Sociology

Sociology Dismissing Religion? The Presentationof Religious Change in IntroductorySociology Textbooks

Richard Featherstone & Katie L. Sorrell

Published online: 9 October 2007# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This paper explores whether the field of sociology harbors a dismissiveattitude towards religion. Specifically it examines whether introductory sociologytextbooks present the classic secularization theory over the more recent religiouseconomies explanation of religious change. The classical secularization thesissuggests that religion is declining in importance in modern societies and maydisappear completely. The religious economies perspective proposes that religion hasactually become more influential and dynamic over time. While both theories arewell represented in the sociology of religion literature, we explore whether generalistsociology textbooks reflect this reality. This article provides a content analysis of 31introductory sociology textbooks published between 2003 and 2006. We assess thepresence and promotion of the above theories in these textbooks. Our analysisreveals that 20 (65%) of the 31 textbooks in our study present only secularizationtheory, while seven (23%) of the textbooks cover both secularization theory andreligious economies theory. We assess the ramifications of such a lopsidedarrangement and conclude by encouraging a more open dialogue on this issue.

Keywords Sociology . Religion . Religous change . Religous economies .

Secularization

Introduction

Scholars have complained that the field of sociology has a long history of attackingreligion and promoting the position that religion is of little significance in modern

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98DOI 10.1007/s12108-007-9000-3

R. Featherstone (*)University of Northern Iowa, 356 Baker Hall, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0513, USAe-mail: [email protected]

K. L. SorrellUniversity of Wisconsin—Stout, Wisconsin, USA

societies. Lenski (1963) proposes that European sociology was antagonistic towardsreligion “from its inception” and that it promoted the idea that religion was becoming“a negligible force in the modern world” (Lenski 1963: 3). Hadden (1987: 592)suggests “a very large proportion of both first- and second-generation [American]sociologists were doubters or disbelievers.” He states that these sociologists believed“religion had fallen on hard times and, quite possibly, it had weakened beyond thepoint of resuscitation” (Hadden 1987: 594). In a recent book examining seculariza-tion, Smith (2003) tested the position that sociology has long discounted religion as avital force in modern society. Analyzing the content of early American sociologytextbooks, he contends that the authors of these textbooks promoted the idea thatreligion’s “influence and credibility in the modern world are for good reasons rapidlydeclining” (Smith 2003: 139). Similarly, some historians have argued that during theearly twentieth century academic elites contributed to the marginalization of religionwithin American higher education (Marsden 1994; Reuben 1996).

These allegations are not directed solely at the discipline’s past. Sociologycontinues to be accused of harboring a negative attitude towards religion (Stark andFinke 2000). Hamilton and Form (2003), for example, criticize the five bestsellingintroductory sociology textbooks for advancing the idea of religious decline withoutproviding any evidence for it. Instead of viewing religion as a dynamic force inmodern societies, sociology has accepted the secularization hypothesis that religionis declining as people become more technologically dependent and scientificallyminded (Jagodzinski and Greeley 1997). Stark and Finke (2000) suggest there are atleast two problems with this perspective. First, they argue that contemporaryresearch proves that religion is not becoming less important in modern society.Second, they contend that sociology’s anticipation of religious decline is largelybased on an ideological inclination rather than empirical observation. ConsequentlyStark and Finke (2000:54) warn that this long held, mistaken prejudice willadversely influence the “tone of conversation, instruction, and research” of religioustopics within academia.

In sum, it has been suggested that sociology as a field of study dismisses religionand advances a secularization theory which predicts religious decline in modernsocieties. This article has been written in order to investigate this claim. To set thecontext for our study and better educate the reader about this controversy we begin ourpaper by describing the secularization thesis and its more recent challenger, the religiouseconomies perspective. The next section describes these two theories, summarizing boththeir history and current standing within the sociology of religion subfield.

