Melanie Page

I recently completed a 300-level course on Sociology and Religion and wanted to share the papers I wrote here. First, I have a report on any health benefits provided to society by religion. You can find that in my previous post. Today, I’m sharing my argument on Biblical interpretation and the desire to church shop.

Religious Identity and Social Institutions: 

Church Seeking and Shopping to Make Worship Fit Our Own Social Values 

Melanie Page 

Department of History and Contemporary Society, Bethel University 

SOC 301: Sociology of Religion—tutorial  

Dr. Robert Daniels  

January 8, 2024 

There was once a time when I was positive that religion taught people the values they should carry into society. Charity, forgiveness, and honesty were what I believed people from my tiny Catholic church would take away from Sunday mass. We would gather with a purpose and shared sense of identity because we were together, doing religion the same way: a processional; a gospel reading; a hymn; confession; communion; shaking hands and saying, “peace be with you”; and singing “Happy Birthday” in Polish. We would see the same faces weekly. However, that was thirty years ago, and evidence suggests that in a highly politicized America, people now want church to mirror the values they receive from other social institutions, like mass media, politics, and online social spaces. Even Biblical interpretations must match what people already think about their community. Note that although various religions were researched and included in some of the source material I used, this paper is largely about Christianity, as were the researchers’ studies. Religion benefits society by providing a group identity through shared experiences, but the more literally a place of worship wants the congregants to apply their holy scriptures, instead of interpreting the message for modern social applications, the more likely congregants are to leave their place of worship and shop around for a church that fits their social values. 

Places of worship create a shared experience, which engenders a sense of identity. To put it simply, Sharpe (2004) wrote, “Christ calls us into community—to love one another as we have been loved” (p. 16). The love that congregants share makes them feel like they are part of a group, which benefits their sense of self (Ellison, 2020). In fact, people who are unaffiliated with religion suffer from the lack of social support and a sense of identity (Hayward et al., 2016). Zuckerman (2011) gave numerous examples of how religion creates identity, such as opportunities to volunteer, social bonding, shared beliefs in religious entities (angels and demons), a home away from home, knowing the same songs and scriptures, and support during times of joy and sorrow (births, birthdays, funerals). The place of worship doesn’t even have to be a physical place, so long as the experience is shared. For example, a 1950s Catholic TV program, aired weekly and hosted by Fulton Sheen, was found to create a sense of belonging among American Catholics (Hoover & Kim, 2020). 

As a result of shared experiences, worshippers carry the message of their religion out into other social institutions, which affects how they behave in dealings with others, even nonbelievers. For instance, economic growth is affected by religiously influenced decisions about trading, where to work, and how to navigate work-life balance. Iyer (2020) noted, “Religion has the power to affirm contracts, reinforcing commitment and imposing sanctions against those who deviate from them. Religious norms may influence upholding the rule of law and corruption” (p. 181). Basically, the scripture of a religion may be used to justify punishment of those who do not abide by the religious norm, as well as a moral reason to follow through on promises. Religious entrepreneurs were rated more likely to pray to God for assistance, talk to God and feel that he listens personally, be trusted to not scam customers, and be more flexible and understanding of work-life balance. On a more individual level, when religious people entered the workplace, they tended to do so with a sense of purpose, to be more committed to and satisfied with their work because work is a calling from God, and that calling created a sense of identity (Park et al., 2020). Overall, in economic institutions, religious people work with purpose and expect others to treat them fairly by following the teachings of their place of worship. 

Other social institutions, when approached with the desire for shared religious experience, shore up families and create a sense of belonging outside a place of worship. According to research, religious schools may have a positive effect on children because the students have many adult role models besides their parents, the school has a shared education goal influenced by scripture, and students are encouraged to serve their community through a faith-based mission instead of engaging in unstructured time with friends (Sikkink & Hill, 2020). Furthermore, when performed in a religious institution, marriage—which is a social institution—instills a sense of belonging. The bond between a Christian couple is made with God, but Wall and Miller-McLemore (2002) viewed marriage as a three-way social contract with God as the unifier. First, the couple promises themselves to each other. Second, the government promises to uphold contracts pertaining to property. Third, other people promise to help the couple with moral, faith, and economic concerns. Together, the three promises made under God create a shared experience for all married Christian couples outside of their churches. Thus, shared religious experiences bolster and unify families outside of church. 

