds of society existence. Interestingly, the regional differences between
the Northeast, South and Midwest become insignificant once population differences are taken
into account. The West actually shows higher odds of Bible society existence once population is
controlled for. In other words, even though there were very few Western Bible societies, these
few were still more than would be expected given the low population of the region.
Model 4 adds the variables for the state density of Bible societies in each year. As
hypothesized, the state density of societies shows a curvilinear effect on the odds of a society
existing in each year of observation. Having other societies in the same state increases the
likelihood of a society existing as it creates legitimacy and a network of support in the state.
However, if the density of societies gets too high then competition can actually reduce the
likelihood of a society maintaining its existence.
Model 4 also includes a measure indicating the existence of a state level Bible society,
which is significant and positive. The odds of a society being active in any year are over five
times greater once a state level society has been created. State level societies can create a
centralized resource that can help support and maintain local societies in the state.
Note also that, while still significant, the strength of the period indicators decline greatly
once the ecological and institutional environment surrounding Bible societies is taken into
account. Also, the regional variables change to the point that the South actually shows higher
odds of society existence. Although the South has fewer overall societies than the Northeast, this
21
is in the face of lower ecological and institutional support from state level societies and a density
of other local societies.
Finally, Model 5 enters the measure of spending on mission activities by the Presbyterian
Church. As expected, this measure decreases the odds of a society being active. As
denominations began to organize their own agencies, including publishing agencies, the need and
resources that were driving religious societies began to decline. This is reflected in the negative
effect this measure has on the existence of these Bible societies.
Parachurch Revival?
The above analysis traces the rise and decline of the 19th century parachurch sector, as
witnessed in the population of Bible societies. While there are various period and ecological
factors driving the existence of Bible societies in the early 19th century, a significant force in
their decline was the rise of denominational outreach efforts and organizations. It is possible that
there never would have been a ‘rise’ of a 19th century parachurch sector if the absence of
denominational structures had not created an opportunity for mission, tract, Bible, Sunday
School, and other religious societies to fill that environmental niche.
With this historical background, let us now turn back to the contemporary parachurch
population. To what extent, if at all, can the rise and decline of 19th century Bible societies,
along with the other forms of religious societies, shed light on the mechanisms driving the
growth in parachurch organizations we are witnessing today?
One obstacle in answering a question such as this has been the lack of data of
contemporary parachurch organizations. However, as part of a separate data collection, I
22
identified over 1,900 of the largest and most well-known parachurch organizations in the United
States. This collection was part of a larger project examining Christian nonprofits. The project
was designed to identify the largest organizations with a national and\or international scope. The
latter qualification was defined as operating in more than one state or nation. Any nonprofit
operating only in a single city or state was excluded. This primarily excluded local shelters,
camps, and local social service providers. To help focus the collection on larger organizations,
those with less than $200,000 in total revenue were excluded. Below this cut-off, the
organizations were increasingly likely not to fulfill the national or international requirement.
Furthermore, the descriptions of the organization’s exempt purposes became more vague and
difficult to confirm.
The organizations were identified using several different methods. The primary source
was the 2004 Core file produced by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) at the
Urban Institute. This file contains financial information for all nonprofits with gross receipts
over $25,000. The NCCS enhances this information by assigning each organization to a
category within the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE). The NTEE includes a
broad religion category (the “X” code) with several more specific sub-categories (e.g. “Alliances
and Advocacy,” “Management and Technical Assistance”).5 All of the organizations with
$200,000 or more in total revenue in these categories, excluding the non-Christian categories,
were examined to see if they fulfilled the requirements for organizational scope and the Christian
affiliation. This was done by cross-checking the Core File’s financial information with the
actual scanned 2004 IRS-990 form accessed from either Guidestar (www.guidestar.org) or
Foundation Center (www.foundationcenter.org). Each 990 form contains a section where the
5
The “O55-Religious Youth Leadership” category was also examined.
23
nonprofit must describe their primary purpose, activities and accomplishments. This section was
used to verify the geographic scope and Christian nature of the organization.6
The organizations identified through the NCCS Core File were then supplemented and
verified with several other methods. First, the membership list of the Evangelical Council for
Fiscal Accountability (www.ecfa.org) was consulted and any previously unidentified nonprofits
were added to the sample. The same was done with the Ministry Watch
(www.minstrywatch.org) database produced by Wall Watchers, a nonprofit organization that
provides information and analysis on Christian nonprofits. Keyword searches were also done in
the Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org) database. For the most part, these other
sources simply verified the organizations identified through the NCCS Core File, but there were
some cases that were identified solely through one or more of these alternative databases. In the
end, 1,941 organizations were identified.
