il_794xN.3460366390_93mq (1)

How Many Religious Families Thrived During COVID

Many religious families thrived during the pandemic because of a built-in community and connection, combined with a sense of purpose, comfort, and hope.
Part 3 in a 4 part COVID series. Part 1: “Did COVID Strengthen Family Communication?” Part 2: “The Secret of Sharing Family Meals Together.

Imagine yourself, several years from now, having a conversation with your five-year-old child or grandchild. They look up at you with shining eyes and ask, 

“[Mom/Dad/Grandma/Grandpa], what was it like in 2020?”

Wow, what a loaded question.

What would your reaction be? How would you respond? Would you tell them about the natural disasters and the political tension? Would you joke about the toilet paper shortage and the empty shelves at the grocery store? Would you share the fears and worries you faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

As you rattle on about the complexities of 2020, your child/grandchild interrupts you and asks, “But wasn’t there anything good that happened during COVID?”

This question is the same one we pose to you.

COVID and Religious Practices

The COVID era brought with it a series of hurdles. From illnesses to masks, social distancing to isolation, and for all too many the loss of loved ones, the world order was affected. For many, one  greatest source of shock came from the shutdowns. Schools, office buildings, extracurricular activities, high school and professional sports, Disneyland, and even many beaches closed down for several months. For many of us, however, one of the most difficult closures was the stoppage of in-person religious services.

Religious communities are a vital dimension of life for many individuals and families. Study after study has shown that community-based religious involvement can be helpful in the face of diverse challenges—with one landmark study finding that frequent attenders live an average of 7.6 years longer than those who never attend services (the figure nearly doubles to 13.7 years longer among African Americans). For many religious families, COVID-19 threw a wrench in their way of life after the shutdown of their religious gatherings in churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. Individuals and families worked creatively to find new and adaptive religious practices and ways to worship.

In a recently published scholarly article published in Marriage and Family Review, BYU researchers David Dollahite, Spencer James, and Loren Marks and Utah State doctoral student Heather Kelley conducted a study as part of the ongoing American Families of Faith project. This recent study focused on the role that home-centered religious practices played on religious families during the COVID pandemic. Dollahite and colleagues examined diverse religious participants and how they implemented various religious practices. Did the temporary removal of in-person worship help some families through a global pandemic? Or did it hurt them?

Though religious involvement changed during the pandemic because public religious gatherings were banned, this didn’t stop people’s devotion. In fact, 60% of people surveyed reported that COVID would have some lasting, positive effects on their family relationships. Participants traced some of these reported positive effects to family religious practices. Next, we take a look at what some of those changes were, how they have reportedly enhanced relationships, and how they might impact your family.

How Religious Practices During COVID Impacted Family Well-Being

1. Family Prayer

Though public worship was temporarily put on hold, many individuals and families continued and even increased their habit of engaging in prayer. One Protestant parent described how prayer brought peace to their family, despite differing religious views:

“We started praying together at meals more consistently. Each of us has our own thoughts about religion and religious practices, but this is a practice that has given us comfort and peace during these unpredictable times. I believe that we will continue to pray together more often as we move forward.”

Many others offered similar reports regarding family prayers.

2. Scripture Study

Another practice that reportedly strengthened family relationships during COVID was studying the scriptures. One Protestant parent shared:

“[After COVID-19 hit] we learned how to make better use of our time to make more time for our faith. We learned that it was not that we did not have enough time to read the Bible [and] devotions … it was that we were spending our time on the wrong things. This will have a lasting positive influence in our lives because our lives … have been much more positive.”

 By reprioritizing their lives to spend more time in the scriptures, this family reportedly experienced positive results. Additionally, they anticipated that the changes they had made would endure beyond the pandemic.

3. Shared Sacred Rituals

In addition to prayer and scripture study, several families found added meaning and strength in the simple but sacred essence of certain religious rituals. For example, an LDS mother said the following about her 8-year-old daughter’s baptism:

“Our middle child was baptized during the shutdown. It was an amazing spiritual experience since only we and our bishop were in attendance. We did a Zoom call with family members, but there were just us five and the bishop. Instead of worrying about who would be there, who would bring what to the luncheon, where we would hold the luncheon, what we would eat, etc., our focus was on the ordinance itself.  I think it made it so much more meaningful . … I’ve never been so focused on an ordinance … before.”

This mother’s comment illustrates that the changes in religious worship brought on by COVID-19 actually helped her slow down and discover new meaning behind the ritual of her daughter’s baptism.