In addition, religion can change a person’s life direction, which is a positive influence on other social institutions. Although personal anecdotes are not the same as sociological data, Zuckerman’s (2011) attempt to understand apostates presented some patterns, including ways of living out faith every day. For example, William believed that finding God was a form of self-help that encouraged him to marry his pregnant girlfriend, divorce his wife, and succeed in a career with the Los Angeles Times where he reported on religion. In another interview, Juan revealed that his grandmother’s devotion to a particular Catholic saint led Juan to organize his community into activism, helping Native Americans, indigenous peoples, and migrant farm workers. According to Zuckerman’s interview, Juan “saw his work with the poor as a logical extension of his faith” (p. 91). In essence, the ways in which Juan and William applied themselves after finding a strong identity in their religions contributed to society positively because they became committed, hard-working people. On the other hand, Sharpe (2004) exclaimed that only 10% of religious families talk about religion outside of worship services, blaming parents for not setting a role model for how to carry religion into other social institutions. To be fair, Sharpe was not clear in her essay about how she arrived at 10%, suggesting researchers are correct: having a religious identity influences how people interact with social institutions. For religion to have a strong influence on society, it must extend beyond the walls of the churches. 

However, in the 21st century, the number of people raised without religion and the number of apostates increased. After a study of religious beliefs in the U.S. was conducted, the three largest groups were Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and “nones,” meaning people who do not identify with a religion. Catholics had lost 10.3% of their members, which was the fastest rate of apostasy. In fact, 9% of adults today grew up with no religious affiliation (McAdams, 2023). Typically, Millennials and those born after are likely to be “nones,” and Hayward et al. (2016) wondered if the connection was a change in social values that did not align with religious values. To see a fuller picture, consider one study that found total faith, not just religiosity, had decreased, with only 53% of people born after 1981 claiming they believed in God (Zuckerman, 2011). Currently, American politicians do not reflect their constituents’ beliefs, meaning the “nones” may be required to follow laws formed in Christian values that do not match their secular ethics. In the U.S. Congress in 2021, nearly 89% of representatives identified as Christian, compared to 65% of the general public (McAdams, 2023). Even busy churches that got congregants too involved in extracurricular church activities kept families from discussing God’s glory (Sharpe, 2004). Overall, in America religiosity and attendance to places of worship are decreasing, which suggests atheists, agnostics, and “nones” do not receive the same benefits of a share religious identity. 

But, does this mean that people without religion have no sense of belonging or identity? No. The author of Lone rangers (2013) claimed that people cannot live without institutions, arguing for religious institutions in particular. And Hayward et al. (2016) admitted that “nones” lacked support provided by places of worship, putting greater emphasis on government and family institutions to make up the difference. However, the “nones,” especially atheists, also saw themselves as a group with shared experiences, and thus could find the same sense of purpose and identity that religious people do. For instance, reddit.com creates unique communities that engage through discussion forums with specific rules enforced by a team of administrators. These unique communities are called subReddits, written as r/ and then the name of the community. One popular community, r/Atheism, has 2.8+ million followers (atheism – Reddit, n.d.). Granted, I cannot assume all 2.8+ million followers are atheists, as theists can join to debate with or learn from atheists, and of course bots are always a problem in online social spaces, but still, the group is massive, well trafficked, and has rules that permit a team of administrators to ban anyone who attempts to convert or preach. They have shared mission: “All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome” (atheism – Reddit, n.d.).  

There are other ways nonbelievers find a shared identity. Think about how some elite colleges (consider the fandom for the University of Michigan and pride at Harvard) encourage students to confirm school loyalty by buying apparel, attending sporting events, and fostering school tribalism and traditions of rivalry. Such colleges may replace a sense of belonging typically created by religion alone (Sikkink & Hill, 2020). Interestingly, organized sports frequently replaced religion by creating a sense of belonging that made it easy to let go of religion. When student-athletes were faced with sports practice, travel to games, games, class, homework, and religious attendance, it was religious attendance that was the first to go due to time constraints (Yamane, 2020). These are student-athletes who may identify as Christian, but not Christian-student-athletes. Religion and sports share a good deal, which may be why athletics easily swap out worship. Both have informative lectures, plans to achieve happiness, take willful effort, have symbols, value tradition, and create a sense of belonging. On the other hand, sports have been used to promote religion, such as when the group Sports Ambassadors, founded in 1952, had team members testify during half-time. Still, religious organizations that attempt to attract new members with sports can become secular, such as the YMCA, which was once a way to encourage young men to find Christ and is now a secular gym (Yamane, 2020). 