Two Theories of Religious Change

The secularization thesis is perhaps the original sociological explanation of religiouschange. Max Weber is credited with coining the term “secularization” (Christiano etal. 2002), but it was Emile Durkheim who famously suggested that religion is acarryover from humanity’s primitive past. Durkheim proposed that as a societybecomes more rationalized and industrialized it loses its need for religiousexplanations (Durkheim 1893, 1915). Moreover, as divergent religious systems viefor control of a society, agnosticism begins to take root and collective religious

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 79

sentiments begin to falter as individuals experience doubts about their faith.Durkheim predicted that over time modern societies would become more secularand religious explanations would decline in power and influence. This was the basictenet of the secularization thesis. Today, secularization is a much more complex andnuanced concept (Johnstone 2004); nonetheless, in its basic form the secularizationthesis is still defined as “the historical process whereby religion ‘becomes less’ andis compartmentalized in people’s lives and broader society” (Monahan 2001: 197).

In its heyday, during the 1960s and 1970s, secularization was considered the mostimportant issue in the sociology of religion (Budd 1973), and the decline of religionusually garnered considerable coverage in articles examining religion and modernsociety. Many researchers of the time described religion as an institution withdecreasing importance in Europe and the USA (Berger 1967; Wilson 1966).1

Although the idea was considered pejorative by religiously active college students(Perkins 1987), some textbook authors went so far as to predict the totaldisappearance of religion altogether (Wallace 1966). According to secularizationtheorists, religion as a social institution and as a collective human activity wouldexperience a precipitous decline within modernizing societies.

For decades the secularization paradigm held sway over an entire field ofscholarship. It was for all intents and purposes the only accepted paradigm in thefield. Referring to its years of dominance, Hadden (1987) suggests “secularizationwas more than taken-for-granted; the idea of secularization became sacralized”(588, emphasis in original). Demerath (2001: 211) calls secularization the “conceptthat was once an unquestioned staple of scholarly work...” Berger (2001: 201) notesthat for academics it “attained the status of a taken-for-granted truth about which itwould be silly to argue.” In short, it was once accepted that religion wouldeventually become an artifact of the past, like horse-drawn wagons and coopersmiths. Ironically, however, it was secularization itself that was to experience hard times.

Unfortunately, for the secularization perspective, the empirical evidence did notbear out its claim. In fact, research indicates that religion continues to be influentialboth socially and individually (Hammond 1985; Iannaccone and Everton 2004;Robertson and Chirico 1985; Warner 1993). At the aggregate level, many nationsexhibit consistent religious stability while others have experienced increases inchurch membership and religious attendance rates. For example, Ireland and Poland,have maintained relatively high levels of religious participation over the past century(Mitchell 2004; Ramet 1998). Other countries, like Bulgaria and Hungary haverecently experienced greater levels of church attendance during a time of significantmodernization (Froese and Pfaff 2001). Even individuals considered irreligious inhighly secularized nations in Western Europe report feelings and beliefs that counterthe secularization perspective (Reif and Inglehart 1991). Research data also showthat Americans participate in religious services at a higher level today than they didin the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Finke and Stark 2005). Paradoxically themost modernized nation in the world has become, and remains, one of the mostreligious societies on the planet.

1 Davie (2003) has pointed out that secularization is a largely Eurocentric perspective, since other nationsin sub-Saharan Africa and Asia do not fit the model and are largely ignored by the theory.

80 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

In recent decades social scientists specializing in religion have become perplexedby these and other findings which suggest that religion is flourishing in the veryareas where it was believed to be the most vulnerable. This raised questions aboutthe validity of the secularization perspective and eventually encouraged thedevelopment of a new theory of religious change. Interestingly, some ofsecularization’s earliest proponents are among its strongest critics. For example,one of the most famous early advocates of the secularization perspective, PeterBerger, withdrew his previous predictions of religious decline. In 1997, during aninterview with The Christian Century, Berger (1997: 974) commented:

I think what I and most other sociologists of religion wrote in the 1960s aboutsecularization was a mistake. Our underlying argument was that secularizationand modernity go hand in hand. With more modernization comes moresecularization. It wasn’t a crazy theory. There was some evidence for it. But Ithink it’s basically wrong. Most of the world today is certainly not secular. It’svery religious.

Another well-known sociologist who switched sides was Rodney Stark. In fact,Stark (1998: 394) admits in an earlier edition of his introductory sociology textbookthat he used to support the secularization thesis for awhile but later changed hisposition.

