It is increasingly common for me to slowly study a book with which I don’t agree and that has glaring limitations, yet is still incredibly profitable and stimulating. Religion for Realists: Why We All Need the Scientific Study of Religion is one such book. Author Samuel Perry is a professor of Sociology (PhD, Chicago) who also has a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary where he graduated summa cum laude in 2008. Perry has published some important works and is currently the number 1 ranked sociologist in the world by ScholarGPS. For those interested in podcasts, Perry recently discussed Religion for Realists on Dangerous Dogma, focusing on the implications of his work for the rise of authoritarian populism.
Perry believes that we need the evidence-based, empirical study of religion (i.e. “realism”) rather than our idealistic notions of it. Particularly, his subject matter is what he calls “Anglo-Protestant Christianity” in America: “The philosophical “idealism” that grounds much of the dominant Anglo-Protestant tradition has been relentlessly assaulted by evidence” (77). Perry gathers an impressive array of empirical studies, mainly in North American and Europe, to make his case. As such, the book is intended for an American audience, and primarily directed towards those in academia who tend to diminish the powerful sociopolitical role religion plays in the United States.
The focus of the book is also its limitation–at least, for global missiological purposes. Most of the research cited is on WEIRD populations and lacks an intercultural lens. Another limitation is the quantitative, macro-sociological emphasis. I read the book with my personal research in mind: church multiplication movements which tend to happen in the Majority World among deviant population samples (MBBs & HBBs). Sociological research in that setting is rare indeed, and hence the need for Motus Dei.
With those two limitations in mind, Religion for Realists is however a stimulating work current on sociological methods, and the bibliography is a gold mine of relevant resources in the sociology of religion. In my opinion, academic “religious studies” is basically missiology without mission. For committed Christians versed in the Bible who tend to think theologically, it is not difficult to make the missiological connections.
What is the main argument of Religion for Realists? From the Introduction:
This book is a short argument about how the scientific study of religion should transform our dominant understandings of religion in the West, some reasons why it has failed to do so, and what must be adjusted in the future to change that.
I have no intention of empirically debunking Protestantism or religion generally. I am, in fact, a lifelong Protestant, in a family of Protestants, with a Protestant seminary education. Yet dominant Anglo-Protestant assumptions about what motivates human beings (faith), what directs the futures of religious communities and broader societies (ideas or doctrines, often found in sacred texts), and the emphasis they place on individual agency are largely wrong. Not biblically or morally wrong. I won’t speak to either of those issues. But they are empirically wrong. Instead, I'll argue the scientific study of religion helps us understand that:
- humans are in greater part driven by the more fundamentally cognitive "deep culture" of social norms, identities, and loyalties;
- societies are transformed less by moral ideas or doctrines than by discernible transitions in human populations, and
- our agency, to an extent we may resent recognizing, is powerfully shaped by social structure–the layers of laws, policies, formal roles, material resources, and institutions in which we live our lives. (4)
Religion for Realists insightfully tackles this “ambient folk theology” of Evangelicalism (xiv). In other words, the popular theology/missiology many Evangelicals are immersed in teaches that faith (beliefs), doctrines (ideas), and obedience (individual actions) are the primary elements of Christianity. Sound familiar?
Instead, Perry maintains that when you really want to understand religion (and mission), then faith, doctrines, and obedience all come downstream from social identity, population dynamics, and social structure. This sociological perspective adds interesting nuance to our missiological inquiry and should help us see our own ideologies, providing a “realist” perspective. Table 1.1 (pg. 10) outlines this argument:
Primary Operant in Religion According to Anglo-Protestant Tradition vs Reality |
| Domain | Anglo-Protestant Tradition | Reality |
| Cognitive Force | Beliefs (Faith) | Social Identity and Norms |
| Growth Factor | Ideas (Doctrines) | Population Dynamics |
| Change Agent | Individuals (Obedience) | Social Structure |
Chapter 1 provides an overview, while chapters 2-4 describe each of these points in detail:
- We Were All Wrong: Anglo-Protestant Misconceptions
- Belongers before Believers: Group Identity and Norms
- Evangelism the Old-Fashioned Way: Population Dynamics
- Come Over Here and Make Me: The Power of Structure
Chapters 2-4 contain the heart of the book, and with a little nuance, are vital for missiological inquiry, including the study of CMMs (church multiplication movements) which will be my primary conversation partner in this review. (Chapters 5-6 speak to the importance of the study of religion in the secular academy and are not as relevant to our purposes here.)
Belongers before Believers: Group Identity and Norms (Cognitive Force)
In Chapter 2 of Religion for Realists, Perry argues that religion is primarily about group identity and social norms. Theology serves as a flexible tool to reinforce group cohesion, functioning more as a marker of belonging than as a transformative belief system. This might sound backwards, but think about it: depending on your own theological tribe, your position on the complementarianism vs egalitarianism issue (or charismatic gifts, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.) is the defining feature of your faithfulness to Jesus!
