Science in Christian Perspective
Sociology and the Christian Student:
A Statement of the Problem1
Richard Perkins
Houghton College
Houghton, New York 14744
From: JASA 32
(June1980): 114-118.
It appears to be self-evident that a certain amount of antipathy
exists between evangelical and fundamentalistic forms of Christianity
on the one
hand, and the behavioral sciences on the other. Moreover, sociology
in particular
seems to attract more than its share of attention when this antipathy
is recognized
and debated publicly. A friend recently attended a Southern Baptist church in
Florida and returned with this account of the message: the minister
emphatically
agrued that college education can-and often does-create real problems for the
Christian student. He therefore recommended that parents in the
congregation send
their sons and daughters to (preferably local)
"Bible-believing" colleges.
Beyond this, he maintained that under no circumstances should they permit their
children-whether they be at a local Christian college or not to- enroll
in sociology
courses. For, should higher education in general not prove fatal to
their faith,
sociology surely would.
As a college professor, a sociologist, and as one who would classify
himself (should
the need arise) as an evangelical Christian, I believe the minister
has a point.
Of course, I do not think that intellectually capable students should stay out
of college or that they should avoid sociology: at the very least, my
vested interests
in both would urge me to reject that stance. But I do believe that
Christian faith
and sociology do not easily mix --that is, they do not lend
themselves as readily
to intellectual synthesis as biology (or, better yet, physics) and
Christianity.
Of course, this is not the first time a more general version of this issue has
been raised. The question of the incompatability of science and
religion is, obviously,
one which has received the atten
tion of many scholars.2 The central question in these essays revolves
around the
real or apparent intellectual antipathy between faith and reason as the basis
for one's world view. While there need be no necessary logical
inconsistency between
these two perspectives, we find that they are often held to be
alternative, rather
than merely different, orientations used in making sense out of the world. The
apparent 'winner' in this on-going struggle has been science whereas the Bible
claims that the "just shall live by faith," the typical
citizen of modern
society increasingly seems to prefer living by empirical observation. From the
outcome of the famous Scopes trial to the local pastor who now
consults psychology
texts in order to formulate his moral pronouncements on the effects
of TV viewing,
science has steadily made inroads into areas previously defined as
the exclusive
domain of religion.3
In addition to the issues arising from science posed as an
alternative Weltanschauung,
the argument has also extended to the more specific subject of the behavioral
sciences. Here again there is no shortage of analytical literature. It is when
religion (as an individual's belief system or as a bureaucratic organization)
becomes the dependent variable in psychological, anthropological, or
sociological
theories that the otherwise implicit conflict between social science
and religious
commitment becomes explicit. Here the student is confronted with
empirical evidence-not
someone's opinion, mind you-demonstrating that religiosity vanes with
such non-supernatural
factors as income, sex, occupational status, education,
authoritarianism, anomie,
tolerance for ambiguity, peer group pressures, and various forms of
psychological
complexes. Moreover, the churches which parishioners form in their collective
pursuit of organized religion typically turn out to be very similar
to non-religious
bureaucratic organizations in their financial manipulations,
promotional schemes,
career motivations, and so forth. In other words, behavioral science has shown
religion to be a very human (i.e.. "secular") activity
indeed, and while
this may not provide Christian students with a rationale for pitching
their faith,
it probably causes many of them to look at religion in a very
different (and henceforth
critical) light.
The Sociology- Christianity Debate
When we focus more specifically on the role of sociology in this
on-going debate,
we find that very little has been written-especially when the object
is to analyze
the effect that the study of sociology has on the religious commitment of the
evangelical Christian student.4
Rather than attempt a full-scale analysis of all the 'trouble spots.' I briefly
discuss two issues in contemporary sociology which pose potential problems for
Christian faith-particularly the faith of Christian students studying sociology
for the first time. One of these issues deals with the results of
empirical studies
in the sociology of religion and the other arises from sociological theory as
applied to the interpretation of one's daily existence.