I must confess that as a young sociologist I largely shared these [secularization]views. But as I did research on religious groups, from Moonies to majordenominations, I found it very difficult to square these views with what I saw.For millions of people faith was alive and well. Many sophisticated scholarsappeared to have no problem in reconciling science with a belief in thesupernatural. Could the secularization thesis be flawed? By 1980 I had con-cluded that it was.

Today, Stark is one of the leading opponents of the standard secularization model.Others soon followed the lead of Berger and Stark. By the late twentieth century thetide of opinion began to turn as more and more sociology of religion researchersbecame disenchanted with the theory of secularization (Greeley 1996).

While no specific date has been offered as to its emergence in the literature,rudiments of a new theory were beginning to take shape in the 1980s. Often calledthe religious economies model (Montgomery 2003), this theory has alternativelybeen referred to as “the new paradigm in the sociology of religion” (Warner 1993),“the rational choice approach to religion” (Roberts 2004), and the “market model ofreligion” (Johnson 2003). For simplicity we title this perspective the religiouseconomies approach since this is how several of its original authors most commonlyrefer to it (see Finke and Stark 1988; Stark and Iannaccone 1994).

One of the basic tenets of the religious economies approach is that barringpolitical interference a society will naturally possess many different religious optionsfrom which its members can choose (Finke and Stark 1988). In a pluralistic setting,organized religion is thought to flourish as multiple religious groups provide diversespiritual products and actively compete with one another for religious consumers. Nomatter how energized and competitive a religious group might be, however, not all

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 81

religious messages are equally attractive to all people. While most religious groupswill be able to attract at least a modicum of followers, some groups are moresuccessful at attracting religious participants than other groups.

According to the religious economies theory most people are drawn to religiousgroups that focus on otherworldly issues. Such organizations are thought to be moresuccessful at maintaining and acquiring adherents than religious groups that focus onthe affairs of this world (Stark and Finke 2000). This occurs because people arenaturally attracted to religious groups that focus on the issues of the sacred ratherthan on the issues of the secular world. People are especially interested in religiousgroups that can promise them spiritual returns on their earthly investments(Iannaccone 1994). Strict religious organizations are able to promise their membersa significant level of spiritual rewards in exchange for accepting and following astringent code of conduct (Stark and Finke 2000). For example, conservative groupslike the Assemblies of God often connect a member’s adherence to theorganization’s lifestyle expectations to the assurance of eternal rewards (Iannaccone1994). Liberal or mainline groups, such as the United Church of Christ, howeverdemand few requirements from their members and offer just as meager spiritualassurances. Consequently, liberal and mainline denominations are expected to losemembership over time while strict, sectarian groups are expected to grow.

This is not to suggest that mainline groups will totally disappear or that everyonewill eventually join a conservative church. Religious economies theory suggests thatconservative groups generally grow because they are better able to encouragemember loyalty and participation. In essence the high tension sects usually attractand maintain members better than low tension religious denominations (Iannaccone1994). What makes this especially complicated is that religious groups arethemselves in an ever changing process of transformation. Over time, most sectariangroups transform into more mainstream denominations where members receivefewer moral expectations and experience less tension with the outside world. As thisprocess occurs the group begins to lose members as the original message isneglected and participants see a decreased return on their spiritual investments. Outof this decline often arise new sectarian groups that attract the dissatisfied andreligiously disenfranchised members of modern society. These new groupsreemphasize traditional values and once again attract followers as they offerreligious answers and spiritual assurances that the mother denomination has set aside(see Stark and Finke 2000 for a more complete explanation of these principles andpropositions). Ultimately, religious economies theory suggests a cycle of religiouschange within a religiously deregulated society, but no overall decrease in religiousinvolvement is proposed.

This process of transformation is precisely what many researchers have foundtaking place throughout our nation’s past (Iannaccone 1994; Kelley 1972; Roof andMcKinney 1987). While some religious denominations have lost adherents overtime, other religious groups have experienced a simultaneous increase inmembership (Finke and Stark 2005). Consequently, according to the religiouseconomies approach, religion is not experiencing a linear decline in the USA assecularization predicts. Instead, participation in religion is largely shifting betweenreligious organizations based on how well these groups are able to meet the religiousneeds and interests of the population.