Although the larger project utilizing these data examines such issues as the different
activities of the Christian nonprofit population, the acquisition and utilization of money, and
government relations, they can also be useful for the present discussion concerning the historical
development of the contemporary parachurch sector. For instance, we can examine the ruling
dates of the nonprofits examined in this book to look at this question. The ruling date is the date
in which an organization was granted official nonprofit status by the government. There are a
number of reasons why this may not be the ideal way to look at the growth of Christian
nonprofits, but in the absence of other data this provides an adequate substitute.7 As seen in
6
Inter-faith and ecumenical organizations were also excluded because the project was focused on exclusively
Christian nonprofits.
7
Namely, ruling dates do not necessarily equal founding dates. An organization may have waited to file for
nonprofit status, but usually filing occurs within a year or two after the actual founding. The primary exception to
this are very old organizations who could not have filed due to non-existence of a real “nonprofit” status. In
addition, I am doing a ‘backward projection’ based on the ruling dates of currently existing organizations. This is
not ideal since we do not know much about the organizations that have already disbanded. However, an informal
24
Figure 4, the number of new Christian nonprofits each year numbered in the single digits until
the 1960s when the number steadily increased to fifty new organizations a year in the 1980s.
Since the 1990s, the rate of new filings has been seventy or more a year.
<INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE>
In short, it seems like the perception of a growth in the contemporary parachurch sector is
not illusory. But what is the source of this growth? As argued above, the 19th century
parachurch sector was driven by the void created by the lack of denominational organizational
structures, and its eventual decline was driven by the rise of those structures. Today, however,
we are seeing significant changes in the denominational nature of religion in the United States
which is fueling a renewed parachurch sector.
Growth of Unaffiliated Resources
One of the most significant yet underappreciated developments in the United States has
been the rise of a trans-denominational or non-denominational Christian identity. This is
reflected in the increase in non-denominational congregations and the corresponding increase in
individuals claiming non-denominational or “Christian” affiliations. According to the General
Social Survey, the percent of Protestants claiming “no denomination or non-denominational” has
gone from about four percent in the early 1970s to fifteen percent in 2006.8 Corresponding to the
comparison of actual founding dates and filing dates shows that the filing date usually follows the founding data by
at most one or two years.
8
This is likely an underestimate since it does not count the individuals in various independent Baptist churches that
are included in the individual claiming an “other” or “don’t know” Baptist affiliation.
25
growth of unaffiliated individuals has been unaffiliated congregations. The 1998 National
Congregations Study estimated that non-denominational churches represent 19% of all
congregations and contain 11% of all attendees (Chaves et al. 1999). As a collective this group
would represent one of the largest denominations in the United States.
How is this trend related to the growth of Christian nonprofits? Just because a
congregation is or becomes unaffiliated with a denomination does not free them from needing
the goods and services typically obtained from denominational structures. Independent
congregations still need worship supplies, church and leadership consulting, ministry education
and training, missions support, and so on. A congregation without denominational allegiances
represents money looking for a place to be spent. Many signs seem to suggest that Christian
nonprofits, along with the for-profit peers, are responding to fulfill this demand. In interviews
with seventy-three independent churches, Scott Thumma (1999) found that non-denominational
churches rely on the parachurch sector to “strengthen the nondenominational identity much like
an established denomination's resources, programs, publications and seminaries reinforce a
denominational culture.”
<INSERT FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE>
Figure 5 compares the percent of Protestants in the United States stating they do not have
a denominational affiliation over the past thirty years with the ruling dates of the Christian
nonprofits.9 As noted earlier, the percent of unaffiliated Protestants has gone from about four
percent in the early 1970s to over fifteen percent in 2006. This has corresponded to a similar
9
Lines represent three year moving averages. Affiliation data come from a cumulative file of the General Social
Survey.
26
doubling of the rate of Christian nonprofit filings. Even more telling is the apparent lag between
increases in unaffiliated individuals and nonprofits. The jumps in nonprofits seem to follow
about five years after jumps in unaffiliated individuals. An increase in the mid-1970s in
unaffiliated individuals was followed by an increase in the early 1980s in nonprofits filings.
