 

LIERAHY
Michigan $tate
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOXto movothb chockouthom your mood.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or More dd. dun.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

usu loAn Nﬁmaﬁvc Action/Emu Oppommny imam
WW1

DIVERSITY IN THE HOMOGENEOUS HOUSE: A STUDY OF
RELIGIOSITY WITHIN A MIDWESTERN UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST CONGREGATION
By

John Eric Lund

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology
1996

Professor David Wiley

ABSTRACT

DIVERSITY IN THE HOMOGENEOUS HOUSE: A STUDY
OF RELIGIOSITY WITHIN A MIDWESTERN UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST CONGREGATION

By

John Eric Lund

This thesis is based on a study of religious preferences of a
midwestern United Church of Christ congregation which is relatively
homogeneous on most demographic variables. We start with Weber’s
analysis of the relationship between lower social class and “other
worldly” orientation. A series of religious dimensions are developed
such that they are both autonomous and comprehensive.

Our results are based on a 56 percent response rate of survey
questionnaires administered to all adult members. Based on ratings
of importance and open-ended responses, we found four autonomous
modes of religiosity; traditional, which emphasizes belief, devotion,
and ritual; fellowship and personal support; intellectual quest; and
social action.

Given this diversity, we did not discover salient explanations
from the predictor variables. The only signiﬁcant relationship is
between the traditional grouping and a sense of social marginality
which is evident in combinations of being female, single, and

childless. We recommend further research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank the good people of Mychurch who had the desire and
ﬂexibility to bring us into their study; my advisor, Dr. David Wiley,
who had the insight and knowledge to make this all possible; and
my wife, Karin, who provided patience and encouragement through

four years of work on this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Theory
A. Relationship Between Religiosity and Society . 5
B. Dimensions of Religiosity
1. Literature Review . . 12
2. Development of Dimensions of Religiosity 24
C Relevant Findings on Religious Variety . . . 26

2. Methodology

A. Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B. Measurement
1. Dimensional Measures . . . . . . . 34
2. Measures of Religious Belief. . . . . 42
3. Measures of Religious Participation . . 4 3
4. Measures of Demographic Characteristics 45
5. Other Measures of Religious Attitudes . 46
C. Data Collection
1.Pretest. . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2. Sampling . . . . . . 47
3. Administration of The Survey . . . . 48
D. Data Processing
1. Coding The Dimensional Variables. . . 49
2. Data Entry and Cleaning . . . . . . 51
E Construction of The Indexes and Scales
1. Development of Scales. . . . . . . 5 2
2. Construct Validity and Internal Reliability 52
3. Weighting The Scale Items. . . . . . 56
4. Factor Analysis of The Scale Items . . 5 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

3. Results
A. Demographic Portrait of The Population . . . 5 9
B. Analysis of The Dimensions of Religiosity
1. Section A Frequencies . . . . 62
2. Difference Between Dimensional Means . 64
3. Open- -ended Responses . . . . . . 65
4. Inter- Dimensional Analysis . . . . . 69
C. Analysis of Beliefs . . . 72
D. Analysis of The Effects of Socio- Economic Status
On Religiosity. . 77
E Analysis of The Impact of Lifecycle Variables
on Religiosity. . . 79
F. Analysis of Effects of Length of Attendance
at Mychurch . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3
G. Analysis of Participation . . . . . . . . 85
H. Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . 8 7
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
APPENDIX F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Item to Total Correlations of Constituent Items of
The 10 Scales .

Item to Item Correlations Among Five Constituent
Variables in The Personal Support Dimension .

Percentages of Responses to the Section A Questions
Represented by Their Corresponding Dimensions .

Standardized Mean Scores of Scales of Religiosity.

Frequency of Open-ended Responses as They Pertain
to The Religious Dimensions .

Correlations Between Each Dimension.
Frequencies of Religious Belief Orientations
Frequencies of Religious Beliefs

Correlations of Beliefs With Religious Dimensions

Correlations Between SES Variables and The
Dimensions of Religiosity .

Correlations Between Lifecycle Variables and The
Dimensions of Religiosity .

Cohort to Dimensions and Participation to Dimension
Correlations

Demographic Characteristics.

Marginal Frequencies of Participation Variables

vi

54

55

62

64

67

69

73

74

75

77

80

84

100

101

15.

16.

17.

18.

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)

Item to Item Correlations in Each Religiosity Scale
Results of Religiosity Scale Factor Analysis .
Frequencies of Section C (Program Preferences)

Frequencies of Section F (Clergy Roles)

vii

102

.105

107

108

INTRODUCTION

The study of religion is not new to the social sciences.

However, the accumulated knowledge in this field is not considered
extensive, and, in fact, many social science theorists and researchers
avoid the topic of religion. Religion frequently is dismissed as
insignificant and an institution that has lost much of its inﬂuence and
power. It is also difﬁcult to effectively study and is often avoided.
Whatever the case, there is much uncharted territory in this field of
research. In addition, there is strong support by Weber, Glock,
Berger, Marty, and others that religion still may be strongly
connected to the actions, values, beliefs, political decisions, and life
decisions of many people. It is with that possibility that this project
is relevant to the ﬁeld of sociology.

This study and analysis is based on a survey of the adult
population of a United Church of Christ (UCC) congregation in a
Midwestern university town. For the sake of anonymity we will
refer to this church as Mychurch. The UCC is a predominately
middle to upper class and liberal Protestant denomination. In fact, it
is known as the most liberal on all measures and also serves people
in the higher socioeconomic (SES) categories, relative to most other

Protestant denominations.

Mychurch, in particular, fits this image quite well. The
congregation has a mean family income of over $60,000 with many
members in professional fields They are a highly educated
population with two-thirds of the adults having at least a masters
degree. In addition, they have a rich history, dating back to the
1960's, of social action in both peace and justice activism and
community service. They also have developed an atmosphere of
openness and diversity along with a drive for intellectual scrutiny.
This, in part, is undoubtedly connected to the university climate,
although this has also been mainstream to the UCC denomination as
well.

The purpose of the study was twofold. First, a committee of
the church opted to survey their congregation to help formulate a
plan for future direction and long range planning. They wanted to
learn how members deﬁne their religious needs, what type of
programs are most important to them, and what types of clergy
would be most effective in the congregation.

Second, our theoretical inquiry is to examine the nature of
diversity of religiosity in a congregation which is relatively
homogenous, liberal, and upper-middle class. We are interested in
the extent to which groups or individuals within the congregation
differ in their religious orientations. That is, do they differ in their
expressed needs, desires, and interests as to what the church
leadership can and should provide? In addition, if differences do
exist, what are some of the sources of religious variation in the

congregation? Do relative variations in SE5 impact religious needs?

Or are we better informed by looking at demographic, participation,
belief, or contextual variables? Perhaps there are other analyses to
better uncover and develop an understanding of Mychurch
religiosity.

To investigate these questions, we start with Weberian theory
on the relation between socio-economic status and religiosity. We
also review other theories based on Weber, which shed light on the
nature of religious variation. To look at people's religious
orientations, a set of religious dimensions are developed based on the
relevant literature as well as some contextual factors within the
church. We then analyze the dimensions to verify that they are
indeed salient, or, in other words, that they are an accurate
description of ways that people are religious. Next, we investigate
the relation between the dimensions and different independent
variables to determine possible causes of religious variance within
the congregation.

Studies of people’s religiosity have been frequently conducted
in the research of religion. However, most of the literature is based
on significant differences between Protestants and Catholics,
different Protestant denominations, regional areas, and groups which
have clear demographic or class differences. These are all studies in
which the explanatory variables are obvious and intentional, (such
as, do Southern Baptist differ from Northern Baptist in their religious
orientations?) In addition, researchers have done congregational

case studies, studies of the organization of congregations and

denominations, and studies of the inter-dynamics of congregational
life. This study is signiﬁcantly different from all of these.

First, our population consists of a Single UCC congregation. The
members are predominately liberal, well educated, upper middle
class, and Caucasian. This gives us quite a homogenous population
sample. While there is some variation on these variables, it is much
less than in the general population, or even in the wider UCC
denomination. With this homogenous population, we can analyze
the extent of religious variety within a population in which there are
no clear or obvious explanatory variables. We can then explore
several possible avenues as to why there is a variety of religious
needs.

In addition, we are not really concerned with how the church is
organized, what the people do in the congregation, nor how they
relate to each other or to the pastor(s). We are also not concerned
with how faithful or committed members are, how much they
believe, or what they believe. These are all irrelevant to our study
of religious orientations. Instead, we are interested in the individual
cognitions of members; that is, what individuals desire in religious
practice and behavior for their own needs. We want to know how
individual members prioritize ways that they can be religious.

Once these priorities are established, we study differences
between members and check for groupings of similar orientations
within the population. Possible explanatory variables from our
theoretical framework are then tested as indicators of religious

variance in our sample.

1. Theory

Our theoretical approach is three-fold. First, are the relevant
theories which explain why there is religious diversity. Next, are the
theories and studies which examine how people express their
religious needs differently. From these we develop our own set of
religious dimensions. Lastly, similar studies are reviewed in which
researchers have attempted to measure and explain variance in

religious orientation.

1A. Relationship between Religiosity and Society

We begin with an overview of Weber’s analysis of social class
and religion. (Weber, 1963; Wiley, Dissertation: Chapters 2,3) His
basic premise is that within every society there is a set of "material
interests" that are valued in that society. These include the physical
needs for survival and production. In addition, there are particular
societal goods which have social value and are thus in demand. The
most important interests are usually economic power, political
power, and social honor and prestige. However, within every society
there are limited resources to obtain these ”material interests."
Therefore, those with access to the resources have the most power,

honor, and prestige within that society. Over time, the society

develops class differentiation based on the access to the "material
interests."

In addition to the material interests, societies develop ”ideal
interests.” These develop out of the need for social order, stability,
and understanding. The primary ”ideal interests" are usually
legitimacy and meaning. While it is valued to have access to the
"material interests," it is also important to legitimate that access.
Thus, societies develop rules and norms which govern the means to
increase one's status. This legitimacy for the privileged provides a
rationale and an understanding of class differentiation. However, it
is usually the upper strata who deﬁne legitimate power and also who
hold the political power and make the laws. Hence, the laws and
rationales are made to serve the elites and support the status quo.

In addition to legitimacy and laws, people of all strata need an
explanatory system which justifies status differentiation and the
status quo. The elites, on one hand, need to feel just in their wealth
and power. The lower strata, in contrast, need an explanation and a
means to accept their relatively lower class in society. It is from
these needs of individuals and societies that religious ideologies and
theologies become important. It is the religious doctrine in societies
that provide the explanation and meaning to social stratification.

Weber acknowledges that development of doctrine is quite
complicated and takes place over long periods of time. However, he
noticed that members of religious collectives are often of the same
social strata. In addition, over time, different religious collectives

will align their doctrine to match the needs, interests, and particular

experiences of their members. However, the experiences and
interests of people in any particular stratum are related to their
position in society and the material and ideal interests of that group.
Therefore, religious needs and doctrine vary between religious
collectives, depending on the members’ social stratum. This can be
applied to the beliefs, behaviors, and organization of most religious
collectives. Thus, according to Weber, the upper class churches will
provide different religious beliefs and practices than the lower class
churches based on the different needs and interests of those groups.

Weber goes on to make numerous generalizations about the
relation of social class with religious belief, behavior and
organization. We begin with his analysis of the higher strata, or
elites. Among the higher classes, people tend to be ”this worldly” in
contrast to ”other worldly“ in orientation. They place less emphasis
on salvation religion, and salvation is seen to come through
legitimate religious organization. They have less afﬁnity for
prophetic, ethical, or judgmental religion. They place more religious
merit on success in this world and have a need for legitimation of
their success. They also have an afﬁnity for ritual conducted by
religious professionals. Their religious organizations lean toward
bureaucracy and professionalism. The intellectual groups have a
greater need for meaning and conceptual understanding, and have a
strong desire for individualism.

The lower strata, in contrast, have a need to explain and accept
their relative deprivation. They need a sense of self-worth and seek

it through ”other worldly" means. They place a greater emphasis on

contact with the deity and on salvation through a savior, which will
give them greater rewards and justice in the next life. They have a
stronger affinity for emotional religious experiences, magical and
irrational explanations, and ethical prophets.

The above is a brief outline of Weber’s premise. He goes on to
analyze the religious organizations of his time. We will not discuss
these as they do not pertain to this study. However, from the outline
above, it is clear that Weber suggests a strong connection between
SES and religious beliefs, actions, and organization.

Given this basic theory, we need to consider the characteristics
relevant to the context of this study. As mentioned, the population is
relatively homogenous with an elite status. Many members are in
the higher stratum in education, occupational prestige, and income.
While not all of the respondents are in that stratum, the group as a
whole should reflect the religious attitudes, needs, and behaviors of
the higher strata, following Weber's theory. While there may be
some variety of religiosity, great diversity is not expected due to the
low SES differentiation within our population.

To continue, we also want to extend the basic Weberian
premise. Weber's theory is based on the differentiation of access to
"interests" which are valued in the society. This is extended to SES
differentiation, although it could easily be extended to other types.
As mentioned, SES is not expected to cause much variance. However,
other variables, such as singleness, retirement, old age, and the
absence of children can be seen as indicators of isolation and

marginality. These may be situations of relative deprivation, much

9

like the lower SES for Weber, and thus be indicators of religious
diversity. In addition, women in our society are still given less
respect, honor, and power than men. This too may be a cause of
differentiation. Also, these variables may combine with SES or each
other to suggest distinct groups within the population who have
different needs. This theory is exploratory in nature, and may be an
avenue for future work.

Another factor worth examination is historical and contextual
in nature. The Mychurch community has a rich history of social
action and service in the community. During the 1960's and 1970's,
the community was known for its liberal stance on political issues, its
work for justice and peace, and its leadership in the community on
service projects such as eliminating racially-restrictive housing
covenants, building low-income housing, and advocating media
responsibility in the greater metropolitan area. During this time they
had strong leadership in these areas and the church was well known
in the community as a socially and politically active congregation.
Many thought that this identity attracted people to attend Mychurch
and join in their cause.

Much of the social action at Mychurch took place during a
period when the whole country was experiencing social action. In a
sense, Mychurch was involved in a societal movement of social
change. Now, 20 to 30 years later, US. society has experienced a
decade of political and religious conservatism. The societal
pendulum has swung away from the liberal, social action orientation

of the past. Since that time, Mychurch has changed as well. Through

10

different leadership, the emphasis has changed away from the social
action orientation. The pastor in 1993 had an agenda which leaned
more toward traditional neo-orthdox theology and interpersonal
relationships and support in the contemporary mainstream
Protestant mode. One possibility is that people who have joined the
church since the new leadership are looking for a more conservative
direction than those who joined the church during the times of
greater social action. Therefore, religious diversity is expected based
on respondent's length of attendance.

A ﬁnal theory we examine is Martin Marty's "Two Party
System" (Marty, 1970). Marty argues that the Protestant churches
are divided into "Public Protestants" and "Private Protestants.” He
sees these as two inherently contrasting world views. The Public
Protestants have a scientiﬁc, humanist, and somewhat secular
religious perspective. They are more socially, or "this worldly",
oriented in terms of social action and fellowship. Their focus is often
directed toward social reform and liberation rather than moral
behavior.

The Private Protestants, on the other hand, are individualistic
and have an ”evangelical” religious view. They adhere more to
Biblical doctrine and place strong emphasis on personal salvation.
They are more ”other worldly” oriented, placing importance on belief,
evangelism, individual morality, devotion, and experiences with the
Holy Spirit. They also see justice being served in another world to

come.

11

These two religious types closely resemble the upper and lower
strata types which Weber described. There are, however, some
inherent differences between them. The Public Protestants are much
more interested in social reform and liberation than the upper strata,
who have more interest in maintaining the status quo. In addition,
the Private Protestants are not necessarily using the ”other worldly"
approach to "escape” from this world because of their own
deprivation. The key for Marty has been to follow the development
of these two parties. He argues that they have been present in US.
society since the Civil War. They have developed as two opposing
world views in the political, academic, and religious arenas
throughout the course of the 20th century. However, these were not
divisions of social strata per se; they were more historical and
contextual in nature.

Social class, power, and status quo issues were undoubtedly
involved in these struggles. In fact, the Private Protestant world
view has been supportive of the status quo. This is why we find
many adherents from the middle classes. It becomes clear that
reasons for groups or individuals to fall in one camp or another are
complex and contextual and are beyond the scope of this study.
However, we will examine Marty's theory as an explanation of
variance, and thus as a possible future avenue of study.

In addition to the above theories, we also seek to examine the
relationship between the amount of time people participate and what
their religious preferences are. Our study here is without

expectations and is thus exploratory.

12

18. Dimensions of Religiosit y

1. Literature Review

Before possibilities of differentiation can be examined,
reasonable measures of religiosity must be developed. To study the
varieties of religiosity, we need to measure all of the possible ways
in which people can be religious. The literature offers strong
research in this task.

