Empirical Studies in the Sociology of Religion: An Assessment of the Past Ten Years ~Jeffrey K . H a d d e n and Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010 E d w a r d F. H e e n a n Tulane University The empirical study of religion has made progress in the past decade; nevertheless, there are reasons why this progress was not greater and why the prognosis for the next decade is not as optimŸ as the assessment of past accomplishments. A review of empirical studies over the past ten years assesses what they have accomplished in investigating: (l ) the structure or dimensionality of religion, (2) religious belie[s, (3) religious behavior, (4) the nature and dynamics of religious belie[s, and (5) religious instŸ as compIex organizations. However, in spite of advancing understanding of these aspects of religion, sociologists who have devoted themselves to empirical study have frequenthr been impeded by resistance [rom religionists, suspicion from their fellow sociologists, and littIe support [rom [unding agencies. The attitudes of these three important reference groups toward empirical study of relŸ are examined, and the possibilities of their coming to regard study of religion more [avorably are assessed. Finally, it is suggested that a shi[t of emphasis from the study of religion to the broader study of values wouId bring sociologists closer to the critical problems of a society and world in t,rmoil. INTRODUCTION As we close out a decade of tumultuous developments, a decade the media has called the "unbelicvable" decade (Look, 1969), few disciplines will bypass this opportunity to check where they are and from whence they came and to venture at least a timid glance * Revision of a paper presented at the joint session of the American As~oeiation for the Advancement of Science and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, December 28, 1969, Boston. into the future and where they are going. Leaving aside the incredible deve]opments of this decade, it should be recognized that there is perhaps an inherent tendency for homo sapiens to ritualize inventorying with the calendar. But there are reasons other than the end of a year, a decade, o r a century to send us to the warehouse to take stock. Gazing at the inventory seems less likely to occur both when business is brisk and when it is so slow that we know things remain in the same order 153 Hill and Rymph concluded it is premature to be optimistie about the future of the sociology of religion. ethnoeent¡ observational bias. Glock and Stark noted "that nene of the work done to assess the state of religion in America eurrently or historieally meets even the minimum of seientifie inquiry" (p. we believe. Second. 94). In attempting to review the empirŸ literature of the past decade. For example. we diseovered that the milieu in which empi¡ studies of religion emerged is equally as fascinating as the literature itself. 7). on the other hand. and delusions of grandeur regarding aceomplishments in a field of whieh we are a part. Third. . .org at Universiti Teknologi MARA .Shah Alam on September 30. 93) He goes on to say that " . nothing has really galvanized the field in recent years or made it seem worth the troublo to most of the brighter students and researchers in sociology" (p. Yet. we quiekly discovered three things. In a 1969 issue of Sociological InquŸ Bellah unleashed a blistering indictment against the sociology of religion: "At a time when there is more vitality and excitement in the area of religion than there has been in several generations. Yinger eoneluded that "the bread-and-butter of any seienee--the testing of theoretŸ signifieant propositions by the use of eontrolled observation--has been in short supply" (p. why is "sociology of religion' so dull?" (p. . give 1 For another perspeetive on the development of an empirical soeiology of religion. Frequent in. In 1968. increased aetivity in the store aeross the street may tend to send us nervously to the back room to assess our own accomplishments. Similarly. Downloaded from socrel. This latter factor seems to have played a major role in producing several assessments of the sociology of religion during the past deeade. ventories. recognizing these ~possibilities. sociologists have eoneerned themse/ves mainly with the minutiae . seem more likely to occur at those times when there has been an investment in the enterprise and we are anxious to know ff the merehandise has yet begun to more. the amount of literature is so vast as to make a systematie and comprehensive review the topic for a book rather than a paper. AccordŸ we have narrowed our scope to two tasks. see Rodney Stark ( unpublished manuscript). it became necessary for us to radieally reorient our initial intentions of eomprehensiveness. They carne closest to being kind to the enterprise when they pointed out "that more or less the same dismal description could be applied to most. All of the reviewers l a v e conveyed a highly eonsistent theme: the sociology of religion is still a minor league operation. therefore. it still sectas to us that there has been a rather substantial reinvestment in the field and that we may be about to reap some of the fruit of the labor. . First. The first is to demarcate five areas of research in the sociology of religion which. in 1961. 84). 1 It is understandable." But then they hasten to point out that there are a number of substantive issues about which sociologists know a good deal more than they do religion. there is no simple of single framework around whieh one can easily organize the literature that emerged during the 60's. ir not all. of the general phenomenal interests of sociologists. they make their views known with a certain sense of fear and trepidation. In 1965. The analysis presented (in this issue) by Bouma is no more optimistie than the other critics of the field. 2010 . that when a pair of yeoman laborers in this enterprise have a fundamentally different coneeption of the status of the field. We recognize the possibility of blindness to the obvious.154 SOC/OLOGICAL A N A L Y S l S as they were yesterday. Given these realities.oxfordjournals. the dominant cultural mood of the 50"s perceived our socicty as experiencing a phenomenal religious revival. On the other hand. Downloaded from socrel. The second is to examine the milieu from which empirical studies of religion have emerged --if you will. although political pressures for the separation of church and state resulted in censoring publication of the data beyond a preliminary report. 1968). On the one hand. ff any. . many social scientists thought it only a matter of time before religion would die out. A similar report utilizing National Opinion Research Center survey data appeared in Donald J. science and particularly the socŸ sciences were couched in assumptions and theories that tended to see religion asa declining influence in modero society.ASSESSING THE EMIPIRICAL STUDIES 15~Ÿ evidence of significant development during the past decade. In 1955. . In fact. While the Bureau of the Census survey did not add significantly to our knowledge. We hope that this approach wiU provide a perspective for understanding some of the weaknesses of the field as well as point the way to some likely developments for the future. " . Herberg attempted to provide a theoretical explanation of the "religious rerival. As the late Gordon Allport put it. the persistente of religion in the modern world appears as an embarrassment to the scholars of today" (1950: 1). Lipset published a skeptical paper entitled. this widespread mood of religious revival did play a critical role in arousing the cu¡ of social scientists to explore an area they had previously largely neglected. Bogue (1959: 688-709). Lenski published a paper on the social correlates of religious interests utilizing data collected in 1941 by the Committee on the Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility. and religion loomed too complex and loaded with nuances of meaning to be taekled. Late in the 50's. 2 Schneider and Dornbusch's content analysis of inspirational books (1958) contributed much to our understanding of this important function of religion.Shah Alam on September 30. In 1953. The 50's witnessed several developments that can be seen as important precursors to the emergente of ah empirical sociology of religion in the 60's. but early empirical sociology tended to bypass religion. What kind of religious awakening. 