Another jump in non-denominational identity in the late 1980s was followed by an increase in
nonprofit filings in the mid-1990s. This lag is not surprising because it takes time for the market
to respond to changes in demand and resources. Before a nonprofit can survive, there must be
people and congregations willing to support it.
Denominational Loyalties and Outsourcing
Even within denominations there are signs of decreasing loyalty from congregations and
members. For example, there has been a growing concern among denominations about the
decline in the proportion of church income provided back to the denomination. These so-called
“benevolences” are used for the denomination’s mission and outreach work. At the same time
there has been a parallel decrease within denominations in the percent of a person’s income
given to the church (Empty Tomb 2004). In sum, people are giving less of their income to the
church, and churches are giving less of their income back to denominational structures
(Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle 1996).
<INSERT FIGURE 6 ABOUT HERE>
27
However, the story becomes more complicated once we factor in the rise of Christian
nonprofits. As seen in Figure 6, the decline in benevolences has been offset by the increasing
numbers of nonprofit organizations (Empty Tomb 2004). These nonprofits must have money to
survive, and not surprisingly, most of their customers are the same as that for churches and
denominations. When faced with competing demands for their time and money, individuals
must either increase their overall support or choose one over the other. It seems that at least
some of the growth in the population of Christian nonprofits has come at the expense of
denominational competitors.
This means that the decline in denominational finances is probably more of a
“transformation” than an overall “decline” in religious philanthropy (Amerson, Stephenson and
Shipps 1997). This begs the question of why individuals and churches have shifted their support
from denominations to the parachurch sector. There may be some competitive and
organizational dynamics that provide certain advantages to parachurch organizations, allowing
them to simply “win” resources from denominations.
However, there have been changes in many denominations that have made competition a
non-issue, particularly among the Mainline denominations. Many of these groups have all but
stopped many of their missions programs, church planting, and other domestic and foreign
outreach. The largest Mainline denominations, including the Episcopal Church, the United
Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, all have fewer than one foreign missionary per 10,000 members. This compares with
over nine for the Southern Baptist Convention, twenty-six for the Christian and Missionary
Alliance, and over one hundred for the Church of the Nazarene (Stark and Finke 2000). It is true
that there is probably lower demand within these denominations for these programs. However, it
28
is unlikely that there is absolutely no demand within them. The retreat of Mainline
denominations has provided many open spaces in the market for parachurch organizations to
utilize. To put this more crudely, there is a lot of money searching for a place to be spent. This
has not gone unnoticed among Mainline leaders (Hutcheson Jr. 1991, emphasis in original):
These [parachurch] organizations are not made up of free-floating, unaffiliated evangelicals. The
mainline evangelicals themselves are the backbone of the massive parachurch organizations
dominating much of American Christianity. The mainline liberal establishment should not delude
itself on this point…. The parachurch dollars are coming from mainline pockets.
These “open spaces” are not unlike the open space created by the lack of
denominational structures in the early 19th century that fueled that era’s parachurch
sector. So, in some ways the development of America’s religious organizational structure
has come full circle. From parachurch, to denominations, to parachurch.
Connecting Histories
It is often tempting to anoint social phenomena with the “new” label, as this tends to
provide, whether accurately or not, an automatic argument for the importance of research.
However, social phenomena that seem ‘new’ often have deep historical roots even if some
details are new. Understanding those roots not only provides a more accurate perspective on
these phenomena but also can provide unique insights on the mechanisms underlying them.
Such is the case with the so-called ‘sudden’ rise of parachurch organizations in recent years.
If we tie the 19th century parachurch sector to the contemporary parachurch population,
we begin to see that both are connected not only to each other but to the larger history of changes
29
in the organizational structure of American religion. Indeed, it is somewhat inaccurate to speak
of the “rise, fall and rise” of the parachurch sector. The parachurch sector never went away. It
was simply transformed into denominational organizations which have traditionally been seen as
part of the “church,” not “parachurch.” Others have recognized the parachurch nature of
denominational organizations, however. The theologian John Frame (1991) wrote that:
We need to recognize that in an important sense, denominations themselves are para-church
organizations…. Denominations are, to put it paradoxically, para-church organizations that we
have set up to govern the church and to carry on much of its ministry.