Empirical Findings and Faith
There exists within sociology a strong, yet often implicit, theme which Peter
Berger and others refer to as the "debunking motif:"
"The sociological frame of reference, with its built-in
procedure of looking
for levels of reality other than those given in the official
definitions of society,
carries with it the logical imperative to unmask the pretensions and
the propaganda
by which men cloak their actions with each other."5
In some cases this unmasking effort is deliberate and therefore
obvious. For example,
sociologists point out that things are not always as them seem: that
the operations
of bureaucratic organizations are influenced by informal social controls which
are not included on the official tables of organizational authority
or that people
"fall in love" for many reasons which are not recognized
(or, at least
not acknowledged publicly) by the lovers themselves. In other words,
sociologists
often find through their studies of social behavior that there is a
lot more going
on than what the
people say is going on. Moreover, these "unofficial" levels
of reality
uncovered by sociological analysis involve insights which to many
seem threatening.
For example, lovers tend to become somewhat disenchanted when it is pointed out
to them that many of the factors which play a part in shaping their
relationship
have absolutely nothing to do with Cupid's arrows.6
More to the point, sociology has contributed alternative perspectives
on religious
interaction which many persons find uncomfortable- -perhaps even
outrageous. For
example, it was the sociologist Max Weber, following the suggested (if somewhat
less sophisticated) lead of Karl Marx, who undertook the first
fullscale empirical
investigation of religious styles and social location, showing that religious
world views vary in systematic and consistent ways from one social
class to another.
More recently, H. Richard Niebuhr has given us a detailed
sociohistorical analysis
of denominational growth and the political and economic forces which, at least
in part, generated them.7
Empirical studies in the sociology of religion have frequently
revealed findings
which debunk the image many Christian students have of the church.
Liston Pope's
analysis of Gastonia, North Carolina, for example, uncovered the
blatant ideological
functions of local Protestant churches and the role that sermons
played in thwarting
the union effort in the textile industry.8 Festinger's study of a
millenarian sect
reveals that the underlying dynamic in binding a congregation together is based
upon social and psychological factors having little, if anything, to
do with acknowledged
religious goals.9
Other studies have also shown that vigorous orthodox commitments
often come from
persons who represent anything but those who have been profoundly "touched
by the love of God." For the most part, these studies have shown
that religious
orthodoxy and religious commitment are strongest in those persons who are most
authoritarian and dogniatic,10 illiberal and closeminded,11 so
cially isolated,12 ethnocentric,13 and anti-democratic.14 Findings
such as these are hardly likely to make the Christian student wish to renew his
or her commitment to the family of professed believers.15
An addition to pointing out that God's people possess feet of clay,
(or even perhaps
that their feet are dirtier than most), sociological analysis also rests upon
the observation that values are relative to the group which endorses them: that
is to say, one's perception of the world is more realistically described as an
interpretation and one's interpretation varies according to the group in which
one is socially located. Thus, the student of sociology inevitably
discovers that
values are relative. Yet, at the same time, the Christian is, by
definition, committed
to a set of absolute values -conceptions of how the world ought to
operate which
are said not to be subject to historical, geographic, or social factors. Even
though the value-relativism of the social scientists belongs in the category of
empirical claims while the absolute values of the Christian
respresent a non-empirical
judgment, the possibility of intellectual tension between the two nonetheless
exists. For many Christian students, a "belief in" one necessitates
rethinking one's "belief in" the other.
There is at least one more reason to suspect that the findings from
sociological
research tend 10 run counter to the world-view shared by most
Christian students.
Most of these students subscribe to the common sense notion that attitudes have
causal primacy over behavior. Even though this "attitudes
first" thesis
is widely held in American culture in general, there is good reason to suspect
that evangelical Christians have an even greater attachment to this
style of thinking.
The basic goal of evangelical Christians is to expand the influence of Christ
on earth. The means to this end is some variation of "soul-winning."
Here the mind of the non-believer is the basic focus rather than the
non-believer's
behavior. In other words, the emphasis is on the "heart" rasher than
superficial externalities of behavior. To express this in biblical terms, the
Epistle of James, while not forgotten, takes a back seat
to the Epistle of Hebrews: faith is placed first -and changes in
behavior follow.
The point here is not to debate the theological issue at hand, but to point out
that this sort of reasoning is likely to have an effect on the way in which one
generally interprets the world. It is at this point that the student discovers
(and, it is my experience that this discovery is accompanied by some degree of
discomfort) that conclusions from research studies run counter to
this assertion.