1961: 567-79). LITERATURE REVIEW While the sociology of religion has a rich and respectable heritage. Glock raised the same point (1959) but went on to conz These data were eompared with those gathered by the Survey Research Center (Lazarwitz." In 1957.oxfordjournals. However. we experienced in that decade will probably never be known because the available data are sparse and thoroughly suspi- . cious (See Demerath. StiU another factor contributing to a neglect of religion was the reluctance of the government to fund research dealing with religion of to ask any questions about religion in the census. ir does stand as a sign~eant indicator of the emerging interest in gaining empirical knowledge about religion. In fact. The reasons for this are on the surface understandable. 2010 But religion did not go away. soeiology was struggling to obtain legitimacy a s a science. a kind of sociology of the sociology of religion. Empirical sociology itself is only a few decades old. the tMreau of the Census conducted a survey of religious a~liat-ion. And Campbell and Pettigrew's study (1959) of the response of Little Rock clergy to the school desegregation crisis was a significant forerunner to a large body of literature on religion and civil rights in the 60's. "What Religious RevivalŸ in which he essentially raised v" the questions of what is religion and how do you measure it.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . empirical studies of religion p¡ to the 50"s were few and lar between. ideology.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . the first time that a multi-dimensional approach to religiosity had been suggested in the literature. and communal and associational involvement as distinct facets of religiosity. 4 Fichter. These several developments both foretold and. a Prior to Glock's coneeptualization.) 6 King presents a bibliography of literature dimensions. The Dimensionality of Religion." eorrelates at . 2010 His formulation did not include the "experiential" or "consequential" dimension of Glock. As we have mentioned.6 Neither has Glock stayed with the tire dimensions. 7 Downloaded from socrel. It should be recognŸ that there is nothing sacred about these five dimensions of religiosity. however. Davidson (1966). etc. In a paper that appeared the same issue. (For a discussion of how Fichter views his own earlier work in relationship to the a Glock's first formulation included only four Glock formulation. . knowledge. The knowledge or inteUectual dimension was added later at the suggestion of dealing with the measurement of religiosity in Yoshio Fukuyama. Weigert (1969: 260-263). 7 In addition to the studies mentioned in two years later.5 or greater with any of the other Ÿ (see also Stark. and consequenee. or Protestant. ritual. pp.156 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS eeptualize religion in terms of five dimensions.oxfordjournals. he and Stark utilize nine Ÿ (dimensions) of religious commitment. 1970). King found eleven dimensions suggested in a review of the literature. ). a ma]or Ÿ to the emergence of an empirical sociology of religion was curŸ regarding the contradictory evidence of the post-World War II religious revival. see 1969: 169-177. devotionalism. in a profound way. Faulkner (1966: and "'intrinsic' value to describe this distinetion 246-254 ). our understanding of the strueture of religiosity is far from being complete. Allport distinguishes between "institutionalized" and "inte¡ religious outlooks. Our review covers ve important issues: (1) the structure or dimensionality of religion. Both of these papers did much to shatter simpler notions of religion as a dichotomous of trichotomous coneept (religious vs non-religious. At the present time.Shah Alam on September 30. But we have moved coneeptually beyond a unidimensional formulation and all of the existing research supports the existence of a multi-dimensional structure. and thus he proposed a five dimensional structure: experience. This was not. We have also learned that researchers can not simply "throw any old (eonvenient)" indieator of religiosity into a research project and utilize it as either ah independent or dependent variable. 4 Allport later used the concepts "extrinsie" see Putney (1961:285-290). Glock felt that a clear conceptualization of the different ways that religiosity can be manffest would lead to a clarifieation of the faetors for and against such a renewed interest. (1960). this discussion of the dimensionality of religion. 186-190. Only one index. Fukuyama called this the cognitive dimension. He constructed items to measure these dimensions and with the use of factor analysis found nine faetors with sut~cient variante to warrant further examŸ (1967:173-185). "orthodoxy. dominated the nature and scope of the issues exlored in the 60's. empirieal studies largely relied on a single item such as membership or frequeney of ehureh attendance as ah indicator of religion. In The Nature oŸ Pre]udice (1954). (3) religious behavior. In American Piety (1968). (4) the nature and dynamics of religious beliefs. Clayton (1968). in his study of a Southern urban parish (1951). and (5) religious instŸ as eomplex organŸ ~ 1. 5 Paralleling Glock's work is Lenski's study (1961) which treated traditional orthodoxy. (2) religious beliefs. developed a four-fold conceptua! framework that can also be viewed as a precursor to the Glock formulation. Catholic and Jew. org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . 1969). Religious Beliefs. 2010 . 1970). which not only challenged the imagination and vision of the discipline. and finally. these surveys found that there were maior differences within Protestantism itself as well as differences between Protestantism. freedom of speech. In addition. Given impetus by The ReIigious Factor. ReIigŸ Behavior. 1964.oxfordjournals. (4) he explored the relationship between religious attitudes and beliefs and a wide range of secular values including attitudes toward work. and integration of empirieal research with theory. social mobility. Finally. which largely utilized single Ÿ indicators of religiosity. 1965.Shah Alam on September 30. these surveys aecumulated a plethora of basic systematic data which was beyond the methodological techniques of earlier generations of sociologists of religion. numerous unpublished reports of research conducted by denominatŸ research departments further substantiate the findings of the research we have mentioned. and Judaism. a number of surveys were developed to measure the extent of religious belŸ and the effect of relŸ beliefs and attitudes on secular issues. Catholicism. Lenski's work remains important for at least four reasons: (1) Lenski. Greeley. (2) The Religious Factor was the most ambitiotts and sophistieated study of religion utilizing survey research. like Glock. In addition to studies of religious attitudes. First of all. The most comprehensive of these surveys were those conducted by Glock and Stark (1968) for the laity and Hadden (1969) for the clergy. but also established new standards in scope. Secondly.ASSESSlNG TI-IE EMPIRICAL STUDIES 157 Three important research tasks of the next decade seem apparent: (1) to develop a clear empirical formulation of the underlying structure of religiosity. In 1961 Lenski published bis classic study. 2. That some of Lenski's findings have been put to the test of more empirical scrutiny and found lacking is n o t a criticism but a tribute to this pioneering work taken seriously by other scholars (Babbie. and (3) to explore the empirical relationships between these dimensŸ and other important dimensions of social attitudes and behavior. Kersten (in press) draws conclusions similar to the studies mentioned above in his investigation of clergy and laymen in the four major branches of Lutheranism in Michigan. Similar findings also appear in QuŸ study (1970) of clergy attitudes toward the Vietnam war (more extensively. treated religiosity as a multidimensional concept. 1969. (3) Lenski attempted to utilize survey research to empi¡ test two important theoretical ideas in the literature (Weber's Protestant Ethic thesis and Herberg's three generational hypothesis). 1969). In a very profound way this study paved the way for and stimulated much empirical research in this decade. political preference. Others have contributed to this emerging literature. For example. these studies revealed that religious beliefs were not a matter of consensus within the churches. family size. The Religious Factor. methodologieal sophistication. sociologists have begun to separately investigate re- Downloaded from socrel. they demonstrated that intensity of belief within Protestantism was related systematieally to denominational afl~liation and to certain social issues. 