America's religious congregations have, over all, suffered steady erosion in attendance, membership and vitality since around 2000.

Analysts fret that worse may occur after the current COVID-19 emergency finally subsides because myriads of members are now accustomed to worshiping online rather than in person or they may skip services altogether.

At the same time, there is evidence that, while decline is common, a majority of congregations report that they have survived or even grown during the past two years. This is a complex subject. As a recent Associated Press story noted:

Gifts to religious organizations grew by 1% to just over $131 billion in 2020, a year when Americans also donated a record $471 billion overall to charity, according to an annual report by GivingUSA. Separately, a September survey of 1,000 protestant pastors by the evangelical firm Lifeway Research found about half of congregations received roughly what they budgeted for last year, with 27% getting less than anticipated and 22% getting more. 

This is an important news topic, no matter what. Even secularized news consumers should be interested when social science researchers tell us that sagging participation could not just damage religious institutions but create a public health "crisis."  In our age of solitary, do-it-yourself forms of spirituality, research indicates, regular in-person attendance at worship services is central to the well-being of children, adults and society. 

This important assertion does not come from religious propagandists but Harvard's Institute for Quantitative Social Science. Building upon two decades of scholarship, the institute in 2016 launched its distinctive "Human Flourishing Project" to focus on the impact the family, workplace, education and religion have on peoples' well-being. Their survey samples are large and they say their methodology improves upon past research.

Key findings document differences between Americans who regularly attend worship versus those who never attend.

Project leaders report that in-person participation is clearly "associated with greater longevity, less depression, less suicide, less smoking, less substance abuse, better cancer and cardiovascular disease survival, less divorce, greater social support, greater meaning in life, greater life satisfaction, more volunteering, and greater civic engagement." (Political strategists will ponder that last point.) The project has also tracked positive impact on peoples' charitable giving and volunteering.

Some specific numbers: Regular attenders do 12% better on avoiding depression among adolescents, 29% over-all on the risk of depression, 33% on adolescents avoiding drug use, 33% on risk of death, 50% on risk of divorce, 68% on women's deaths from despair or substance abuse and 84% over-all on risk of suicide.

Given the pressures on healthcare staffs during the COVID era, it's notable that a long-running survey of 70,000 medical workers showed that compared with never-attenders the regular worshipers were 29% less likely to suffer depression, 50% less likely to divorce, five times less likely to commit suicide and 33% less likely to die during a 16-year follow-up period.

If you haven't yet covered this effort, its approach is described in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (.pdf here). The Harvard team cooperates with e.g. units at Baylor, Johns Hopkins and Virginia universities, Massachusetts General Hospital, the Barna and Gallup polls, Aetna insurance, Psychology Today magazine and Executive Networks Inc., representing big business. 

Religion results are reported in academic articles listed here, including 11 on the church attendance comparisons. Project Director Tyler VanderWeele, a biostatistics Ph.D. and professor of epidemiology in Harvard's public-health school and Associate Director Brendan Case, a Duke Divinity Th.D., neatly summed up results in the November Christianity Today article "The Public Health Crisis No One Is Talking About," alas available only to subscribers. Some past media coverage is posted here. For interview requests: tvanderw@hsph.harvard.edu and Brendan.case@fas.harvard.edu or 617-432-7855.

The authors conclude that "people find their social and personal lives improved -- sometimes their lives are even physically saved -- when they go to church often. … Service attendance powerfully enhances health and well-being." They contend in particular that lower service attendance "accounts for about 40 percent of the rise in suicide rates over the past 15 years."

Summing up: "Going to church remains central to true human flourishing." 

Undoubtedly there's psychological and social support from participation not only in a house of worship but, say, a local service club or charity (where numbers are also in decline). But this Harvard duo insists there's something especially healthy about group worship, ritual, singing, hope, inspiration, moral advocacy of factors like promotion of forgiveness, accountability toward other people and reinforcement of positive behaviors. 

The Guy proposes that this is especially important information for city tracts that often have weak social bonds and institutions compared with wealthy suburbs. Reporters will want to drill down on what social scientists working on this think about public policy, for instance the rationale for tax exemption. 

Otherwise, American government won't make people go to church, synagogue, temple or mosque, of course. The Constitution aside, that wouldn't work. But could government foster helpful voluntary involvement in other ways without violating separation of church and state? And can other societal institutions, for instance in education or entertainment, encourage religion's contributions?