Although the attitudes-behavior relationship is at least in part
reciprocal, the
emphasis appears so he on behavior changing attitudes, rather than on the other
way around. Thomas Pettigrew puts the matter succinctly:
"behaving differently
more often precedes thinking differently."16
What is at issue here is not merely a matter of revising one's thoughts about
a rather abstract relationship. Rather, this intellectual shift has
the potential
to shift one's theology as well, and it is this shift which brings out the real
threat. Is must occur to at least some of these students that one's religious
commitment is a function of one's typical behavior (as a factor of one's social
location, reference groups, etc.). Peter Berger, whose Invitation To Sociology
is assigned reading in many introductory courses, says as much in the following
quote: "Rules carry with them both certain actions and the
emotions and attitudes
that belong to these actions.
...
The preacher finds himself believing what he preaches ... In other words, one
becomes (a believer) by engaging in activities which presuppose belief."17
Many students find this notion upsetting not simply because it contradicts the
speculations of common sense, but because it threatens to undermine
the validity
of their spiritual commitment.
Sociological Theory and Religious Faith
As is indicated in the preceding paragraph, underlying all theoretical work in
sociology-from functiunalistic stratification models to labeling
theories of social
deviance-is the proposition that reality is socially constructed.
This enterprise
in reality construction initially takes place as human beings
collectively project
meanings unto objects and events which confront them. Thus, instead
of confronting
a chaotic and therefore terrifying world, the average member of
society can rest
assured that Normal people are going about their Normal affairs.
The crucial point in all this- -and one which often goes unnoticed
unless sociologists
are around to point it out -is that this socially constructed reality
is stabilized
by the inevitable process of reification, whereby these meanings take
on an ontological
status they otherwise do not deserve. It is one thing for persons to
declare that
"little girls are not aggressive," thereby creasing (assuming this is
a new idea) a predictable and therefore meaningful social world in
which to operate:
it is quite another thing to assume that little girls must be unaggressive. The
motive for the first statement is usually nothing more than sheer convenience:
the behavior of little girls ought to be at least somewhat predictable; if it
were not, social order would be less tenable than it already is. Here
it is implied
that normal little girls can be anything humanly imaginable and that
unaggrcssivcness
is the role we somehow happened to settle on. But the second
statement more accurately
characterizes the social world in which most of us live most of the time; the
issue of normality in little-girl behavior is not ordinarily open for serious
debate. Once established as Normal behavior, our roles as traditionally defined
tend to become fixed and immutable; in other words, the meanings symbolized by
these roles become reified.
Of course, all of these ideas are common to any introductory
sociology course.18
It is my experience that ideas such as these tend to transform the
consciousness
of students; what was previously seen as ordinary (and rather dull)
everyday social
behavior now becomes a fascinating if not consciously-planned
conspiracy to maintain
an artificial, socially imposed set of meanings. But the Christian student is
likely to react with shock when he or she learns of the part which religion has
historically played in this conspiracy.
This is neither the time nor the place to go into a detailed empirical account
of how religious movements have involved themselves in
reality-maintenance enterprises
throughout history.19 More to the point of this paper, it should be
emphatically
underscored that this sort of intellectual revelation can, and often does, have
a profound effect upon Christian students. Quite often these students
have previously
been encouraged to think of religion as a purely personal affair-not
in the sense
that it is "private," but in the sense that religion has
not been perceived
as a collective social enterprise subject to the same institutional factors as
are other spheres of collective action. When seen as just one more
institutionalized
activity, religious faith can become (to use Max Weber's famous
concept) disenchanted:
i.e., it can lose its distinctive character. When the realm of the sacred falls
within the analytical purview of the social scientist, the phenomenon
itself must
inevitably be transformed from a unique aspect of human experience
into just another
mundane human activity. The point here is to acknowledge that the
Christian student
of social behavior is likely so find him or herself in a difficult
position: the
detached sardonic observer is a tough role to integrate with that of committed
believer. The result is quite often either anxiety and tension or an alteration
of one or both of the roles, so that they can be played without
enduring the cognitive
dissonance involved. When the second option is exercised, the result will be a
poor grasp of sociology's analytical purpose, the loss of some
measure of religious
commitment, or perhaps an alteration of the original religious world view.