Several larger points may be taken from this discussion. First, despite its association with
tradition and consistency, religion is surprisingly adaptive in the form it takes. Second, too often
we interpret short-term trends and make long-term conclusions. For instance, the decline of
denominational giving has been seen as the end of religious outreach. However, as seen above
this is likely a matter of transformation in the actors engaged in religious outreach than an
outright decline. The same can be said for the decline of denominations. While the rise of
parachurch organizations in recent years does seem due to the ‘de-denominalization’ of religion,
there is nothing to say that parachurch energies cannot shift back to denominations. Of course,
this point has long been made in regard to statements about secularization and church-sect
processes. Stark and Bainbridge (1985: 2-3) argued that we too often “misread” religion because
we fail “to recognize the dynamic character of religious economies. It could have been possible
in the 1850s to say a eulogy for the parachurch sector. However, the “dynamic” nature of
religion has given new life to the parachurch population, ironically by undoing some of the
processes that led to its decline.
30
Bibliography
Aldrich, Howard. 1999. Organizations Evolving. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Amerson, Philip, Edward J. Stephenson and Jan Shipps. 1997. “Decline or Transformation?
Another View of Mainline Finances.” The Christian Century 114: 144-147.
Ammerman, Nancy. 2005. Pillars of Faith: American Congregations and Their Partners.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Banerjee, Neela Banerjee. 2006. “At Bosses’ Invitation, Chaplains Come Into Workplace and
Onto Payroll.” The New York Times. December 4. A14.
Boylan, Anne M. 1988. Sunday School: The Transformation of an American Institution, 17901880. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Boylan, Anne M. 1998. “Presbyterians and Sunday Schools in Philadelphia, 1800-1824.”
Journal of Presbyterian History 76: 37-44.
Bullock, F.W.B. 1963. Voluntary Religious Societies 1520-1799. St. Leonards-on-Sea: Budd &
Gillatt.
31
Campolo, Tony. 1995. Can Mainline Denominations Make a Comeback? Valley Forge, PA:
Judson Press.
Carroll, Glenn R. 1984. “Concentration and Specialization: Dynamics of Niche Width in
Populations of Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 90: 1262-1283.
Carroll, Glenn R. and Anand Swaminathan. 2000. “Why the Microbrewery Movement?
Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry.” The
American Journal of Sociology 106: 715-762.
Chaves, Mark. 1998. “Denominations as Dual Structures: An Organizational Analysis.” In
Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of
Organizations, edited by N.J. Demerath III, Peter Dobkin Hall, Terry Schmidt and Rhys
H. Williams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
___________. 1999. “Religious Organizations: Data Resources and Research Opportunities.”
American Behavioral Scientist 45: 1523-1549.
Chaves, Mark. 2002. “Religious Organizations: Data Resources and Research Opportunities.”
American Behavioral Scientist 45: 1523-1549.
32
Chaves, Mark, Mary Ellen Konieczny, Kraig Beyerlein and Emily Barman. 1999. “The
National Congregations Study: Background, Methods, and Selected Results.” Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 38: 458-476.
Columbian Centinel. 1796. “Bible Society.” September 3. Boston: MA
Connecticut Journal. 1811. “The Connecticut Religious Tract Society.” April 18. New Haven,
CT.
Dwight, Henry Otis. 1916. The Centennial History of the American Bible Society. New York:
The Macmillan Company.
Ebaugh, Helen Rose and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. 2000. “Structural Adaptations in Immigrant
Congregations.” Sociology of Religion 61: 135-153.
Empty Tomb. 2004. “Table 1: Per Member Giving as a Percentage of U.S. Per Capita
Disposable Personal Income, and U.S. Per Capita Disposable Personal Income, 19682004.” http://www.emptytomb.org/table1_04.html
Foley, Michael J., John D. McCarthy and Mark Chaves. 2001. “Social Capital, Religious
Institutions, and Poor Communities” in Social Capital and Poor Communities edited by
Susan Saegert, J. Phillip Thompson and Mark R. Warren. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
33
Finke, Roger. 2004. “Innovative Returns to Tradition: Using Core Teachings as the Foundation
for Innovative Accommodation.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43: 19-34.
Finke, Roger and Patricia Wittberg. 2000. “Organizational Revival From Within: Explaining
Revivalism and Reform in the Roman Catholic Church.” Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion 39: 154-170.
Finke, Roger and Rodney Stark. 2005. The Churching of America 1776-2005: Winners and
Losers in Our Religious Economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Frame, John M. 1991. “Short of Union, What?” in Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and
the Body of Christ. Baker Publishing Group. Can be found online at http://www.framepoythress.org/
Galambos, Louis. 1970. “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American
History.” The Business History Review 44: 279-290.
