Abstract
Background
Although few studies have explored predictors of congregational vitality (i.e., ministry-oriented strengths, not attendance or growth) and sustainability, inter-organizational relationships matter for organizational wellbeing because of their impact on trust, cooperation, and information access. However, investigating the relationship between social capital and congregational vitality and sustainability has not previously been possible due to data limitations.
Purpose
This article investigates the extent to which brokerage, or bridging together otherwise disconnected congregations, predicts congregational vitality and sustainability in an inter-congregational network of religious congregations from eight counties encompassing and surrounding a major metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. Research on social networks between organizations suggests that brokerage can have positive, negative, and curvilinear relationships with organizational outcomes, and this literature does not provide a clear expectation for how brokerage might relate with congregational vitality and sustainability.
Methods
OLS regressions are used to predict three forms of vitality and two forms of sustainability using inverse network constraint, a measure of brokerage, as well as a variety of control variables. Statistical significance is estimated through permutation tests, which account for the relationships between congregations.
Results
Results indicate that brokerage is positively associated with community vitality and that staff/volunteer sustainability is highest for congregations with moderate levels of brokerage. Brokerage does not predict spiritual vitality, relational vitality, or financial sustainability.
Conclusions and Implications
This article has practical implications for congregations. Bridging together otherwise disconnected congregations can provide a wide range of ideas, resources, and opportunities, and these benefits can help congregations seeking to minister in their communities. In addition, moderate levels of brokerage can provide more diverse information and resources as well as a supportive, trusting, and cooperative environment. This combination of benefits may be helpful for congregations to disclose challenges with and to seek resources related to staff/volunteer sustainability. In addition, this article contributes to the fields of: congregational studies through exploring predictors of congregational vitality and sustainability; sociology of religion through expanding research using social network analysis; inter-organizational networks, whose research on social capital and organizational outcomes is both complicated and conflicting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The mailing list was “based on a database … purchased from InfoGroup” (McClure 2020, p. 5).
“This study’s response rate is not an outlier vis-à-vis some other congregation-level data collections. This study’s response rate is comparable to response rates for the two waves of the U.S. Congregational Life Survey; the first (2001) wave had a response rate of 35.7%, and the second (2008–2009) wave had a response rate of 14.7% (Woolever and Bruce 2010, p. 122). However, this study’s response rate is much lower than the response rates for the four waves of the National Congregations Study, which range from 69 to 80% (Chaves et al. 1999, p. 462; Chaves and Anderson 2008, p. 419, 2014, p. 678–679; Chaves et al. 2020, p. 649)” (McClure 2021b, p. 17).
The factor analysis used principal components analysis (DeVellis 2012, p. 148). This analysis is not presented but is available upon request.
Accuracy related to attenders’ demographics differs by: denominational affiliation with, for example, Roman Catholic priests having less accurate views and some Mainline Protestant ministers having more accurate views; work status of the minister, with full-time ministers having more accurate views on most demographic factors than part-time ministers; a variety of other factors, including average attendance, community type (urban or rural), and region of the country (Schwadel and Dougherty 2010, pp. 372–374). There is not research on the types of key informants that give more or less accurate descriptions of their congregation’s vitality and sustainability.
About 20% of the congregations reported ten alters. Some of them would have been happy to report more than ten, but congregations were limited to reporting ten to reduce the burden on the respondents, which can be greater in network studies due to the complexities of network-related questions (Borgatti et al. 2018, p. 60–61).
In the numbers below, I am counting, for example, Congregation A mentioning a tie with Congregation B and Congregation B also mentioning a tie with Congregation A as two relationships. Of the 1,082 relationships depicted in Fig. 1, 965 (89%) involve friendships between ministers, 817 (76%) involve joint events, 646 (60%) involve ministerial groups, and 416 (38%) involve pulpit exchanges. Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) correlations can be used to explore which pairs of relational types are more likely to co-occur (Prell 2012:202). Here are the results, from most common to least common: friendships between ministers and joint events (QAP correlation = 0.821), friendships between ministers and ministerial groups (QAP correlation = 0.786), joint events and ministerial groups (QAP correlation = 0.732), friendships between ministers and pulpit exchanges (QAP correlation = 0.647), joint events and pulpit exchanges (QAP correlation = 0.603), and ministerial groups and pulpit exchanges (QAP correlation = 0.572).