3. in fact. (2) to discover how these dimensions are empirically related to each other. ah important discovery was the great divergence of belief within Protestantism both among the clergy and the laity. Unlike earlier studies. Demerath and Lutterman (1969) have replicated these findings in a study of Wisconsin college students and at the same time added to our understanding of the context and milieu of religious expression on campus (also Feldman. and intellectual autonomy. a n d a s such represents a major breakthrough in our understanding of religious experience. Under the inspiration of the work of Brown (1962. namely religious experience (1965: a.Shah Alam on September 30. We are also beginning to understand that the process of commitment to any world view or ideology parallels our earlier eoneeptualizations of how one becomes committed to deviant ideologies and roles. There are two further reasons why Stark's work on the behavioral dimension of religiosity is irnportant. Similar behavioral dimensions are found in Quinley's study (1969) of "hawks" and "doves" among the clergy. 2010 4. L0fland's study (1966) of a religious sect has added significantly to our understanding of the importanee of ongoing group reinforcement to sustain eommitment to a "deviant" religious perspective (see also Festinger. The work of Stark is outstanding in this regard. 1968) researehers have begun to eoneeptualize religious beliefs systematieally.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . Warriner. By looking directly at behavior. They found the behavior of a clergyman's roommate in a training program and the type of position the elergyman occupied were better predietors of submission to arrest than attitudes about civil rights issues. He then places them on a eentral-peripheral 8 For a further discussion of this point. 1952). Glock. The research results have chaUenged the supremacy of psychologieal concepts to explain behavior. b. are there subsystems of belief and how do they differ. 1964). Hadden and Rymph (1966) also demonstrate the importanee of group interaetion and social structure for predieting behavior. Nature and Dynamics of Religious Beliefs. 1958.158 SOCIOLOGICAL &NALYSlS ligious behavior as it is manifested in religious experience. Religious experienee is related not only to the denomination in which an individual finds himself. 1954. Starbuck (1899). he recognizes a conceptual differenee between belief and behavior. Fendrich. and ritualism. . Second. The separation of attitudes and behavior is an important development in the study of religion wbich parallels sitafiar emphasis in other areas of sociology (see Johman. devotional praetices. 1958. Dean. what eonditions faeilitate or hinder changes in religious belief systems? Rokeaeh began to research this vein without specifie emphasis on religious beliefs. and James (1958). corn~. Another achievement of the soeiology of religion in this decade is a concern for the coneeptualization of religious beliefs. we have been able to see more clearly the effeets of social structure on behavior. rather than attitudes. Kutner. and. 1965). how do religious belief systems relate to secular behavior. 1966) and Rokeach (1960. he also demonstrates the presence of at least four gradations of religious experience capable of constituting a Guttman-like scale. He conceptualizes beliefs by first indicating that they are systernic. see Hadden (1969: 190-2). Also. he finds that the nature and extent of religious expe¡ ah individual undergoes is intimately related to bis participation in religious situafions. asking questions such as the following: what structural qualities do religious belief systems have in common.are the model suggested here with Beckers discussion (1968) of the process of becominga marijuana USel'. Stark not only finds that religious experience is more common than previously expected. 1967. 8 Downloaded from socrel. First. but also to the broader matrix of social interaetion. 1964. He has attempted to conceptualize one type of religious behavior. This sociological interpretation of religious experienee contrasts sharply with the psyehologieal explanations of earlier scholars such as Lueba (1925). The conceptualization of religious beliefs and values is an important aehievement not only because it provides more precision in the search for the dynamics of religious belief. 2010 . Demerath (1968) has documented two broad organizational trends wbich have emerged in American churches. Nevertheless. This tendency has been documented between the clergy and the laity by Hadden ( 1969: 101-159) and between parish dergy and church specialists by Hammond and Mitchell (1965). and the poor. reliability. the religious organizations as institutions or complex bureaucracies have. Secondly. Rokeach (1969) specifies five factorally distinct types of belief in bis system. In-addition. The values of salvation and forgiveness are central to the Christian who is a frequent church attender and defines himself as religious. on the basis of their current findings. He then shows systemic relationsbips between beliefs and the religious value systems wbich underlie them (see aIso Rokeach. Thirdly. First. 1970). a secondary analysis of data gathered by Trimble (1969) has Downloaded from socrel. the more a given belief is functionally eonneeted or in communieation with other beliefs. In short. intellectuality. more susceptible to change. have not established a great deal of rapport with those who control access to church reeords. .org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . 5.Shah Alam on September 30. been neglected by sociologists. Religion in the United States has undergone an organizational revolution in this century as a result of the tremendous increase in church membership. These same individuals ranked the values of pleasure. Rokeach says that " .ASSESSING 'rIIE EMPIRICAL STUDIES ]-59 continuum in regard to importante. Differentiation is the tendency for leyels of church organizations to become distinct and to be occupied with different attitudes and goals. he finds that the religious person has a distinct system of beliefs and values (ideology). sociologists who are interested in religion seem to be disposed both by training and by temperament to psychosociological rather than orgar¡ research. but also because it promises to help us better understand the nature of ideological conflict within the churches and its relationsbip to both religious beliefs and the institutional arrangements of the churches. anxious to maintain the status quo. the black. therefore.oxfordjournals. 1969). the more implications and eonsequences it has for the other beliefs and. Moreover. Rokeach goes on to find that those who place a high value on salvation are conservative. . In spite of the relative paucity of research on the organizational dimension of religion. independence. for the most part. These trends are differentiation and bureaucratization. therefore. The Religious Institution as a Complex Organization. importante being defined in terms of eonneetedness. and unsympathetic with the plight of the student. each type being less central and. sociologists. imperative for this type of analysis. There seem to be three possible reasons for this oversight. and scope (see Knuckman. and logie lower than those who defined themselves as non-religious. a small but increasingly significant body of research has begun to emerge during the past decade. the records of churches have left something to be desired in terms of their availability. but they might not be at the same position regarding centrality (aja area which has been unexplored). 1968: Southard. the more central the belief~ (1968:5). He makes ah important distinction: beliefs might be held at the same degree of intensity (something which recent studies have explored in their strongly-agree to strongly-disagree format). and that these systems are related to other attitudinal systems. a great deal of research other than Demerath's supports the existence of these trends. the results of the research are sparse. While a comprehensive review of the . He finds that the evolution of suela bureaueracies is erratie and that they do not lend themselves to rational control. conclusions regarding the field's development. Wood and Zald (1966) approach the organizational church from another perspective. They found that in the South churches have developed a counter-policy of resistance to integration. Two examples of this trend can be cited. and has been supported by data on the Presbyterian Church (1967). the churches were seldom studied as organizations. Previously sociologists simply relied on the global conceptualization of the church-sect dichotomy to study the reciprocal effects of organization and ideology (see Johnson. the most thorough documentation of bureaucratization in the churches has been d~ne by Winter (1967). bureaueratization. some even cynical. Their problem is how a voluntary organization. especially in the South) when national and local leaders have few sanetions relative to the membership. White (1969) applies a mathematleal model to predict the evolution of ]obs and personnel in several Protestant denominations. In faet. and second. 