Over the years many sociologists have tried to measure the
extent to which people are religious. The initial premise typically
has been that religiosity varies, and different types or categories of
people might have distinct religious commitments and needs. This
has usually been in connection with some religious institution or
organization, and often the goal has been to measure the level of
commitment individuals may have to their particular religion. The
focus of this study is different in that we did not try to measure
commitment, but instead looked at preferences or priorities in how
people are religious. Although these concepts are quite similar, it is
not our question whether one group or person is more religious than
another. That is a very complex question and is beyond the scope of
this project. Our question is whether there is diversity of religious
orientation. The study of commitment is relevant here because in

the pursuit of measuring it, researchers realized there are distinctly

13

different ways that people are religious. Hence, religiosity is
approached as multi-dimensional.

In early studies of religion, many researchers tried to measure
commitment by focusing on simple variables of participation and
belief. However, many also realized that being religious has
different meaning to people in different religions, denominations,
regions, classes, and so on. In fact, being religious may have
different meanings among people within the same congregation or
even the same family. One person may read the Bible and pray on a
daily basis, while another only attends church weekly. It becomes
very difﬁcult, if not impossible, to determine if one or the other is
more religious or more committed to their religion. The goal of
researchers in this area has been to develop a comprehensive and
multiple strategy to measure religiosity.

The most direct and focused work in this area was derived
from the writings of Weber and began in the early 1960’s with the
work of Charles Glock, Yoshio Fukuyama, Gerhard Lenski, and others.
In the course of their work, researchers developed what they
thought was a comprehensive list of religious dimensions. That is, a
list of all the possible ways in which people are religious, yet which
were relatively independent of each other. This was seen as a
necessary ﬁrst step to measure commitment. It is the work of
Weber, then Glock, and later Rodney Stark (1965, 1967, 1968) that
has been observed as the primary starting point to the development

of religious dimensions. While the dimension names are different,

l4

Glock's work is quite similar to that of Fukuyama, Lenski, reflecting
the influence of the earlier researchers.

Glock and Stark initially proposed ﬁve dimensions such that,

within one or another...all of the many and diverse
manifestations of religiosity prescribed by the different
religions of the world can be ordered. (1965, p. 20).

In the discussion, they emphasize that different social groups and
religions value dimensions differently and place importance
accordingly. They also indicate that there are many varieties, levels,
and degrees within each dimension. The dimensions identified by
Glock and Stark are: experiential, ritualistic, ideological, intellectual,
and consequential. (1965, Ch. 1)

The experiential dimension is that part of religion in which
the individual achieves a direct knowledge of an ultimate reality, has
some type of experience or contact with a supernatural agency, or
experiences religious emotion. The subjective and emotional
experience and emphasized; in particular, the feelings and
sensations involved in some type of communication with the
supernatural.

The ideological component suggests that being religious may
involve adherence to particular theological outlooks or one or more
religious beliefs. Indeed, all religions have a belief system or tenets
of faith which members are expected to accept to some degree.
However, the salience varies.

The ritualistic dimension includes religious practices in which

participation is expected from the members of the group. This may

15

include worship, devotion, prayer, and other acts in which people
express their religious commitment.

The intellectual dimension has to do with knowing what the
basic beliefs and tenets of the religion are. The religious person may
be expected to understand the stories, faith, and sacraments which
are core to the group. This is distinct from the ideological dimension
which looks at belief of the tenets rather than knowledge of the
them.

The consequential dimension is sometimes set apart from the
other four and may be dependent on them. In a sense, it may be the
combined effect that the experience, belief, practice, and knowledge
dimensions have on the individual. It is the actions and attitudes of
the individual in daily life which are a response to his or her
religious convictions. Included here are the ethics, moralities, and
religious tenets which describe what people ”ought" to do and how
they "should" relate to others in the world.

Glock and Stark (1965) went beyond these dimensions to make
distinctions and levels of degree within each one. The belief or
ideological dimension distinguishes between what the person
believes, how important that belief is, and what is the function of
the belief. They also distinguish between types of beliefs: those
which warrant the existence of the divine and define its character,
those which explain divine purpose and the actors role, and those
which give direct conduct for the realization of the divine purpose.
It becomes clear that belief itself is multidimensional, and one needs

to be clear and direct in trying to measure it.

16

The ritualistic dimension distinguishes between what people do
and the meaning of what people do. In addition, there are different
kinds of practices such as worship attendance, organizational
involvement, and prayer.

The experiential, or feeling, dimension is also broken into
subparts. Glock and Stark suggest concern, cognition, fear, and trust
or faith, as four different components of experiencing religious
feeling or emotion.

In the knowledge dimension a variety of types of knowledge
are emphasized. This may vary from a historical understanding, a
literal interpretation of scripture, or perhaps secular knowledge and
critical review. Also, there may be variance in how knowledge is
transferred and how salient it is for all members.

The consequential, or effects, dimension is complicated as well.
Some religions may state very clearly what is appropriate behavior
in all aspects of life. Others may be more vague by emphasizing
”responsibility" or ”stewardship" by members. In addition, Glock and
Stark distinguish between what the individual can expect from the
religion and what she or he is expected to do for the religion. They
also emphasize that a speciﬁc act has only a religious effect if it is in
response to one of the other aspects of religion. Thus, it can be seen
as a derivative of at least one of the other dimensions.

At this point it may be clear that while religion is
multidimensional, even the dimensions can be ambiguous and
complex. While this is a great concern for those trying to measure

commitment, it is not a concern for our purposes. The intention of

17

this study is look at what aspects or dimensions of religion are
important to people. For our dimensional analysis we are not
concerned with what people believe or how biblically literate they
are. We are interested in knowing how important that belief or
knowledge is to the individual, whatever it happens to be. We
address some issues of Christian belief in the questionnaire, but not
as part of the analysis of dimensions of religiosity.

Given the above dimensions and perspective, it is important to
progress beyond the Glock and Stark theory and to outline the
subsequent development of dimensions of religiosity. One early
work based on the Glock and Stark model was completed by
Faulkner and DeJong (1966) using a study of college students. They
took the five dimensions and created Guttman-type scales for each.
They selected four or ﬁve items per scale to represent each
dimension. (This is problematic in the development of religious
scales as there have been as many different selections of items as
there have been scales created. There seems to be a lack of
continuity over time and across various research projects.) The
questions were developed in an effort to measure participation,
knowledge, belief, etc. for each scale. Their primary goal was to then
look at the interrelationships between the scales.

In comparing correlations between the scales, they found
positive relations of varying strength between the scales. The
highest correlations were with the ideological scale, with the highest
between the ideological and the intellectual. The lowest relationships

were with the consequential scale, with the lowest between the

18

consequential and experiential. The principal significance of this
study was it’s support of the multi-dimensional approach as a
reasonable measure of religiosity.

Another study of religious dimensions was conducted about the
same time by Morton King (1967). King originally proposed 11
possible dimensions and then created 121 items based on them. The
dimensions he chose were based on Glock, Lenski, and others plus
some of his own. He then did factor and cluster analysis in an
attempt to verify the dimensions. In conclusion, King first rejected
the idea that religion is uni-dimensional. From the two factor and
one cluster analyses he developed nine dimensions as hypotheses for

further research. They are as follows:

19

l. Creedal Assent and Personal Commitment (belief)
2. Participation in Congregational Activities

3. Personal Religious Experience

4. Personal Ties in the Congregation

5. Intellectual Search

6. Openness to Religious Growth
7. Dogmatism/ Extrinsic Orientation
8. Financial Behavior/Attitude Toward Giving

9. Talking and Reading about Religion

Many of these seem quite similar to Glock and Stark’s
dimensions. However, researchers seem to have given different
names to categories representing the same concept. Thus, it is
difﬁcult to say they are actually measuring the same dimensions.
We can only say that they are similar. King has dimensions which
overlap Glock's ideological, ritualistic, experiential, and intellectual
components; however, the intellectual could be found in all of King's
fifth, sixth, and ninth dimensions. King did introduce the personal
ties, dogmatism-extrinsic orientation, and financial dimensions that
were not included in the Glock model. He also did not include the
consequential dimension of Glock's, partly because it is somewhat
vague and difﬁcult to measure.

In American Piety (1968) Glock and Stark continued their
development of dimensions, adding three types of beliefs (orthodoxy,
particularism, and ethicalism) as well as two ritual components

(devotionalism and ritual) from the original list. In addition, they

20

included communal and friendship dimensions. They saw the latter
two as set apart from the individual criteria of religious commitment;
however, they suggest these can be central in the function of the
church. They did a survey in northern California and developed
indexes for each of the dimensions.

In their analysis, Glock and Stark looked at the interrelations
between the dimensions. They found positive associations between
most, but none so high as to doubt the independence of any of them.
They also found "orthodoxy” to be the best indicator of religious
commitment, as it had the highest correlations amongst the
dimensions. (1968)

King came back to the multi-dimension question again in 1972
in a project with Richard Hunt. This was based on a survey of a
variety of Protestants in the Dallas area. They again prescribed
dimensions and then used factor analysis with varimax rotations.
Their findings supported their earlier work; distinct dimensions did
indeed emerge. They too had variations in their dimensions. The
”experiential" dimension was changed to "devotionalism," and
"congregational involvement" was given three sub-dimensions,
including attendance, organizational activity, and financial support.
They also included two dimensions for ”orientations” to religion and
for "salience” of religion in their list. (1972)

There is some discontinuity of the indexes. First, some of the
questions overlap. The ”orientation” and "salience" questions both
ask about several of the other dimensions. Also, King and Hunt

examined salience in only some of their dimensions; while in others

21

they measured importance. It is hard to compare dimensions in this
light.

Another significant contribution to the development of
religious dimensions came from the work of James Davidson (1975,
1977). He argued that Glock and Stark did not intend to use their
five dimensions as a ﬁnal product. Indeed, they have developed
more dimensions over time. Davidson theorized that the different
dimensions may have distinct components within them. He
developed components based on religious orientation and
distinguished between conservative and liberal types of commitment
or church activity. The conservative orientation is other-worldly,
personal, unquestioning, conventional, and consensual. The liberal
orientation is this-worldly, social, rational, critical, and community
minded. Based on these types, he developed two components of each
dimension for a total of ten. They are as follows starting with the
conservative components; vertical beliefs (supernatural) and
horizontal beliefs (social relations) within the ideological dimension;
private (devotional) and public (worship) within the ritual
dimension; religious knowledge and intellectual scrutiny within the
intellectual dimension; experiential desirability and religious
experiences within the experiential dimension; and personal
consequences (personal needs) versus social consequences (social
action) in the consequential dimension. Davidson then predicted
positive and negative correlations based on the orientation theory.

(This will be discussed later in more depth.)

22

Davidson found that the ten dimensions were independently
differentiated and held merit. The correlations did indeed match the
predicted results based on the conservative-liberal orientation
theory. He criticized earlier researchers for using one of the two
components of each dimension when creating their scales. This
would lead to inaccurate results.

Davidson (1977), along with Dean Knudsen, also used a
combination of religious consciousness and participation to develop
commitment scales. They used other dimensions such as vertical
belief, horizontal belief, experiential desirability, experience, and
intellectual inclination as indicators of religious orientation. They
suggested that the number of dimensions used may vary depending

on the context of the study. As the authors wrote,

...approaches to religious orientations should be ﬂexible
enough to allow for many different kinds of phenomena
to be included ..... to search for a magic number of
dimensions would impede rather than stimulate more
meaningful questions about the nature of people's
religious orientations. (pages 160-161)

It is clear that there may be cultural or contextual differences
between groups that may inﬂuence the nature of orientation. It is
important to note here that the authors did not propose any new
dimensions, except for the religious consciousness scale for
commitment.

In 1980 G.H. Mueller offered a general critique of the multi-
dimensional model. First, he recognizes that over the years many of

the researchers have developed dimensions with slightly different

23

names and meaning. Also, they have used the same name, but were
inherently measuring different things. There has been a lack of
consensus and consistency in the field. Mueller also argues that
several of the dimensions have measured phenomenon such as cult,
knowledge, and creed which are all components of faith. However,
much of Mueller's criticisms are directed toward the measurement of
commitment. He does discuss ideal types and polar opposites such as
gemeinschafr vs. gesellschaft, inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness,
Protestant vs. catholic ethos, subjective vs. objective, and so on.

Religious dimensions are discussed again by Marie Cornwall
and Stan Albrecht (1986) in a study of Mormons. They, too, tried to
measure commitment as the extent to which a person is religious.
They suggested three core dimensions: belief, commitment, and
behavio -- all of which have two components. They then had a
series of peripheral dimensions which were related to the core, but
were not seen as indicators of religiosity. This study, however,
seems to signiﬁcantly divert from the efforts of our development of
dimensions to look at religious orientations.

In 1989, Dale Wimberly suggested that one could not look at
”religious norm adherence," which is the basis of the Glock model,
without looking at "religious salience," or the importance of the
religion to the individual. He further indicates that "identity
salience” is an important cause of the norm adherence, although this
may vary depending on other cultural pressures. In short, he

suggests that it is important to look at how important religion is to

24

the individual, and that this might have some bearing on the

religious activity she or he might engage in.

18. 2. Development of Dimensions of Religiosity

Clearly, there has been progress over the past 30 years as
researchers have built on (and reacted to) each others' work
regarding dimensions of religiosity. However, as the reader can see,
there has not been much agreement, continuity, or resolution in the
process. Many have suggested ideas for further research, yet the
further research has usually taken different directions. While this is
frustrating, there is enough summation of theory in the literature to
proceed in our study.

To begin, we will re—emphasize the difference between those
dimensions which are speciﬁc ways of being religious (orientations)
and those which measure how religious someone is (commitment).
These two types have been combined, overlapped, and overlooked on
numerous occasions in the literature. However, it is our goal to
examine the differences in religious orientations in the population.
We will return to some commitment variables as possible indicators
of religious preference. Initially, though, we needed a set of
dimensions of religious orientation which are exhaustive but yet not
overlapping to a great degree.

Previously, we defined a list of dimensions which were used by

Glock and Stark and are also supported in other literature. This

25

initial list of six consists of the following: devotional, fellowship
(communal), intellectual, belief, ritual (worship), and experiential.
The consequential dimension of Glock is somewhat ambiguous and
unresolved in much of the research. The best interpretation is by
Davidson (1975), who divided this dimension into personal
consequences (needs) and social consequences (action) which will be
used in this study.

Contextually, the social action dimension was seen as very
strong in this congregation of our study; therefore, we thought it
helpful to distinguish between W (working to create
political and structural changes in the society) and mag! service
(helping the needy of society through donations of time, money, and
services). The first seeks social structural change, while the latter
seeks to assist the needy rather than change their circumstances.
These are ideologically different approaches to helping people. One
may argue that they are only variations of "service,” but this is not
an important issue in this study.

Another contextual dimension that was suggested and
considered is ”aesthetic experience." This includes creative music,
art, and architecture within the worship experience and other
aspects. This was seen as important because the sanctuary of the
church in our study is known for its beautiful architecture and the
choir is known for its high quality music. This dimension is
conceptually related to the ritual, devotional (spiritual), and
experiential dimensions. However, we see it as sufﬁciently different

to use as a separate dimension. Again, we always have the option to

26

discard it or to combine it with another dimension if it is not
verified.

Thus, our final list of dimensions are:

l. Devotional (prayer, meditation, spiritual growth)

2. Fellowship (social programs, social groups, social
relations within the church)

3.1ntellectual (search for truth, meaning, Christian
perspectives, thought-provoking and
challenging)

4. Belief (biblical teachings, theological studies,

teachings of the Christian faith)

5. Ritual (congregational worship)

6. Personal Needs (caring for the needs and crises of
individuals, minister to one another, pastoral
counseling)

7. Experiential (experience of God, the holy, or sacred)

8. Aesthetic (orientation toward music, art, architecture

in worship or other context)

9. Ethical Advocacy (working for and/or studying justice and
peace, civil rights, environment)

10. Ethical Service (respond/take action for needy in the
community and the world through service)

1C. Relevant Findings on Religious Variety

Here we overview recent studies which address questions of
religious diversity using dimensions similar to those we developed.
The question raised here is why there might be variation of religious

needs in a relatively homogenous population.

27

In the literature, there are a number of researchers who have
looked at SES and other variables in relation to involvement,
commitment, participation, and beliefs. There has been little
agreement and inconsistent results over the years. The main
problem has been that most of the studies vary in methodology,
sample populations, deﬁnition of terminology, and even the variables
they measured. It becomes difﬁcult to compare them or to use them
as evidence for our own research question. Thus, we will focus on
studies that use or develope a list of dimensions similar to ours and
also examine possible causes of religious variation. Several studies
shed some light on our research questions.

The ﬁrst study is detailed by Dean Hoge in Diyision in the
W (1976). Hoge examined differences in religious
preferences amongst United Presbyterian parishioners. The
preferences that he developed are similar to the dimensions in this
study. However, the population was not homogenous in regard to
SES, region of the country, income, and education. In his study, Hoge
found a slight relationship between professionalism and social action.
In regard to income and education he found no relation among white
laity. In conclusion, Hoge states that class conﬂict is not a good
indicator of religious preference.