“This study treats relational ties as undirected instead of directed, despite collecting directed data (Prell 2012:75), for one key reason. Participants were limited to ‘reporting at most ten alters in order to minimize respondent burden’ (McClure 2021a, p. 577), and some participants would have mentioned a greater number of alters if given the opportunity. Treating the data as undirected accounts for the chance that some unreciprocated ties might have actually been reciprocated if participants had been allowed to mention more than ten alters” (McClure 2021b, p. 17). Of the 1,082 relationships depicted in Fig. 1, 500 (46%) were only mentioned by one of the congregations. Of the 965 relationships involving friendships between ministers, 461 (48%) were only mentioned by one of the congregations. Of the 817 relationships involving joint events, 375 (46%) were only mentioned by one of the congregations. Of the 646 relationships involving ministerial groups, 336 (52%) were only mentioned by one of the congregations. Of the 416 relationships involving pulpit exchanges, 234 (56%) were only mentioned by one of the congregations.
The clusters depicted in the figure maximize ties within and minimize ties between clusters (Clauset et al. 2004:1).
“Calculating [network constraint] from a network including both participants (N = 438) and non-participants (N = 639) would, in most cases, result in … lower network constraint scores (average difference = − 0.20). When there are data missing not at random for nodes with many relational ties (e.g., a non-participating congregation mentioned frequently as an alter by participants), omitting these highly central non-participants when calculating the outcomes may bias the estimates (Smith et al. 2017:93). However, I prefer this approach to the following situation. Consider a triad [a group of three actors] where Congregation A participated and mentioned relational ties with Congregations B and C, both of which did not participate; this situation results in missing data about the relational tie between Congregations B and C. An approach measuring the outcomes from a network that includes both participants and non-participants would assume that the relational tie between Congregations B and C is missing, which suggests that Congregation A is bridging a structural hole. If Congregations B and C had provided data confirming a relational tie between them, however, the triad would be closed and would not involve a structural hole (Burt 1992:18; Coleman 1988:S105–S106). In a network including both participants and non-participants, missing relational data from non-participants would create too much uncertainty for” gauging the extent to which congregations span structural holes (McClure 2021b, p. 18). Although using a network that only includes participants to measure spanning structural holes results in some bias that inflates some congregations’ constraint scores, the risk of incorrectly measuring spanning structural holes is greater when using a network that includes both participants and non-participants. Congregations for whom a greater proportion of alters participated in the study have a smaller discrepancy in their constraint score when calculated from a network that only includes participants (N = 438) versus a network including both participants and non-participants (N = 1077); the correlation between the proportion of alters that participated in the study and the absolute difference in constraint scores is r = − 0.777 (p < 0.001; n = 400, which excludes alters, which lack participating alters). “The following characteristics correspond with congregations where, on average, at least 70% of their alters participated in the study (leading to more complete data on their similarity to or difference from alters [and their social capital]): Roman Catholic and other (not Protestant or Roman Catholic) traditions; Anglican, Latter-day Saint, and Roman Catholic families; multisite; average weekly attendance of 500 or more; budget of more than $1,000,000. The following characteristics correspond with congregations where, on average, about 55% or less of their alters participated in the study (leading to more incomplete data on their similarity to or difference from alters [and their social capital]): no denominational affiliation; Black Protestant tradition; Holiness, Pentecostal, and Restorationist families; African American racial composition; certificate or bachelor-level theological education; no budget” (McClure 2021a, p. 569).
“Black Protestant congregations include those from historically African American denominations, like the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. and the African Methodist Episcopal Church, as well as other congregations from the Methodist, Baptist, and nondenominational traditions where at least 80% of attenders are African American (Steensland et al. 2000:314)” (McClure 2020, p. 12).
“Other traditions include: Eastern Orthodox; Jewish; Latter-day Saint; Muslim; Spiritualist; Unitarian Universalist” (McClure 2020, p. 12).
“The main minister is defined in the questionnaire as the ‘solo or leading minister, pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, or other type of congregational leader’” (McClure 2020, p. 10).
The median household income for each congregation’s Census tract was ascertained through geolocating each congregation in GIS and matching each location with 2013–2017 American Community Survey data. This variable is positively skewed (skew = 1.22) and is transformed using a natural log.