1967. is a eomplementary trend which seems to have developed as ah organizational prerequisite for coordinating the disparate organs of the church organization. 1967) and have begun to apply a broader range of organizational concepts and theories to the church. it is a great deal more empirical in the sense that it utilizes sources of data in the churches to test middle range organizational theories.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . In spite of the irmovative quality of bis research on the problem of the flow of men and ]obs in church bureaucracies. First. However. seeond. The second trend. and that the extent of the resistance eorrelates with the percent of non-whites in a particular district. This resistance is reflected in a deerease of contributions to race relations pro]eets and the accommodation of the local leadership to the forces in the ehurch who resist national policy. Bureaucratization was a phenomenon latent in the earlier work of Blizzard (1956) which indicates that ministers spend more of their time on bureaucratic-administrative tasks than their training ]ustifies and their pa¡ desire. The charaeter of this researeh differs signifieantly from the research done on organizational aspects of the churches in the past. Demerath. 1967. unlike most research in this area Winter did not restrict himself to an analysis of a single denomination and.160 SOCIOLOGICAL A N A L Y S l S shown that attitudes differ at all three levels of the organization. 1965). 1967. to the level of ehurch executives. On specifie issues. attitudes become increasingly more liberal as one moves from the laity. It has been further explored in Harrison's impressive study of the bureaueratization of the Baptist Church (1959). CONCLUSlON Downloaded from socrel. introduces policies with low consensus (integration of the churches. 1963. Parsons. 2010 In the introduction to this paper we noted that most scholars who have attempted to assess the status of the sociology of religion have reached rather pessimistic. to the parish clergy. it relies much less on global theoretical eoncepts. Eister. Goode.oxfordjournals. bis eonelusion is that large systems of men and jobs evolve in eomplex paths responsive mainly to inputs of new ]obs and the deaths of men. during this decade sociologists have grown skeptical of the empirical utility of this typology (see Gustafson. he uses different and varied sources of data to support his hypothesis. Until this deeade. However.Shah Alam on September 30. in this case the Methodist Church. His work is unique for two reasons: first. from examination of the cultural milieu wherein the scientists labor. The methodological inadequacies of the last decade are obvious and often glaring. We would only point out that Bouma might have investigated any number of areas within the discipline of sociology and arrived at similar conclusions. Our general feeling of optimism over the developments during this past deeade is not untempered. the academic community. In our more pessimistie moments.ASSESSING ~ EMZPIRICAL STUDIES 161 emerging literature is impossible in a single paper. Soeiologists of religion. 1969: xx-xxiv).org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . the level of methodological sophistication is now sufl~ciently strong to escape the label of a weak step-sister in the social scientific enterprise. Our review has not chosen to emphasize methodological issues. on the other hand. our examination of five issues or areas in the field suggests more room for optimism than others have seen. the sociologist himself occupies ah ambiguous status in a highly psychologized culture (see Hadden. we have made some significant first steps to analyze religious institutions within a broader theoretical framework of complex organizations. In fact. have gathered some basic and systematic data previously unavailable. armed with survey techniques. we see some compelling reasons to question whether the developments of the 70's will match the progress of the decade we have just concluded. At the same time. but rather emerge. Perhaps such an approach would have led us to more sober conclusions. We have more precisely conceptualized religiosity and religious involvement. MILIEU AND T H E SOC'IOLOGY OF R E L I G I O N Downloaded from socrel. he risks rapport and access to bis subject matter. In a very real scnse. we see the possibility of all forward movement grinding to a silent halt. Bouma's paper (in this issue) is enormously important bccause it underscores a basic weakness in the field and points the way to one kind of research that is imperative in the future. and various funding agencies. according to a sociology of knowledge perspective.Shah Alam on September 30. and have begun to follow suit with regard to systems of religious belief. The reasons for this grito view of the future do not grow out of anything fundamentally wrong with what sociologists are doing. If. of course. but this. and sociologists have at best had only modest success in convincing funding agencies that re]igion . funds for research in the area of religion are extremely limited. It has also been a time in whieh we have become skeptical of the intellectual bequests of earlier sociologists. This is especially true of the sociologist of religion. bis academic colleagues suspect bim. We have made a critieal distinction between religious attitudes and religious behavior. Also. and sometimes quite appropriately so. of not being objective.oxfordjournals. and we have seen differences within religious traditions as well as among them. He has three important reference groups who significantly affect the nature of bis work: the religious community. Sociology of religion has not been the birth place of innovative methodologies in social science. is only a reflection on the development of the discipline and not a defense of those working in the area of religion. 2010 Sociologists have written a great deal thŸ past decade about status and role ambiguity. If he identifies too close]y with the interests of the religious world. Finally. The past decade has seen more systematie investigation of religious beliefs and religious institutions than any previous period in the history of social philosophy or social seienee. The next section of the paper addresses itself to this issue. he does not manifest sympathy and genuine respect for the religious community. transmission. While the findings of sociologists in this decade have been something short Downloaded from socrel. While the battle has largely subsided. our discussion is neeessarily less than eomprehensive of the issues. $OCIOLOC1CAL AN'ALYSIS merŸ systematie study (see Smelser. they tend to believe that the Christian faith should not limit itself to theologieal retteetion to gain knowledge.Shah Alam on September 30. as the ea. both have experieneed some estrangement from their own kind. Thus. compeUing evidenee exists to indicate that there has not been total rapproehement (Glock & Stark. 1965).oxfordjournals. it is dit/icult to find a eommon ground where the two approaches have completely compatible assumptions and images of man (See Cloek. and as such need to be better tmderstood. Other religior¡ have taken a "waitand-see" attitude but have privately feared that sociological investigations would rniss the most significant phenomenologieal dimensions and hence distort what religion is all about. What has emerged is a truee grounded in tolerante for different values in a pluralistie world. The SocŸ and the Religious Community. hold that religion (and its various aspeets that are manifest through the church) is fundamentally a spiritual quality that transcends understanding in the same way that one may understand other belief systems and institutions (See Whitley. the sociologists' work is at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous beeause it will inevitably distort the subieet matter. sustenance. and legitimization of human values. Many religionists and scientists alike have compartmentalized the two systems of thought and hence have chosen not to explore underlying assumptŸ Some schools of theology have shffted their thinking rather dramatically in an attempt to reeoncile or accommodate incompatibflities.se with our review of literature. For the most part. mutual interest has tended to open u p a dialogue between religionists and sociologists in ah effort to better understand the nature and meaning of religious values and institutions. Again. Moreover. however.