Secular alternatives to congregational friendship

The friendship-formation function of congregations has been consistently underanalyzed because it tends to be attributed to religious motivation — the idea that shared faith produces warmth, that shared prayer produces closeness, that theological commitment produces community. These attributions are partially correct but miss the structural point. The congregation's social function derived less from the content of belief than from the organizational form: a group of people gathered on a fixed schedule in a fixed location, bound by a shared identity, and organized around a set of repeated activities and mutual obligations.

The specific structural features were: weekly rhythm (not monthly, not annually, but every week, which is the minimum frequency for maintaining casual acquaintance against the entropy of adult life); geographic anchoring (the congregation served a defined territory, which meant that members encountered each other not only at services but in the neighborhood, at the school, at the grocery store); intergenerational composition (the congregation included infants and ninety-year-olds and every cohort between, which is structurally unusual in modern life); shared obligation (committees, volunteering, mutual aid, governance); and life-event marking (births, marriages, illnesses, deaths were congregational events, which meant that the congregation was present across the full arc of a member's life in ways that no purely voluntary association can match).

These features, not the theology, were what made the congregation a friendship machine. Any institution that reproduced these features would produce similar social effects regardless of its ideological content.

American secularization has proceeded unevenly but durably. The Pew Research Center's tracking data shows the proportion of self-identified "nones" (no religious affiliation) rising from approximately 16 percent in 2007 to 26 percent by 2023. Among adults under 30, the proportion is significantly higher — above 35 percent in multiple recent surveys. The decline is concentrated among mainline Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church; evangelical congregations have shown greater stability in membership.

The social consequences of this shift are not primarily about belief. Most adults who leave congregations do not report losing their religious convictions immediately; many leave over time or drift away. The social consequence is the loss of the congregational social structure: the weekly gathering, the organizational obligations, the life-event marking, the geographic community. These losses are not always noticed at first — the social capital built during years of congregational membership persists for a period after departure. The friendship poverty typically becomes apparent five to ten years after leaving an active congregational community, when the relationships that required the institutional infrastructure to maintain begin to atrophy.

One of the more productive lines of research on congregational social life comes from the sociology of religion's attention to "latent functions" — the social purposes that institutions serve alongside their stated purposes. Congregations are explicitly about worship, doctrine, and religious practice. Latently, they are about social support, friendship formation, community belonging, and the management of life transitions. These latent functions are not incidental. For many members, they are the primary reason for continued participation.

Survey data on religious behavior consistently shows that rates of self-reported religious belief exceed rates of religious practice. People who believe in God do not necessarily attend services. People who attend services do not necessarily believe in God, or believe with the intensity that formal membership implies. The attendance behavior is driven heavily by the social function: people attend because their friends attend, because it is how they see their community, because leaving means losing a social network they have no alternative plan to replace.

The implication is that congregational membership and religious belief are more separable than they appear from the outside, and that the social functions of congregational life are available to people who hold the belief lightly or skeptically. The secularization of a population does not automatically mean the loss of congregational social infrastructure — it means the loss of one motivation for participation, which must then be replaced by other motivations or by different institutions.

The most self-conscious attempt to create secular congregational infrastructure is the Sunday Assembly movement, founded in London in 2013 by comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans. The Sunday Assembly is an explicitly non-religious gathering organized around congregational form: weekly meetings in a fixed location, communal singing, a speaker or talk, small-group conversation, and mutual support activities. The model was consciously transplanted from the Protestant congregational tradition, stripped of theological content.

The Sunday Assembly grew rapidly in its first years, with chapters established in cities across the UK, the US, Australia, and elsewhere. It attracted significant media attention as a proof-of-concept for secular community. By the late 2010s, however, many chapters had dissolved or become dormant. The movement's peak membership remains a small fraction of the population it sought to serve.

The Sunday Assembly experiment illuminates both the demand for secular congregational infrastructure and the difficulty of sustaining it. Congregations are sustained by theological motivation, institutional authority, financial infrastructure (the tithe), and a sense of obligation that is difficult to replicate in a purely voluntary secular gathering. When the gathering is entirely voluntary and the only reason to attend is enjoyment and community, attendance rates are more vulnerable to competing weekend demands, to the natural social attrition of urban mobile populations, and to the absence of the obligation structure that kept congregational attendance regular.