82 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

While religious economies theorists do not predict that everyone will becomereligiously active in a religiously diverse society, they do assume that the inherentdemand for organized religion is fairly robust within every population (Stark andFinke 2000). The focus of the theory is on the supply side rather than on the demandside of religion (Finke and Iannaccone 1993). Hence human involvement incollective religion waxes and wanes based on the amount of preferred choices thatreligious organizations are able to supply a particular community, not on a nation’slevel of modernization (Finke and Stark 2003). Contrary to the secularization thesis,the religious economies model proposes that a community’s religious involvement isdependent upon two factors. The first is the degree to which the religiousmarketplace is unregulated, and the second is how competitive available religioussuppliers are at pursuing potential adherents. This is a much different approach thanthe secularization theory which suggests that modernization and scientificadvancement reduce religious involvement and the influence of religious institutions.

Whatever its ultimate validity, in the past decade the religious economies theoryhas transformed the sociology of religion literature. In 1993, The Churching ofAmerica 1776–1990: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy, by Roger Finkeand Rodney Stark (1992), won the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion’sDistinguished Book Award.2 In the same year, Stephen Warner wrote in theAmerican Journal of Sociology that the religious economies theory was establishingitself as “the new paradigm” in the social scientific study of religion (Warner 1993:1055). The perspective has since been heavily covered in numerous sociologicaljournals, and today the three most popular textbooks in the sociology of religioninclude sections discussing this perspective (Johnstone 2004; McGuire 2002;Roberts 2004).3 More specialized works highlighting contemporary research in thesociology of religion often devote entire chapters to cover the differences betweensecularization theory and religious economies theory (see for example, Christiano etal. 2002; Demerath 2001; Groski 2003).

Without question, the religious economies approach has become a highlyacclaimed paradigm within the sociology of religion literature. It has even displacedthe secularization model as the leading explanation for religious change. Interest-ingly, the theory has become so dominant that it has garnered its own set ofdedicated critics (see Blau et al. 1992; Bruce 2000; Chaves 1995; Lechner 1997). Ina recent chapter, Demerath (2001) complains that it is not even popular to questionthe religious economies theory anymore. A brief review of the sociology of religionliterature demonstrates that the religious economies approach is not an obscure orunderreported perspective in its field. Most sociology of religion scholars nowconsider it an equal alternative to the secularization perspective (Monahan 2001).The question remains, however, whether the larger field of sociology presents thisreality.

2 An updated version of their book, The Churching of America, 1776–2005: Winners and Losers in ourReligious Economy, was released in the summer of 2005.3 Roberts (2004) actually devotes an entire chapter of his text to describing the differences betweensecularization and what he calls the rational choice approach to religion.

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 83

Data and Methods

Since academic fairness and accuracy are fundamental principles of sociology(McKeachie 1999; Mills 1967), we believe it is important to explore whethersociology describes religion appropriately. While there are perhaps many ways toassess this issue, one approach is to review how recent introductory sociologytextbooks present religious change.4 A content analysis of such material is alegitimate starting point since it has been said that the introductory sociologytextbook represents the essential core of sociological knowledge (Perrucci 1980;Tischler 1988). As Keith and Ender (2004: 20) suggest, “the introductory textbook isa window through which one can become acquainted with the essential subjectmatter of our discipline.” As one of the most common educational materials studentsare assigned in sociology courses, it represents a very public record of what thegeneral field of sociology believes to be true.

Given the broad influence and large audience of the introductory textbook, wefocus on how religious change is presented in introductory sociology texts.Specifically, we examine whether introductory sociology textbooks provide adiscussion of the religious economies approach since this perspective predicts thatreligion will continue to be an important, dynamic, and growing force in mostsocieties. We also analyze how much coverage the secularization thesis receives inthese textbooks since several scholars (Hadden 1987; Jagodzinski and Greeley 1997;Stark and Finke 2000) have suggested that sociology, as a whole, favors this theoryeven though it is less popular among sociology of religion specialists.

In order to determine whether sociology has a preference for the secularizationtheory over the religious economies model, the authors conducted a content analysisof contemporary, introductory sociology textbooks. We focus exclusively on generalcoverage textbooks marketed for college students taking an introductory sociologycourse. We limit our study to textbooks that are copyrighted since 2003 because weare interested in resources that are likely to be used by students today.5 Examiningrecently published textbooks is also important to our analysis since we want to allowfor the fact that textbooks are often slow at including newer research (Wright 1996).Choosing textbooks published after 2002 reduces the possibility that religiouseconomies theory is simply too new of an idea for the authors to have included it intheir textbooks.