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . and empirical observat-ion. 1969: 101-11/7). 2010 . Some believe that as seienee and religion are both better understood the differences will tend to disappear. Still others have responded with enthusiasm because they felt that the results of sociological inquiry cotdd be used to encourage what the). that this diseussion wfll provide some insight and lead others to explore more systematieally the milieu wherein the soeiology of religion has emerged as well as how this milieu may shape the diseipline in the future.1~9. But in doing so. 1965). Thus. ff for no other reason than that eontaet is minimal. The history of eonfliet between religion and science is rather well known (see White. While religion is founded in mystieism and faith. At the same time. Granted that neither scienee nor religion can be viewed as monolithie structures. seienee has its origins in logie. the scientifie or obieetive study of religion is a misnomer. But on both sides there ate those who hold values that basically deny the legitimacy of the other and who tend to be suspieious of those on the other side. This attitude finds a sympathetic ear from sociologists who feel that religious institutions have played a eritical role in the creation. 1969). there are many within the religious establishment who believe that the impact of seienee plaees a burden on religion to earefully and eritieally re-examine every aspeet of the Christian faith. but that it should employ all the resourees of the natural and behavioral seienees as well. the cortfliet between relŸ and science is latent. reason. 1964). considered to be much needed reforms in the chureh. however. We hope. The). To many church seholars. org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . To a few. The influenee of the religionists has already been felt and will likely be even more influential during the eoming decade. Perhaps even more important. To yet others. First. and Glock and Stark have presented a theoretieal argument suggesting that the religious view causes the anti-SemitŸ Also. Thus. The past few years have seen the emergente of a number of self-styled eritics of empi¡ soeiology and it seems sale to predict that we can antieipate a significant growth both in theŸ number and the vocfferousness of their charges. does not seem to be a deterrent to prejudiee. "relatively 163 little attenª (would have been) paid to methodological questions if the sign of most of the correlations recently reported were reversedmthat is. SaX/DIES of faith-shattering.Shah Alam on September 30. 2010 . he is unwelcome and threatening. To others he is cautiously welcomed though not totally trusted. The historieal struggle Downloaded from socrel. From the religionists' perspective. The Sociologist and the Academic Establishment. who along with bis colleague Glock. Some religionists have responded with alarm and have attempted to use the results of soeiologieal inquiry to encourage reforms in the ehurch. while uncovering little which gives eomfort or reassurance. predŸ have responded with skeptieism and doubt as to the validity of the findings. has been the major target of attack. no matter how it has been measured. of eourse. Second.ASSESSlNGaX-IEEMPmlCAX. ir the news were good" (1970: 151). but in our judgrnent ir seems to have considerable merit. We base this judgrnent on two observations. The second point. the methodologieal criticism of the religionists has essentially been directed at studies that have produeed findings eontrary to what they would like to belleve. in fact. the sociologist of religion has at best been reeeived in religious eircles with mixed feelings. recently made two poignant observations regarding this group. In fact. these are not very encouraging findings. is open to some eonjecture. the impact of much of the soeiological inquiry of this decade has been to give religionists mueh to be eoncerned with. 1968). religiosity. For example. To do so is tantamount to admitting that their criticisms are justifiedmat least insolar as the religionist who is not knowledgeable about research methods is concerned. he brings ammunition in the struggle for ehurch renewal. First. most of the eritics from the religious establishment don't really know much about empirieal methods. Others. But answering the critics results in a draining of time and energy from the sociologists' task of eonducting research. The sociologist cannot afford to ignore the erities within the religious establishment. the very fact that the religionists constitute a reference group he can ill afford to ignore has important implications for the tasks he selects as well as how he goes about his work. Moreover. while religious seholars have suspected it for some time. To alienate the religious establishment by ignoring their response would thus cut the sociologist off from the audience he seeks to study. associated with anti-Semitism. it can be conservatively stated that the results of systematie inquiry have been disappointing and disturbing. there is considerable evidente to suggest that the rejection of Biblieal literalism or orthodoxy is associated with the total drift from publie as well as personal religious involvement. several obvious methodologieal eritŸ have been missed in other studies that were "Ÿ neutral" (see Hfll.oxfordjournals. Second. Stark. sociologists have informed the general public that large segments of the Christian world (laity and elergy alike) reject religious views that were once thought essential to the faith. A certain type of religiosity is. his personal experiente served to reinforce the theory. their commitment to the empirŸ observable leaves little or no room for cosmologieal considerations. This is perhaps one of the elearest examples of what Hughes (1961) labeled ethnocentrie sociology. Sociology emerged in the midst of and was profoundly influenced by Social Darwinism. we are saying simply that early empirical sociology was much less Ÿ in religion than were the classical theorists. ~ This subtle pressure has diminished to a considerable extent du¡ the past o This year marked the twentieth anniversary of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. we believe that the work milieu of sociology had much to do with this. While our review of the earlier literature is less systematŸ it is our impression that much of the work occurred in seminaries and church-related colleges --hence. Moreover. Structurefunctional theory might have led social scientists to different eonelusions about the destiny of religion. not only in terms of external acceptance but also in terms of one's own self-image. and this can probably be explained by the afl~nity and toleranee of the sociological enterprise to study deviance---the offbeat. many of them saw the world in transition from a religiously based tradition to an order based on interest. Thalheimer. But there was yet another important factor that tended to draw the sociologist away from Ÿ in religion. For many scientists. 2010 . The study of a topic as loadcd with nuances of meaning as religion did not fit the bill. Downloaded from socrel. While there is still no definitive study. reason. 1968). 1963. thus. having to explain this interest to his skeptical eolleagues. The empirically oriented sociologist didn't find much support in the historical-philosophical disciplines that were interested in religion either.oxfordjournals. segmented from the main stream of sociology. The sociologist who was interested in religion. If the sociologist's theories were not enough to convince hito of the irrelevance of religion. and their observations support this argument. There also tends to be ah emphasis on the study of cults and sects rather than the "main-line" Prostestant and Catholie traditions. 1961.Shah Alam on September 30. This was the struggle of the discipline to become a legitimate science. and this orientation is probably even more pronounced among social scientists (Hajda. In some schools the desire to acquire legitimacy a s a science reached proportions of obsession. While each theorist h a d a somewhat different emphasis.164 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS between religion and science also left its mark in the academic establishment. All of this is not to say that sociologists abandoned interest in religion. Anderson. Sociologists developed complex theories of change that embraced almost every attribute of society. but the dominanee of evolutionary thought led many to conclude that the historical functions of religion were rapidly disappearing in a seeularizing world. there is considerable evidence which suggests that scientists are much less inclined toward religious persuasions than other groups in society. but to ignore it or elaim that it didn't exist would be to miss an important observation on the structural factors that inhibited the development of an empirical sociology of religion.