A different model of secular congregational substitute has emerged in the fitness and wellness industry, particularly in the period following 2010. SoulCycle, CrossFit, yoga studios, and certain meditation apps and centers have explicitly cultivated congregational cultural features — regular gathering, shared language and values, community identity, instructor figures with quasi-pastoral authority, life-event marking — while organizing around wellness practice rather than religious belief.

The sociologist Donncha Marron and others have analyzed the "spiritual but not religious" fitness culture as a form of secular congregation, noting that it provides some of the social goods that congregational life provided: belonging, community, regular gathering, a sense of meaning derived from shared practice. The research also shows the limitations of this model: it is economically gated in ways that congregations historically were not, it is demographically narrow (young, fit, middle-class and above), it does not span the life cycle in the way that congregations did, and it does not produce the life-event support infrastructure — the casserole network, the funeral attendance, the hospital visit — that was a central feature of congregational social function.

The fitness-spirituality hybrid may serve as a partial congregational substitute for the urban professional in their twenties and thirties. It is not a general-purpose replacement for the social infrastructure that congregations provided across age, class, and life circumstance.

For a portion of the secularizing population, particularly the politically engaged, civic and political organizations have partially served congregational social functions. The local Democratic or Republican organization, the advocacy group, the union, the neighborhood association — these provide regular meetings, shared identity, common purpose, and some degree of obligation and life-event awareness. The period of high political mobilization following 2016 saw significant increases in civic organization membership and attendance, with some of the social energy of congregational community channeled into political activity.

The limitations of political organizations as congregational substitutes are significant. They are organized around conflict and opposition in ways that produce high-intensity but fragile community: the mobilization that generates intense fellowship when the adversary is salient tends to dissipate when the electoral cycle moves on or the organizing goal is achieved. They are also ideologically homogeneous in ways that limit the social diversity that congregations at their best provided. And they do not provide life-event support or the pastoral care function that was a central feature of congregational community.

The political organization produces comrades, which is a genuine and important form of social bond. It does not reliably produce the durable, multidimensional friendship that congregational membership supported across decades and life transitions.

Among the more widespread secular friendship institutions in middle-class American life is the book club — a small group gathering, typically monthly, organized around shared reading. Book clubs appeared in American social life in the early twentieth century, declined in the postwar period, and revived dramatically in the 1990s following Oprah Winfrey's on-air book club and the general cultural emphasis on "quality time" and intentional community.

Book clubs provide several congregational features: regular gathering, a shared activity, a context for conversation that is not purely transactional, and a small-group intimacy that can support genuine friendship. Research on book club participants shows meaningful social benefits: reported feelings of belonging, reduced loneliness, and valued friendship relationships formed through the group.

But book clubs are demographically narrow (heavily female, educated, middle-class and above), meet far less frequently than congregations (monthly vs. weekly), and are organized around an activity that appeals to a specific cultural preference rather than a widely distributed social need. They also lack the life-event marking and institutional support structure of congregational community. The book club produces friendship for those it serves; it is not a general-purpose congregational infrastructure equivalent.

The pandemic period of 2020–2022 produced a notable revival of secular mutual aid networks — neighborhood-organized systems of resource sharing, errand assistance, food support, and community care. These networks appeared rapidly across American cities, often organized through social media and messaging apps, and provided genuine community support during a period of acute need.

The mutual aid revival illuminated the latent demand for the care infrastructure that congregational mutual aid had historically provided: people wanted to help their neighbors, wanted to be helped, wanted to be part of a community organized around care rather than consumption. Some of these networks have persisted beyond the pandemic context. Most have atrophied as the acute emergency receded and the difficulty of sustaining voluntary mutual aid without institutional backing became apparent.

The mutual aid revival is significant as evidence that the social infrastructure need is real and that secular populations will create informal versions of it under sufficient pressure. It also illustrates the sustainability challenge: congregational mutual aid was sustained by institutional resources, obligational norms, and pastoral coordination that informal secular networks lack.

One congregational substitute that has received less explicit attention than it deserves is the social infrastructure created around children's activities — youth sports leagues, school parent communities, after-school organizations. Parents with children in organized activities are embedded in a network of repeated contact with other parents, shared investment in a common purpose, and social events that force regular proximity.

This infrastructure serves congregational functions for parents during the period when children are in school and organized activities: it provides the weekly rhythm, the shared identity (the team, the school, the organization), and the repeated contact that friendship formation requires. Many adults report that their closest current friendships were formed through children's activity communities.