Introductory textbooks serve as an influential source of authority because asignificant percentage of college students are exposed to them when they take anintroductory sociology course to fulfil a general education requirement (Babchukand Keith 1995).6 We exclusively examine general sociology textbooks becausethese readings garner many more students than textbooks designed for specialty

4 This was done in a limited way by Hamilton and Form (2003).5 Whenever possible we use the most recently released edition we could acquire. However, due to thedynamic nature of the textbook industry and the inherent deliberativeness of the journal review process wecannot guarantee that all of the texts we use are the most current available as of this writing.6 This is the case at the first author’s university where the sociology department typically fills nineintroductory sociology courses per semester.

84 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

courses in religion (see Spickard 1994 for an excellent discussion of this issue). Wealso do not include textbooks written specifically for sociology of religion courses,because we are interested in how religion is presented by the larger field ofsociology, not specialists.7 Moreover, our analysis does not include readers,anthologies, or collections composed solely of historical writings since these arecommonly omitted in other sociology textbook reviews (Lewis and Humphrey 2005;Wright 1995a) and often do not represent the state of the field today.

To create our population of textbooks we contacted all the major college-levelacademic publishers to see which textbook offerings they provided for introductorysociology. We also contacted colleagues who teach introductory sociology coursesand asked them which textbooks they use in their classes. Finally, we did a titlesearch for the term “Sociology” and “Society” among several major Internet sitesthat sold college textbooks to see whether there were any other publishing housesthat offered an up-to-date introductory textbook. Altogether we found a total of 31textbooks that met our criteria.8

Our qualitative method of analysis is consistent with similar studies that comparetextbooks in their coverage of a specific topic (see Drakeford et al. 2005; Wright1995b). Once a population of texts was identified a content analysis was employedon the chapters or sections covering the subject of religion. We searched for and readthe religion sections of each textbook. Interestingly, two textbooks had no chapter oreven a significant section on religion (McIntyre 2006; Newman 2004).Two textbooks presented a chapter covering both families and religion (Andersonand Taylor 2005; Lindsey and Beach 2003). Six textbooks combined the topics ofreligion and education in the same chapter (Brinkerhoff et al. 2005; Henslin 2006;Hughes and Kroehler 2005; Kendall 2004; Schaefer 2004; Thio 2005), while 21textbooks dedicated an entire chapter to the issue of religion (all others).

After identifying the sections discussing religion, we read each part individuallyand separately coded whether the secularization and/or the religious economiesmodels were presented. Since the religious economies approach does not always goby that label, we identified passages that presented the theory regardless ofnomenclature. For each textbook, we compared the coverage of secularization withthe coverage of the religious economies approach. This coding approach is similar tothe one used by Lewis and Humphrey (2005) in their study of how introductorysociology textbooks cover the topic of the environment. Using a technique similar tothe one offered by Schweingruber and Wohlstein (2005) we also coded whether thetextbook authors endorse or refute the religious economies model. Inter-reviewer

7 Of the undergraduate-level sociology of religion textbooks we did look at (Johnstone 2004; McGuire2002; Roberts 2004), all of them described both secularization theory and religious economies theory.Interestingly, these authors usually presented religious economies theory as the rational choice approach.

8 We are not suggesting that we have found every possible introductory textbook available on the market.However, we are confident that our convenience sample includes all of the most popular textbooks on themarket today (Lewis and Humphrey 2005). As many instructors already realize, several of the largerpublishers offer both a full and abridged version of the same text. Because shortened textbooks do notalways contain exactly the same information as their parent textbook (Withrow et al. 2004), we analyzeboth the shorter “essential” version and the more complete version separately in our analysis.