Another example of the meaning and heightened importance of sacred rituals during COVID came from a Jewish father who reported,

“[T]his year, we made a point of participating in a Passover seder via Zoom with the extended family. It felt right and important to do this at this questionable time of human existence. We also are planning to stay in the area through the fall because there will be a family Bat Mitzvah in October and a Bar Mitzvah in December. … [I]n a time of questioning our life span and possible mortality, it definitely seems more important to be at family events and life cycle events such as these.”

In the face of COVID-19, diverse religious families created and discovered new ways to worship that retained and even heightened a sense of meaning in their lives.

4. Home-based Worship

As a result of the COVID-19 shutdown, many families replaced their public religious gatherings with home-based worship. In connection with the practice of salat (prayer), one Muslim parent shared the following:

“My view of the importance of home-centered worship has made every aspect of my relationship better because we were able to connect to God and [with] each other in a positive way. We were able to work out our differences as well.”

 5. Challenges

Many participants had good things to say about these and other changes in worship, but some parents reported negative outcomes. Many parents felt overwhelmed or unprepared to replace the pastor, priest, or Sunday school teacher. One Catholic parent explained,

“I feel COVID-19 negatively impacted our religious practices. My children used to attend daily mass, and I would attend daily mass once a week and go to Sunday mass. Without the physical presence in the mass, we have not attended … as much.”

There were reportedly some aspects of in-person worship that could not be transferred to the home. Even so, while there were mixed responses to the introduction of home-based worship, many families highlighted the positive relational impacts of COVID. One Latter-day Saint parent shared,

“We weren’t very good at doing the home-centered church study … but with COVID, we began doing it weekly because if we didn’t, we wouldn’t receive any type of religious practice within our home. My husband has also been recently struggling with his faith, and … COVID … has helped re-center him. He is using his [faith] in the home and seeing how important it is. It hasn’t solved all of our faith-based struggles, but it has helped.”

In summary, while there were several mixed reports, many participants expressed that their family’s involvement in home-centered worship increased the quality of their relationships with each other and with God. 

Surviving vs. Thriving 

For some families, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated or stalled their religious practices. For many others, however, the opposite was true:  COVID helped stimulate increases in home-based religious practices that had reportedly positive religious and relational consequences—influences that many believed would endure. 

There is no doubt that stress has been a byproduct of the COVID-19 pandemic for nearly everyone. In fact, stress is a natural result of traumatic experiences and can greatly affect personal relationships. However, research suggests that under certain conditions, traumatic challenges and experiences can actually lead to growth and improved outcomes. 

As reported in the present study, religious practices such as family prayer, scripture study, shared sacred rituals, and home-based worship have added religious meaning and relational depth to many families during a time of distress—and perhaps for much longer. 

In other words, for some families something good can, and has, come from the shutdowns of the global pandemic. 

About the authors

Lindsay Howard

Lindsay Howard is a Latter-day Saint wife and mother-to-be. She earned her bachelors degree from BYU in Family Studies.

Heather Kelley

Heather Kelley is a Presidential Doctoral Research Fellow completing her degree in Human Development and Family Studies at Utah State University.

Loren Marks

Loren D. Marks, Ph.D. is professor of Family Life at BYU, co-director of the American Families of Faith project, and co-author of Psychology of Religion and Families. He is a Fellow at the Wheatley Institute.

David Dollahite

David C. Dollahite, Ph.D., is professor of Family Life at BYU, co-director of the American Families of Faith project, and co-author of Strengths in Diverse Families of Faith.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Religion at Work + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Religious diversity: Corporate obstacle? Or asset? Kathryn Post – Religion News Services Businesses have traditionally tried to keep religion out of the workplace. But as businesses try to recruit exceptional candidates, they’re finding that being open about religious diversity is a positive. Just Say No: The Four-Letter Word Religion Writers Really Want To Avoid Bobby Ross Jr. – Religion Unplugged More coverage of the AP Style Guide’s emphasis to avoid the word cult, and what its impact on religion reporters will be. ‘Uncharted’ is a surprisingly Catholic video game. Why does the movie adaption strip out the faith? Kevin Christopher Robles – America Magazine The popular video game series “Uncharted” has a prominent religious through-line. But when the video game was adapted to the big screen, its religious elements went missing. Robles looks at what was lost. Primary general presidency: Preparing our children for a lifetime of covenant keeping Primary General Presidency – Church News The Primary General Presidency announced that one counselor in ward primary presidencies will be responsible for helping prepare children for baptism, the other to prepare children for the temple. I’m a feminist Mormon. Almost everything you’ve heard about my culture is wrong Rachel Rueckert – The Independent The cultural depictions of Latter-day Saints and our world are often limited and frankly inaccurate, and too often we feel obliged to laugh along to be in on the joke. While Rueckert poses some odd ideas (atheist Mormons?), she does a good job of celebrating the diversity of Latter-day Saints.    

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This