On the whole, even though most Americans are religious or spiritual, in the 21st century, many people of faith no longer accept literal interpretations and applications of their religion’s holy books. Firstly, literal interpretations of holy texts, which in most research studies was the Christian Bible, could be associated with anti-intellectualism. Essentially, there was a sense that Christians denied the knowledge of humans for faith in their Bible. Oberlin (2020) found that those who read the Bible literally and had higher education still denied evolution despite scientific evidence. Moreover, Vatican II was considered both authoritarian and anti-intellectual, causing Catholic students to do worse in school compared to Protestants taught religious individualism (Catholic educational outcomes have improved after Vatican II). On the other hand, if a Protestant family felt the Bible was error-free, research found a negative relationship to student education when compared with students from Jewish families (Sikkink & Hill, 2020).  

Religious institutions recognize the legitimacy of scientific institutions and want to borrow that type of authority. Christians attempted to give a literal interpretation of the Bible legitimacy by positing the Creation Museum as a natural history museum, creating a building designed specifically to not look like a church, but a scientific institution. Thus, Oberlin (2020) argued, the Creation Museum looks like a place that contains true artifacts, which gives Christians a chance to feel heard in the creation versus evolution debate. The problem of Biblical literalism remains for some Christians. Consider David (as cited in Zuckerman, 2011), who believed completely in his Bible until one day he decided Noah’s Ark could not be real because animals that only exist in places like Australia or Antarctica and do not swim or fly would not have made it to the Ark. In addition, data suggested religious people were less tolerant of modern science, like “genetically modified foods, nanotechnology, and climate change acceptance and policies” (Shariff, 2020, p. 198). This schism between trust in science and Biblical literalism may be impossible to close, especially when other social institutions enter the conversation. Oberlin learned that when religious people wanted to stop the efforts of science, the catalyst was not initially religious, but political. If science was politicized negatively as a challenge to religious authority, religious people may be more likely to be anti-science as a result. In summation, attempts to live as though the Bible is error free does not work for many Christians. 

One of the most problematic ways in which scripture is interpreted literally that does not sit right with some religious Americans pertains to LGBTQ acceptance. People who identified as “nones” in one study said that their place of worship condemning the LGBTQ community was why 29% were no longer religiously affiliated (McAdams, 2023). Zuckerman (2011) found that about one-third of the adults he interviewed left their religion due to anti-LGBTQ talk in places of worship, and particularly in religions that took action to promote Proposition 8 in California. Also, Myers (2020) suggested that churches could be a source of anti-LGBTQ “brutality” (p. 148). Religion could promote open-mindedness or resistance to more liberal interpretations of scripture, but data showed that religion tended to emphasize resistance (Shariff, 2020). If modern Christians see LGBTQ people are part of their community, an exclusionary church may be called unwelcoming and anti-community. 

Although religion can provide a strong identity for worshippers, that identity can be taken away when churches follow their religious texts literally. For example, Andrew (as cited in Zuckerman, 2011) said that his Mormon church found out that he was living with another man, so they sent him a letter asking him to a tribunal where they would discuss his membership in the church going forward. Andrew refused to attend, so he was sent a letter stating that his baptism was rescinded, and he had been “stricken from the records of the church” (p. 65). Andrew felt not only that his church had abandoned him, but that his entire identity and history had been snatched away because he was gay. Although some places of worship, like South Bend’s First United Methodist Church, openly accept and support people in the LGBTQ community, many churches read scripture literally, and instead of focusing on the more liberal interpretations of the New Testament, they point to Leviticus and cast out homosexual congregants. 

In addition, some religions justify poor treatment of women using the patriarchal language of religious texts. For example, religion may cause problems if an intimate couple subscribes to patriarchal norms. Domestic violence against women and children may increase in such households, suggesting religion is a contributor to violence (Shariff, 2020). Wall and Miller-McLemore (2002) added the ways in which applying theology to marriage can easily oppress women, though men are not victimless. Theology may uphold traditions that harm or trap women financially or make them victims of domestic abuse. Children in large families were also potential victims of neglect when resource constraints (both time with parents and financial) were decreased if “be fruitful” was interpreted to mean do not use birth control. Men also could be oppressed by traditional gender roles in a marriage, missing out on time with their children when they were pressured to make more money. As a result, men were viewed more as givers of things than loving parents, which may play a role in why men were less likely to have custody of children after a divorce. 