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 85

reliability was very high. All but two of the textbooks were coded in the same way,establishing a 94% agreement level.9

Findings

Our analysis reveals that introductory sociology textbooks fall roughly within one ofthree categories. It is worth mentioning at this point that none of the textbookspresented the religious economies approach exclusively. In other words, if thereligious economies theory was mentioned so too was the secularization theory.Table 1 shows the basic categorization for each textbook. Of the 31 textbooksreviewed, four fail to discuss either the theory of secularization or the religiouseconomies approach. This is partly due to the fact that there is an overall lack ofcoverage concerning religion by these authors. For example, McIntyre (2006) offersno unified section on the topic of religion in her textbook on sociology. Newman’s(2004) text is over 500 pages in length, yet he offers less than three pages on thetopic of religion, with no discussion of secularization or religious economies theory.

Ignoring Secularization and Religious Economies

Other authors discuss religion in more detail, but focus their attentions on topicsoutside of religious change. Thio (2005) briefly mentions that some religious groups

9 The two textbooks in dispute were subsequently coded separately by an outside professor familiar withthe religious economies and secularization theories. The result of this third coding established how the twotextbooks were ultimately categorized.

Table 1 The presentation of secularization and religious economies theories in recent introductorysociology textbooks

Neither theory offered Only secularization offered Both theories offered

Anderson and Taylor 2005 Anderson and Taylor 2004 Brinkerhoff et al. 2005McIntyre 2006 Brym and Lie 2005 Charon 2004Newman 2004 Curry et al. 2005 Farley 2003Thio 2005 Eitzen and Zinn 2004 Giddens et al. 2003

Ferrante 2003 Hughes and Kroehler 2005Henslin 2005 Stark 2004Henslin 2006 Thompson and Hickey 2005Ingram and Keller 2003Kendall 2004Kendall 2005Kornblum 2005Lindsey and Beach 2003Macionis 2005Neubeck and Glasberg 2005Schaefer 2004Schaefer 2005Shepard 2005Steele and Price 2004Sullivan 2004Tischler 2004

86 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

are declining and that some are growing, but he avoids the subject of secularizationand never mentions contemporary research by religious economies theorists.Anderson and Taylor (2005) leave out a discussion of secularization and religiouseconomies theory from their abridged “Essentials” textbook. This streamlinedversion of their larger text provides a limited discussion of religion that avoids bothsecularization theory and the religious economies model. This is an uncommonapproach for most introductory textbooks, however, for while religious economiesmay not garner much coverage in sociology textbooks, secularization theory is prettymuch ubiquitous.

Presenting Secularization, Omitting Religious Economies

The second category of textbooks can be grouped together as those which discussthe secularization theory, but leave out the religious economies approach. Twentytextbooks are in this category; this represents nearly two thirds of the textbooks inour analysis. All of the resources in this second category have the same thing incommon—they provide some level of discussion regarding secularization theory, butthey omit any reference to the religious economies theory. The overall depth towhich these textbooks discuss secularization moves along a continuum from twosentences to four pages.

The textbook by Eitzen and Zinn (2004) provides an extreme example oftextbooks offering only a limited discussion of secularization. They write, “There isevidence for the ‘secularization of religion’ by social class. Polling data reveals [sic]that the more education and income one has, the less likely one is to find religionimportant and to hold traditional religious beliefs” (503). This is the first and lastmention of secularization in their chapter on religion. Although Eitzen and Zinn(2004) provide only a vague discussion of the secularization perspective there is nodiscussion whatsoever of religious economies theory in their textbook.

The other textbooks in category two provide more discussion of secularization,with some authors devoting several pages to the subject. Moreover, some of thecoverage appears to be more than just informative, it borders on direct advocacy forthe theory. Several examples are worth noting. In a section titled, “Secularism,”Tischler (2004) advances the following position.

Many scholars have noted that modern society is becoming increasinglysecularized, that is less influenced by religion. Religious institutions are beingconfined to ever-narrowing spheres of social influence, while people turn tosecular sources for moral guidance in their everyday lives (2004: 344, emphasisin original).

Explaining how some secular political movements may perhaps take the place ofreligion, he opines, “In this increasingly secular modern world, however, sacredlegitimacy appears to be unnecessary for establishing meaning and value in life”(344). Confronted by research that suggests that sectarian groups are growing,Tischler attributes the rise of these groups to the fact that some people need tobelong to groups that will determine moral choices for them (2004: 346). Religiouseconomies theory is never provided as an alternative position.