In the same study, Hoge also examined the effects of age, sex,
marital status, number of children, and state of employment. Of
these, only age provided any signiﬁcant variance. Age was positively
related to ”personal moral standards” and ”evangelism," and

negatively related to "fellowship" and ”communication within the

28

church.” This suggests that older people may have more of an
"other-worldly” orientation.

James Davidson (1975) used Glock's initial ﬁve dimensions and
developed "this-worldly” and "other-worldly" dimensions for each, as
previously mentioned. These dimensions closely resemble Marty's
Public Protestant and Private Protestant religious types. In general,
Davidson found strong positive relationships between vertical beliefs,
private practice, religious knowledge, religious experience, and
personal consequences. All of these are "Private Protestant"
characteristics. In addition, he found positive, although weaker,
relationships between the "Public Protestant” dimensions. However,
he did ﬁnd strong negative relationships between most of the
”Public" and ”Private" dimensions. This study clearly supports
Marty's two party system in the sense that there is evidence of two
distinct groupings of dimensions. This would also support Weber’s
theory as well. What is lacking in this study is an analysis of why
these two groups exist and what independent variables might be
indicators of such a division.

James Davidson (1977) also studied the relationship between
SES religious dimensions developed from the Glock model. He
surveyed two Methodist and two Baptist congregations. Davidson
failed to get a good measure of income, and thus used occupation and
education as indicators of SES. He developed three levels of SES for
middle-class Methodists, which most closely matches our population.
In his results, Davidson found a positive relation between SES and

intellectual scrutiny and a negative relation between SES and belief,

I“)
\O

devotion, and experiential dimensions. These results support
Weber's theory of social class as an indicator of religious variety.

In summary, this seems to be the area most lacking in
conclusive research. The religious dimensions have been developed
quite well, as well as the evidence of salience between them.
However, there is very little in regard to what causes some people to
desire certain dimensions and other people other dimensions. In
addition, research in this area has dropped off signiﬁcantly in the
past 10 years, with almost nothing being done in the past ﬁve years.
Thus, the current status of the literature is very limited. There
seems to be room for more research in this area.

For this reason, this part of our study is somewhat exploratory
in nature. We look at Weber’s social class theory and also look at the
possibility of leadership changes as reasons for differences. Also, we
consider other groups who might be alienated or marginal in some

manner such as singles and women as possible indicators of variance.

2. Methodology of The Study
2A. Research Design

As we consider the theoretical questions, there are several
research methods that surface. We want to know individual
preferences of religious activity as specified by the religious
dimensions previously developed. We then want to determine if
groups or clusters of people have the same or similar preferences
within the congregation. Finally, we want to determine if various
factors might be associated with these clusters. These include SES
(despite a homogeneous population), some sense of marginality, and
the length of membership at Mychurch. In addition, if the
theoretical factors do not seem to be connected with the clustering,
then we want to be able to hypothesize what factors are involved.

To get this information, we needed to measure everyone’s
preferences in the same way and also get basic demographic and
church participation data. Thus, survey research was the primary
method used in our research.

With this said, we also felt there was use for both ﬁeld and
historical analysis research. While using field methods, one may
have gotten involved in some of the church activities, conducted
interviews with members, and developed focus groups to observe
and interview. This would have shed insight into some of the

different dynamics and factors that are involved in the religious life

30

31

of individuals and also the congregation as a whole. These types of
insights are often not obtainable in survey research. However, they
could not have easily replaced the survey method to get the
information we wanted.

The other method that would have been helpful is historical
research. A study of Protestantism and the UCC would undoubtedly
shed light on Marty’s “two-party” theory and what factors have
caused divisions over the years. A study of Mychurch history with
its social action and change of leadership might Show us the shift in
agenda’s and attitudes over the years. This would have given us a
better sense of the historical context of Mychurch.

Given all this, the survey method is the most essential to
address our theoretical questions and was also the method readily
available to us. Early on, we discussed doing interviews with key
people as well as conducting some historical research. However, time
restraints and limited resources including the limits of a master’s
thesis kept this from being realized.

Likewise, the survey method has its limits. To start, we are
limited by the type and amount of questions asked. We can only
make educated guesses as to what type of questions and what
wording to use will give us responses that closely reﬂect the reality
of people’s attitudes and desires. We can only hope to minimize our
biases. With this type of method, it is possible that there are other
factors involved unknown to us.

In addition, we have to rely on the means of measurement

chosen. Somehow we have to convert what someone believes in

32

their head into some type of data that we can quantify. A lot can go
awry in this process. In the end we have to rely on the statistics
produced from this process to give us some sense of truth and
knowledge about Mychurch. While we can gain insights that shed
light on our theories, we must also be aware that there might be
more to the picture.

Given this, the study that was conducted did not begin from
our theoretical basis. Rather, it was based on the desire of Mychurch
members to develop a better understanding of its congregation.
They created a long range planning committee to conduct research
and develop a report for the congregation. This report was to have
recommendations for future programming, resource allocation, and
hiring of clergy and personnel.

Thus, this study started as a tool for that committee. They
wanted to know what the people of the church desired and expected
as far as programming, direction, and focus. They wanted to test
what areas of church life are most important to people and what
their religious preferences are. To achieve this goal, it was important
for them to cover all the possible areas of programs and services that
the church and clergy could offer or emphasize. They decided to
survey the congregation to achieve this goal. This is precisely the
type of survey we needed for our own research. Thus, we offered to
join the committee research project as soon as possible.

From the onset, the committee had some concerns, guidelines,
and structure to work with. They had decided to divide the survey

into four basic parts. The first section assessed what people wanted

33

personally in the religious experience. The second section measured
what people thought was important in regard to church
programming possibilities. This included an evaluation of current
programs. The third section asked what the clergy of the church
should be doing, or how they should focus their attention. The final
section had demographic variables. The committee also had
questions about church attendance and church identity in the
community.

This basic four part outline was given to us work with. In
addition, the committee was leery of adding questions and making
the survey too long. They had already generated more questions
than they were comfortable with. Finally, they were under a time
constraint. They were in a hurry to develop the questionnaire and
administer it so as to produce a timely report.

Prior to our joining the project, the committee had several
people researching types of questionnaire designs and questions to
use for their survey. In particular, they had used the W
W by Jackson Carroll (1985). Thus, they had
already developed some researched and educated questions prior to
our involvement.

When we joined the project, we offered technical advice and
statistical analysis in exchange for use of the data. We were also
given limited freedom to alter and add or delete some questions; all
changes had to be approved by the board. We also had a two to
three week deadline to make proposed alterations. While this was

somewhat limiting, we had enough room to administer the type of

34

survey needed. The final survey was reasonable and worthy of
sociological research.

Working within the context of this type of research design has
some clear advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, we were not
concerned with issues such as gaining entry, human subjects, and
funding for the project, which was taken care of by the committee.
They even had money to hire coders and a typist for the data entry.
On the other hand, we were restricted in the type of survey design,
use of additional methods, time limitations, and the number and
structure of questions. However, these limits were rarely
problematic as the committee tried to be ﬂexible to our sociological

needs, and the beneﬁts were much appreciated.

2B. Measurement
1. Dimensional Measures

Given the above guidelines, we thought it was quite feasible to
use the survey as a tool to measure the dimensions from Glock and
Stark and also others. Essentially, the committee wanted to know the
same information as we did, but for different reasons. They wanted
to assess people's religious orientations or preferences within the
church, based on a pool of all possible orientations. This is precisely
what the theoretical dimensions were created to do. In addition, we
did not ﬁnd the distinct sections of personal preference,

programming, and clergy roles all that problematic. It seemed a

34

survey needed. The final survey was reasonable and worthy of
sociological research.

Working within the context of this type of research design has
some clear advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, we were not
concerned with issues such as gaining entry, human subjects, and
funding for the project, which was taken care of by the committee.
They even had money to hire coders and a typist for the data entry.
On the other hand, we were restricted in the type of survey design,
use of additional methods, time limitations, and the number and
structure of questions. However, these limits were rarely
problematic as the committee tried to be ﬂexible to our sociological

needs, and the beneﬁts were much appreciated.

2B. Measurement
1. Dimensional Measures

Given the above guidelines, we thought it was quite feasible to
use the survey as a tool to measure the dimensions from Glock and
Stark and also others. Essentially, the committee wanted to know the
same information as we did, but for different reasons. They wanted
to assess people's religious orientations or preferences within the
church, based on a pool of all possible orientations. This is precisely
what the theoretical dimensions were created to do. In addition, we
did not ﬁnd the distinct sections of personal preference,

programming, and clergy roles all that problematic. It seemed a

35

reasonable method for obtaining information and was an approach
we could work with.

The committee accepted grouping all the questions around the
10 dimensions that we developed. This assured us that all the
dimensions were measured, and also gave us an indication if any
dimension had too many or too few questions. Also, we could screen
for questions which overlapped two or more dimensions. Ideally, we
wanted a set of questions, some from each section, which related to
each dimension. In addition, we wanted the questions to cover most,
if not all, of the aspects of every dimension, giving us a full range of
coverage for each one. However, some dimensions were more
prevalent in this particular congregation than others. It was these
dimensions that received the most coverage.

To begin, it was imperative to have at least one solid question
for each dimension. It was most fitting to develop these in the
personal preference section (Section A), as it was the most direct way
to measure people's preferences. The following is a list of the 10
initial descriptions we developed based on the dimensions:

1. Devotion: Helping me seek a more spiritual life through
prayer, meditation, and devotions.

2. Fellowship: Offering me fellowship and social relationships with
others in the congregation.

3. Intellectual: Assisting me in my intellectual quest for truth,
meaning, or Christian perspectives.

4. Belief: Strengthening my belief in the biblical and
theological teachings of the Christian faith.

5. Ritual: Joining in the ritual of congregational worship
services.

35

reasonable method for obtaining information and was an approach
we could work with.

The committee accepted grouping all the questions around the
10 dimensions that we developed. This assured us that all the
dimensions were measured, and also gave us an indication if any
dimension had too many or too few questions. Also, we could screen
for questions which overlapped two or more dimensions. Ideally, we
wanted a set of questions, some from each section, which related to
each dimension. In addition, we wanted the questions to cover most,
if not all, of the aspects of every dimension, giving us a full range of
coverage for each one. However, some dimensions were more
prevalent in this particular congregation than others. It was these
dimensions that received the most coverage.

To begin, it was imperative to have at least one solid question
for each dimension. It was most ﬁtting to develop these in the
personal preference section (Section A), as it was the most direct way
to measure people's preferences. The following is a list of the 10
initial descriptions we deve10ped based on the dimensions:

1. Devotion: Helping me seek a more spiritual life through
prayer, meditation, and devotions.

2. Fellowship: Offering me fellowship and social relationships with
others in the congregation.

3. Intellectual: Assisting me in my intellectual quest for truth,
meaning, or Christian perspectives.

4. Belief: Strengthening my belief in the biblical and
theological teachings of the Christian faith.
5. Ritual: Joining in the ritual of congregational worship

services.

36

6. Personal Support: Caring for personal needs and crises of individuals
and families in the congregation.

7. Experiential: Providing experience of God or the sacred.

8. Aesthetic Experience: Experiencing the aesthetics of spiritual expression
through music, architecture, and other arts.

9. Ethical Advocacy: Providing ways for me to work for justice and
peace at home and abroad.

10. Ethical Service: Offering me ways to respond to the needy in our
community and the world through service.

In addition to these 10 questions, we also added a question

about families for the sake of the committee:

11. Family support: Strengthening families through shared
participation in church activities.

However, we decided not to develop family support as a speciﬁc
dimension.

The committee was somewhat adamant in how they wanted to
measure each question or variable. Our primary concern was first to
have a reasonable amount of variance. That is, enough to see
significant differences in the population, but yet still have substantial
representation in each step of variance. Given that, we also wanted
to have as close to interval measurement as possible. The committee
wanted to have ordinal categories rather than just numbers
(interval), so we agreed to have both. We also attempted to make

the ordinal categories approximate interval:

Very Somewhat Not so Not at all

importapt Important important important important
4 3 2 l 0

37

In addition, we used the following question to obtain more

variance:

Now, among these statements above, write the letter of the one that to you is:

most important next most important least important

The next set of questions that addressed the dimensions was
those which asked about respondent preferences for different types
of programs and activities. For these we developed a list of 24
questions in which respondents were asked to rank importance as in
the previous section (see Appendix A). Of these about 18 questions
were directly related to our 10 dimensions. The other six asked
questions about youth education, openness and diversity, and
missions of the greater church body. There was at least one question
which addressed each dimension, except for the ”experiential.” This
type of question did not seem appropriate here. Members of the
committee did not feel that ”experiencing the holy" was an integral
part of the religious experience at this church. It was not part of
their common vocabulary and would not have been considered if not
for the inﬂuence of our dimensions.

This set of questions (Section C) had the same scale for
measurement as in section A. The difference here was that we asked
respondents to circle the five questions which they believed were
the most important from the list of 24. This was done at the request
of the committee. It would increase the variance for these questions

as well as determine which variables were the most important

37

In addition, we used the following question to obtain more

variance:

Now, among these statements above, write the letter of the one that to you is:

most important next most important least important

The next set of questions that addressed the dimensions was
those which asked about respondent preferences for different types
of programs and activities. For these we developed a list of 24
questions in which respondents were asked to rank importance as in
the previous section (see Appendix A). Of these about 18 questions
were directly related to our 10 dimensions. The other six asked
questions about youth education, openness and diversity, and
missions of the greater church body. There was at least one question
which addressed each dimension, except for the ”experiential." This
type of question did not seem appropriate here. Members of the
committee did not feel that ”experiencing the holy” was an integral
part of the religious experience at this church. It was not part of
their common vocabulary and would not have been considered if not
for the inﬂuence of our dimensions.

This set of questions (Section C) had the same scale for
measurement as in section A. The difference here was that we asked
respondents to circle the five questions which they believed were
the most important from the list of 24. This was done at the request
of the committee. It would increase the variance for these questions

as well as determine which variables were the most important

38

overall. In addition, this would give us a sense if any of the
variables were more salient than the others.
In addition, Section C had an evaluation for each of the items in

the list. Respondents were asked to evaluate with the following

measure:
Excellent Good Fa ' 5 Poor Not ood a 1 Not sure
4 3 2 l 0 N

There was no opportunity for increased variance in this section.

The ﬁnal section which addressed the dimensions was Section
F: ”Roles of the Clergy." This section had 21 items which described
possible clergy roles (see Appendix A). When constructing our
scales, items such as “preparing and preaching sermons,” “planning
and leading worship,” and “conducting weddings and funerals” were
excluded because they were seen as essential roles of all clergy. Of
the 21 items, 13 represented the 10 dimensions. Again, most were
addressed except for ”aesthetics,” due to difﬁculties in developing a
suitable question. This section also had the "most important,” "next
most important,” and "least important” options at the end as in
Section A.

The following is a combined list of the questions asked for each
dimension from all the sections (A, C, and F), beginning with the
deﬁning Section A question. Included is the section letter, question

letter, our code for that variable, and the question itself.

Ch.

Cu.
Cx.
Fa.

Fb.

2.

Ab.

Cd.
Ck.

Ct.

Fc.

Ac.

Ce.
Fd.

Ad.

Cf.

Co.

Ae.

Ca.
Fl.

Af.

Ci.

Cp.

Ff.

Fh.

Ag.

Fi.

39

Devotional

TDEVOTN

IDEVOTN

ISPGROW
ISMGRUP
PSPIRIT

PDEVOTN

helping me seek a more Spiritual life through prayer,
meditation, and devotions.

finding a deeper spirituality through devotion and prayer.
inspiring and assisting persons in their spiritual growth.
prividing small groups for study, prayer, or mutual ministry.*
counsels people in the congregation about their spiritual
growth and religious life.

offers programs on spirituality through prayer, meditation,
and devotion.

Fellowship(communal)

TFELLOW
INEWMEM
I Y THG R P

[FELLOW
PFELLOW

offering me fellowship and social relationships with others.
bringing new members into the church fellowship.
providing young people with a meaningful social group
within the church.

providing active social programs.

encourages fellowship among people in the congregation.

Intellectual

TINTELL

IS ERMON
PINTELL

Christian
TBELIEF

[BELIEF
ITHEOLO
PBIBLTH

R i t u a l
TRITUAL
IWORSHP
PWORSHP

Personal
TSUPORT

IENABLE
IS UPPRT

PCOUNSL
PSICKDY
PCALLS

Experience
TEXPERI
PEXPERN

assisting me in my intellectual quest for truth, meaning, or
Christian perspectives.

listening to challenging and insightful sermons.

offers programs on challenging and thought-provoking
topics.

Belief

strengthening belief in the biblical and theological teachings
of the Christian faith.

learning about the biblical teachings of the Christian church.
studying the theology of the Christian faith.

leads biblical and theological programs on the Christian faith.

joining in the ritual of congregational worship services.
experiencing a meaningful Sunday morning worship service.
encourages creativity of expression in worship.

Support

caring for personal needs and crises of individuals and
families in the congregation.

enabling members to minister to one another's needs.
offering pastoral counseling and support in times of personal
and family crisis.

provides pastoral counseling.

ministers to the sick, dying , and breaved.

makes pastoral calls in the homes or offices of members.

of the Holy

providing experience of God or the sacred.

assists people in the congregation to experience God or the
holy.

