It is not often I delve into religious studies. I tend to avoid academic theologians, because the ones who are not apostate are despairing. But this paper, which I think I first read a while ago, was linked in the Washington Post. The best comment so far is at Vox Popoli, where a Vile Faceless Minion Noted:

The Province of Ontario is one of the most cucked, most multicultural, most SJW infested places on earth. The results of this study are therefore all the more impressive.

The hypothesis is stated — taking from the paper, which I have managed to access (But cannot share: it is not open access)

In sum, the role of theological conservatism in church growth is hotly disputed, with strong prima facie sociological and historical evidence, supported by well developed theories, positing a strong connection, while other high-quality studies controlling for multiple factors downplay the connection or call it into question. Our current study is, to our knowledge, the first one to compare growing and declining Canadian mainline Protestant churches from the same denominations and geographical region to determine what differences exist between these two groups
that may be explanatory factors. Among other things, this comparison allows us to test the ‘‘conservatism predicts growth’’ hypothesis for this group of churches while controlling for other significant differences between these churches. Formulated more precisely, our hypotheses are:

1. Theological conservatism of clergy is positively associated with church growth in this group of churches.
2. Theological conservatism of congregants is positively associated with church growth in this group of churches.

Makes sense. Let’s see if the methodology is consistent with that. Here we run into the first problem: after defining what churches they were going to look at (United Church of Canada, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Anglican) they defined growth at 2% or greater over 10 years and decline as 2% or less over 10 years. They excluded churches that had combined. It became apparent that they could not use a random sampling frame, so actively sought out growing churches: it also became clear that many churches kept poor statistics. They comment.

Finding declining churches for our study was not difficult, since these denominations have been undergoing sustained numerical decline for decades and the large majority of their congregations are shrinking. Conversely, finding growing churches in these denominations presents a special challenge given their rarity. Indeed, a random sampling approach was not an option for this study, because even a large random sample would have been unlikely to turn up many—if any—growing churches. The task of assembling a sample was further complicated by the lack of complete published congregation-level attendance statistics for these four denominations and the inability of some regional denominational offices we contacted to identify any growing congregations in their region. Thus, to recruit churches we ultimately employed what may be termed a ‘‘critical case sample’’ approach, in which we specifically searched for a number of both declining and growing churches using a combination of referrals from regional denominational offices, a cold-call campaign, and further referrals from recruited churches. We
comment on the uses and limitations of this kind of sample in the discussion section below.

Using this approach, we recruited 13 declining churches (3 Anglican, 3 Lutheran, 4 Presbyterian, and 2 United) and 9 growing churches (2 Anglican, 1 Lutheran, 4 Presbyterian, and 2 United) which met our criteria. The participating churches of both types were of various ages and locations. About a third of them were constructed in the mid to late-1800s, another third were built in the early to mid-1900s, and the rest were built between 1950 and early 2000s. About half of the growing and half of the declining churches were located in the core of a larger city
while one or two others in each group were located in each of the following settings: a rural setting, a small city/large town, an older residential area in a larger city, or a new suburban development around a larger city.

You do the best you can. In total ther are 12 declining and 9 growing churches in the sample: what matters here is the group.

The participating churches then had three surveys: one of programs and facilities, one of clergy attitude, and one of the congregational attitudes. The surveys were then compared between growing and declining churches: appropriate multivariate analyses were used to deal with multiple comparisons. There are many tables, but the one that struck me was below: growing churches had a third of the congregation considering evangelism is the prime mission of the church: one third of the declining congregations saw the prime mission of the church as social justice.

I have tried to get two parallel sets of questions for clergy and congregants. The questions were clearly asked in a different manner, but the differences are illuminating.

In short, theology matters, particularly in the leadership. If the leaders do not believe that Christ is but the only way for salvation, and no other way exists, they will not preach with fervour.

Without vision, the people perish.

In the Washington Post article the authors put it this way.

What explains the growth gap between liberal and conservative congregations? In defense of liberal churches, one might venture that it is the strength of belief, not the specifics of belief, that is the real cause of growth. In this case, pastors embracing liberal theology are just as likely as conservative pastors to experience church growth, provided they are firm and clear in their religious convictions. Yet different beliefs, though equally strong, produce different outcomes.