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 87

In a similar vein, Brym and Lie (2005) not only present secularization as areasonable theory, but spend a good deal of their text defending it from criticism.Interestingly they note that the secularization thesis was

...undoubtedly the most widely accepted argument in the sociology of religionuntil the 1990s. According to the secularization thesis, religious institutions,actions, and consciousness are unlikely to disappear, but they are certainly onthe decline worldwide (Brym and Lie 2005: 440).

This is an amazing statement since the authors reveal that secularization is nolonger the most accepted theory in the sociology of religion. Nevertheless, theauthors do not follow this up by describing the approach that supplantedsecularization. Instead they make passing references to research that indicatesreligion is doing well across the world and that fundamentalist religiousorganizations have grown. But other than this, religious economies theory is notpresented; instead, secularization theory is defended and revised.

One of Brym and Lie’s arguments is that religiosity is negatively correlated with anation’s level of human development (2005: 441–442). In essence the moreadvanced the nation–state the less religious it is; the only exception being theUSA. Yet the authors explain that while religion is alive and well in the USA,frequent church attendance in this country has decreased over time. In fact, theseauthors warn that the future of religion in this country does not look promising.Young people “are unlikely ever to attend services as frequently as elderly peopletoday” (2005: 458). According to these authors, “The people who attend religiousservices most often are those who were taught to be religious as children, who needorganized religion for political reasons or due to their advanced age, and who havethe most time to go to services” (Brym and Lie 2005: 459). This kind of pejorativelanguage does not indicate any value for religion or the people who participate in it.Perhaps it is for this reason that the authors confidently conclude their chapter with arevisionist’s perspective, “religion is increasingly restricted to the realm of spiritual;it governs fewer aspects of people’s lives and is more a matter of personal choicethan it used to be” (Brym and Lie 2005: 460).

It is important to point out that while religious economies theory is not describedby any of the textbooks in category two, the classical secularization proposal is nottotally accepted by all of them. Sullivan (2004), for example, agrees that religion hasdeclined in modern society. “The growth of science and technology in the past fewcenturies has also played an important role in the declining influence of religion”(342). But Sullivan is not quite ready to dismiss religion completely. Later on he tellsthe reader, “Despite the process of secularization, most sociologists agree thatreligion, in one form or another, will continue to play an important part in society”(342–343). Macionis (2005: 507) goes so far as to reassure his readers that there is aconsensus among sociologists that religion will not disappear one day. Likewise,after describing the secularization thesis in length, Neubeck and Glasberg (2005)write, “The secularization thesis posits a decline of the significance of religion inpeople’s lives as science and technology become ever more important. However, thehold that religion has over people does not appear to be dwindling, either in theUnited States or worldwide” (535). And finally, Kornblum (2005: 489) warns his

88 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

readers, “People who are free to determine their own religious beliefs and practicesmay attend church less often or not at all, but total secularization does not occur.”

Rather than just reassuring readers that religion will survive, some authors in thisgroup actually go so far as to suggest that religion is growing in importance in someway. Henslin’s (2005) technique is to propose that religion is expanding at themicro-level. “Although the secularization of its culture means that religion hasbecome less important in U.S. public life, personal religious involvement amongAmericans has not diminished. Rather, it has increased” (539, emphasis in original).Shepard (2005: 453) takes a broader approach. He concludes his chapter on religionin this way,

Through secularization, the sacred and the profane are increasingly intermixedin modern society. The existence of secularization does not mean, however, thata society is not religious. Although many observers have noted a decline in therole of religion in the United States, others contend that religion may bestronger than supposed.

The paradox here is that while these authors are somewhat unsure about theaccuracy of the secularization thesis, they fail to provide its alternative. The authorstotally omit the religious economies perspective. Fortunately, some textbooks do abetter job of presenting a more fully informed explanation of religious change.

Covering Both Perspectives

Our third and final category is comprised of the textbooks which provide both thesecularization theory and the religious economies approach to religion. Of the 31textbooks examined, only seven presented these two theories together. Thisrepresents less than one fourth of the introductory textbooks in our analysis.