There is room in places of worship for more liberal interpretations of scripture, but doing so could create an us-versus-them church identity. Iannaccone (2020) reported that liberalism in the U.S. spawned from an interpretation of the New Testament that encouraged “equality, fraternity, nonviolence, charity, self-sacrifice, collective action, spreading the truth, and saving the world” (p. 175). For instance, The book of Ruth may be interpreted to influence congregants’ attitudes on political policies regarding immigration and undocumented Americans, perhaps in consideration of New Testament passages on charity or collective action. On the other hand, because liberalism functions like a religion, according to Iannaccone, it also sees competitors with a good deal of hostility, competitors such as Republicans, conservatives, and those who read the Bible and believe it is literal. What is more, Myers (2020) concluded that when people felt that God supported them—that they were on the right “side” of things—then they were more likely to “justify ingroup bias, tribalism, and war” (p. 148). Essentially, it appears that religious people wanted to hear what they already like hearing, which positions churches against each other as right or wrong. Herein lies a problem.  

When religion and politics start to take on a similar role, people—both conservative and liberal—may leave their current place of worship. 16% of people reported leaving their place of worship because it was too political, especially negative sermons regarding civil rights issues (McAdams, 2023).  Sociologists Hout and Fischer (as cited in Audette and Haffner, 2023) published a study demonstrating that when conservative politics got into places of worship, more liberal congregants would leave. Evidence suggested that it was largely Democrats who were leaving their churches to find alternate places of worship, the main motive being political (Audette & Hafner, 2023). Republicans were more likely to believe that churches were places that overall did good in society by teaching morals and building a community (McAdams, 2023). Yet, both groups seek new places of worship. Hout and Fischer’s study found that conservative congregants wishing for more politics in their place of worship would also leave a church that was too liberal or did not discuss politics enough. This was especially true of conservative congregants during the COVID-19 pandemic who wanted their churches to be strong in the face of government mandates about masks, social distancing, and lockdowns. In their research, Audette and Hafner (2023) found that 20% of Republicans looking for a new church claimed that their reason for doing so was politically motivated, in particular, a desire for churches to talk more about President Donald Trump.  

The COVID-19 pandemic was an opportune time to church shop. Higgins and Djupe (2022) conducted research in October 2020 that focused on the past seven months when lockdowns and mandates prevented places of worship from opening. They found that during that period politics were not a strong indicator of church shopping. Yes, partisan voters were more likely to church shop, but overall, despite efforts to draw out political motivations, the researchers did not find sufficient evidence. The researchers hypothesize that during the pandemic there was too much going on for religious people to leave their churches over politics, but other reasons did lead to church shopping. Simply put, politics were not the main motivator between March and October of 2020 to disengage from a church. 

Church shopping can be a process of finding a place of worship that fits the individual’s social values, as opposed to the traditional concept that places of worship inform what social values should be. It appears that Roof (as cited in Hoover & Kim, 2020) was an early user of the terms “seeking” and “questioning” to describe how Baby Boomers and all generations after were more apt to look for a church that fits their values. In a sense, these “seekers” were trying to build a religion that fit their personalities and life histories, but also their current needs as people of faith. Hoover and Kim call it “an ongoing project of construction” (p. 122), which suggests that people of faith no longer saw themselves as passive receivers of faith, but active participants in what their faith is, based on their social values. Similarly, during the COVID pandemic in 2020, nondenominational Christians were the most likely to church shop followed by evangelical Christians, which the researchers believed was a result of some shared culture of both groups, cultures that promote “pursuing religion” (Higgins & Djupe, 2022, p. 731). Basically, the authors imply that religion is not stagnant in some cultures, so it is normal to leave one congregation for another, though the reason could be to find a more challenging, deep look at faith, or it could be to find a church that fits the seeker like a comfortable sweater. Also, researchers found data suggested that the higher levels of education religious people had in October 2020, the more likely they were to church shop, which they hypothesized was related because more education means more open to trying new experiences (Higgins & Djupe, 2022). 

There are methods of drawing in people who are church seeking, which include considering the needs of the individual and his/her life conditions, and not simply advertising everyone is welcome to worship together next Sunday. For example, megachurches tried to make their spaces as all-encompassing as possible, according to Yamane (2020). Megachurches reached out with offers of sports, clubs, movie nights and general entertainment for young people. Plus, family building activities were a big draw, such as marriage counseling retreats and camping. In a way, places of worship become entities that address the full person and his/her happiness as opposed to only a place in which to worship. This is a draw to church seekers. 