4O

8. Aesthetic Experience

Aj. TAESTHE experiencing the aesthetics of spiritual expression through
music, architecture, other.

Cv. IAESTHE experiencing music, art, and architecture in the worship of
God.

9. Ethical Advocacy

Ah. TADVOCA providing ways for me to work for justice and peace at home
and abroad.

Cg. ICIVILR working in the society for the civil rights of all groups.

Cj. IENVMNT understanding and acting on our responsibility for
environment as God's creation.

Cn. IJPREF offering reﬂection and study on key issues of justice and
peace.

Cs. ISOCACT acting with others in the congregation to change unjust
social conditions.

Fj. PENCJP encourages people to work for justice and peace at home and
abroad.
Fk. PLEAJP assumes leadership role in congregation and community on

justice and peace issues.

10. Ethical Service

Ai. TSERVIC offering me ways to respond to the needy in our community!
world through service.

Cm. INEEDY taking action to help the needy in our community.

Fo. PNEEDY seeks to involve people to respond to the needy in community
and world.

*This item was later deleted from the devotional section because it was

not clearly only a “devotional” item.

These were the original questions that were determined to be
conceptually connected with the various dimensions. Notice here
that the dimensions are discrete; no question is mentioned in more
than one dimension.

It is obvious that some dimensions have more items than
others. This is due mostly to considerations of the committee. Again,
some dimensions were not seen as important in the context of the
church, and others were seen as more important, such as "ethical

advocacy" and "fellowship." Some questions were kept or added

because individual committee members had specific questions they

41

thought were important. It was tricky balancing between
maintaining the dimensions, serving the needs of the committee, and
limiting the length of the survey to a reasonable size. In retrospect,
it may have been worth some extra energy to try to balance the
dimensions; however, we believe we still have a reasonable
representation on most of the dimensions (and at least the more
important ones) for our analysis. Lastly, in regard to data analysis, it
is not necessary for all of the dimensions to have the same amount of
items.

Upon inspection, it is apparent that some of the dimensions
have items that overlap or even seem to be asking the same
question. This is due, in part, to the structure of the survey. The
three sections all have somewhat different agenda. Section A
measures personal needs; Section C measures preferences for
programming and activities; and Section F measures affinity for
pastoral roles. Thus, if two questions in one dimension are
essentially the same concept, they are still measuring different
phenomenon. For example, a person wanting personal support may
want pastoral counseling and not support programming. Others may
not want personal support for themselves, but think the church
should offer programming and pastoral counseling regardless.
Clearly, combined responses on different dimensions may have
different patterns; however, using a combined total we feel that we
can assess the degree that a respondent feels a particular dimension

is important.

42

Finally, it is also apparent that the items in some of the
dimensions do not necessarily cover all of the possible aspects that
could be identiﬁed within those dimensions. Three things should be
considered here: First, the time constraints and committee agenda
were such that we did not have as much ﬂexibility to contextually
design groups of questions for every dimension as we would have
liked. Second, this task was made more difﬁcult with the above-
mentioned subsections in the questionnaire. Third, it was not
important for us to cover all the possible aspects of the dimensions.
We were primarily concerned with how important, or desirable, each
dimension was to a respondent. Thus, it was necessary to cover the
major elements of the dimension, but not all the possible elements.
Each individual is expected to perceive and interpret a concept (such
as a belief) a bit differently. However, we simply want to know if
the concept is important to them, such as the need to have a clearly

articulated belief system.

2B. 2. Measures of Religious Belief

Throughout the literature, "religious belief" is viewed and
conceptualized in different ways as a religious dimension. Most
researchers measure belief by asking people what they believe using
a continuum from orthodox to agnostic. Few researchers look at how
important that belief is compared to other dimensions of religiosity.

As we have made clear, our intentions have been to measure the

43

importance of the dimensions and not necessarily how respondents
interpret the dimension. However, it is helpful to measure the
orthodoxy of belief in order to analyze the relationship between
levels of orthodoxy and religious preference. Since this was not part
of the agenda of the committee, we were constrained to keep this
section as short as possible.

To have a short, quick, and yet useful measure of orthodoxy it
is best to use a measure that had been used and tested before. We
opted to use two questions from a suggested questionnaire from the

Handbeek ef Cengregetiengl Studies (Carroll, 1985). See Appendix A

for a list of the questions.

2B. 3. Measures of Religious Participation

The Mychurch committee felt it was important to measure the
participation of respondents in the church community. They wanted
to distinguish between worship participation (ritual) and all other
church activities, including positions on boards and committees. We
were more interested in the number of years that individuals had
attended Mychurch. This would allow us to see differences in
preferences among people who came to Mychurch during different
leadership eras. This was earlier discussed as one possible
theoretical explanation for differences in the congregation.

With these intentions, the survey included questions regarding

the number of years of attendance, membership, and frequency of

44

attendance in the past year. This was done with average ranges such
as ”once a month” or "usually every week." We also asked if church
attendance had increased, decreased, or stayed the same in the past
few years.

In regard to participation, we asked how many church
positions they had served in the past two years in the following
categories:

___elected or appointed Board or committee

voluntary task force, work group, other

__Sunday school teacher, youth program

Respondents were asked to estimate the average time per
month they spent on all church activities, excluding worship. We
also asked if this type of participation had increased, decreased, or
remained the same. See Appendix C for a list of the participation

questions and the respondents’ percentages.

45

2B. 4. Measures of Demographic Characteristics

This section is relatively straight forward. There was a general
consensus that a series of good demographic measures of the
respondents was needed for various reasons. Respondents were

asked information on the following variables:

1. age

2 gender

3. marital status

4. whether spouse or partner participate

5. number of children in household aged 0-4 yr., elementary school
age, middle school age ,high school age, and 18-25 yr. old age

6. highest level of formal education

7. principal employment

8. occupation

9. household income

(See Appendix B for a list of the respondents’ percentages.)

We intended to ask about political preference, but the
committee was strongly against asking the question. We were told
there were few Republicans in the congregation. In addition,
questions on race, ethnicity, or national origin were not included.
These were not needed in the context of this church.

Most all of the variables were measured using categorical
measures with the following exceptions: age which is ratio, education
which is interval, occupation which is translated into an interval
scale, and income categories which approximate interval data. In
regard to income, we felt it was too personal to ask for exact ﬁgures.
In addition, as income levels become higher, small intervals have

much less frequency and may reveal the identity of respondents.

46

Thus, we developed the following income intervals for respondents

to choose from:

Under 3 15,000 35,000-49,000 100,000-124,999
15,000-24,999 50,000-75,000 125,000 or more
25,000-34,999 75,000-99,999

2B. 5. Other Measures of Religious Attitudes

The above-mentioned measures are those which are central to
our analysis. However, there were other questions in the survey
which were important for the committee that were not used in this
analysis. These include a series of nine open-ended questions
designed to further reveal perceptions, attitudes, needs, and desires
of respondents. They were dispersed throughout the questionnaire
and covered a range of topics. There was also a section inquiring
about church identity and respondents’ perceptions of the church in

the community. See Appendix A for these questions.

2C. Data Collection
1. Pretest

Whenever research is attempted using new questions, it is
important to do some type of pretest of the instrument. A pretest
was done using the members of the committee. Most of the
members were not directly involved in the construction of the

survey, as they only received progress reports and provided input on

47

a weekly basis. Thus, when we finished a draft, it worked well to
give the survey to the committee to preview it and pretest it. The
final draft had seven pages of questions covering the sections
detailed above. The average time in taking the pretest for the
committee was 15 minutes, which seemed reasonable. Based on
feedback from the pretest, there were no major changes made in the
survey. We did make a number of grammatical and word changes
for various questions. Since all of the participants of the pretest
were active members of Mychurch, and therefore part of the sample
population, we felt conﬁdent in the survey as an instrument of

measurement for the Mychurch population.

2C. 2. Sampling

Questionnaires were given to almost everyone who attended or
participated in the Mychurch community, not restricting the list to
members, since many non-members attend on a regular basis.
Children under 15 years old were not surveyed. The high school age
people were included in the list, although we excluded them for some
analysis. Those who had left Mychurch within the past three months
were also surveyed. If they had left for a speciﬁc reason, it might be
revealed in their answers. Some argued that those who had left in
the past two years or even ﬁve years should be surveyed, but this
was voted down. Thus, we sent surveys to the entire adult

population, high school age and above, who attend Mychurch, are

48

members, or have recently left. We did not restrict the number of
questionnaires per family, and many families received two or more.
A final list of 431 people was generated with these guidelines.

The target population for the committee was obviously the
community of Mychurch. Our target population for sociological
purposes, however, is not so clear. Ideally, we would like to
generalize to the population of Protestants in the United States.
Short of that, we would like to generalize to United Church of Christ
congregations, Protestants in the Midwest, UCC congregations in the
Midwest, or perhaps Protestant congregations in college towns in the
Midwest. Based on the type of sample we have, it is very difﬁcult to
determine how much we can reasonably extrapolate our findings.
However, our analysis is not meant to be conclusive for a larger
population. We are simply trying to look at theories of religious
diversity and see if they hold in the context of a single and relatively

homogenous church population.

2C. 3. Administration of The Survey

It was important for both the committee and ourselves that
respondent’s answers be anonymous to the general population and to
the members of the committee. This is considered standard
procedure in survey research. A packet was developed for each
respondent which included the survey, a short instruction sheet, and

a return envelop. These were distributed in church on two

49

consecutive Sundays, and those left over were mailed first class. A
number was put on each return envelope which corresponded to a
number on the master respondent sheet. This identiﬁed who did not
return a survey so a follow-up could be sent. This provided both
anonymity and a means to increase our response rate.

We initially distributed 431 questionnaires, and 248 were
completed. This is a 56% response rate, which we consider
acceptable for survey research. There was not any detectable bias as

to who responded or who did not.

2D. Data Processing
1. Coding The Dimensional Variables

For sections A, C, and F each answer was coded with the
numbered response. Sections A and F were then transformed using

the most, next most, and least categories as follows:

1. Two points were added to a response (ranging from 0—4) if they
indicated that item was ”most important.”

2. One point was added to a response if they indicated that item
was ”next most important.”

3. One point was subtracted if the item was ”least important."

4. A no-answer was given a "9".

These numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but were also given
careful thought. It was important to use the information that these

questions were giving us. However, if we gave to much weight to the

50

“most important” responses, then some variables would be top
heavy. On the other hand, we did want The method above is a
balance between these tensions. In addition the scale is measured in
one unit increments and this is just an extension of that scale.

The Section C questions were coded differently. Here,
respondents were instructed only to indicate the five most important
items. Thus, we added one to each item that was mentioned.
Anything more that this might give a skewed curve of responses.

The occupation responses were coded using the ”Bose Index
Three-Digit Occupation Census Code” based on the 1980 census.
These codes were then transformed into the Bose occupational
prestige ranking which varies between zero and 100. This variable
of the survey may be somewhat suspect because many of the
responses were too vague to ascertain what type of occupation they
had (such as ”manager”). In cases of slight uncertainty we took a
respondent's education and age into account to determine their
probable occupational ranking. However, because of this vagueness,
a number of cases were thrown out on this variable.

The occupational prestige variables were transformed prior to
analysis. All other variables in Section C were coded using a typical
coding procedure, but were never transformed, outside of missing
data. In the cases of missing data, we only eliminated the case when
we did analysis on the item(s) with missing information. This was
done so we could use whatever information each respondent did

provide, rather than use only those respondents who provided

51

answers for all of the questions. While the latter option is preferred,

it would have reduced our sample to an unacceptable size.

2D 2. Data Entry and Cleaning

For data entry, the SPSS Data Entry Program was used. One
spreadsheet was created using the general Data Entry procedures. A
member of the committee who had worked closely with the coding
process and bad data entry experience was hired to complete the
actual data entry. She was trained on the SPSS program and was
comfortable with the process.

To reduce the amount of coding error, cleaning procedures
were set up for most of the variables. All the variables had a ﬁxed
number of allowed digits. In addition, we set ranges that each
variable would allow. Thus, errors could occur only within the range
of possible and expected codes.

Having a single data entry person reduced the chances of error,
eliminated varying styles or interpretations of codes, and avoided
the problems of transitions between coders. However, with only one
person coding, the risk of systematic error increases. If the same
mistake was made throughout, we would have systematic errors that
are difﬁcult to detect. We will address this when looking at the
consistency of the results. At this time, though, we feel confident
that the work was completed with reasonable, acceptable, and

probably high levels of accuracy.

52

2E. Construction of The Indexes and Scales

1. Development of Scales

Our first step in looking at modes of religiosity was to develop
instruments to measure levels of importance for each dimension.
This was done first by theoretically and conceptually grouping
questions around each dimension. This step is a process of face
validation and was outlined in the chapter on measurement.

In our scale construction, it was important to place emphasis on
the conceptual dimensions. It was preferred to develop the scales
conceptually and then test them for reliability and validity. This is
in contrast to developing the scales empirically and then looking at
conceptual relations within and between them. We were more
interested in looking at relationships within our theoretical model.
With this intent, the Likert scaling technique was best suited for our

needs based on the ordinal type measures used for each item.

2E. 2. Construct Validity and Internal Reliability

In the Likert scale method, the assumption is that a combined
score of all the items in a scale is a reasonable measure of that
concept. This test is done using the theoretical construction of the
scales. Total scores for each scale were computed, and item-to-total

correlations were generated. Any individual item should correlate

53

with the total scale score at a minimum of 0.30, as they are assumed
to reﬂect the same underlying construct.

In addition, we tested the internal reliability using Cronbach's
alpha statistic. This indicator is based on the average inter-
correlation and the number of items in the scale. Basically, the
higher the inter-correlations and the higher the number of items, the
more internal consistency and thus conﬁdence we have in the scale.
For this statistic a measure of 0.70 or higher is considered an
indicator of a good scale. The following table shows the item-to—total
correlations and the alpha levels for each scale. They are given in
the order of alpha levels. The codes are those which were given
earlier and can also be found in Appendix A.

Notice that the “Ethical Advocacy” and “Ethical Service”
categories are combined into one “Social Action” grouping. While we
see them as conceptually different, the respondents usually did not.
This is supported by the lack of distinction in the open-ended
questions as well as the factor analysis results which will be
discussed later (see Appendix E for factor analysis results). Also,
note that the three “service” items all have strong correlations with
the “advocacy” items(see Appendix D for item to item correlations
with each scale). Basically, this gives us one strong “social action”

scale and does not take away from our analysis.

54

Table l
Itemt To] rrlinsof ntitunt m fTh 1 SI

Cronbach’s
alpha level

 

dimension item item to total corr. Istandardizedl
Social Action TADVOCA .73 .90
ICIVILR .78
IENVMNT .52
IJPREF .68
ISOCACT .78
PENCJP .69
PLEAJP .65
TSERVIC .56
INEEDY .59
PNEEDY .54
Aesthetics TAESTHE .73 .84
IAESTHE .73
Belief TBELIEF .54 .79
IBELJEF .68
ITHEOLO .61
PBIBLTH .52
Devotion TDEVOTN .54 .72
IDEVOTN .62
ISPGROW .41
PDEVOTN .50
Fellowship TFELLOW .53 .71
IYTHGRP .48
IFELLOW .62
PFELLOW .39
Experiential TEXPERI .51 .67
PEXPERN .51
Personal TSUPORT .3 9 . 66
Support [ENABLE .42
ISUPPRT .44
PCOUNSL .43
PSICKDY .38
Intellectual TINTELL .41 .56
ISERMON .34
PINTELL .38
Ritual TRITUAL .35 .52

IWORSHP .35

55

When looking at Table l, we first find that all of the items in
each scale meet the 0.30 item-to-total correlation standard. We also
ﬁnd acceptable alpha levels for the ﬁrst ﬁve scales. This gives us
some assurance of construct validity and internal reliability for each
of these scales. In addition, the correlations between items in each
scale are at least 0.25, with most above the 0.30 level (see Appendix
D). The one exception to this is the ”personal support" dimension.
While all of the item-to-total correlations are acceptable, the inter-

correlations in that scale were weak. This is highlighted in the

following table:

Table 2
m I 1 ' n Am n Fiv i nt
V ' l in Th P n rt Di i

TSUPORT IENABLE IS U PPRT PCOUNSL PS ICKDY
TSUPORT 1.00

IENABLE .46 1.00

ISUPPRT .22 .19 1.00

PCOUNSL .14 .21 .50 1.00

PSICKDY .20 .21 .29 .37 1.00

As Table 2 shows, several of the correlations are quite small.
In addition, the alpha level from above is 0.66, which is somewhat
marginal. Furthermore, there is not any one or two items that can be
thrown out on an empirical basis. They all correlate highly with at
least one other item. There does seem to be a cluster of higher

correlations between ISUPPRT, PCOUNSL, and PSICKDY. However,

56

conceptually we do not feel comfortable throwing out the other two
variables, as they are seen as most representative of our dimension.
Thus, we can only accept that we have a poor measure for the
”support” dimension in terms of validity and reliability.