The first supplemental analysis estimated the models predicting relational vitality, financial sustainability, and staff/volunteer sustainability with robust standard errors to examine if the heteroskedasticity of the models impacted the reported results. There were not substantive differences for relational vitality and staff/volunteer sustainability. However, in models using robust standard errors, there is an inverse curvilinear relationship between brokerage (measured through the additive inverse of network constraint) and financial sustainability (p = 0.036). Because permutation testing is important for addressing the relational interdependence in the data, I’m going to err on the side of concluding that inverse network constraint does not predict financial sustainability. The second supplemental analysis estimated the results using a measure of inverse network constraint that was calculated from a network that was only based on joint events and pulpit exchanges, in which there are more interactions between congregations (and not just their ministers). The results from this second supplemental analysis are substantively the same as what is presented in Table 2, except that average weekly attendance has a positive association with spiritual vitality (b = 0.43; p = 0.040). Results for both sensitivity analyses are not presented but are available upon request.
References
Ahuja, Gautam. 2000. Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 425–455.
Allison, Paul. 1999. Multiple Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ammerman, Nancy. 1997. Congregation & Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Ammerman, Nancy. 2005. Pillars of Faith: American Congregations and Their Partners. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Analytic Technologies. Tools > Statistics > Vector > Regression. UCINET 6 for Windows Help Index. Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies. Retrieved November 1, 2021. http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet/help/1oy.6x0.htm.
Balkundi, Prasad, Martin Kilduff, Zoe I. Barsness, and JuddH. Michael. 2007. Demographic Antecedents and Performance Consequences of Structural Holes in Work Teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28: 241–260.
Bizzi, Lorenzo. 2013. The Dark Side of Structural Holes: A Multilevel Investigation. Journal of Management 39: 1554–1578.
Bobbitt, Linda. 2014. Measuring Congregational Vitality: Phase 2 Development of an Outcome Measurement Tool. Review of Religious Research 56(3): 467–484.
Bobbitt, Linda. 2015. Congregational Vitality Project: Quick-Check. Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Retrieved March 2017. http://cvs.holycrosschurch.org/Resources/Congregational%20Vitality-Sustainability%20Quick%20Check.pdf.
Bobbitt, Linda. 2016. Creating Shorter Scales to Measure Congregational Vitality. Review of Religious Research 58(1): 183–184.
Bobbitt, Linda, Oretha Miller-Davis, Joel Hinck, Susan Modrow, Molly Schroeder, and Ashley Tangen. 2018. Exaggerated Vitality on Congregation’s Annual Reports? Review of Religious Research 60(3): 423–424.
Borgatti, Stephen P., Martin G. Everett, and Jeffrey C. Johnson. 2018. Analyzing Social Networks. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Bruce, Deborah, Cynthia Woolever, Keith Wulff, and Ida Smith-Williams. 2006. Fast-Growing Churches: What Distinguishes Them from Others? Journal of Beliefs & Values 27(1): 111–126.
Burt, Ronald S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, Ronald S. 2001. Structural Holes Versus Network Closure as Social Capital. In Social Capital: Theory and Research, ed. N. Lin, K. Cook, and R.S. Burt, 31–56. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Burt, Ronald S. 2004. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110: 349–399.
Carroll, Jackson W. 2006. God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Chapman, Mark D. 2004. No Longer Crying in the Wilderness: Canadian Evangelical Organizations and Their Networks. PhD dissertation. Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Chaves, Mark. 2004. Congregations in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chaves, Mark. 2017. American Religion: Contemporary Trends. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chaves, Mark, and Shawna L. Anderson. 2008. Continuity and Change in American Congregations: Introducing the Second Wave of the National Congregations Study. Sociology of Religion 69(4): 415–440.
Chaves, Mark, and Shawna L. Anderson. 2014. Changing American Congregations: Findings from the Third Wave of the National Congregations Study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 53(4): 676–686.
Chaves, Mark, Shawna L. Anderson, and Alison Eagle. 2014. National Congregations Study. Cumulative Data File and Codebook. Durham, NC: Duke University, Department of Sociology [producer]. University Park, PA: The Association of Religion Data Archives [distributor].
Chaves, Mark, Mary Hawkins, Anna Holleman, and Joseph Roso. 2020. Introducing the Fourth Wave of the National Congregations Study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59(4): 646–650.