Theology often operates as “sacralized groupness,” driven by relational impulses and social concerns rather than, primarily, doctrinal beliefs. Shared stories, symbols, and rituals bind communities together, while theological beliefs simply help narrate these bonds. Humans are “belongers before believers,” with group identity shaping religious behavior and biblical interpretation.
Ultimately, religion works through group status concerns, biases, and norms. Its fundamentally social nature prioritizes maintaining community over theological consistency or individual transformation. In fact, groups often switch their theologies when it suits the preferences of the group.
So let’s think through this missiologically. Movements avoid extracting individuals from their contexts and instead rely on social embeddedness (e.g. The Homophilous Unit Paradox: Church Planting Movements Within and Beyond the Oikos). Transformation often occurs collectively rather than solely through isolated individual decisions. In CMMs, as individuals within a social group begin to follow Christ, their shared norms and communal identity adapt, creating a ripple effect that leads others in the group to embrace faith.
This process does not negate personal conversion but recognizes that transformation is deeply embedded in the social context where beliefs and behaviors are shaped. This should challenge missiological frameworks that center theology as static and primary. It should also challenge Western individualistic approaches to mission.
Let’s also consider the sociological primacy of social identity and norms from the perspective of DBS (Discovery Bible Study). Perry references one very interesting study, How the Bible Works: An Anthropological Study of Evangelical Biblicism (Malley 2004):
What people are doing in group Bible studies has little to do with inductive education. People aren’t asking “How can I build my theology from the ground up based on what I see here in the text?” Instead it turns out to be more a collective exercise in connecting what they’re reading in the text with what their group has already decided the Bible teaches on that topic. [Malley] calls this “establishing congruence.” Our social group gives us an interpretive tradition such as “The Bible teaches traditional gender roles” or “The Bible teaches racial segregation” or “The Bible teaches that slavery is evil,” and we work to establish congruence between our group's traditional interpretation and the actual text. (53)
[Again, this study was on a WEIRD population. What about with non-Christian background, semi-literate oral preference learners who have never done an inductive group study of the Bible before?]
This is not to say that the Bible is not “living and active” with the utility to change people. Group identity and norms are powerful mechanisms for change, aligning with how DBS fosters transformation through shared engagement with Scripture. By immersing groups in the Word of God, DBS leverages the communal nature of belief formation, allowing the Spirit to work within relational networks to bring both individual and collective transformation.
The success of church multiplication movements depends on their ability to navigate and address deeply rooted social realities, rather than simply preaching rigid theological abstractions. As was said previously in Chapter 1 of Motus Dei (15-16), people will accept or reject a new religion based on whether they see it as strengthening or weakening a valued part of their social identity.
Evangelism the Old-Fashioned Way: Population Dynamics (Growth Factor)
In Chapter 3, Perry argues that religious transformation is primarily driven by population dynamics, not only superior ideas or doctrines. “Bodies precede ideas,” (70) with religious growth and decline resembling ecological systems rather than religious debates or marketplace competitions. Religious success depends on producing more members with durable social identities and norms.
Historically, religious groups have grown through high fertility rates and cohesive subcultures, especially in conservative, pro-natalist communities. As societies modernize, pluralism and secular civic options increase, leading to disaffiliation and the normalization of secularization. I found this quote fascinating:
Political scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart show that as economic development increases around the world, citizens increase in their “existential security,” meaning they don’t live in constant fear of famine, disease, war, or political corruption. And when existential security increases, populations simultaneously experience lower birth rates, rising individual-choice norms, and lower levels of religiosity. (83)
But seculars have fewer babies, right? Yes. Then why is secularism increasing in the West? Because population dynamics are about more than just fertility and immigration. In the West, there are now enough religiously unaffiliated persons in the population to where secularity is an increasingly live option “that people rarely switch back from once they embrace” (87).
In thinking through where there are church multiplication movements today, my hunch is that nearly every place that is seeing a movement is also experiencing population growth, including overall Christian growth. In the US, Ryan Burge has documented that growing churches are also much more likely to be in counties with positive population growth. This adds an important caveat for those seeking to explain the rise of CPMs globally. Where Christianity (of various kinds) is declining, you are also less likely to have CPMs. The reverse is also true.
Understanding movements requires a focus on population trends and their interplay with societal changes. And of course, this is not to deny that God is the author of authentic Jesus movements.
Come Over Here and Make Me: The Power of Structure (Change Agent)
In Chapter 4, Perry argues that religious life is fundamentally shaped by social structures—the rules and resources that organize, constrain, and reproduce societal behaviors and arrangements. Western societies often overlook this, focusing instead on individual belief and conversion. Modernity has created structural alternatives to religion, such as existential security, urbanization, and state welfare programs, which reduce both the need for and trust in religion. These structural shifts are typically irreversible except under authoritarian regimes.