Closely related to this problem is the collectivistic orientation of sociology
and the typically individualistic nature of contemporary Christian faith. One
of the distinct traits of Christianity-Protestantism in particular,
and its evangelical
wings even more so-is its individualistic character. Christ may
indeed have "died
for the sins of the world" but evangelicals stress that the atonement must
take on a distinctly personal significance for the individual
believer. Throughout
the conversation of the typical Christian one notes an orientation focused on
the individual and not the corporate nature of social life: for
example, the concept
of sin is normally thought of in individualistic terms. As God commands us to
love our neighbor, so those who hate are sinning-and are doing it individually.
Similarly, the sinner is seen as reconciled to God through Christ as
an individual
and not in any corporate sense. (The "old dispensation" may
have stressed
the social covenant, but the "new dispensation" does not).
As a result,
the idea that the church represents something more than the total
number of individual
saints is certainly an uncommon notion for evangelical Christians
today. Yet this
"something more" thesis lies at the heart of what is known
as the "sociological
perspective." Society represents something over and above the sum total of
all the individuals -a social force not reducible to its component parts. This
"some-thing more" is, of course, its institutionalized
system of interaction
which operates as an independent variable in its own right.
Arthur Holmes, philosopher and evangelical Christian, claims that
"Christians
believe that the source of evil is ultimately within a man, not without"
and that "the nature of man undergirds his behavior and his
institutions,"20
But the sociological theories on criminal behavior, suicide, marital
instability,
economic inequality, prejudice, and so on all stress causal variables which lie
outside the individual. The image of the individual given in such
"Durkheimian"
theories is of a leaf before the wind-unaware of the causes of his behavior and
therefore not responsible for them. Thus, it is the social institutions which
shape the "nature of man" and not, as Holmes would have us believe,
the other way around. This is the message which sociology is likely
to leave with
the Christian student.
The basic pedagogical purpose behind every sociology course is to clarify the
analytical connection between the students' individual biography and the social
system of which he or she is a member. It is therefore apparent that insofar as
the professor succeeds in doing just this, he or she threatens the
epistemological
foundations of evangelical Christianity.21 What, for example, is to
be the conclusion
of the student of sociology who discovers that American racism
represents something
more than merely the sum total of prejudiced individuals: that racism
represents
an institutionalized system distributing the economic surplus
unequally according
to skin color-a system which continues to operate despite our "best"
intentions and equalitarian laws? The student is either forced to
compartmentalize
his or her thoughts into "sociological" and
"Christian" areas,
refuse to internalize the findings of sociology, or reformulate his
or her religious
faith--often with far-reaching and rather unsettling consequences.22
Summary and Conclusion
Before any argument can provide an adequate explanation, the component parts of
that argument must be fully explicated. While there have been numerous previous
attempts to explicate a "Christian sociology" or (more modestly) to
demonstrate how Christianity and sociology can be intellectually
integrated, there
have been few, if any, attempts to outline the specific areas in
which Christianity
and sociology contribute to the construction of mutually antagonistic
world views.
As we have noted, at least part of this incompatibility is due to the status of
sociology vis-a-vis the scientific method of inquiry. Other problems are due to
sociological issues which arise from both its empirical findings and from its
general theoretical approach. Both of these areas are introduced in most basic
sociology courses and it is here where we typically see the most apparent (as
well as the first) evidence of the. sociology-Christianity debate.
Several points must be carefully noted before this discussion is closed. First,
the intensity of this "debate" will vary, depending upon the nature
of both the students' faith and the presentation of sociology by the
course instructor.
For the student whose faith has been closely examined, or who is enrolled in a
sociology course in which the unique sociological perspective is not
clearly presented
in an integrated manner, this encounter is not likely to be traumatic. But for
the student whose Christian faith is naive, and who encounters a rigorous and
well-integrated sociology course, this encounter can sometimes reach
crisis proportions.
Furthermore, the encounter-should it occur-is not likely to be a public event.