In addition, we also have weak alpha levels for the
"experiential”, ”intellectual", and "ritual” dimensions. Within these
dimensions all of the inter-correlations are reasonable and the item-
to-total correlations are acceptable, albeit they are not all very
strong. Thus, the primary reason for low alpha levels is the small
amount of items in each dimension. With this, we argue that these
scales may indeed be valid, since the correlations support this; but
we do not have enough items to verify reliability. Therefore, we will
use these dimensions in our analysis with the reservation that they
have weak measurements. The ”support” dimension will be used in
the same light. While we admittedly have poor measures on these

scales, they still may give evidence and insights to further research.

2E. 3. Weighting The Scale Items

A technique used to increase the reliability of a scale is
weighting. Typically, it is argued that the item which has the highest
correlation with the total score is the best indicator of that scale.
Therefore, that item merits more weight than other items in the
scale. This was tried in an attempt to gain further insights from the

data. Each item was multiplied by its corresponding item-to-total

57

correlation which gave us a new scale total. We then compared the
weighted scales with the unweighted scales by looking at inter-
correlations. However, only minuscule differences in the correlations
were found. Some were slightly higher, while others were slightly
lower. Thus, we determined that the weighting was not helpful and

opted to use the original scales.

2E. 4. Factor Analysis of The Scale Items

In addition to the above analysis, we decided to conduct a
factor analysis in an attempt to verify the dimensions that were
developed. We included all the items that had been used in
constructing the nine scales. The factor analysis was run using the
common "varimax” rotation. See Appendix E for the factor analysis
results. In the results, we found nine factors with eigenvalues over
1.0. In addition, seven of the factors matched the theoretical
dimensions item for item. The exception was a combination of the
”belief" items and the "devotion" items. This is reasonable, as these
dimensions are conceptually very connected; however, we still
maintain that they are conceptually distinct as well. In addition, the
correlations between factors were all quite small, suggesting that

each factor is relatively independent of the other factors.

58

The factors came out in the following order. Notice the

similarity between this ordering and the alpha ordering from before.

Factor Dimension

1 social action

belief/devotion

fellowship

experiential

aesthetics

personal support

intellectual

(no factor for the ritual dimension)

\lO‘tha-IN

Note in Appendix E that the “personal support” dimension had
high loadings on only two of its three variables. This parallels the
sporadic correlations between those items. Also, we did not get
factor loadings for the “ritual” dimension.

We ﬁnd the factor analysis further supports the development
of the dimensions. While two of the scales seem to be weak
measurements, the others seem quite strong. With these limitations
in mind, we feel conﬁdent in proceeding with the inter-scale analysis

and exploratory analysis of additional variables.

3. Results

3A. Demographic Portrait of The Population

In the demographic section we find some interesting
characteristics. (See Appendix B for demographic frequencies.) First,
only 16.0% of the respondents are under the age of 40, which
suggests a relatively older sample. In addition, the mean age is 52,
and the median is 54. It is apparent that either Mychurch is an older
congregation, or many of the younger people did not respond to the
survey, a possible response bias.

In regard to gender, 20% more women responded than men.
In addition, 72.6% of the respondents are married or living with a
partner, which suggests that most all of the men are married, along
with many of the women. This may be typical of church
participation across the country. There also may be a population of
women who are partners with other women.

We did not ask people the total number of children they had.
Instead, we asked for the number of children in different age groups.
Since some families have children in more than one age group, it is
not immediately clear how many children each family has. This was
not considered critical data and we did not do the analysis to get it.
However, we do estimate that about 40-50% of the respondents have

at least one child living at home. With an older population this

59

60

makes sense, as many couple's children should be out of the house.
However, it also seems reasonable to say that families and children
are still an integral part of the congregation. Nonetheless, a larger
older population may be moving on to other concerns.

The respondents are highly educated, with 60% having masters
degrees or higher, and another 23% have a college degree or higher.
This might be expected with Mychurch being located in a university
town.

It appears that most of the people of Mychurch either work or
did work, as 85% work at least part-time or are retired. Surprisingly,
few people are students at 5.7%, especially if we subtract out the
high school age people. This does reﬂect the age distribution,
however. Also, at 1.2%, there is very little unemployment, in spite of
the recent national and local recession. Finally, only 4.1% reported
themselves as homemakers, which either suggests that many of the
women are not in the traditional women’s role, or they do not
perceive themselves as such.

In regard to occupation, most of the people have some type of
professional job. By far, the most frequent occupation is teaching,
either at the university or elementary/high school levels. From
there, many people are in different management, research,
administration, doctor, technical specialists, lawyers, and clergy
positions. There were a few secretaries, sales clerks, and support
personal and almost no manual laborers.

While there is a wide range of family incomes, there is a strong

cluster of 63.3% in the $35,000 to $100,000 income range. In

61

addition, almost 84% of the respondents have a family income of
over $25,000. The median income is $65,000, a level reﬂecting the
middle to upper-middle income range.

It is important to note that there are a few African Americans,
Asian Americans, and Hispanics, but the population of Mychurch is
overwhelmingly white. This majority is so large that it was
inappropriate to ask the question. Also, as mentioned before, we
were told there are very few Republicans in the church.

With this demographic overview, we obtain a sense of the
homogeneity of the congregation. In general, the sample population
is mostly middle aged or older. The majority are married, and many
couples have children or have had children. Most are highly
educated, employed or were employed in professional occupations.
Most probably are of European descent and are politically liberal
relative to the general US. population. Basically, the sample is much
more homogenous than the general population, and even
significantly more homogenous than Protestants in general, or even
the United Church of Christ denomination. While its characteristics
may be closer in line with other university town Protestant churches,
we still venture that the high level of education, occupation, and
income is somewhat unique.

The interesting question for us is that with this high level of
homogeneity on the demographic variables, are there still significant
differences in religious preference? If we control for many of the
demographic variables that have been utilized in previous theories

and studies, then what is/are the primary causes of these

62

differences? It is our next step to explore the differences between
the religious dimensions. Then we can explore some possible

predictor variables of these differences.

38. Analysis of The Dimensions of Religiosity
1. Section A Frequencies

Our first result is the frequencies of the Section A responses.
We will only report these here as they are the best single indicators
of our dimensions, and as the other sections are quite long. See

Appendix F for the frequencies of Sections C and F.

Table 3
P r n f ns h io u ion

Represented by Their Correspending Dimensions

 

+

   

(Imp = Important) V e r y

*Most Next Very Not Least Wght Imp

. __ _, A _ _ ._ __ __ ,_ a n , _

a. Devotional 17.4% 6.2 30 6 36.4 9.5 4.5 4.2 67.0
b. Fellowship 9.1 14.1 30.3 42.7 5.4 2.9 4.3 73.0
c. Intellectual 17.4 10.8 36.9 36.1 5.8 5.0 4.4 73.0
d. Belief 4.1 4.1 15 4 33.6 19.5 16.6 3.2 49.0
e. Ritual 6.6 8.3 23 2 43.2 9.6 7.9 3.8 66.4
f. Personal Needs 6.2 12.8 31 5 41.5 4.1 2.5 4.2 73.0
g. Experiential 6.1 5.6 25 7 33.5 13 9 6.5 3.7 59.2
h . Aesthetics 3.3 7.1 24 5 36.9 10 0 13.7 3.5 61.4
i. Ethical Advocacy 5.4 5.8 22 4 27.8 16 2 14.9 3.3 50.2
j. Ethical Service 2.1 7.1 25 8 36.7 84 3.3 3.9 62.5

* Most Imp = Most Important
Next Imp = Next Most Important
Not Imp = Not so Important or Not at all Important
Wght mean = Weighted mean
Very Imp + Imp = Combination of Very Important and Important

63

From the above table, we see that there is a wide variety of
variation among the items. Several stand out including intellectual,
fellowship, devotional, and personal needs; however, these do not
overwhelmingly stand out, and there is significant representation in
the ”most" and ”next most” important categories in all of the items.
From these Section A items it appears that there is great diversity in
the religiosity of the sample.

In addition, note the distribution of responses within each item.
While the "Important" and ”Very Important“ answers have between
50% and 70% of the total responses, there is signiﬁcant
representation in the other categories. There is enough
representation of categories to make distinctions between possible
answers.

In reference to Appendix F, note that in Section C the highest
priorities in programming are focused around meaningful worship
and preaching, education and socialization for the youth, helping the
needy, pastoral care in times of need, and encouraging respect for
differing opinions. The least important tends to be around biblical
and theological teachings as well as spirituality and devotional time.

In section F, by far the most desired pastoral role is the ability
to provide a sense of vision for the congregation. Other important
items include ministering to the sick, developing Spirituality, social
activism, and pastoral counseling. The least important are managing
the buildings, making pastoral calls, and encouraging creativity of
expression in worship. Interestingly, there is mixed support for

leadership on justice and peace issues as there are high frequencies

64

on both the “most important” and “not at all important” responses for

these questions.

3B. 2. Difference Between Dimensional Means

Next is the comparison of total mean scores between
dimensional scales developed from all of the sections A, C, and F
questions. Since the scales have different numbers of items, they
were ﬁrst standardized so that the maximum is 60, which is an
arbitrary number for convenience. Thus, the means given below can
be compared to each other, as they represent the same scale. They

are given in rank order by means.

Table 4
Steneardized Mesn Seeres of Scales ef Religiesity

 

Rank Dimension M e a n
l Ritual 40.5
2 Personal support 39.8
3 Intellectual 39.5
4 Fellowship 37.4
5 Devotion 35.8
6 Social Action 34.8
7 Experiential 33.7
8 Aesthetics 33.4
9 Belief 31.9

In the sample, we find the "ritual," "personal support," and
”intellectual" dimensions to be ranked the highest overall, and the

”experiential,” "aesthetics,” and "belief” dimensions the lowest.

65

”Fellowship" also ranks relatively high in the list, and “social action”
is somewhat low, although the mean differences on all these scales is
low.

In looking at the population as a representation of the middle
to upper professional and intellectual strata in our society, we find
support for Weber's theory. According to Weber, we expect greater
afﬁnity for ritualism, intellectual scrutiny, and fellowship. In
addition, Weber theorized low affinity for beliefs, experiences with
the holy, devotion, and social action. These are generally true in our
population.

The two exceptions to Weber's theory are a higher ranking for
"personal support" and a midrange ranking for "devotion." These
may be due to the older age of the population. It is possible that as
people become older they have a greater need for personal and
spiritual support. We will also explore other possible factors in the

demographic analysis.

3B. 3. Open-ended Responses

Throughout the survey there is a series of nine open-ended
responses which were used by the planning committee. These were
asked in addition to the closed-ended responses to further explore
what was important to the respondents at Mychurch. Therefore, the
responses were coded to match our religious dimensions, with a few

others added in. We thought it helpful to mention the rank of

66

frequency of those responses related to our dimensions. We also
added the category “openness and diversity” here because it was
addressed so often. First, is a list of the questions used in this report.

See Appendix A as well.

B3 What attracted you to Mychurch?
BS What do you see as Mychurch's distinctive identity?

Combined sections C and E:

What strengths of Mychurch do you most want to see enhanced....
...what changes are most needed in programs, worship, other...
Are there important aspects not now given attention to

If attendance at worship increased or decreased, why?

If involvement in church activities increased or decreased, why?

«@999

Next, in table 5, are the frequencies of responses to these questions.

67

Table 5
Fre en f en-End d R 5 cases as The

Pertain to The Religious Dimensiens

 

(attracted) (identity) (changes)

Questions B3 BS C and E(combined)
total responses 483 306 704

1. devotional 1.24% 1.63% 4.69%

2. fellowship 13.66 7.19 8.66

3. intellectual 10.77 14.38 10.09

4. belief 1.24 0.65 5.40

5. ritual 2.07 1.31 7.95

6. personal support 3.11 2.29 7.10

7. experiential* -- -- --

8. aesthetics 7.66 5.56 2.98

9. ethical advocacy 15.11 43.46 14.77

10. ethical service** -- -- --

11. openness and diversity 11.39 14.71 5.40

* Combined with devotion because of lack of response.
* * This dimension was combined with ethical advocacy because people
did not make the distinction between the two in most cases.

B3 What attracted you to Mychurch?
B5 What do you see as Mychurch's distinctive identity?

Combined sections C and E:

3. What strengths of Mychurch do you most want to see enhanced...
4 ...what changes are most needed in programs, worship, other...
5. Are there important aspects not now given attention to

6 If attendance at worship increased or decreased, why?

7 If involvement in church activities increased or decreased, why?

In Table 5 it is clear that ethical advocacy, or social action, is by
far the dimension most mentioned, followed by the intellectual and
fellowship dimensions. We also have a high percentage of "openness
and diversity" comments which was a category not incorporated in
our dimensions. However, it is clearly an attitude that is important
in the congregation. This sense of openness seems to be tied to the
identity and vision of Mychurch and has played an important role

since the 1960’s. Interestingly, the experiential, devotion, and belief

68

dimensions were hardly mentioned, and personal support was quite
low as well. These patterns are consistent throughout all of the
questions.

In this analysis, there is still some support for Weber's theory.
Intellectual challenge and fellowship are important, and the
openness and diversity category fits into Weber's individualism of
the intellectual elites. Also, the experiential, devotion, and belief
categories are low as predicted.

The high ranking of social action is quite interesting. It is
apparent that the social action identity of the 1960's and 1970's still
exists, and is perceived as important today. However, this
contradicts the relatively low ranking of social action in the closed-
ended dimensions. Perhaps social action is Still perceived as
important as the church identity, but in comparison to other needs,
individuals have other preferences. Maybe the past 10 years of
conservatism have changed the religious orientations of individuals,
but not the identity of the church itself.

This phenomenon may also suggest that social activism and
intellectual quest are dimensions that are very salient in this
congregation. Other needs may appear to take precedence in the
close-ended questions, but as people write about their church
identity and personal needs, these issues come to the forefront. It
may be that they are almost taken for granted in the community and

this emphasis is under-represented in the earlier questions.

69

3B. 4. Inter-Dimensional Analysis

From comparing dimension means, we move to the correlations
between each dimension. Below is a simple correlation matrix with
all of the scale relationships. The correlations were all computed

using the ”Pearson's r" correlation statistic.

Table 6
Cerrelatiens Between Eaeh Dimensien

 

Dev Fel Int Bel Rit Sup Exp Aes Soc
Dev 1.00
Fel .04 1.00
Int .06 -.08 1.00
Bel .52* -.02 .18 1.00
Rit .23 -.12 -.04 .28* 1.00
Sup .21 .38* -.13 .13 .16 1.00
Exp .51* .07 .03 .39* .24* .18 1.00
Aes .09 .18 -.O4 -.01 .19 .20 .07 1.00
Soc .00 .06 .11 .ll .03 .07 .17 .16 1.00

4:

Dev:
Fel:

Int:
Bel:
Rit:

Devotional
Fellowship
Intellectual
Belief
Ritual

Sup:
Exp:
Aes:
Soc:

significant at the .001 level(two-tai1)

Support
Experiential
Aesthetics
Social Action

In looking at these inter-scale correlations there are some

interesting results.

First, there is significant relationships between

all of the "Belief“, ”Devotion”, "Experiential", and "Ritual" dimensions.

Second, we ﬁnd a relationship between ”Fellowship" and "Personal

70

support.” Third, there are no other relationships between any of the
scales.

It is most interesting that the items of belief, devotion,
experiential, and ritual are all related to each other. This suggests
that there is a group in the pOpulation who are more ”other-worldly"
oriented. Note, too, that the belief, devotion, and experiential
dimensions are all ranked low by the population in general.
Therefore, we speculate this group is a minority in the population.

The other significant relationship is that between fellowship
and personal support. Since neither of these correlate significantly
with other dimenions, it appears that there is a distinct group of
people for whom social and relational needs constitute a high priority
in their church life. Also, this grouping is clearly distinct from the
other worldly grouping described above.

In addition, we have the items of intellectual quest and social
action. Neither one of these had signiﬁcant relationships with any
other item, and they are not strongly connected with each other.
However, both of these items were given great mention in the open-
ended responses. It is conceivable that they both represent distinct
groups of people or at least distinct modes of religiosity. Given that,
four distinct groupings emerge; the other-worldly, fellowship—
personal support, intellectual quest, and social action. Thus, for the
entire population sample we see a distinct diversity of religious
needs.

The only item left is the aesthetic scale which does not

correlate with anything nor was it ranked as important in either the

71

closed or open-ended measures. Thus, while it might be a distinct
scale, it does not seem to be signiﬁcant in the life of this particular
church.

In reference to our theory, the belief, devotion, and
experiential subgroup resembles Weber's “other-worldly”
orientation. However, there is no clear grouping around his “this-
worldly” orientation. All three of the other three groups might be
considered this-worldly in focus. In addition, none of these groups
correlate with each other and are thus distinct from each other.
Thus, it appears that the diversity in our group is more complicated
than what Weber’s theory speaks to. One possibility is that most of
the congregation shares a “this-worldly” focus amongst the three
groups while there is a small “other-worldly” group that is in the
minority.