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . for they tended to view hito a s a charlatan encroaehing on their own private domain. Rather. The world was in transition from a simple agrarian to a complex urban society. was placed on the defensive. At the annual meetin~Ÿthe charter members reminiseed about coUeague reactions to their interest in religion. Perhaps one could push this point too lar. esote¡ and trivial. Stark. 1965. and science. at least for the immediate future. It is perhaps not too wide of the mark to suggest that they have hedged their bets--if the sociology of religion doesn't make it as a legitimate and respected field. Still others have had the unfortunate experience of funding poorly designed and executed projects which Downloaded from socrel. we have one uneasiness about their presence: they may lend credibility and add fervor to those critics within the religious community who are largely unqualified to criticize. their work has not been restricted to this area. The critics of the sociology of religion will likely have this effect. Any body of scholarly literature wŸ draw into it a body of scholarly critics. Many of these scholars have substantial amounts of data waiting to be analyzed while they devote a proportion of their energy to other professional interests. A few foundations are primarily interested in religious institutions and religious causes. but lose his ability to address ]lis interests to "sig- nificant" or "relevant" issues--the factor which has added great vitality to the discipline this past decade. (2) it could make research monjes even more difficult to obtain. However. and (3) the sociologist of religion may achieve more sophisticated measuring techniques and pay greater attention to questions of validity and reliability. they have other areas to fall back on. probably no group of scholars has spent more time traipsing down blind alleys with tin cups. it is interesting to note that a substantial number of the most productive sociologists in this field do not think of themselves as sociologists of religion. The studies of this decade will not diminish this fear. in fact.ASSESSlNG THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES 165 deeade. Perhaps the best indicator we have that the socŸ of religion is making some progress Ÿ that it has begun to attract critical examination from withŸ the field of sociology. One small National Science Foundation grant was awarded this decade for secondary analysis and it appeared that a precedent had been established. Many individual and organized efforts have been made to alter this polley of the single most important funding source for social science research. they seem reluctant to get into an area with a high probabŸ of producing controversy. the role of the critic has generally been productive of more solid scholarship. But the hard cuts in federal spending for research greatly reduced the probability of the govemm e n t a s a viable source of support. Probably no other area in sociology has suffered more for lack of financial support. This could have serious consequences at three levels: ( 1 ) it could limit the sociolog• access to the religious groups he Ÿ interested in studying. Part of this reluctance is based on the suspicions of science discussed above. But this has not been functional to the development of sociology of religion. A number of large foundations also have restrictive policies on funding research in the area of religion. Others feel that they are not qualified to judge the capabilities of social scientists so they don't fund any research projects. While some scholars celebrate the role of criticism for its own sake.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . and. I-Iowever. Aside from the issue of priorities. 2010 . At the same time. The Sociologist and the Funding Establishment. critics in the academic marketplace tend to drive out the weak and raise the level of the discipline to a higher plane. they too have been reluctant to support sociological research. There is yet a thŸ reference group which the sociologist cannot ignore---he who pays the bill.Shah Alam on September 30.oxfordjournals. The delicacy of the separation of church and state has virtually eliminated the federal government a s a source of support except in the area of mental health. Unlike Gresham's Iaw in the money market. Unfortunately. given the dismal quality of "in house ~ research.166 SOCIOLOGICAL A_NALYSIS produeed trivial results.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . A small group of in house researehers have beeome eontributors to seholarly journals. but is also a latent funetion of use of research instruments and replication of studies developed by aeademie seholars. Moreover. it is ]ikely that some of them will put their in-house researchers to work to see ff they can come up with more comforting findings. given the faet that many of the soeiologists' findings have ra/sed. trivial and. most of the ehurches' money is spent for researeh that is tmseientific. inasmuch as they have been more eoncemed with the religious qualifieations of the prospective researcher than with his eompeteney as a social scientist. Without a substantial souree of funding. On balan 91 however. And it would be yet something else r them to eut through the bureaucratie decision making proeess necessary in order to accomplish this.oxfordjournals. The research departments are largely staffed by clergymen or ex-clergymen who are more o. ActuaUy. Bootstrap research projects can be carried only so far. It is not presented glibly or without mueh thought. 2010 . The results ofsociological inquiry during the past decade have not enhaneed the probabilities of getting a greater share of the churches' research funds.Shah Alam on September 30. These studies lend legitimacy to the goals of chureh administrators. it seems to us that the soeiology of religion eloses out this deeade on much the same note as our societymwith mueh promise. the anxŸ of ehurch administrators. A large number of researeh departments are maintained by the Prostestant denominations and every denorninatŸ has commissioned studies of first one thing and then another. The absence of funds will result in the movement of seholars presently working in this field into other areas. As we close out this deeade there is no apparent souree for this funding. the next decade wiU likely see less money available for researeh as religious institutions feel the results of the growing confliet over the meaning and purpose of the ehurehes. in many eases. noting that the general quality of 'in house research has improved over the past deeade. it takes on the highest p¡ for the field. In some ceses the foundations bear the responsibility for this. the "in house" research leaves mueh to be des/red. the churehes in America have spent a substantial amount of money on research this past deeade---probably several rnillion dollars. lo Ir is one thing f o r a group of soeiologists who are interested in obtaining research monjes to teU the churehes that they ought to pool their resourees to aclo This observation should be tempered b~. redundant. and possibly a good deal to ain. Thus. First. The major fimding souree for researeh has been the religious institutions themselves. but they seldom add much in the way of empirical understanding to the problems in question. but great uneertainty es to how we resolve some immediately pressing problems. eomplish meaningful researeh on religion in Ame¡ It is quite another thing for them to realize they have little to lose. In fact. the soeiology of re1/g/on w/ll make little progress during the next deeade. This is n o t a very optirnistie analysis. we will not be able to attraet young scholars into the arca.ften than not inadequately trained to eonduct social seiente researeh. Second. unimaginative. This is in part a funetion of an upgrading of the personnel. rest¡ polieies and pressures to move on to other pr~]ects prevent some of the best researeh firom flnding tts way tnto professional journals. but even here the funds have been lar from adequate. several other directions seem more likely. money will not solve all our Downloaded from socrel.As a result. rather than lowered. Like Ameriean society itself. Beeause this is so. have broader implieations for the direct-ion and emphasis in sociological