Greeley, Andrew M. 1972. The Denominational Society: A Sociological Approach to Religion
in America. Glenview: Scott Foresman.
34
Hall, Peter Dobkin. 2005. “The Rise of the Civic Engagement Tradition.” In Taking Faith
Seriously edited by Mary Jo Bane, Brent Coffin and Richard Higgins. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman. 1977. “The Population Ecology of Organizations.”
American Journal of Sociology 82: 929-964.
Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman. 1987. “The Ecology of Organizational Founding:
American Labor Unions, 1836-1985.” The American Journal of Sociology 92: 910-943.
Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman. 1989. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hannan, Michael T., Glenn R. Carroll and Lászlo Pólos. 2003. “The Organizational Niche.”
Sociological Theory 21: 309-340.
Hatch, Nathan O. 1989. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Henriques, Diana B. and Andrew W. Lehren. June 13, 2007. “U.S. Grant for a Medical Mission
Winds Up as 2 Boats Gone Awry.” The New York Times. A1 & A20.
35
Horiuchi, Heather. 2005. “Specialized Ministries a Spiritual Oasis for Youths with
Disabilities.” The Washington Post. July 9. B09.
Hutcheson Jr., Richard G. 1981. Mainline Churches and the Evangelicals: A Challenging
Crisis. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Kaplan, Ann E. 2007. Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) 2007. Council for Aid to
Education. www.cae.org.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. 1941. The Great Century in Europe and the United States of
America A.D. 1800-A.D. 1914. Vol. IV in A History of the Expansion of Christianity.
New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Lindner, Eileen W. 2007. Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches 2007. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press.
Martin, William. 2003. “With God on Their Side: Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy.” In
Religion Returns to the Public Square edited by Hugh Heclo and Wilfred M. McClay.
Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
McKinley, Jesse. 2007. “A Youth Ministry Some Call Antigay Tests Tolerance.” The New
York Times. March 9. A10.
36
McPherson, Miller. 1983. “An Ecology of Affiliation.” American Sociological Review 48: 519532.
Monsma, Stephen V. 1996. When Sacred & Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations &
Public Money. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
New York Missionary Society. 1797. “Report of the Directors of the Missionary Society.”
Meeting of the New-York Missionary Society. November 8.
Nord, David Paul. 2004. Faith in Reading: Religious Publishing and the Birth of Mass Media in
America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Primer, Ben. 1979. Protestants and American Business Methods. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI
Research Press.
Ronsvalle, John and Sylvia Ronsvalle. Oct. 23, 1996. “The End of Benevolence? Alarming
Trends in Church Giving.” The Christian Century. 113: 1010-1014.
Rovou, Jason. 2007. “ ‘Porn and Pancakes’ Fights X-Rated Addictions.” CNN.com April 6.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/porn.addiction/index.html
Stange, Mary Zeiss. 2007. “A Dance for Chastity.” USA Today. March 19. 15A.
37
Stark, Rodney and William Sims Bainbridge. 1985. The Future of Religion: Secularization,
Revival, and Cult Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thumma, Scott. 1999. “What Makes God Free is Free Indeed: Nondenominational Church
Identity and Its Networks of Support.” Hartford Institute for Religion Research.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/thumma_article5.html
Troeltsch, Ernst. 1960 [1911]. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, Volume 1,
translated by Olive Wyon. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Warner, W. Lloyd, Darab B. Unwalla and John H. Trimm. 1967. The Emergent American
Society. New Have: Yale University Press.
Warner, R. Stephen. 1993. “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological
Study of Religion in the United States.” The American Journal of Sociology 98: 10441093.
Weber, Max. 1964. Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press.
Weber, Max. 1985. “‘Churches’ and ‘Sects’ in North America: An Ecclesiastical Socio-
38
Political Sketch,” translated by Colin Loader. Sociological Theory 3(1): 7–13.
Western Monitor. 1816. “National Bible Society.” March 8. Lexington, KY.
White, Jerry. 1983. The Church and the Parachurch: An Uneasy Marriage. Portland:
Multnomah Press.
Williams, Bud. 2002. “Theological Perspectives on the Temporary Community/Camping and
the Church.” Christian Camping International.
http://www.cciworldwide.org/resources.htm
Willmer, Wesley K., J. David Schmidt and Martyn Smith. 1998. The Prospering Parachurch:
Enlarging the Boundaries of God’s Kingdom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Winter, Ralph D. 1973. “The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission.” Pages 220-230 in
Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Edited by Ralph D. Winter
and Steven C. Hawthorne. Third Edition. William Carey Library Publishers.