We also ﬁnd some resemblance of Marty's ”two party” theory.
The traditional grouping closely resembles his description of the
"Private Protestants”. However, it is not clear who the ”Public
Protestants” are. Perhaps all of the fellowship, intellectual, and social
action groupings are basic varieties of the “Public Protestant”
orientation just as they might represent a “this-worldly” view. Also,
given the history of this particular church, it is probable that these
dimensions may be salient in the population. The identity and
characteristics of Mychurch in the 1970's resembles the ”Public
Protestant," and this identity is still important to a majority of the
population. Again, we might have a minority group of “Private

Protestants.”

72

What is not clear at this point is the cause of this religious
diversity. Why are there four groups that appear to be distinct in
this congregation? Also, how do we have one group which seems to
hold a minority religious world view? To start, we look at beliefs,
SES, and demographic variables as possible indicators of this

diversity.

3C. Analysis of Beliefs

We now focus on the belief questions. The following are the
questions asked with their perspective options and the percent
choosing each option. Given is the percent of those who answered

and not the percent of the total population.

73

Table 7

Fregueney of Religieus Belief Qrientatiens

1. Which of the following best expresses your belief about God?

1.0% a.
12.3 b.
14.4 c.

5.1 d.

7.7 c.
13.8 f.
45.6

g.

I do not believe in God.

I really don't know what to believe about God.

I do not believe in a creating and saving God, but I do believe
in a higher power of some kind.

God is the creator of an orderly world, but does not now guide
it or intervene in its course of affairs or the lives of
individuals.

Although God has and can act in history and communicate
with persons directly, it is not something that happens very
often.

God is constantly at work in the world from ”above” directing
people, nations, and events.

God is the world and is in every person, thing, and event.

( Note that 195 people, or 79.0%, responded to this question.)

2. Which of the following best expresses your belief about sin and salvation?

10.8% a.
23.6 b.
38.9 c.
6.9 d.
17.2 e.
2.5 f.

Sin and salvation really don't have much meaning to me
personally.

Sin is a helpful way of talking about people's capacity to harm
themselves and others, and salvation is a helpful way of
talking about hope for a better future.

I believe all people are inherently good, and to the extent sin
and salvation have meaning to all, it has to do with people
realizing or not realizing their human potential for good.
Although people are sinful, all people participate in God's
salvation regardless of how they live their life, even if they
do not believe in God.

All people are sinful but need only to believe in and ask for
God's forgiveness to be saved.

All people are sinful and if they are to be saved they must
earn it through living a good life, devoted to God.

(Note that 203 people, or 82.2%, did respond to this question.)

74

In examining these frequencies, it is clear that question two
has a broader distribution of responses. We also noticed that items f.
and g. in question one might not be in the right order on an
orthodoxy scale. Item f. appears to be more orthodox than item g.
Rather than run correlations with each question, we opted to group
responses around the following conceptual categories. The new

frequencies for these categories are added as well.

Table 8
Frequeney ef Religiops Beliefs

Question 1

13.3% Bl. a,b: Agnostic or Atheist
27.2 82. c,d,e: This-Worldly Orientation
*40.5 B3. Bl&32: God not Immanent
13.8 B4. f: Other-Worldly Orientation; God Active in History
45.6 B5. g: God Everywhere and in Everything
Question 2
73.3% 81. a,b,c Anti-Sin and Salvation
26.6 S2. d,e,f All People Are Sinful and Need Salvation

*Note that B3 is a combination of BI and B2.

First, there appears to be a relatively balanced split between
those who do not believe God is Immanent and those who believe
God is more active and present in the world. Fewer believe that God
actually has a hand in the history of the world. From question two it
is apparent that a majority of the people really do not operate with a
traditional understanding of sin and salvation. This points to
Weber’s “this-worldly” orientation. There is, however, a signiﬁcant

group who do seem to have a more traditional understanding.

75

We now examine the relationships between these different

beliefs and the dimensional scales.

Table 9
Correlations of Beliefs With Religious Dimensions

 

Agnostic- This- God Not God God Anti Based On
Atheist Wordly Immanent Active All Over Sin/Sal. Sin-Sal.
BI 32 B3 B4 B5 81 $2
Dev —.06 *-.26 *-.27 .13 .ll --.13 .10
Fel .01 -.05 -.04 -.03 .08 .10 -.10
Int .15 .00 .10 -.17 .04 .15 -.14
Bel -.05 -.22 *-.23 .06 .15 -.17 .19
Rit .02 -.10 -.10 -.08 .08 -.08 .06
Sup .03 -.06 .03 .01 .04 -.08 .06
Exp .02 *-.30 *-.28 .02 .12 -.10 .09
Aes .04 .03 .05 -.10 .08 .03 .02
Soc -.11 -.10 -.16 -.ll .22 .14 .04
SI .11 .20 *.25 -.21 .ll
$2 -.14 .01 -.10 *.36 .06

* Significant at the .001 1evel(two-tail)

Dev: Devotional Sup: Personal Support
Fel: Fellowship Exp: Experiential

Int: Intellectual Aes: Aesthetics

Bel: Belief Soc: Social Action
Rit: Ritual Bl: Agnostic/Atheist
81: Anti Sin/Salvation 32: This-Worldly

82: Based On Sin/Salvation B3: God Not Immanent

B4: God Active
BS: God All Over

While looking at Table 9, it is clear that there are relatively
few relationships between the dimensions and the belief variables.
We do ﬁnd negative correlations between both B2(This-Worldly) and
B3(God not Immanent) and the devotion, belief, and experiential

dimensions. This suggests that these three dimensions are

76

connected, and this connection has to do with not believing that God
is not immanent. This, again, resembles Weber’s “other worldly”
focus. However, these dimensions only have weak positive
correlations with B4(God Active) and B5(God All Over) which both
give God more control and action in the world.

There is also a weak relationship between BS(God All Over) and
social action. This is a bit of a surprise as BS(God All Over) is
supposed to represent a more orthodox and “other worldly” position
and social action is seen as a “this worldly” endeavor. Given these
discrepancies, we have to question the accuracy of the B5(God All
Over) question as a reﬂection of “other worldly” orientation.

The question two variables do not give us quite as strong
relationships. The only correlations to report are weak relationships
between 82(Pro Sin/Salvation) and belief, and Sl(Anti-Sin/Salvation)
and intellectual quest. These both support our “this worldly” and
“other worldly” split , but are not really strong enough to carry much
weight. Question two may have not been a good question for this
population. Numerous respondents commented that sin and
salvation were not even issues in the context of Mychurch. The lack
of relationships here may also be related to a non-traditional
understanding which is salient in the congregation.

Lastly, there are stronger connections between Sl(Anti-
Sin/Salvation) and B3(God not Immanent), as well as 82(Pro
Sin/Salvation) and B4(God Active). These ﬁndings seem to be
consistent with each other and reﬂect respondents on different sides

of the orthodoxy continuum.

77

3D. Analysis of The Effects of Socio-Economic Status On
Religiosity

In looking at these variables, we examined occupation, income,
and education separately, and also combined them for a total SES
score. See Appendix B for the frequencies of these variables. The
following is the correlation table between these variables and the

dimensions of religiosity.

Table 10
Cerrelaﬁons Between SES Vgisples
end The Dimensions ef Religiesity

Socio-Economic

;cc . I E! . 5

Devotion -.16 -.22 -.12 -.21
Felllowship -.02 -.07 -.14 -.08
Intellectual .09 .15 .06 .11
Belief -.01 -.10 -.09 -.08
Ritual -.02 .09 -.05 .04
Personal Support -.16 -.14 -.15 -. l 7
Experiential .00 -.05 -.02 -.03
Aesthetics .14 -.02 —.04 .09
Social Action .09 -.05 .07 .04
83(God n/Immanent) .04 *.26 .15 .16
B4(God Active) -.09 -.13 -.09 -.12
BS(God All Over) .01 -.09 -.06 -.05
Sl(Anti Sin/Salvation) .17 .22 .19 .21
82(Pro Sin/Salvation) -.10 -.12 -.ll -.12

* significant at the .001 level(two-tai1)
SES: Socio-economic Status (A combination of occupation, income, and
education.)

In reviewing the SES table above, clearly there are few strong
relationships between the SES indicators and the dimensional scales.

Income and total SES both have a weak negative relation with

78

devotion and personal support. Apparently, those with less money
place a higher value on personal spirituality and devotion as well as
personal support and care.

These findings do offer some support of Weber’s general theory
that lower SES status is associated with an “other-worldly” orietation.
However, this is rather weak. First, it is interesting to note that the
personal support dimension does not have a signiﬁcant correlation
with the devotion dimension.(see Table 6) Personal support is also
more of a personal need rather than an “other-worldly” focus. Also,
we ﬁnd minimal relationships between the SES variables and the
experiential or the belief dimensions, which are likely indicators of
an “other worldly” focus. We also ﬁnd minimal relationships
between the SES variables and those variables that might be
considered “this worldly” in focus such as social action or intellectual
quesL

Beyond that, we find a stronger relationship between income
and belief item B3, "God not immanent,” as well as with 81 “anti
sin and salvation.” The belief of God acting in the world is less
prevalent with the increase of income, even in this homogeneous
population. In addition, we have weak positive relationships
between all our SES variables and B1, "agnostic or atheist” as well as
8], "anti sin and salvation”.

While somewhat weak, these relationships do support Weber’s
theory of social class and religiosity in regard to people’s beliefs.
Despite the homogeneity, we still see some variation of belief

associated with income and SES. However, SES only explains a small

79

portion of our belief variety, and almost none of our dimensional
variety. It is true that we expected little effect here because of our
homogenous group. It may be significant that we found anything at

all.

3E. Analysis of The Impact of Lifecycle Variables on
Religiosity

In regard to demographic variables we examined variables of
age, gender, married or not, children or not, full time work, retired,
and homemaker. The following is a correlation table between these

variables and the dimensions:

and The Dimensions of Religiosity

A Male
Devotional -.01 -.07
Fellowship -.14 -.12
Intellectual .07 .06
Belief .12 -.02
Ritual .20 -.12
Support -.07 -.23*
Experiential .07 -.19
Aesthetics .07 -.14
Social Action -.10 -.08
Occupation -.17 .23
Income .00 .24*
Education .30* .34*
SES n a .32*
B3(God N/Imm) n a .05
B4(God Active) n a .03
B5(God All 0v.) n a -.03
Sl(Anti SIS) n a .02
82(Pro S/S) 11 a .06
Male .05 1.00
Married .22* .30*
Children -.66* -.02
Employed n a .14
Retired .63 .06
Homemaker n a -.18
significant at the

B3:
B4:
BS:
81:
S2:

n a (We only did limited correlations with

God Not Immanent

God Active
God All Over

Anti Sin/Salvation
Based on Sin/Salvation

80

Table 11
Correlations Between Lifecycle Variables

r ied ' dren
-.32* -.15
.00 .21
.ll .01
-.05 -.ll
-.07 -.21
-.08 -.05
-.06 -.03
-.12 -.17
-.02 .03
.07 .14
.45* .07
.12 .14
.24 .11
.19 .ll
.00 .04
-.06 -.04
.16 .13
-.03 -.07
.30* -.02
1.00 .12
.12 1.00
.00 .23*
-.09 -.41*
.06 -.02
.001 level(two-tail)

0

.06
.03
.02
.09
.01
.13
.ll
.02
.01
.35*
.35*
.24*
.39*
.01
.07
.10
.09
.05
.14
.00
.23*
.00
.62*
.24*

age.)

.15
.06
.07
.07
.12
.06
.06
.09
.09
.38*
.37*
.22
.43*
.01
.04
.10
.15
.03
.06
.09
.41’ll
.62*
.00
.12

—.07
.02

.02
.05
-.09

-.02

.06

-.10

-.01

-.16

.08
.00
.02
.00
.04

-.18

.06
-.02

-.24*

-.12

1.00

Dev:
Fell
1111:
Bell
Ritt
Sup
Exp.
Aes
Soci
OCC
Inc

Edu
SES

B3l<
BM
851(
SH;
5le
Ma]
Mai
Chi
Em]
Rc‘t

H01

B3:
B4:
BS:
51:
52:

80

Table 11
Correlations Between Lifecycle Variables

and The Dimensions of Religiosity

 

Age Male Married Children Employed Retired Homemaker
Devotional ...01 -.07 -.32* -.15 -.06 .15 ~.07
Fellowship -.14 -.12 .00 .21 .03 -.06 .02
Intellectual .07 .06 .11 .01 .02 .07 -.01
Belief .12 -.02 -.05 -.ll -.09 .07 -.01
Ritual .20 -.12 -.07 -.21 -.Ol .12 .02
Support —.07 -.23* -.08 -.05 -.13 .06 .05
Experiential .07 -.19 -.06 -.03 -.ll .06 -.09
Aesthetics .07 -.14 -.12 -.17 -.02 .09 -.02
Social Action -.10 -.08 -.02 .03 -.Ol -.09 .06
Occupation -.17 .23 .07 .14 .35* -.38* -.10
Income .00 .24* .45* .07 .35* -.37* -.01
Education .30* .34* .12 .14 .24* -.22 -.16
SES n a .32* .24 .11 .39* -.43* -.08
B3(God N/Imm) n a .05 .19 .11 -.01 -.01 .08
B4(God Active) n a .03 .00 .04 -.07 .04 .00
BS(God All 0v.) n a -.03 -.06 -.04 .10 -.10 .02
Sl(Anti SIS) n a .02 .16 .13 .09 -.15 .00
S2(Pro S/S) n a .06 -.03 -.07 -.05 .03 .04
Male .05 1.00 .30* -.02 .14 .06 -.18
Married .22* .30* 1.00 .12 .00 -.09 .06
Children -.66* -.02 .12 1.00 .23* -.41* -.02
Employed n a .14 .00 .23* 1.00 -.62* -.24*
Retired .63 .06 -.09 -.41* -.62* 1.00 -.12
Homemaker n a -.18 .06 -.02 -.24* -.12 1.00

significant at the .001 level(two-tail)
na (We only did limited correlations with age.)

B3: God Not Immanent

B4: God Active

B5: God All Over

81: Anti Sin/Salvation

32: Based on Sin/Salvation

80

Table 11
Correlations Between Lifecycle Variables
end The Dimensions of Religiosity

A e Male ar 'ed i r n 0 ed ' ‘d e aker
Devotional -.01 -.07 -.32* -.15 -.06 .15 —.07
Fellowship -.14 -.12 .00 .21 .03 -.06 .02
Intellectual .07 .06 .11 .Ol .02 .07 -.01
Belief .12 -.02 -.05 -.ll -.09 .07 -.01
Ritual .20 -.12 -.07 -.21 -.01 .12 .02
Support -.07 -.23* -.08 -.05 -.13 .06 .05
Experiential .07 -.19 -.06 -.03 -.ll .06 -.09
Aesthetics .07 -.14 -.12 -.17 -.02 .09 -.02
Social Action -.10 -.08 -.02 .03 -.01 -.09 .06
Occupation -.17 .23 .07 .14 .35* -.38* -.10
Income .00 .24* .45* .07 .35* -.37* -.01
Education .30* .34* .12 .14 .24* -.22 -.16
SES n a .32* .24 .11 .39* -.43* -.08
B3(God N/Imm) n a .05 .19 .11 -.Ol -.01 .08
B4(God Active) n a .03 .00 .04 -.07 .04 .00
B5(God All CV.) 11 a -.03 -.06 -.04 .10 -.10 .02
Sl(Anti SIS) na .02 .16 .13 .09 -.15 .00
82(Pro SIS) n a .06 -.03 -.07 -.05 .03 .04
Male .05 1.00 .30"I -.02 .14 .06 -.18
Married .22* .30* 1.00 .12 .00 -.09 .06
Children -.66* -.02 .12 1.00 .23* -.41* -.02
Employed n a .14 .00 .23* 1.00 -.62* -.24*
Retired .63 .06 -.09 -.41* -.62* 1.00 -.12
Homemaker n a -.18 .06 -.02 -.24* -.12 1.00

significant at the .001 1evel(two-tai1)
na (We only did limited correlations with age.)

B3:
B4:
BS:
81:
82:

God Not Immanent

God Active
God All Over

Anti Sin/Salvation
Based on Sin/Salvation

81

Starting with age, we ﬁnd a weak positive relationship with
ritualism. Age also correlates positively with education, being
retired, being married, and strongly with not having children; all
which we might expect in a typical lifecycle. However, we did not
ﬁnd a relationship between age and income or occupation. This
indicates that there may be a group of younger professionals in the
population.

In considering gender, we find a relationship between being a
woman and personal support, as well as a weak relation between
being a woman and the experiential dimension. Being male
correlates positively with the SES variables and also correlates highly
with being married (0.30). ie Also, we earlier reported 20% more
women than men and there are notably more widows than widowers
in the population. It is apparent that we have a signiﬁcant group of
women in the population who are single. In addition we ﬁnd women
expressing a greater need for personal support than men. What we
failed to check correlations with is a category of "single women.”

In examining the variable of marital status, we ﬁnd a strong
negative relationship between singleness and income, a strong
relationship between singleness and devotion, and a weak negative
relationship between singleness and a perception of God not
immanent in the world. Recall that devotion and income were
negatively related which offers support to Weber's theory that lower
income links with the need for ”other worldly" support. With these

new relationships between singleness and devotion we also have a

82

factor of social deprivation. Perhaps being single also gives people a
need for "other worldly" support.