More typically, the Christian student's struggle is a private affair: he or she
engages in the debate as a solitary combatant without the immediate
aid of sympathetic
peers. Furthermore, the private nature of this situation undoubtedly
accentuates
the conflict: not only does the responsibility for an adequate apologetic fall
squarely on his or her (normally unprepared) shoulders, but the
social situation
of the classroom typically exacerbates the tension: everyone else
seems to unmoved
by all this apparent contradiction. Thus the issue of deviance and intellectual
abnormality is sometimes added to the pressure already felt. To be
troubled when
everyone else is troubled is one thing: to be the only troubled soul within a
sea of complacency is quite another. Finally, the teacher may turn
out to be quite
unsympathetic to any student's question if it appears to be based
upon any epistemological
foundation other than relativistic empiricism.
This scenario, of course, can be easily worked into a defense of
Christian education.
But the intent of those who participate in and defend the purpose of Christian
higher education mutt not be to simply remove the cause of all the anxiety. A
deliberately sociology-less Christian educational curriculum is deficient and
pays no respect to either Christianity or education. Furthermore, constructing
a sociology program around faculty who evidently lack the
sociological imagination-regardless
of the purity and vigor of their faith contributes nothing towards the goal of
liberal education which most Christian colleges claim to support. In the words
of Arthur Holmes, Christian higher education ". . . shuns
tacked-on moralizing
and applications, stale and superficial approaches that fail to penetrate the
real intellectual issues."23 Our
task as Christians involved in higher education is to seek a synthesis of faith
and knowledge. But this task cannot he successfully undertaken as
long as "the
real intellectual issues" remain improperly outlined and
misunderstood.
References
1I would like to thank Gerry Fuller and Dale Hess of Westminster
College for their
assistance in reading the first draft of this paper.
20f the empirical studies, perhaps the best known is Charles Y.
Glock and Rodney Stark's in Religion and Society in Tension
(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965); cf. Chapter 14, "On the incompatability of
religion and science." While the Glock and Stark essay is useful
in observing
the effects of the religion-science clash it does not provide us with very many
insights into why this clash develops. Nor does the essay take a
peculiar position
vis-a-vis theology; their measurement of "religion" remains
rather general
throughout. The purpose of this essay will be to examine probable causes of the
antipathy and to consider evangelical Christian presuppositions in particular.
This is a task which has not as yet received very much attention.
3Even if we take into consideration the current meditation fad, the
presumed growth
of "Consciousness III," and the formation of Americanized
eastern cults,
the same general conclusion has to be drawn for our society taken as
a whole.
4See, for example, David Lyon's Christians and Sociology (Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1976); Jack Balswiek and Dawn Ward, "The nature of man
and scientific
models of society," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 28 (1976),
181185. Most essays such as these center on the "nature of
man" issue-a
"heavy" philosophical problem which does (and should)
concern intellectuals,
but one which does not concern very many undergraduate students
(except in superficial
ways) at least at the introductory level, where most students come in contact
with sociology. Therefore, the distinction between the essays cited above and
the one in hand is that this one is attempting to center on a few
prominent issues
which inevitably crop up in most introductory sociology courses- ones which are
likely to pose problems to the uninitiated Christian student. Since
few of these
students are expected to read this essay, it is being directed at sociologists
who teach at Christian colleges where an integration of faith and learning is
desired and expected. As such, it constitutes a warning to
undergraduate teachers
of sociology of potential problems between Christian faith and sociology rather
than an attempted integration of the two.
5
Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology (Garden City, New York: Anchor, 1965), p.
38.
6Peter Berger, ibid., p. 35.
7Cf. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. Of course, Niebuhr acknowledged
(as did Max Weher) that the causal schema runs both ways: that religious faith
influences, as well as is influenced by, one's social location and
social structure
in general. See Neibuhr's Kingdom of God in America, and Weber's The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
To a certain extent, this mode of analysis coincides with common
sense; even the
most fanatical advocate of religious determinism would have to
concede that "religion"
per se had very little to do with the original nineteenth century separation of
southern and northern brands of Methodists, Presbyterians, or
Baptists. Why would
one nineteenth century Baptist group have asserted with full
sincerity that slavery
was ordained by God while another, equally sincere and emphatic,
maintained that
slavery represented an absolute evil? It does not take a particularly
sophisticated
observer to conclude that in a ease such as this we must overlook all the pious
rhetoric and investigate certain prominent economic and political
forces-forces
that neither group of true believers in the above example would wish
to acknowledge
as pertinent.
