CHAPTER EIGHT
The Dynamics of Religious Economies
Roger Finke and Rodney Stark
An immense intellectual shift is taking place in the social scientific study of religion.
During the past few years many of its most venerated theoretical positions – faithfully
passed down from the famous founders of the field – have been overturned. The changes
have become so dramatic and far-reaching that R. Stephen Warner identified them “as
a paradigm shift in progress” (1993:1044), an assessment that since then “has been
spectacularly fulfilled,” according to Andrew Greeley (1996: 1).
This chapter reviews a small portion of this major paradigm shift: the dynamics
of religious economies. Elsewhere (Stark and Finke 2000) we offer a more complete
theoretical model, developing propositions explaining individual religious behavior,
the dynamics of religious groups, and a more comprehensive examination of religious
economies. Here our goals are far more modest. First, we will briefly contrast the new
paradigm with the inherited model. Next, we offer a few of the foundational proposi-
tions for understanding religious economies. Finally, we use recent research to illustrate
the dynamics of religious economies.
A PARADIGM SHIFT
The Old Paradigm
Since the founding of the social sciences, the study of religion has been dominated
by a paradigm where religion is explained as an epiphenomenon, serving as a salve
for social ills, and relying on the unchallenged religious authority of a monopoly to
make religious beliefs plausible. As an epiphenomenon, Durkheim (1912/1976) and
others viewed religion as an elaborate reflection of more basic realities. Marx and
Engels (1878/1964: 16) explained, “All religion...is nothing but the fantastic reflec-
tion in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily lives.” As a
salve for social ills, religion was a painkiller for frustration, deprivation, and suffering.
Proponents of this paradigm viewed religion as serving to appease the lower classes,
legitimate existing political power, and impede effective rational thought. Finally, the
plausibility of the religious beliefs, they argued, relied on the support of a religious
monopoly. Using the memorable imagery of Peter Berger, a “sacred canopy” encom-
passing all social institutions and suffusing all social processes provides religion with
96