Interestingly, there was no relationship between singleness
and personal support. This is true despite the fact that most of the
single people are women and that being female is correlated with
personal support and weakly with “Experiencing the Holy.” Thus,
being female seems to point toward personal support, while being
single points towards a need for devotion.

With the presence of children in the household, we ﬁnd a weak
positive relationship with fellowship and a weak negative
relationship with ritual. There is also a positive relationship with
being employed. In addition, we ﬁnd no relationship with gender or
marital status. This suggests that there may be a number of single
parents in the population, most of whom are females.

In examining the employment status of respondents, we find
few relationships. Working full time correlates positively with the
SES variables and also with having children. Being retired strongly
correlates with not having children, which is to be expected, and also
has weak positive relationships with both the devotion and ritual
dimensions. Being a homemaker correlates with none of our
variables except negatively with both being married and being
employed. Overall, employment doesn’t seem to be a strong
predictor variable for much of our variance.

In summary, what we ﬁnd most interesting in the lifecycle
variables is the population of unmarried women. Being female is

related to personal support, and being single is related to devotion.

83

Both of these are also negatively related to income. In addition, a
significant number of these women may be single parents. It is this
subgroup that may feel the most relative deprivation in the
population. It is also this subgroup that has the most afﬁnity
towards personal support, a need for devotionalism, and possibly

experiencing the Holy in their lives.

3F. Analysis of Effects of Length of Attendance at Mychurch

In looking at our theory of the historical developments of
Mychurch, we created attendance variables to examine people's
religiosity based on how long they have attended. We divided
attendance in to three ”cohort" groups:

Cohort 1: Have attended more than 10 years. This group started

when the leadership was still based on the social action
orientation of the 1970's.

Cohort 2: Have attended between 5 and 10 years. This is considered a
transition group between the founding and the new
leadership.

Cohort 3: Have attended 0 to 4 years. This is how long the leadership
at the time of the survey had been present.

The following table shows the correlations of these cohorts with
the dimensional scales. Note that we also include the participation

variables in this table as they will come up in the next analysis.

84

Table 12
Cohort to Dimensien and Participation te Dimension gzorrelatiens

 

4 yrs or less 5-10 yrs over 10 yrs number of
cohortl cohort2 cohort3 W

Devotional .04 —.07 .01 .26* .10
Fellowship .09 .00 -.08 .17 .29
Intellectual -.01 -.05 .04 -.Ol -.02
Belief -.01 -.13 .10 .16 .05
Ritual -.03 -.O9 .10 .24* .15
Personal Support -.05 .12 -.04 .12 .09
Experiential .00 -.07 .05 .16 .04
Aesthetics -.11 -.08 .15 .19 .05
Social Action -.07 -.01 .07 .01 .12
SES -.21 .14 .09 -.ll -.03
B3(God NIImmanent) -.12 .07 .05 -.08 .01
B4(God Active) .10 —.01 -.01 .01 -.02
BS(God All Over) .11 -.03 -.08 .13 .10
Sl(Anti Sin/Sal) -.10 .09 -.04 -.02 .03
82(Based on Sin/Sal) .08 -.12 .02 .07 .05
Male .01 -.07 .04 .06 -.09
Married .01 .02 -.02 .00 -.03
Children .29* .33* -.49* .00 .11
Employed .14 .08 .19 .06 .06
Retired -.25* -.18 .35* .02 -.05
Homemaker .03 .04 -.06 —.03 .10
Attendance .09 —.03 -.06

Positions -.17 .08 .09 .37*

* significant at the .001 level(two-tail)
attendance: average attendance at worship in past year
positions: total number of board, task force, or teaching positions

85

In examining relationships with the three cohort variables we
find limited relationships. In fact, all of the relationships that we do
find are related to age, children, and retirement as expected. There
are no relationships with any of the dimensions and we do not see
our theory of “cohorts" being supported with these results as they
show no significant relationship to any variance.

These results suggest several possible options. First, even
though the church image has changed over the years, individual
needs in the past are similar to those today. Second, the needs of
pe0ple in Cohort3 may have been different in the past, but have
changed with the past decade of conservatism. Third, as the church
offered a new and more conservative religiosity in the decade prior
to the survey, only those in the older cohort who are comfortable
with the new focus have remained. Lastly, peoples’ needs may have
been different in the past, but have changed with the aging of the
church population. However, we don’t observe much variance in the
population on the basis of age. This might be interesting to pursue in

further research.

3G. Analysis of Participation

We will start with an overview of the participation section. See
Appendix C for details in response rates. From the frequencies we
see that most of the people who responded are active members.

With nearly 80% attending worship at least twice a month and about

86

68% putting in at least some hours outside of worship, we have a
congregation which is actively engaged in the activities offered by
Mychurch. There appears to be more of a decrease in worship
participation and about the same level of increase and decrease in
other participation. There is also a signiﬁcant number of people
involved in church positions which is also an indication of
congregational involvement. The impression is that many people are
involved at least to some degree. However, with only 13% of the
respondents spending over 11 hours per month on church activities,
it is clear that a relatively few people are doing a lot of the work.
This is probably true for many congregations across the country.

While it seems that the congregation is a relatively active one,
this may be an indication of response bias. It is conceivable that
active members are over-represented in our 56% response rate.
Those who are not so active may have been less inclined to
participate in the survey. While we have a wide range of people
with different preferences in the church, we might lose some
insights of those people who are unhappy with the direction or
current emphasis of the church and thus no longer participate. It is
our hope that they were inclined to respond in an attempt to bring
about change in the church.

In looking at relationships between variables of participation
and the dimensions, we do obtain some results. There is a positive
relationship between frequency of worship attendance and

devotionalism (0.26) and ritualism (0.24). This suggests that people

87

with these priorities might be more inclined to regularly attend
worship. There are no other relationships with this variable.

We also examined the total number of positions that
respondents held. This variable only correlates with fellowship
orientation (0.29) and frequency of worship attendance (0.37). The
fellowship relationship may explain why people are involved in
different positions. The total number of hours outside of worship is a
related variable which only correlated with the frequency of worship
(.27). It is apparent that people come to Mychurch and are involved
regardless of lifecycle, beliefs, SES, employment status, or religious
orientation. We also venture that those 13% who put in the most

time probably have the most time available.

311. Summary of Results

From the scale construction analysis, along with the factor
analysis, we established a series of nine religious dimensions which
are relatively distinct and autonomous. Of those, the ritual, personal
support, intellectual, and fellowship scales had the highest support in
this congregation. In the open-ended responses social action,
intellectual quest, and a category of openness and diversity were the
most mentioned and most important items. Based on our importance
ratings, interscale correlations, and the open-ended responses we

found four clearly distinct and relatively autonomous modes of

88

religiosity which are incorporated in these nine dimensions. They

are as follows:

belief/devotionallexperiential/ritual or “other—worldly”
fellowship/personal support

intellectual quest

social action

#WNH

Given these groupings within the response population, we did
not ﬁnd adequate explanation of this religious diversity from the
predictor variables. We found no support from the length of
attendance or participation variables. We found weak support from
the SES variables and have concluded that the classical Weberian
theory does not work well within this homogenous population.

The only source of variation that we found with any
signiﬁcance is in the prediction of the “other-worldly” grouping by
social depravation or marginality. This was evident in combinations
of being female, single, and childless. Being single and childless
tends to suggest a need for devotionalism and ritual. Being female
also points toward personal support and experiencing the Holy. At
this point, we need further study to look at combinations of these

three demographic variables.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, we have found this study to be quite interesting.
Our population is a United Church of Christ congregation, “Mychurch,”
which is in a Midwest university town. The church was founded in
the 1960’s with a strong image of social action, intellectual quest,
openness, and diversity. The congregation was and still is a
relatively homogenous population on most demographic variables,
with a majority of pe0ple in the upper levels of education,
occupation, and income. To date, Mychurch has been able to keep its
image of a social action, intellectual, and open congregation.

However, things have also changed over the years and not everyone
is in agreement about the life and mission of the church.

One source of change has been in the pastoral leadership of the
congregation. While the previous leadership was focused on social
action and learning, the most recent leadership has a more
mainstream agenda with a focus on pastoral care, personal support,
and beliefs. In addition, some of the people in the congregation have
changed as they have moved through different stages in the lifecycle.
Their values and agendas have shifted over the years. Also, people’s
political agendas, value systems, and lifestyles have changed with
the American conservatism of the last two decades.

Another source of religious diversity has to do with the

diversity of history of the people in the UCC and in this congregation.

89

90

Some have grown up in the UCC while others have come for refuge
from more evangelical and/or traditional styles of Christianity. This
historical diversity has created a range of expectations and desires.

In addition, we have reviewed Weber’s classical approach of
social class and religious needs, as well as Martin Marty’s “Two-
Party” theory based on differing historical trends in the US. We
have tested our results to these theories to see if they are relevant to
this congregation.

To study the religious diversity and its possible sources at
Mychurch, we developed nine distinct theoretical dimensions of
religiosity with a series of items to measure them, some better than
others. We find support for a multi-dimensional approach to
religiosity, as all of the dimensions were found to be independent of
each other. Those with the highest support are ritual, personal
support, intellectual quest, and fellowship. In the open-ended
questions the most mentioned were social action, intellectual quest,
and openness and diversity. We also ﬁnd four distinct religious

groupings which are as follows:

belief/devotional/experiential/ritual or “other worldly”
fellowship/personal support

intellectual quest

social action

humu—

This gives us clear differentiation within our sample
population. Of these, the “other worldly” grouping is the most
contradictory of the image and mission of Mychurch. Until the
arrival in the mid-1980’s of a more traditional and belief oriented

pastor, this church had a history of a low emphasis on beliefs and

I

91

doctrine. We found this to be true as we even had resistance to
beliefs in sin and salvation. However, we still ﬁnd here a distinct,
yet minority, group of respondents who are ”other worldly" in
orientation. They place greater emphasis on devotionalism, beliefs,
experiences of the holy, and ritual, all of which correlate with each
other.

With these groupings established, we tried to explain this
variance and in particular this “other-worldly” group with the survey
data. We found no support from our length of attendance or level of
participation variables and only weak support from the SES
variables. Basically, the classical Weberian theory does not work well
within our homogenous population. It does ﬁt better if we think of
the congregation as a representation of the intellectual elites. As a
whole the congregation fits the “this-worldly” focus with the
exception of the minority “other-worldly” group. We do have some
resemblance to both of Marty’s Public and Private Protestants,
although his explanation of this split does not seem to apply to this
congregational situation.

The best source of this “other worldly” grouping that we found
has to do with a sense of social marginality. This was most evident
in respondents who are female, single, and/or childless. In different
combinations these have an affinity with devotionalism, ritual,
personal support, and experiencing the Holy. At this point, we need
further study of these three demographic variables.

In addition, other sources of religious diversity need to be

explored further in this context. While we did not ﬁnd much

 

val
ch:
ha“
the
an
ad.
ch;

at

It

div
rev
lea
for
our
rest
the
Stu.

DOS

ran;
con
We

Tab.

Cllhg

92

variance in needs with length of attendance, we do believe that the
change in leadership has some effect. Perhaps some people who
have been there for years themselves have changed and welcomed
the change in leadership. New people coming in might also be
attracted to this new and more traditional style of ministry. In
addition, we might examine changing political views as well as
changes throughout the lifecycle. Also, it may be interesting to look
at the religious histories of respondents to see which type of church,
if any, they were socialized.

Clearly, we need to give greater attention to social marginality.
It is here that we have the strongest evidence of a source of
diversity and also possibly the strongest theoretical grounding. In
reviewing Weber’s analysis, he theorized that people who had the
least social status and economic resources would have the most need
for an “other worldly” orientation. While this was not the case in
our population, we did ﬁnd that people with the least social
resources had “other worldly” needs. Perhaps social marginality has
the same effect in this congregation as low social class did in Weber’s
studies. It might prove fruitful to further develop this theoretical
position and then study marginality in this congregation.

Lastly, it is clear that we have a congregation that likes a broad
range of program opportunities. While we did not have strong
correlations between and with most of our dimensions of religiosity,
we did find strong support for most all of the dimensions. From
Table 3 we note that about three-quarters of the population marked

either “Very Important” or “Important” for each of the fellowship,

93

intellectual, and personal support dimensions. In addition, two-
thirds gave devotion, ritual, and social action the same higher
rankings. Even belief, which has the lowest preference in this
community, got high rankings by half of the people surveyed.

It is apparent that people might be religious on all of our
religious dimensions with some of them more salient than others.
Clearly, people in this population like a balanced mix, even though
they might press different issues. Given the lack of deﬁnitive
relationships between the dimensions and socio-economic status,
lifecycles, and so on, this may indeed be the most notable ﬁnding in
our study. Within this homogeneous population it is important for
people to have balanced religious opportunities despite their own

issues and preferences that they might push.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Questions from sections A, C, and F and the corresponding code for

each question.

A. What is important to you personally to you at Mychurch?

How do you rate the importanee of these emphases to you personally?

Very Somewhat Not so Not at all
M Llama W w Lineman;
4 3 2 l 0
Aa. TDEVOTN helping me seek a more spiritual life through prayer,
meditation, devotions.
Ab. TFELLOW offering me fellowship and social relationships with others.
Ac. TINTELL assisting me in my intellectual quest for truth, meaning, or
Christian perspectives.
Ad. TBELIEF strengthening belief in the biblical and theological teachings
of the Christian faith.
Ae. TRITUAL joining in the ritual of congregational worship services.
Af. TSUPORT caring for personal needs and crises of individuals and
families in the congregation.
Ag. TEXPERI providing experience of God or the sacred.
Aj. TAESTHE experiencing the aesthetics of spiritual expression through
music, architecture, other.
Ah. TADVOCA providing ways for me to work for justice and peace at home
and abroad.
Ai. TSERVIC offering me ways to respond to the needy in our community/

world through service.

Now, among these statements above, write the letter of the one that to you is:

most

important next most important least important

94

95

Appendix A (cont’d)

C. How important is each of the following aspects for the kind of church you
beHeve Mychurch should be?

Very Somewhat Not so Not at all Not
important Important important important important Sure
4 3 2 l 0 N

Ca. IWORSHP experiencing a meaningful Sunday morning worship service.
Cb. ICHNED offering a high quality religious educ. for K-8.
Cc. ICHSED offering a high quality religious educ. for high schoolers.
Cd. INEWMEM bringing new members into the church fellowship.
Ce. ISERMON listening to challenging and insightful sermons.
Cf. [BELIEF learning about the biblical teachings of the Christian church.
Cg. ICIVILR working in the society for the civil rights of all groups.
Ch. IDEVOTN finding a deeper spirituality through devotion and prayer.
Ci. IENABLE enabling members to minister to one another's needs.
Cj. IENVMNT understanding and acting on our responsibility for
environment as God's creation.
Ck. IYTHGRP providing young people with a meaningful social group
within the church.
Cl. IPLURAL encouraging respect for differing opinions and beliefs in the

congregation.

Cm. INEEDY taking action to help the needy in our community.

Cn. IJPREF offering reﬂection and study on key issues of justice and
peace.

Co. ITHEOLO studying the theology of the Christian faith.

Cp. ISUPPRT offering pastoral counseling and support in times of personal
and family crisis.

Cq. ILAITY encouraging and training laity to take leadership

Cr. IGENDER using gender-neutral and inclusive language in worship

Cs. ISOCACT acting with others in the congregation to change unjust
social conditions.

Ct. IFELLOW providing active social programs.

Cu. ISPGROW inspiring and assisting persons in their spiritual growth.

Cv. IAESTHE experiencing music, art, and architecture in the worship of
God.

Cw. IUCCMIS supporting the wider missions of the UCC.

Cx. ISMGRUP providing small groups for study, prayer, or mutual ministry.

Now, please review this list and eitele the lettets pf the ﬁve items that yott
be' v st ' t t for what Mychuteh sheuld he.

 

F.

96

Appendix A (cont’d)

Roles of the Mychurch Clergy.

How do you personally rate the importance of the following responsibilities of

t o dai e

Very
i m p o rt 0 nt

4

Fa. PSPIRIT
Fb. PDEVOTN
Fc. PFELLOW
Fd. PINTELL
Fe. PBIBLTH
Ff. PCOUNSL
Fg. PSICKDY
Fh. PCALLS
Fi. PEXPERN
F j. PENCJ P
Fk. PLEAJP
Fl. PWORSHP
F In . PBOARDS
F n . PMANAGR
Fo. PNEEDY
Fp. PVISION
Fq . PNEWMEM
F r . PCHSCH
Fs . PCONFIR
Ft. PDENOM
F u. PYOUTH
F v. POTHER

cler ?

