I found Christian Smith's explanation of his theories in the CT interview to be interesting and helpful (
CT article). Contrary to the errant prognostications of the likes of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud of Christianity's imminent doom, what makes Christianity work and what explains its survival? Smith's succinct answer:
Smith: According to my argument in this article, Christianity "works" from a sociological perspective because it is able to successfully address a whole set of basic human needs and desires, particularly offering an emotionally as well as cognitively satisfying experience for ordinary believers. Whether or not various philosophers and scientists raise objections to Christianity, the fact seems to be that in believers' phenomenological experience, there is tremendous power in living in a theistic universe, having a way to deal with moral failure, believing one is loved and cared for by God, having communities of worship and belonging to be a part of, and so on. For many millions of people, that is much more compelling than arguments Freud or Darwin might have made.
I particularly appreciate Smith's departure from either/or thinking as it relates to the relationship between faith and science (in this case social science). Here's another except:
CT: There's one thing I can't leave behind after our interview and reading the article. You explain why Christianity works, but I keep thinking the explanation would simply satisfy the person who says, "See, religion is a mental crutch!" I want to respond that I'm not a Christian because it accomplishes x, y, and z in my life. I'm a Christian because I believe Christ really did rise from the dead. You leave that point unaddressed. Isn't it the case that many Christians embrace the faith, not for its effects but for what they believe is its truthfulness?
Smith: Sure. But those are not mutually exclusive things. Both can be true. In most cases people really do believe it. But believing it may also have certain often-positive effects for people emotionally. Why can't it be both? To call religion a "crutch" is a negative way of saying people rely on it. But people do rely on it. So what? That's fine. Everyone relies on lots of things. This can be interpreted from a believing perspective or a non-believing perspective, as I say in the article. But nothing in the article per se needs to undermine faith.
Of course from a purely biblical-theological framework, the Church exists because God, in his purposes, decreed that it would exist and the Church will continue to exist because God will sustain it. And of course, as a Christian, I believe Christendom is more than a sociological phenomenon or some chance cultural expression. Nonetheless, I believe that fruit of the sciences or other disciplines are sources of revelation (i.e. general revelation) which along with Scripture (i.e. special revelation) help me construct a closer approximation of reality. In recent years, I found that my anthropological views has been furthered and informed by the time spent dabbling in the social sciences like psychology and sociology. In particular, I appreciate the writings of Paul Hiebert (love this
book) and Charles Kraft (his earlier stuff), who skillfully integrate findings from the social sciences in their writings.
Where I find Smith's views helpful is in exploring religion as a sociological phenomenon, without the weariness that the scholar's work is tainted by the reductionistic presumption that that is all it is. I agree that there is a powerful experiential allure to what Christianity has to offer--relieve of forgiveness, assurance of hope, fulfillment of belonging, etc. This helps me to understand not only why "Christianity works" (from a sociological perspective) but also why other faith systems are sustainable. Last year, I made several visit to a large DFW Hindu temple and in certain moments of watching the youth interact (saw one group playing jackpot with a football), the feel and ambiance was alarmingly reminiscent of growing up and playing football and wallball at church. The point is there are sociological attractions (e.g. sense of belonging, purpose) that will bring people into faith communities, and not just Christian communities. But this leads me to a caution.
The interviewer also rightly points out that these "effects" are the benefits of being called to a relationship with Christ and we ought to be motivated by our love for the giver, not the gifts (though it's my observation that many professing believers seem to be more interested in the gifts rather than the giver). We love God not for our own sake but for God's sake.