inquiry. Unless we recognize the problems and potential hazards. as well as Means' provocative commentary in his reeent book. not sirnpIy because they control access to our subieet matter. There is a need for both theoretical and empirical breakthroughs at this level. Most of the research in the sociology of religion during the past decade has been terribly ethnocentric. and structure of human values has reeeived much less attention. this involves the need for a shift of emphasis. Neither can we ignore the methodological eritics within sociology. There is also the danger that sparse funds will lead us down the same path that social psyehology followed in an earlier decade. but beeause this response is a kind of datum itself. At the same time. Nor can we expect to make great progress unless we see our own lirnited research interests within the broader eontext of the religious milieu. but rather to reflect what we believe is a sense of realism. With the secularization of society. Several cfitical shifts of emphasis oceur from this perspecfive. We do see some basis for a more optimistie foreeast.Shah Alam on September 30. However. The potential rewards of a shift in emphasis eould be developed at some Downloaded from socrel. someone else may very well assess the field ten years hence and report that the sociology of religion has suffered the same fate as the cosmological figure whose passing was announced by Hamilton and Altizer earlier this decade. we must avoid over-reacting to the point that we have beeome inereasingly eompetent at measuring less and less. but have no idea of the generalizability of our findings. The Ethical Imperative. It may now appear that we have gone full cycle back to the views of those who have been highly eritical of the field. by plaeing religion in the broader eontext of the study of values. sources. To be sttre. Sueh a shfft in emphasis also indicates the need to devote greater attention to values in a cross-cultural perspective. Clearly. 2010 . we have some difficult terrain to traverse. Sociologists and psychologists have developed literally hundreds of instruments to measure various attitudinal concepts or "dimensions. this is at the heart of man's contemporary crisis of meaning and authofity. We eannot ignore the criticism within the religious establishment. The very fact that most of our research instruments do not seem applicable to non-Western socioreligious cultures should suggest the potential theoretical pay-off of broader cross-eultural perspeetives. ff we take Berger's arguments in The Sacred Canopy seriously. and sustenanee of human values. Both point to the need to understand more clearly the nature.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . Perhaps our crifical point of departure ought not to be religion but rather the study of values. religion is 167 no longer the only institution providing meaning and legitimaey to the social order. sources. there is room for greater methodological sophisticat'ion. First. Even assuming that finaneial resourees will be fortheoming. it becomes more apparent that the literature here is also sparse. Perhaps those of us who have critieized the paroehialism of "religious soeiologists" have ourselves been guilty of defining the scope of our inquiry too narrowly." but the more fundamental task of understanding the nature.ASSESSlNGTrm EMrmlCAL STUVmS but it is diflleult ~roblems. we attempted to see the sociology of religion in a more optimistic light. After beginning our paper with the eritieal views of others.oxfordjournals. It is not our intent to cast gloom. But Berger's work.can move forward to imagine ow we without it. wherein we will learn a great deal about the religious values of introductory soeiology students. 1965 "The Religious Factor: Looking Forward. authority. L. Downloaded from socrel. Bouma. Scientists and politicians alike are coming around to the view that solutions to our many problems are not technological but social." "rethink our values. But perhaps such a change of emphasis will have the latent eonsequence of altering REFERENCES Allport. Gary D. 1968 "Religious Gommunality among Aeademies. 1964 "Classifications of Religious Orientation. the exploitation of natural resources. 1969 "Japan. Illinois: Free Press. 1959b "Racial and Moral Crisis: The Role . Gordon W. 1967 The Sacred Ganopy. 1950 The Individual and His Religion. but even this is not at all elear. Howard S. in fact. but in our research the distinetion is muela fuzzier. and institutions? How are these ehanging and why? What are the possibilifies and limitations of religion a s a source of social ehange.Shah Alam on September 30. Emest Q." British Journal of Sociology 18 (September): 259-272. 1960 Religion in the Developing Personality. sights of the sociology of relig/on. New York: The Maemillan Gompany. 1970 "Assessing the Impact of Religion: A G¡ RevŸ Sociological Analysis 31 (Winter) : 172-179.: Public Affairs Press. 1959a Christians in Racial Crisis. In fact." Soeiologieal Inquiry 89 (Winter): 98. 1959 "Religious Afl]liation.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . Babbie. 1966 "The Structure of Religious Belief. But this is an extremely difllcult thing to do when. Brown. Donald J. Berger. Gleneoe. We have long made coneeptual distinctions between attitudes and values. Campbell. We are beginning to understand a great deal about the nature of the problems created by the world's exploding population. it broadens the scope of questions we ought to be asking about religion. And how can we ehange that which we do not understand? This shift of emphasis we propose does not negate the importanee of studying religion. and Thomas F." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 5 (Fall) : 259-272. New York: The Free Press." etc. It is increasingly diflqcult to hear or read anyone addressing themselves to the issue of social change without encountering references to a need to "reorder our priorities. but perhaps the most critical point is that sueh a shift would bring us eloser to the eritical problems of a soeiety and world in turmoil." Journal for the Seientifie Study of Religion 7 (Spring): 87-96. Charles H." Review of Religious Research 7 (Spring) : 42-51. 2010 length. 1962 "'A Study of Religious Beliefs. Samuel. New York: New York University Press. We may also escape the false but nevertheless real dichotomy between "relevant" and "pure" scientific inquiry. B. Washington D.168 SO~OLOGIC.C. Becker. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Peter.. the unleashing of energy and seientific-technologieal development. Perhaps we have identified some underlying value dimensions. etc. Earl R. Anderson. our scientifie understanding of the nature and structure of values is very crude. New York: Doubleday and Company.~ ANALYSXS the milieu and reference system within whŸ we have operated in the past. Bellah. What is the historical role of religious values. Religion. Asia. 1968 Outsiders." The Population of the United States. Pettigrew. 1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Blizzard.oxfordjournals." The Gity Church 7 (September). 1956 "Role Cortflicts of the Urban Protestant Parish Minister. Bogue." Journal for the Seientifie Study of Religion 4 (Spring) : 91-99. as an inhibitor of ehange and as an integrating foree in human society? How do religious values fit into the broader matrix of emerging and changing values? Adequate answers to these questions take us beyond the present empirieal and theoretieal in. Robert N. Vol. Paul M. "Social Structure and Civil Rights Involvement: A Case Study of Protestant Ministers. and Stanley Schachter. Andrew M. pp. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.ASSESSmG "rrm EM~'rrttCAL STt~mS of Little Rock Ministers. Eister. and Social Polic_y. 1969 "Soeio]ogical Measurement of Religiosity.Religious Orientations During College. The Church. 11: 108-128. Mitehell. Festinger. and Gordon F. 1967 "Some Critical Observations on the Church-Seet DimensŸ Journal for the Seientific Study of Religion 6 ( Spring ) : 69-77. II. Rymph. 1964 "`The Protestant Ethic: Time f o r a Moratorium. Charles Y. 1967 "UO-US-PS-PO: a Restatement of Troeltsch's Church Typology. Chicago: Rand McNafly. 1968 "Notes and Anti-notes on Patterns of Religious Change in America. New York: Doubleday and Company. Fukuyarna." Sociological Analysis 9. Lois. 1986 with Raymond C." in Kenneth Underwood. 1959 "The Religious Reviva/ in Ameriea?" in Religion and the Face of America. 1961 "'The Maior Dimensions of Church Membership. Dean. Berkeley: University of Calffornia. 1969 The Gathering Storm in the Churehes. Feldman. New York: Harper and Row. Lutterman) "The Student Pa¡ Radical Rhetoric and Traditional Reality." American Journal of Soeiology 75 (November) : 855-859. 