Somewhat Not so Not at all Not

Important impprtant important impoptgnt Sure

3 2 l O N

counsels people in the congregation about their spiritual
growth and religious life.

offers programs on spirituality through prayer, meditation,
and devotion.

encourages fellowship among people in the congregation.
offers programs on challenging and thought-provoking
topics.

leads biblical and theological programs on the Christian faith.
provides pastoral counseling.

ministers to the sick, dying , and breaved.

makes pastoral calls in the homes or offices of members.
assists people in the congregation to experience God or the
holy.

encourages people to work for justice and peace at home and
abroad.

assumes leadership role in congregation and community on
justice and peace issues.

encourages creativity of expression in worship.

provides resources and organizes staff support to boards.
manages the use and maintenance of the grounds.

seeks to involve people to respond to the needy in community
and world.

provides a vision for the direction of the congregation.

seeks and visits new members.

works with church school.

conducts confirmation and new members’ classes.

promotes participation in denominational and ecumenical act.
works closely with youth and young adults.

any activity not mentioned.

 

97

Appendix A (cont’d)

Now, among these clergy activities above, write the letter of the one that to
you is:

most important next most important least important

98

Appendix A (continued)

Religious Beliefs (with respondent choice percentages)

1. Which of the following best expresses your belief about God?
1.0% a. I do not believe in God.
12.3 b. I really don't know what to believe about God.
14.4 c. I do not believe in a creating and saving God, but I do believe
in a higher power of some kind.
5.1 (1. God is the creator of an orderly world, but does not now guide it
or intervene in its course of affairs or the lives of individuals.
7.7 e. Although God has and can act in history and communicate
with persons directly, it is not something that happens very
often.
13.8 f. God is constantly at work in the world from "above” directing
people, nations, and events.
45.6 g. God is the world and is in every person, thing, and event.

2. Which of the following best expresses your belief about sin and salvation?

10.8% a. Sin and salvation really don't have much meaning to me
personally.

23.6 b. Sin is a helpful way of talking about people's capacity to harm
themselves and others, and salvation is a helpful way of talking
about hope for a better future.

38.9 c. I believe all people are inherently good, and to the extent sin
and salvation have meaning to all, it has to do with people
realizing or not realizing their human potential for good.

6.9 d. Although people are sinful, all people participate in God's
salvation regardless of how they live their life, even if they do
not believe in God.

17.2 c. All people are sinful but need only to believe in and ask for
God's forgiveness to be saved.

2.5 f. All people are sinful and if they are to be saved they must earn
it through living a good life, devoted to God.

99

Appendix A (cont’d)

Open-ended questions
What attracted you to Mychurch?
Do you feel Mychurch has a distinctive identity. If so, what is it?

What strengths of Mychurch do you most want to see enhanced in the years
ahead?

What changes are most needed in Mychurch’s programs, worship, and
activities?

Are there aspects of you life that are not now given attention at Mychurch. If
so, what are they?

If your attendance at worship has changed in the last few years, why?

If you involvement in church activities has changed in the last few years,
why?

APPENDIX B

Table 13
Demographic Characteristics

age (in years)

15-19 4.4% 40-49 25.4% 70-79 12.8%
20-29 2.4% 50-59 18.5% 80-86 2.0%
30-39 9.2% 60-69 20.9%
gender female 60.8% male 39.2%
marital status
single 13.3 % separated/divorced 8.0
widowed 5.8 married/with partner 72.6

members of household in age groups

0-4 years 8.5% middle school 10.6 18-25 yrs 16.1
elementary 21.2 high school 17.0

highest level of formal education
less than high school 3 .3 % college degree 12.8
high school grad 1.2 some post-grad 10.3
trade or vocational 0.0 masters/prof 36.8
some college 11.6 doctorate 23.6

principal employment

retired 23.0% full-time employed 48.0
full-time homemaker 4.1 part-time employed 14.3
full-time student 5.7 laid off/unemployed 1.2
part-time student 1.2

occupation

(NORC Occupational Prestige scores were used)

approximate household income (before taxes)?

under $15,000 4.9% 50,000-74,999 23.9
15,000-24,999 7.5 75,000-99,999 19.5
25,000-34,999 11.9 100,000-124,999 4.4
35,000-49,999 19.9 125,000 or more 4.0

100

APPENDIX C

Table 14
Merging] Frequencies pf Participation Variables

 

l. attendance
2. member yes 82.7% no 17.3%

3. frequency of worship attendance(per year)

11 o n e ( 0) 0.8% once a month(9) 8.7
once or twice/yr(2) 4.6 2 or 3 times a mo(23) .
once/twice 3 mo(S) 6 .6 every week(39) 51.0

(The per year numbers do not add up to a full year. This is because we
subtracted for lower summer attendance.)

4. worship attendance changed?
increased 15.3% same 56.8% decreased 28.0%
5 . church positions in past 2 years:

elected or appointed 43.3% Sunday school 18.6%
board/committee youth program

voluntary task force 32.3%
work group/other

6. time per month on all church activities(excluding worship) in
hours/month

0 hrs 32.0% 5-10hrs 31.2 31 or more 1.6
l-4hrs 23.5 ll-30hrs 11.6

7. participation increased or decreased?

increased 24.4% remained the same 54.4% decreased 21.2%

101

APPENDIX D

Table 15
Item to Item Correlations in Each Religiosity Scale

(See Appendix A for descriptions of the variables.)

Shela! Aetipn

TADVOCA ICIV ILR INEVMNT IJPREF ISOCACT
TADVOCA 1.00
ICIVILR .64 1.00
IENVMNT .33 .45 1.00
IJPREF .60 .52 .47 1.00
ISOCACT .67 .68 .48 .62 1.00
PENCJP .64 .57 .39 .52 .57
PLEAJP .54 .51 .41 .49 .58
TSERVIC .50 .55 .30 .37 .48
INEEDY .44 .56 .34 .38 .46
PNEEDY .40 .45 .36 .41 .41

A i i

PENCJP PLEAJP TSERVIC INEEDY PNEEDY
PENCJP 1.00
PLEAJP .60 1.00
TSERVIC .32 .28 1.00
INEEDY .39 .31 .55 1.00
PNEEDY .46 .37 .38 .47 1.00
A e st h et 1' e s

TAESTHE
IAESTHE .73
11113.1:

TBELIEF IBELIEF ITHEOLO PBIBLTH
TBELIEF 1.00
IBELIEF .54 1.00
ITHEOLO .41 .61 1.00
PBIBLTH .39 .44 .49 1.00

102

Damian;

TDEVOTN
I DEV OTN
IS PG R OW
PDEVOTN

TFELLOW
IYTHGRP
IFELLOW
PFELLOW

x ri

PEXPERN

TSUPORT
IENABLE
IS UPPRT
PCOUNSL
PSICKDY

TDEVOTN
1.00
.51
.35
.40

TFELLOW
1.00
.33
.54
.30

l

TEXPERI

.51

TS UPORT

1.00
.46
.22
.14
.20

103

APPENDIX D (CONT’D)

Table

IDEV OTN

1.00
.42
.49

IYTHGRP

1.00
.43
.27

IENABLE

1.00
.19
.21
.21

15 (cont’d)

ISPGROW

1.00
.25

IFELLOW

1.00
.36

ISUPPRT

1.00
.50
.29

PDEVOTN

1.00

PF ELLOW

1.00

PCOUNSL PSICKDY

1.00
.37 1.00

In I

TNTELL
ISERMON
PINTELL

Ritual

IWORSHP

TNTELL
1.00
.30
.34

TRITUAL
.35

104

APPENDIX D (CONT’D)

Table 15 (cont’d)

ISERMON PINTELL

1.00
.25 1.00

APPENDIX E

Table 16
Results of Religiosity Scale Factor Analyses

 

Using the Principal-Components Analysis (PC) and the Varimax
Rotation.

 

Factor Eigenvalue Pet. of Var.
l 5.60 17.0%
2 4.37 13.2
3 3.10 9.4
4 1.93 5.8
5 1.80 5.5
6 1.43 4.3
7 1.21 3.7
8 1.10 3.3
9 1.02 3.1 Total: 65.4%

105

106

Table 16 (cont’d)

APPENDIX E (CONT’D)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables
by thematic Factor (minus sign indicates a negative loading)
groupings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TDEVOTN .22- .38 .16- .30 .01 .21 .14- .21 .34-
IDEVOTN .01 .60 .12- .39 .06 .31 .13- .30 .13-
ISPGROW .08 .28 .10 .32 .17 .30 .04 .62 .01
PDEVOTN .06 46 .01 .22 .08 .15 .08 .02 .30-
TFELLOW .09 .05 .77 .01 .05 .12 .10 .06 .07
IYTHGRP .11 .05 .67 .09 .05 .07 .04 .17 .11
IFELLOW .08 .05 .79 .01 .08 .07 .09 .05 .16
PFELLOW .05 .02 .63 .06 .09 .18 .03 .12- .37-
TINTELL .05 .18 .15- .06 .07 .12— .62 .52 .05
ISERMON .03 .06 .12- .02 .01 .04 .76 .07 .09
PINTELL .11 .11 418 .16— .08 .04 .66 .05 .42-
TBELIEF .05 .69 .17- .18 .07 .01 .02 .14- .08
IBELIEF .00 .80 .00 .19 .03 .09 .04 .04 .03
ITHEOLO .18 .78 .ll .09 .04 .03 .14 .13 .01
PBIBLTH .08 .73 .0] .04 .03 .06 .11 .01 .20
TRITUAL .06 .29 .17- .18 .40 .13 .10- .42- .25
IWORSHP .03 .25 .30- .40 .12 .02 .33 .40- .11
TSUPORT .07 .ll .20 .02 .02 .70 .08 .06 .16
IENABLE .07 .09 .30 .15 .01 .68 .12- .21 .03
MDL .12- .09 .22 .05 .15 .2L .02 .03 .70
TEXPERI .14 .16 .10 .79 .02 .10 .08 .00 .01
PEXPERN .03 .30 .02 .73 .02 .04 .13- .10 .04
TAESTHE .15 .06 .14 .06 .88 .00 .06 .07 .05
IAESTHE .07 .02 .13 .02 .88 .01 .02 .11 .12
TADVOCA .82 .00 .15- .04 .08 .03 .03 .07 .11—
ICIVILR .82 .02 .00 .01 .06 .19 .01 .00 .09-
IJPREF .73 .18 .03 .01 .15 .02 .13 .28 .10-
ISOCACT .84 .09 .07 .05 .08 .02 .06 .10 .01
PENCJP .77 .06 .03 .28 .05 .14- .ll .06 .04
PLEAJP .73 .01 .07 .05 .11 .28- .04 .02 .03
TSERVIC .64 .04 .04 .ll .06 .43 .09 .02 .01
INEEDY .67 .00 .04 .05 .06 .41 .l l- .02 .01
PNEEDY .62 .03 .12 .07 .14 .11 .09 .06 .09

APPENDIX F

Table 17
Frequencies of Section C (Program Preferences)

Section C

Note: To simplify this table we only report the frequencies of the items
circled “most important”, those marked “most important,” “very important,”
and “not so or not at all important.” Also, we report the weighted means for
each variable.

Not so/
Most Very Not at Weighted
uestio ' o ta t ' orta all ' or a t
Ca. IWORSHP 50.4% 67.8% 1.7% 4.2
Cb. ICHNED 36.8 60.3 2.2 3.9
Cc. ICHSED 22.5 53.2 2.2 3.6
Cd. INEWMEM 8.2 22.9 6.5 3.0
Ce. ISERMON 30.6 52.3 1.3 3.8
Cf. IBELIEF 5 2 19.8 12.5 2.7
Cg. ICIVILR 10.0 30.3 9.1 3.0
Ch. IDEVOTN 7.7 24.5 9.8 2.8
Ci. IENABLE 15.6 34.2 5.6 3.2
Cj. IENVMNT 10.7 32.0 6.6 3.1
Ck. IYTHGRP 21.6 42.2 2.2 3.4
CI. IPLURAL 24.9 52.8 9.0 3.7
Cm. INEEDY 20.9 42.1 2.1 3.6
Cn. IJPREF 8.6 22.4 7.8 2.8
Co. ITHEOLO 3.0 16.5 12.5 2.6
Cp. ISUPPRT 23.8 48.9 1.3 3.7
Cq. ILAITY 1.8 17.0 11.6 2.6
Cr. IGENDER 6.0 17.7 42.2 2.0
Cs. ISOCACT 10.4 24.8 9.1 2.9
Ct. IFELLOW 10.8 22.8 9.1 2.9
Cu. ISPGROW 13.0 29.6 5.7 3.2
Cv. IAESTHE 8.5 23.0 8.5 2.9
Cw. IUCCMIS 5 .8 12.4 11.9 2.5
Cx. ISMGRUP 5.6 22.1 6.5 2.8

107

108

APPENDIX F (cont’d)

Table 18
Fr ncies f ction F ler R01 5

Note: In this table we include the catagories “most/next most important,”
“very important,” “not so/not at all important,” and the weighted means.

Most/ Not so/
Next Most Very Not at Weighted

ues ion 0 ta t o a 1 0 tan M
Fa. PSPIRIT 11.5% 38.5% 3.5% 4.3
Pb. PDEVOTN 6.5 26.2 4.4 4.0
Fe. PFELLOW 7.7 32.9 3.4 4.2
Fd. PINTELL 13.0 32.3 6.0 4.2
Fe. PBIBLTH 5.6 24.5 6.0 3.9
Ff. PCOUNSL 10.7 51.3 2.2 4.5
Fg. PSICKDY 15.1 66.5 0.0 4.8
Fh. PCALLS 1.3 16.7 19.3 3.3
Fi. PEXPERN 19.0 26.2 11.3 4.1
Fj. PENCJP 10.4 27.0 6.9 4.0
Fk. PLEAJP 5.7 20.5 10.5 3.6
F1. PWORSHP 5.6 24.8 14.4 3.6
Fm. PBOARDS 3.2 17.6 8.6 3.7
Fn. PMANAGR 0.9 4.5 42.8 1.9
Fo. PNEEDY 12.9 29.6 4.3 4.1
Fp. PVISION 37.4 59.5 3.4 5.0
Fq. PNEWMEM 3.0 18.8 10.0 3.7
Fr. PCHSCH 0.8 19.0 6.9 3.7
Fs. PCONFIR 1.3 34.2 3.5 4.0
Ft. PDENOM 2.2 22.8 8.4 3.6
Fu. PYOUTH 3.5 26.0 4.3 3.9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Babbie Earl
1989 The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.

Berger, Peter et. al
1986 Liberal Protestantism. New York: The Pilgrim Press.

Bhornstedt, George W., and David Knoke
1988 Statistics for Social Data Analysis. Itasca, IL: Peacock
Publishers.

Carroll, Jackson W., and Carl Dudley, and William McKinney
1985 Handbook for Congregational Studies. Nashville: Abingdon
Press.

Carmines, Edward G., and Richard A. Zeller
1979 Reliability and Vaildity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Clayton, Richard R., and James W. Gladden
1974 "The ﬁve dimensions of religiosity: Toward demythologizing

a sacred artifact." Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion
13:135-143.

Cornwall, Marie, and Stan Albrecht
1986 ”The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model With an
Empirical Test.” Review of Religious Research 27:226-243.

Davidson, James D.
1975 ”Glock's model of religious commitment: Assessing some
different approaches and results." Review of Religious
Research 16:83—93.

109

BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont’d)

Davidson, James D., and Dean D. Knudsen
1977 ”Socio-economic Status and Ten Dimensions of Religious
Commitment." Sociology and Social Research 61:462-485.

1 9 7 7 ”A New Approach to Religious Commitment” Sociological
Focus10:151-173.

Faulkner, LE, and Gordon DeJong
1966 ”Religiosity in 5-D: An empirical analysis.” Social Forces
45:246-254.

Glock, Charles Y., and Benjamin Ringer, and Earl Babbie
1967 To Comfort and To Challenge. Berkeley: Univ. of California
Press.

Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark
1965 Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand McNally.

1968 American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hoge, Dean R., and Jeffrey L. Faue
1973 ”Sources of Conﬂict Over Priorities of the Protestant Church"
social Forces 52:178-194.

Hoge, Dean R.
1976 Division in the Protestant House. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press.

Kerlinger, Fred N.

1986 Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: CBS College
Publishing.

Kersten, Lawrence K.
1970 The Lutheran Ethic. Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press.

111

BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont’d)

King, Morton B
1967 ”Measuring the Religious Variable: Nine Proposed
Dimensions.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
6:173-185.

King, Morton B., and Richard A. Hunt
1972 ”Measuring the Religious Variable: Replication." Journal for
the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion 11:240-251.

1975 ”Measuring the Religious Variable: National Replication."
Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion 14:13-22.

Lenski, Gerhard
1963 The Religious Factor. (revised edition) Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books.

Marty, Martin E.
1970 Righteous Empire. New York: The Dial Press.

McAllister, Ian
1983 ”Religious Commitment and Social Attitudes in Ireland.”
Review of Religious Research 25:3-20.

Mueller, G. H.
1980 ”The Dimensions of Religiousity.” Sociological Analysis 41:1-
24.

Niebuhr, Richard H.
1929 The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Works
Publishing.

Norusis, Marija J.
1988 The SPSS Guide to Data Analysis for SPSS. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Singleton Royce Jr.
1988 Approaches to Social Research. Oxford University Press.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
illWilliillllliilililillii"WI”Iiiiiiilili
31293014051837