Religious groups privileged by the state often decline in participation and piety, while religious minorities tend to grow. This dynamic reveals that state involvement in religion frequently fosters negative associations, further accelerating secularization. In authoritarian contexts, religion may grow, but this growth is often tied to nationalist fervor rather than genuine religiosity. Modern structural arrangements fundamentally alter how religion functions in society, prioritizing identity over practice and weakening traditional religious participation.
Concerning persecution, there is little evidence that state repression directly catalyzes Church growth. Justin Long is quoted here:
Missiologist Justin Long cross-referenced international data from Pew Research Center on government and social persecution in particular nations with Operation World's numbers on annual growth of Christian populations in those nations and the combination yielded no discernable pattern. (111) [See Sorry, Tertullian at CT]
Social structures, more than personal beliefs or evangelistic strategies, determine the trajectory of religiosity within modern societies. This reinforces the need for missiological strategies that account for structural realities rather than solely focusing on individual conversions. “We are bodies, then belongers, then believers” (99).
The insights in this chapter refer to the challenges of movements in both urban and secular contexts, covered also in Chapter 1 of Motus Dei (12-13). To address this, CMMs involve fostering smaller, tightly knit communities with strong relational bonds that resist the isolating effects of modern urban environments.
Additionally, the growth of minority religions in contexts where they lack state privilege highlights the importance of resilience and adaptability. CMMs can thrive by embracing grassroots, decentralized models without crippling institutional dependency.
So, Were Jesus and Paul Sociological Realists?
I would like to wrap up this lengthy book summary and review by offering a brief reflection. To do so, a thought experiment might help. What would Jesus or Paul say about Religion for Realists? Three ideas come to mind.
1. Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 5-7 align closely with Perry’s insights, emphasizing identity and norms over doctrinal precision. Rather than telling the crowd what to believe, Jesus focuses on who they are to become (identity as salt and light) and how they are to live (norms like loving enemies and practicing justice). Paul, similarly, often addresses churches as communities defined by shared behaviors and relational unity rather than solely on abstract theological arguments. Both suggest that the early Jesus movement thrived when they prioritized forming durable social identities and shared practices, resonating with Perry’s argument that belonging and embodied norms are central to religious transformation.
2. Jesus’ statements in Matthew 10:5-7 and 15:23-24, where He emphasizes being sent “only to the house of Israel,” reflect an initial focus on a specific social and cultural identity. Similarly, Paul in Romans 15:8–9 highlights Jesus’ mission to Israel as a means to fulfill God’s promises, paving the way for the inclusion of Gentiles into the New Covenant people of Jesus. These passages might align with Perry’s insights on the power of social structures and group identity in religious movements. Jesus and Paul recognize the importance of working within existing social frameworks (Israel’s identity and norms) before expanding outward. This possibly illustrates that sustainable CMMs grow by embedding within a community’s structures and promoting an adaptive, movemental ecclesiology for broader inclusion.
3. Let me close with this: if you thought that either myself or Perry have lost our theological minds, then this last reflection is especially for you. Perry’s claim that the scientific study of religion reveals the “game plan” of authoritarian, ethno-nationalist politicians raises a critical tension for biblical missiology.
“My goal in writing this book is not to give authoritarian ethnonationalists on the far-right something like a game plan. Rather I believe the scientific study of religion reveals their game plan… Academics like me–those who deal professionally in the discovery and dissemination of facts–have something of a missional obligation to inform the world.” (122-23)
So what are we to make of this? Is Perry’s “realist” religion for our edification, or for our admonition? I think both.
In the New Testament, terms like stoicheia and exousiai are used to describe structures and principles and powers that exert influence over humanity, often opposing God’s purposes. The norms and structures that Perry mentions can be for good or evil, either outer manifestations or inner spiritual realities. Biblically, Paul warns against being taken captive by “the elemental principles of the world” (stoicheia) in Colossians 2:8, highlighting the potential of these forces to lead believers away from Christ.
So while sociological studies provide valuable insights into how social structures and norms influence religious behavior, they also expose systems that may perpetuate oppression or divert communities from biblical truths. Jesus and Paul were acutely aware of these dynamics, often challenging prevailing social and religious structures that contradicted God's kingdom values. For example, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) redefines righteousness beyond Israel’s norms, and Paul confronts the “powers” (exousiai) that hinder the gospel’s advance (Eph. 6:12).
This tension underscores the necessity for missiological strategies to prioritize biblical norms and discernment. While empirical studies reveal the realities of human social behavior, they should not dictate our mission or ethics. Instead, believers are called to critically engage with these insights, recognizing the influence of stoicheia and exousiai. In doing so, we can navigate the complexities of societal structures without compromising faithfulness to Jesus.
So, even though Jesus and Paul were obviously not sociologists, their teachings exhibit a profound understanding of both social dynamics and spiritual forces. The missiological task of integrating sociological insights into a biblical framework requires careful discernment to ensure that the Church remains aligned with the motus Dei, resisting the subtle influences of worldly powers that seek to undermine mission.