The limitations are temporal and demographic. The community dissolves when children age out of activities or move to different schools or leagues. The social infrastructure is entirely dependent on the continued participation of the children, not on the adults' own choices about association. And it is obviously unavailable to adults without children — which includes both the growing population choosing not to have children and the large cohort of adults whose children are grown.

The collective observation about secular congregational alternatives is that they partially replicate individual features of congregational social infrastructure but consistently fail to replicate the combination. The running club gives you weekly rhythm but not intergenerational mixing or life-event support. The mutual aid network gives you obligation and care infrastructure but not weekly rhythm or shared identity. The yoga studio gives you regular gathering and community identity but economic gatekeeping and demographic narrowness.

The congregational form worked as a friendship machine because it combined these features rather than delivering them singly. The combination was not accidental — it was the product of centuries of institutional development, religious motivation, and community investment that secular alternatives are attempting to replicate in a generation.

The deeper structural problem is that secular alternatives are organized around affinity and interest in ways that congregations were not. The congregation gathered people because they lived in the same territory and shared an inherited religious identity, not because they had the same hobbies or political opinions. The social diversity that resulted — the accountant sitting next to the plumber, the octogenarian in the same pew as the new parent — was a feature, not a bug. Secular alternatives organized around shared interest produce homogeneous communities that miss a critical component of what made congregational friendship valuable.

The most significant structural difference between congregational social infrastructure and secular alternatives is the role of obligation. Congregational membership created a web of mutual obligations — to attend, to serve, to contribute, to show up when someone was sick or grieving, to take on committee responsibilities — that held the community together against the natural entropy of adult busyness. These obligations were not always experienced as burdens; many members found meaning and identity in them. But they operated as structural constraints on exit and disengagement that secular voluntary associations lack.

Secular alternatives are typically purely voluntary in a way that produces fragile community. When attendance at the book club or the running group is entirely discretionary, and no one expects your presence or asks after your absence, the group is vulnerable to the competing demands of modern adult life in a way that the congregation was not. The secular alternative must generate enough intrinsic motivation to survive every Saturday morning when it would be easier to stay in bed, and intrinsic motivation is an unreliable substitute for the structural obligation that congregational membership provided.

Building obligation into secular community structures requires deliberate design choices that most secular alternatives have not made: explicit membership commitments, mutual accountability structures, formalized care responsibilities. The Sunday Assembly and similar experiments that have tried to import congregational obligation structures into secular forms have found that generating the sense of obligation without the theological grounding that gave congregational obligation its moral weight is substantially harder than it looks.

The design challenge of the secular congregational substitute is now well enough understood to be stated clearly: what is needed is an institution that provides weekly or near-weekly rhythm, geographic anchoring to a specific community, intergenerational composition, life-event marking across the full arc of membership, mutual obligation structures, and financial sustainability that does not require high-cost access.

No current secular alternative satisfies all of these criteria simultaneously. The institutions that come closest — certain community centers, certain mutual aid organizations, certain intentional communities — are exceptional rather than typical, and require unusually high levels of founding investment and ongoing effort to sustain.

The honest conclusion is that the secular population of the contemporary United States is operating without a general-purpose congregational social infrastructure equivalent, and that the friendship poverty and social isolation documented in survey data is partly a consequence of this absence. Building secular congregational infrastructure is a design and policy challenge of the first order — one that has received far less attention and investment than its social consequences warrant.

---

1. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

2. Pew Research Center. "Modeling the Future of Religion in America." Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2022.

3. Chaves, Mark. American Religion: Contemporary Trends. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.

4. Wuthnow, Robert. Loose Connections: Joining Together in America's Fragmented Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

5. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

6. McRoberts, Omar M. Streets of Glory: Church and Community in a Black Urban Neighborhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

7. Zuckerman, Phil. Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008.

8. Calhoun-Brown, Allison. "Upon This Rock: The Black Church, Nonviolence, and the Civil Rights Movement." PS: Political Science and Politics 33, no. 2 (2000): 168–174.

9. Lim, Chaeyoon, and Robert D. Putnam. "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction." American Sociological Review 75, no. 6 (2010): 914–933.

10. Marron, Donncha. "Exercising Choice: Health, Wellbeing and the Body in the Contemporary Consumer Culture." In The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Health and Disease, edited by Ted Schrecker. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019.

11. Evans, Sara M., and Harry C. Boyte. Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.

12. Klinenberg, Eric. Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life. New York: Crown, 2018.