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(4): 458–476.
Clauset, Aaron, M.E.J. Newman, and Cristopher Moore. 2004. Finding Community Structure in Very Large Networks. Physical Review E 70(6): 1–6.
Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S120.
Corcoran, Katie E., Rachel E. Stein, Corey J. Colyer, and Brittany M. Kowalski. 2021. Familial Ties, Location of Occupation, and Congregational Exit in Geographically-Based Congregations: A Case Study of the Amish. Review of Religious Research 63: 245–268.
Cormode, Scott. 2020. The Innovative Church: How Leaders and Their Congregations Can Adapt in an Ever-Changing World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Crossley, Nick, Elisa Bellotti, Gemma Edwards, Martin G. Everett, Johan Koskinen, and Mark Tranmer. 2015. Social Network Analysis for Ego-Nets. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeVellis, Robert F. 2012. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Everton, Sean F. 2018. Networks and Religion: Ties that Bind, Loose, Build-up, and Tear Down. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Finke, Roger. 2004. Innovative Returns to Tradition: Using Core Teachings as the Foundation for Innovative Accommodation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43(1): 19–34.
Fox, John. 2008. Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fulton, Brad R. 2016. Network Ties and Organizational Action: Explaining Variation in Social Service Provision Patterns. Management and Organizational Studies 3: 1–20.
Gargiulo, Martin, and Mario Benassi. 2000. Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital. Organization Science 11: 183–196.
Geverdt, Douglas E. 2015. Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates Program (EDGE): Locale Boundaries User’s Manual. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Grammich, Clifford, Kirk Hadaway, Richard Houseal, Dale E. Jones, Alexei Krindatch, Richie Stanley, and Richard H. Taylor. 2012. 2010 U.S. Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Membership Study. Kansas City, MO: Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies [producer]. University Park, PA: The Association of Religion Data Archives [distributor].
Hoge, Dean R., Charles Zech, Patrick McNamara, and Michael J. Donahue. 1998. The Value of Volunteers as Resources for Congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37: 470–480.
Kreiser, Patrick M. 2011. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Learning: The Impact of Network Range and Network Closure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35: 1025–1050.
Kwon, Seok-Woo., Emanuela Rondi, Daniel Z. Levin, Alfredo De Massis, and Daniel J. Brass. 2020. Network Brokerage: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Management 46(6): 1092–1120.
Lee, Sun Kyong, Heewon Kim, and Cameron W. Piercy. 2019. The Role of Status Differentials and Homophily in the Formation of Social Support Networks of a Voluntary Organization. Communication Research 46(2): 208–235.
Marler, Penny Long, D. Bruce Roberts, Janet Maykus, James Bowers, Larry Dill, Brenda K. Harewood, Richard Hester, Sheila Kirton-Robbins, Marianne LaBarre, Lis Van Harten, and Kelli Walker-Jones. 2013. So Much Better: How Thousands of Pastors Help Each Other Thrive. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
McClure, Jennifer M. 2015. The Cost of Being Lost in the Crowd: How Congregational Size and Social Networks Shape Attenders’ Community Involvement. Review of Religious Research 57(2): 269–286.
McClure, Jennifer M. 2020. Connected and Fragmented: Introducing a Social Network Study of Religious Congregations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 16(4): 1–33.
McClure, Jennifer M. 2021a. Congregations of a Feather? Exploring Homophily in a Network of Religious Congregations. Review of Religious Research 63(4): 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-021-00449-y
McClure, Jennifer M. 2021b. Homophily and Social Capital in a Network of Religious Congregations. Religions 12(8): 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080653
Olson, Daniel V. A. 1989. Church Friendships: Boon or Barrier to Church Growth? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28: 432–447.
Prell, Christina. 2012. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Provan, Keith G., Amy Fish, and Joerg Sydow. 2007. Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal of Management 33: 479–516.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Ruef, Martin. 2002. Strong Ties, Weak Ties and Islands: Structural and Cultural Predictors of Organizational Innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 427–449.
Scheitle, Christopher P., and Amy Adamczyk. 2009. It Takes Two: The Interplay of Individual and Group Theology on Social Embeddedness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(1): 16–29.
Schwadel, Philip, and Kevin D. Dougherty. 2010. Assessing Key Informant Methodology in Congregational Research. Review of Religious Research 51(4): 366–379.
