Dimensionality of Belief Among Mainstream Protestant Clergy

Abstract

In this analysis of 7,443 parish clergy from six mainstream Protestant denominations, we have examined the clustering of religious beliefs. The survey provides a substantially more sophisticated array of theological belief than previous research, and covers sixteen theological content areas. Underlying these belief statements are a small number of factors which are, with minor exceptions, similar across denominations. The key factor which represents the major dimension of belief among Protestant clergy forms a continuum from a relatively literal to a relatively demythologized interpretation of the faith. We have conluded, therefore, that the structure of belief among mainstream Protestant clergy is unidimensional. We would further speculate that the most significant concomitants of belief would stem from this fact. The history of any academic discipline or subdiscipline can be viewed as the history of conceptual development and refinement. Such work in the sociology of has focused strongly on the concept of religiosity. That which at one time seemed easily measured in terms of affiliation and church attendance is no longer seen as so simple. One school of definition-makers has chosen the device of distinguishing between the truly and the nominally religious. They have tended to bifurcate religious commitment into two categories variously called committed and consensual religion (Allen and Spilka), primary and secondary religion (Clark), moral commitment and calculative involvement (Ashbrook), and, of course, interiorized and institutionalized or intrinsic and extrinsic (Allport, a, b, c, d, e). The principal criterion in each case is commitment to religion; whether, as Allport puts it, one uses or lives it. Such a distinction may be useful in moving one step beyond affiliation and attendance in coaxing out the influence of on attitudes and behavior, but it begs the question of the nature of the religious variable. As the 1960s began, a new set of typologies was introduced, and the dimensionality debate escalated. Perhaps the most influential contribution was made by Glock (a, b) who proposed five dimensions of religion: beliefs, practice, experience (or feelings), knowledge, and effects (or consequences). Fukuyama (3a, b), working along similar lines, proposed four dimensions which he named credal, cultic, devotional and cognitive orientations. Laboring independently, but within similar patterns, Lenski proposed that religious commitment be broadened to include informal social interaction within religious groupings. This communal dimension was shown to powerfully supplement the traditional associational dimension, *We are indebted to Edwin E. Erickson for his technical advice during our data analysis as well as that of Gary Maranell during the write-up.