___________. 1980. “Protestant Mission Societies and The ‘Other Protestant Schism’.” Pgs
194-224 in American Denominational Organization: A Sociological View Edited by Ross
P. Scherer. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
39
Work, Telford. 1999. “Reordering Salvation: Church as the Proper Context for an Evangelical
Ordo Salutis” in Ecumenical Theology in Worship, Doctrine, and Life: Essays Presented
to Geoffrey Wainwright on his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by David S. Cunningham, Ralph
Del Colle and Lucas Lamadrid. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith since
World War II. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
___________. 1994. Producing the Sacred: An Essay on Public Religion. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Young, Michael. 2006. Bearing Witness against Sin: The Evangelical Birth of the American
Social Movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zald, Mayer N. 1982. “Theological Crucibles: Social Movements in and of Religion.” Review
of Religious Research 23(4): 317-336.
40
Figure 1-Overlapping Activity Niches of Denominations and Parachurch Organizations
Missions &
Missionary
Political &
Social
Advocacy
Relief &
Develop.
Fellowship
& Worship
Religious
Education
Publishing
& Resources
Radio &
Television
Church
Consulting
Denominational Boundaries
Parachurch Boundaries
41
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
Number of Foundings
50
40
80
250
200
60
150
40
30
100
20
10
50
0
0
90
250
80
70
60
200
150
30
100
20
10
50
0
0
50
40
Bible Society Foundings in the South
Density
70
Number of Foundings
Bible Society Foundings in the Northeast
50
40
Density
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
50
Density
90
Number of Foundings
Density
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
Number of Foundings
Figure 2-First Appearances and Population Density of Bible Societies by Region
Bible Society Foundings in the Midwest
90
80
250
70
200
60
150
30
100
20
10
50
Year
0
Year
0
90
Bible Society Foundings in the West
80
250
70
60
200
150
30
100
20
10
50
0
0
Year
Time
42
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
Bible Society Appearances
300
200
$15,000,000
150
$10,000,000
100
0
Presbyterian Mission Budget
Figure 3-Overall Density of Bible Societies and Presbyterian Mission Expenses
$25,000,000
250
$20,000,000
50
$5,000,000
$0
Density
New Appearances
Presbyterian Mission Budget (Constant 2008 Dollars)
43
44
10
80
9
70
8
7
60
6
50
5
40
4
30
3
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
0
19
80
0
19
78
1
19
76
2
10
19
74
20
% No Denomination
90
19
72
Number of Non-Profit Filings
Figure 5
Ruling Dates of Christian Non-Profits Compared to Growth in NonDenominational Identity
Percent of Protestants Claiming "No Denomination"
Non-Profit Filings
45
Figure 6
Denominational Benevolences and Non-Profit Filing Dates
90
0.70%
80
Number of Filings
70
0.50%
60
0.40%
50
40
0.30%
30
0.20%
20
Percent of Income to
Denominational Benevolences
0.60%
0.10%
10
0
0.00%
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Year
Percent of Income Going to Benevolences through
Denominations
Non-Profit Foundings
46
Table 1-Odd Ratios for Discrete Time Logistic Analysis Predicting Bible Society Existence
1800-1859
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Time Periods
1800-1814 (Ref.)
-----1815-1820
26.08**
26.39**
24.61**
5.37**
5.49**
1821-1827
20.49**
20.70**
18.59**
4.18**
4.30**
1828-1830
18.53**
18.69**
16.75**
3.73**
3.87**
1831-1859
12.07**
12.14**
9.45**
2.43**
2.98**
Region
Northeast (Ref.)
South
Midwest
West
-----
-.73*
.54**
.56
-.81
.67
2.23**
-1.51*
1.26
4.87**
-1.49*
1.26
6.10**
County Population (10,000s)
--
--
1.03**
1.03*
1.03**
State Density
State Density2
---
---
---
1.06**
.99**
1.06**
.99**
State Society Present
--
--
--
5.78**
5.83**
Presbyterian Mission
Expenses (100,000s-Constant
2008 Dollars)
--
--
--
--
.99**
-16937.88
-16821.43
-14454.32
-13972.66
-13936.438
Log Pseudolikelihood
47