However, the draw to a new way of worshipping may not involve a building at all, especially with the growth of online worship communities. Some online groups, like the subReddits r/Christianity, r/Christians, r/Christian, and r/OpenChristian, have a combined 608,000 followers, though, again, not all followers can be confirmed as Christians. The groups have shared goals, such as being “a community for progressive Christians and friends to discuss our faith,” (Progressive Christianity, n.d.), to “to discuss Christianity and aspects of Christian life” (r/Christianity, n.d.), or being a “non-denominational subreddit for the encouragement of Bible-believing Christians, to the glory of God” (Christianity by grace, n.d.). Kim and Hoover (2020) argued that with the advent of media that is easy to access, digital life has changed the way people “do” their religions. In these online communities, how people understand religion, religiosity, spirituality, and what faith can do is shaped by the cybersphere. Some scholars have theorized that cyber-religion may increase the numbers of people who identify with a religion, and the turn to digital religion wasn’t only a Western trend. Globally, seeking digital religious spaces was on the rise. Digital religion does not guarantee commitment to one church, though. In 2020, church shopping was on the rise because there was less risk to a person’s reputation. It was safer to sit at home online and try different worship services because no one at church knew who attended a different service. And without pre- or post-worship socializing, who was to know if a regular church attendee skipped services altogether? The pressure was off to perform for appearance’s sake, and there was less guilt about church loyalty (Higgins & Djupe, 2022). 

The relationship between religion and sociology will continue to change, and there is much research still to be done. Currently, researchers are curious about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on church attendance, religiosity, and application of religious teachings. In some articles I did not use, I noticed a concern about “woke” churches, as well as churches pandering to white supremacists. Religious bodies continue to try to entice new members through a certain style of preaching (maybe feel-good or fire-and-brimstone), through whole-person support systems, and with private education. Yet, it is possible that the American in the 21st century desiring a church that matches his/her social values is missing out on a chance to join an established church and have a shared identity, one that challenges individuals and is not an echo chamber. If people of faith are not challenged, and do not have hard, deep conversations about their religious convictions, it is possible sociologists will see more “spiritual” people who still check “none” on surveys asking what their religious affiliation is. After all, it is not possible for one church to match the values, ethics, and expectations of every congregant who decides to create his or her own faith, but churches still may need to ask how Christianity should be interpreted in contemporary America. 

References 

atheism – Reddit. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2024, from https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism. 

Audette, A.P. & Hafner, S.R. (2022, December 26). Political church shopping is further polarizing America. Politics and Religion. https://religionandpolitics.org/2022/12/06/political-church-shopping-is-further-polarizing-america/  

By Christians For Christians. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2024, from https://www.reddit.com/r/Christian/ 

Christianity by grace through faith in Christ alone. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2024, from https://www.reddit.com/r/Christians/ 

Ellison, C.G. (2020). Religion’s contribution to population health. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 105-125). Baylor University Press. 

 Hayward, R. D., Krause, N., Ironson, G., Hill, P. C., & Emmons, R. (2016). Health and well-being among the non-religious: Atheists, agnostics, and no preference compared with religious group members. Journal of religion and health, 55, 1024-1037.  

Higgins, N. J., & Djupe, P. A. (2022). Congregation shopping during the pandemic: a research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 61(3-4), 726-736. 

Hoover, S.M. & Kim, S.S. (2020). Media. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 117-130). Springer. 

Iannaccone, L.R. (2020). Smart and spiritual. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 165-178). Baylor University Press. 

Iyer, S. (2020). The economics of religion in developing countries. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 179-188). Baylor University Press. 

Lone rangers. (2013). Christian Century, 130(2), 7. 

McAdams, C. (2023, July 25). Religion in politics: A turning tide? Aspen Institute Religion and Society Program Blog. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/religion-in-politics-a-turning-tide/  

Myers, D.G. (2020). Some big-data lessons about religion and human flourishing. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 145-163). Baylor University Press. 

Oberlin, K.C. (2020). Science. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 47-65). Springer. 

Park, J.Z., Dougherty, K.D., & Neubert, M.J. (2020) Work, occupations, and entrepreneurship. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 29-46). Springer. 

Progressive Christianity – Reddit. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2024, from https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/ 

r/Christianity – Reddit. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2024, from https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/ 

Shariff, A.F. (2020). On balance. In A.B. Cohen (Ed.), Religion and human flourishing (pp. 189-205). Baylor University Press. 

Sharpe, M. (2004). God’s Gift of Time Stewardship in Families. Clergy Journal, 80(9), 16–17. 

Sikkink, D. & Hill, J. (2020). Education. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 89-115). Springer. 

Wall, J., & Miller-McLemore, B. (2002). Marital Therapy Caught Between Person and Public: Christian Traditions on Marriage. Pastoral Psychology, 50(4), 259–280. 

Yamane, D. (2020). Sport. In D. Yamane (Ed.), Handbook of religion and society (pp. 67-87). Springer. 

Zuckerman, P. (2011). Faith no more: why people reject religion. Oxford University Press.