For example, because of their conservative outlook, the growing church clergy members in our study took Jesus’ command to “Go make disciples” literally. Thus, they all held the conviction it’s “very important to encourage non-Christians to become Christians,” and thus likely put effort into converting non-Christians. Conversely, because of their liberal leanings, half the clergy members at the declining churches held the opposite conviction, believing it is not desirable to convert non-Christians. Some of them felt, for instance, that peddling their religion outside of their immediate faith community is culturally insensitive.

It should be obvious which of these two convictions is more likely to generate church growth.

While our research helps explains the dwindling ranks of liberal mainline congregations, it isn’t likely to bring much “joy to the world” of mainliners, especially those on the theological left. But, if it’s any consolation, when it comes to growth in mainline churches, Spong and other liberals are right to claim that Christianity must change or die. They just get the direction of the change wrong.

The comments are illuminating.

The author only surveyed 22 churches and 2200 congregants. We won’t be finding useful facts from this piece from such a small sample size. There are more churches/congregants in my small, mid-South (U.S.) town than that “survey” reached.

I’m not sure who determines what is conservative v liberal Christianity; many traditional Protestant churches seem “liberal” compared to the wacky, evangelical Starbucks-in-the-lobby mega churches these days who seem to have adapted Christianity to suit secular concerns/mindframes. Whose religion is “conservative?”

The results are highly significant: the numbers don’t matter. The commentator is correct to note that this may only apply in Ontario, but I agree with the VFM; Ontario is nauseatingly politically correct. And the methodology of conservative and liberal is better stated as orthodox and apostate. It is clear which is which.

The so-called conservative churches are preaching the ideology of exclusion and condemnation. That is what to many people need to support their hate.

SJW always project. If one looks at the demographics, there is a trend (3% vs 1%) for more common law couples to be in the growing churches than the failing ones.

And those conservative churches are where the 80% of evangelicals who voted for Trump came from. To often, those churches are filled with hate, racism, sexism, intolerance, homophobia, injustice.
Jesus must be so pleased.
There are still decent, honorable Christians in America, but not in those extremist churches.
And it seems many people want to be entertained, and those churches provide entertainment, nothing more.

This person has not considered that Jesus called the ruler of a neighboring country a fox, the leaders of a religious party a brood of vipers, and whipped the banksters out of the temple. He would be classed as intolerant. We are called to follow Christ, not your own personal Jesus. Social justice is not the church’s prime aim: evangelism (preaching the gospel) is.

And there is this one, which is about the best explanation of why trying to converge will never bring people back to the church, or to Christ.

What could possibly be “counterintuitive” about the assumption that as one gets more liberal the less one can take seriously the claims of religion? The “liberal” churches are all flirting with disaster. Their once-filled sanctuaries are thinning out because fewer and fewer citizens in modern, secular societies who value actual truth and virtue find religion much more than a quaint tradition. Take away the habit, social aspect and the music, and the whole enterprise would collapse. Modern sense and sensibilities are simply not compatible with the dogmas, superstitions and supernatural proclamations of Iron Age prophets and their apostles. Now conservatives are another matter. They love believing that they believe in some higher power and serving some higher good by eagerly swallowing down myths and superstition, and swearing allegiance to authority figures, whether that be God, Christ and/or the charismatic pastor they often make filthy rich. They don’t even try to hide their disdain for science anymore. Most of all they love being conformists and accepting what they are told to believe without a whit of questioning, real searching or anything more than the shallowest “spirituality.” Actually, it’s un-spiritual because spirit equals love, and we can see by the behavior of conservative religionists through history and around the world today that love for anyone or anything outside of their in-group is not really on their to-do list. Conservative religion is just another, albeit important and potentially very dangerous, aspect of the cultural wars. The leading edge of thinkers, as well as a critical mass of citizens, in modern societies are pealing away from religion. That’s just going to make the conservatives mad and even more irrational. The fact that evangelicals voted by some 80 percent for Trump, a proven lout and liar, amply demonstrates their discernment. Expect even worse behavior as their credibility, and that of religion in general, continues to wane.

The logical fallacies: argumentum ad honimem, the incoherence, and the assumption that all Christians are rubes are all here. It is a fantastic example.

But wrong. What matters is that one abides in Christ. if you do, Christ will abide in you and you will be fruitful. But without Christ, there is no salvation, no hope, and nothing but death. The liberals walked away from Christ to convergence. And the converged say that they do not need them.

Do not be apostate. Choose Christ, and abide in him alone.