11: 40-60." Presidential Address before the annual meetings of the Society for the Scientifle Study of Religion.'" Social Forees 47 (September) : 80-3. 1967 "In a Sow's Ear. 1969. Demerath. Clayton. Davidson. the University." Ame¡ Journal of Sociology 64 (March): 509-516. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Henry W. Yoshio. Moore and Eleanor Bernert Sheldon (eds. 92-144. 1969 "Change and Stability or . 1986 The Relationship between Social Class and Five Dimensions of Religious Afl~tiations. Allan W. 1969 "Continuities in Research on the "Religious Factor. Jo~eph E.oxfordjournals. Commitment. Erich. Conneeticut: Wesleyan University Press. 169 Fichter. Religion and Society in Tension. Joseph M. Leon. Devong.. Hammond." Journal for the Scientifie Study of Religion 6 (Spring): 77-84. Riecken.5 (Spring) : 20-88. Boston.' Images of Man. Van. 1951 Dynamics of a City Church. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. N.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . Richard R. 1961 "Alienation and Integration of Student Intel]eetua|s. 1969 "Images of "God. Jeffrey K. 2010 ." American Jouma/of Sociology 71 (July) : 188-148. James M. 1968 "'Religiosity in 5-D: A Southern Test. 1967 "A Study of the Association among Verbal Attitudes.'" Joumal for the Scientific Study of Beligion 6 (Spring) : 85-90. Greeley. Garden City. Downloaded from socrel." Review of Religious Research 2 (Winter) : 154-61. and Overt Behavior in Different Experimental Situations.) Toward the Measurement of Socia/ Change." Social Forces 47 (December): 260-8. 1958 "Interaction. 1966 "'Religiosity in 5-D: An Empirical Analysis. and Part H in Vol. University of Notre Dame. 1967 ''Toward a Radieal Critique of ChurchSeet Typologizing.Shah Alam on September 30. Phi]lip E." Socia/ Forces 45 (March) : 847-55. and Robert E. Faulkner. J. October." Social Forces. 1964 When Prophecy Fails. Middletown. Hadden. Review of Religious Research. 1969 (with Kenneth J. Hajda." Review of Religious Researeh 10 (Fall) : 169-77. Glock." Joumal for the Scientific Study of Religion 6 (Spring) : 64-68.. Kenneth A. Gustafson. Fendrich." in Wilbert E. Goode. Part I in Vol. James D. and Social Stmcture. 45 (September) : 51-61. 1965 with Rodney Stark. 1965 "Segmentation of Radiealism: The Case of the Protestant Campus Minister." Ameriean Soeiological Review 26 (Oetober) : 758-777. Reported and Observed: The Case of One Loca/ Union." Human Organizaª 17 (Fa/l): 36-46. III. (Winter) : 17-21. (Cited in Demerath. Gerhard.oxfordjournals. 1961 "Dimensions and Correlates of ReliOUS Ideology. Lawrenee K. 1963 "On Church and Seet.'" Joumal for the Scientifie Study of Religion 4 (Fall) : 183-197. Chieago: The University of Chicago Press." Psychology Toda). San Francisco: Jassey-Bass. Everett C." American Soeio]ogieal Rev/ew 19 (June): 342-348. Lueba. Garden City. religious values and social compassion. Harold E. Paul M." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47: 649-652. Anne. Purdue University. Kersten.. United Presbyterian Church. Smelser. Lohman. in America: What Religious Bevival?' Columbia University Forum 9. Department of Soeiology. Snell. Knuckman. 1961 "'A Comparison of Major United States Religious Groups. Hope and Bigotry. Morton. 1953 "Social Correlates of Religious Interest. Frinceton: Princeton University Press. April.170 SOClOLOGI~ ANALYSIS Lipset. Putney." mimeographed research report. Hill. Bemard." Social Forces 30 ecember): 285-290. Hughes. and Part II. 1970 '~fhe Protestant Clergy and the War in Vietnam. C. Benton." Joumal for the Scientifie Study of Beligion 6 (Fall): 173-185. Englewood Cliffs. Bichard J. aud Values. The Lutheran Ethie. and James A. and Raymond C.. 1968 Beliefs.Shah Alam on September 30. John. Lensld. Rokeach. 1952 "Verbal Attitudes and Overt Behavior /nvolving Racial Prejudice. 1970 'Faith. New York: Doubleday and Company. James H. 1959 Authority and Power in the Frec Church Tradition: A Social Case Study of the American Bapª Convention. Johnson." American Sociologieal Review 28 (August) : 539549. 1968 "Methods in the Sociology of Religion: The State of the Art. Attitudes. Paul M. Thesis. New York: Mentor Books. Bymph. 1969 Sociology. 2010 . Milton. Paul Douglass leetures for 1969: Part I. Samuel.'" unpublished paper. William. Purdue University. 1966 Doomsday Cult. Means. Lofland. Yarrow. Seymour M. value systems in religion. American SociologicalReview 18 (Oetober) : 533-543." Ameriean Joumal of Soeiology 62 (January) : 476-481. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Will. 1968) Herberg." Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (Spring) : 43-52. Detroit: Wayne State University Press." Review of Reli~ous Research 11 (Spring) : 3-39. 1958a Popular Religion. and P. and Russell Middleton. 1965 "The Pentecostal Immigrants: A Study of an Ethnic Central City Church. Louis. Garden City. Southard. Quinley. Neil J. 1954 "Deliberately Organized Groups and Racial Behavior. Board of Christian Education. Davis (eds. 1969 "The H." Ministry Studies 3. C]aarlene St¡ 1968 Inter-Regional Migration of Methodist Ministers. 1958b "Inspirational Religious Literature: from Latent to Manffest Functions of Religion. M. and Dietrich Beitzes. Department of Sociology.'" Harrison. New York: Harcourt Brace. Lazarwitz. 1960 The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basie Books.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . 1925 The Psychology of Rel/gion..). 1967 "Some Faetors to Consider in Regard to Candidates." Social Forces 40 (Spring) : 1-4. Englewood Cliffs.A. 1969 "Hawks and Dores among the Clergy: Protestant Reactions to the War in Vietnam. James. 1958 The Varieties of Beligious Experienee. King. 1969 "Second Chance for Church Records. Joseph D. New York: Doubleday and Company. In press. Henderson. 1969 The Ethical Imperative. Dornbuseh. 1967 "Measuring the Beligious Variable: Nine Proposed Dimensions. Wilkins. 1955 Protestant-Catholic-Jew." Journal of the American Statistical Association 56 (September) : 568-579. Downloaded from socrel. Kutner. 1959 "Religion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. and Sarfford M. Schneider.. Division of Vocation. Parsons. B. Bemard. 1961 "Ethnocent¡ Soeiology. tª L. Yinger. UniversŸ of Calffornia. ) Tlaalheimer. James R. 1958 "The Nature and Ftmctions of Official Morality. Andrew Dickson. Andrew. New Jersey: Prentiee-Hall.. in. 1957 "Religion Reported by the Civilian Population of the United States: March. New York: The Macrnillan Company." in the Emergent American Society. United States Bureau of the Census." Social Forees 48 (December) : 260263. White." Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (Spring) : 5-11. 1964 Religious BehavŸ Englewood Cliffs." Current Population Reports. 1969 "Control and Evaluation of Aggregate Personnel: Flows of Men and Jobs. J. 1970 "Rokeach. 1961 Sociology Looks at Religion. 1965b "A Taxonomy of Religious Experience. Warriner. Starbuck." Journal for the Scientifie Study of Religion 5 (Spring): 97-116. no. New York: The Free Press. New Haven: Yale University Press. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Thomas." American Joumal of Sociology 64 (july): 165-168. Religiosi. Lloyd Warner (ed. 2010 . Berkeley: University of Calffomia Press. Pacific Sociological Review 8: 101-108. 1969 "Religiosity in 5-D: A Critical Note.Shah Alam on September 30. undated "Af-ter the Resurrection: Some Apprehensions about Contemporary Social Science Studies of Religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 8 (Spring) : 8-20. Glock. and Darwin L. 1899 The Psychology of Religion. 1966 "Aspects of Racial Integration in the Methodist Church: Sources of Resistance to Organizational Policy.).. (Unpublished manuscript. 1965a "Social Contexts and Religious Experienee." Review of Religious Researeh 11 (Summer) : 151. 70.oxfordjournals. Lald.. Weigert. Winter. Wood. Rodney. Whitley." Review of Religious Research 7 (Spring) : 17-27. 1965 "Continuity and Change. Stark. Vol 1: LargeScale Organizations. 1957. 1963 "'On the I_ncompatibility of Religion and Seience. 1968 with Charles Y. Series P-20." Social Forces 45 (September): 255-265. American Piety: the Nature of Religious Commitment. White. A Study of Academlclans. 1965 A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.ASSESSI2qG ~ EIVEPIRICAL STUDIES 171 Review of Religious Research 10 (Spring) : 180-185. Milton. Berkeley. Harrison C. ~. Charles K. Downloaded from socrel. and Mayer N. Religion and Reviewers: Keeping ah Open Mind. W.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA . Gibson. Fred. Oliver R. Edwin Diller." Survey Research Center. 1967 "Religious Organization.