Schwarz, Christian A. 1996. Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches. St. Charles, IL: ChurchSmart Resources.
Scott, John. 2013. Social Network Analysis. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Shipilov, Andrew V., and Stan Xiao Li. 2008. Can You Have Your Cake and Eat It Too? Structural Holes’ Influence on Status Accumulation and Market Performance in Collaborative Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly 53: 73–108.
Smith, Jeffrey A., James Moody, and Jonathan H. Morgan. 2017. Network Sampling Coverage II: The Effect of Non-random Missing Data on Network Measurement. Social Networks 48: 78–99.
Soda, Giuseppe, Alessandro Usai, and Akbar Zaheer. 2004. Network Memory: The Influence of Past and Current Networks on Performance. The Academy of Management Journal 47(6): 893–906.
Stark, Rodney, and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art. Social Forces 79(1): 291–318.
Stein, Rachel E., Katie E. Corcoran, Brittany M. Kowalski, and Corey J. Colyer. 2020. Congregational Cohesion, Retention, and the Consequences of Size Reduction: A Longitudinal Network Analysis of an Old Order Amish Church. Sociology of Religion 81(2): 206–229.
Steinke, Peter L. 2019. Uproar: Calm Leadership in Anxious Times. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sterland, Sam, Ruth Powell, Miriam Pepper, and Nicole Hancock. 2018. Vitality in Protestant Congregations: A Large Scale Empirical Analysis of Underlying Factors across Four Countries. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 29: 204–230.
Stroope, Samuel. 2012. Social Networks and Religion: The Role of Congregational Social Embeddedness in Religious Belief and Practice. Sociology of Religion 73(3): 273–298.
Theissen, Joel, Arch Chee Keen. Wong, Bill McAlpine, and Keith Walker. 2019. What is a Flourishing Congregation? Leader Perceptions, Definitions, and Experiences. Review of Religious Research 61(1): 13–37.
Todd, Nathan R., Emily J. Blevins, and Jacqueline Yi. 2020. A Social Network Analysis of Friendship and Spiritual Support in a Religious Congregation. American Journal of Community Psychology 65: 107–124.
Uzzi, Brian. 1999. Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing. American Sociological Review 64(4): 481–505.
Uzzi, Brian, and Jarrett Spiro. 2005. Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem. American Journal of Sociology 111(2): 447–504.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Woolever, Cynthia, and Deborah Bruce. 2004. Beyond the Ordinary: Ten Strengths of U.S. Congregations. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Woolever, Cynthia, and Deborah Bruce. 2008. Places of Promise: Finding Strength in Your Congregation’s Location. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Woolever, Cynthia, and Deborah Bruce. 2010. A Field Guide to U.S. Congregations: Who’s Going Where and Why. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Woolever, Cynthia, Deborah Bruce, Keith Wulff, and Ida Smith-Williams. 2006a. The Gender Ratio in the Pews: Consequences for Congregational Vitality. Journal of Beliefs & Values 27(1): 25–38.
Woolever, Cynthia, Deborah Bruce, Keith Wulff, and Ida Smith-Williams. 2006b. What Do We Think about Our Future and Does It Matter: Congregational Identity and Vitality. Journal of Beliefs & Values 27(1): 53–64.
Zaheer, Akbar, and Geoffrey G. Bell. 2005. Benefiting from Network Position: Firm Capabilities, Structural Holes, and Performance. Strategic Management Journal 26: 809–825.
Zaheer, Akbar, Remzi Gözübüyük, and Hana Milanov. 2010. It’s the Connections: The Network Perspective in Interorganizational Research. Academy of Management Perspectives 24: 62–77.
Zaheer, Akbar, and Giuseppe Soda. 2009. Network Evolution: The Origins of Structural Holes. Administrative Science Quarterly 54: 1–31.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Diane Felmlee, Nathaniel Porter, Jennifer Rahn, and Jonathan Fleming for their help and advice.
Funding
This work was supported by a Faculty Development Grant from Samford University and a Lilly Endowment grant awarded to Samford University’s Center for Congregational Resources (#2014 0494-000).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 3.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McClure, J.M. Is Together Better? Investigating the Relationship Between Network Dynamics and Congregations’ Vitality and Sustainability. Rev Relig Res 64, 451–474 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-022-00496-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-022-00496-z