8
Millhands and Preachers, (New Haven: Yale University Press, l942.
9Festinger, et al., When Prophecy Fails (New York: Harper
Torchbooks,
1956).
10J D. Photiadis and A. Johnson, "Orthodoxy, church participation, and authoritarianism,"
American Journal of Sociology,
69 (1963), 111-128.
11Milton Rokeaeh, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books. 1960).
12R. Stark and Charles Y. Gloek, American Piety: The Nature of
Religious Commitment (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1968); Glock, Ringer, and Babbie, To Comfort and
Challenge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).
13Gordon Ailport, The Nature of Prejudice (Garden City: Doubleday and
Co., 1954);
R. L. Gorsuch and D. Aleshire, "Christian faith and prejudice: a review of
research," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13
(September, 1974),
281-300.
14E. L. Struening, "Antidemocratic attitudes in a midwestern University," in
Antidemocratic Attitudes in American Schools,
edited by H. H. Remmers (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University
Press, 1963).
15The point here is that findings such as those reported in the
previously mentioned
studies are those which the student is likely to confront in a sociology class:
the point is not that these studies represent all there is to say on
the matter,
or that they are free from any methodological defect.
16Thomas Pettigrew, Racially Separate or Together? McGrawHill (1971),
p. 279,
17Peter Berger, op. cit., p. 96.
18Every sociology course, that is, which is worthy of the
designation. It is recognized
that some "sociologists" lack what Mills called the
"sociological
imagination" and whose courses, as a result, constitute nothing
more theoretically
rigorous than lectures on current events or "problems of democracy,"
and whose discussions rarely go beyond what one could otherwise find on the six
o'clock news. In addition, I have the sneaking suspicion that such
nonsoeiologieal
sociologists have a way of finding their way into the faculties of
Christian colleges
at a rate which exceeds what would exist were recruitment due solely to chance.
In other words, Christian sociologists--when taken as a group -appear
to be less
oriented towards theoretical sociology than others in that their courses tend
to substitute a discussion of otherwise unrelated concrete events for abstract
systems theory, as well as typically substituting a normative for an impsrieal
basis of discussion.
I readily admit that these conclusions are based on nothing more
substantial than
impressionistic observations. I would be greatly relieved to find out that they
are, in fact, untrue.
19The interested but intellectually uninitiated reader would do
well to read
Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy (Garden City, New York: 1969),
especially Chapter
2, "Religion and world maintenance."
20 The Idea of a Christian College (Grand Rapids, Michigan: E. Erdman's, 1975),
p. 47 and p. 52. The word "ultimately" in the sentence
quoted obscures
the issue somewhat. Even so, there is a tension between the
"interior"
causes proposed by conservative theology and the "exterior"
causes proposed
by the social sciences, especially sociology.
21I say this knowing that Christian behavioral and social scientists
are dedicated
to the task of integrating the scientific perspective with that of Christianity
(or vice versa). But the question we are addressing here concerns the tensions
inherent between sociology and Christianity, and not how successful Christian
behavioral scientists are in handling this tension in the classroom.
This pedagogical
issue is, of course, quite important
and hopefully this and other essays on the subject will sponsor some comment in
future publications on how various members of A.S.A. deal with this problem in
the classroom.
22There is, of course, one additional reason which typically creates
tension between
Christian students and sociology relating neither to research nor
theory. Sociologists
are, as a group, more politically liberal and radical than any other group of
their academic colleagues. It is very likely that elements of this
worldview become
evident to their students, who come to college with political views
considerably
to the right of those they meet in introductory sociology. Whether
these liberal
political values are somehow inherent to sociology itself is a debatable point,
but one which will not be taken up here. We are concerned in this
paper with less
subtle sources of tension between Christianity and sociology.
On the political liberality of sociologists, cf. Seymour Lipset and
Everett Ladd,
Jr., "The Polities of American Sociologists." American
Journal of Sociology,
78 (1972), pp. 67-104. On the inherent liberal (and, simultaneously,
conservative)
political bias in sociology, cf. Peter Berger, "Freedom and
Sociology",
The American Sociologist, 6 (1971). pp. I-S.
23Arthur Holmes, op. p. 17.