Rather than ignoring the issue of religious change or describing only a model ofreligious decline, these textbooks present both secularization and religiouseconomies theories. Interestingly, while the textbooks in this third category coverboth perspectives, they clearly differ in the ways they present the theories. Thetextbooks by Farley (2003) and Thompson and Hickey (2005) touch on both theoriesbriefly and offer no particular emphasis as to which of the two perspectives is better.This may be due to the fact that both textbooks provide a somewhat undevelopedpresentation of religious economies theory.10 The other five textbooks in this groupare not as cursory in their coverage, nor do they present the theories in an equallyweighted fashion.

It is probably not surprising that the textbook by Rodney Stark (2004), one of thefounders of the religious economies approach, heavily criticizes the classicalsecularization thesis. Stark’s textbook provides a very thorough description of thisdebate. He expounds on secularization theory, critiques it, and then suggests howreligious economies theory provides a more adequate explanation of religiouschange. Stark explains how religious economies theory actually improves the

10 The textbook by Thompson and Hickey (2005) barely made it into our third category (covering boththeories) because their discussion only made vague references to the religious economies theory (see pages450 and 460–461 in their textbook).

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 89

secularization perspective. “A more comprehensive view of religious economiessuggests that secularization is a self-limiting process that leads not to irreligion butto a shift in the sources of religion” (Stark 2004: 404, emphasis in original). Whileheavily partisan, Stark’s textbook offers the reader a valuable insider’s look at thedebate; and though the view may be provided by a leading proponent of the religiouseconomies approach, it is still a much more detailed picture of religious change thanwhat most textbooks in this study provide.

Two other textbooks in this group provide a positive evaluation of the religiouseconomies approach (Brinkerhoff et al. 2005; Hughes and Kroehler 2005). Whilethese texts are careful to define and discuss the secularization thesis, it is apparentthat they do not support the theory. Brinkerhoff et al. (2005: 335) suggest,

It is true that science has given us physical rather than supernatural explanationsfor more and more phenomena, but the rise over the last 30 years offundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim groups has demonstrated thatmodernization and science do not necessarily undermine religious commitment....If anything, religion plays a stronger role in American life now than in the past.

In place of secularization they offer the religious economies perspective to explainreligious transformation. In the summary section of their chapter the authorsconclude, “Despite earlier predictions, secularization has not increased significantlyin recent years in the United States. Rather, mainstream religious organizationsremain strong and fundamentalist groups are growing in popularity” (Brinkerhoff et al.2005: 339).

A similar pro-religious economies approach is taken by Hughes and Kroehler(2005). On page 374 of their textbook they write, “Some evidence seeminglysupports the secularization thesis.” They then provide data showing that Americanstypically exaggerate their church and synagogue attendance. But they follow this upby noting, “Nevertheless, despite the apparently low turnouts for worship services,very little sociological evidence supports the notion that secularization is takingplace in American life” (Hughes and Kroehler 2005: 375). They describe thedevelopment of the “New Paradigm” in the 1990s and propose, “As long as there isa free market in religion and people can change their religious attachments,secularization initiates a process that revitalizes religion rather than promoting itsdemise” (375). Later on in a section titled “The Religious Marketplace,” the authorsecho the tenets of the religious economies perspective, “Competition fostersreligious vitality, while monopoly breeds religious stagnation” (376). In theconcluding section, “The Chapter in Brief,” Hughes and Kroehler (2005: 404) onceagain remind the reader, “little evidence supports the notion that secularization isoccurring in the United States.”

In contrast to the three textbooks which offer a favorable review of religiouseconomies, two textbooks describe the perspective and then critique it in detail.Charon (2004) does a thorough job of presenting various aspects of thesecularization thesis. He then describes how religious economy theorists havecountered and expanded secularization’s ideas regarding religious change. He writes,

Sociologists who have written and researched religion in the United States arecritical of the secularization thesis....They argue that it is not religion that has

90 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

become less important, but that choice has become more central to religiouslife; and for many people, choice brings ever greater commitment. Stark andFinke (2000:42–43) consider religion to be like other areas of modern life:informed consumers weighing costs and benefits, choosing to follow a religiouspath because they determine this is best for them, committing themselves, andpersisting in religious belief not so much because it is simply foisted on thembut because they continue to recognize religion as important to them, even in amodern society (271).

Interestingly, immediately after this section Charon offers a detailed rebuttal ofthe religious economies approach. Noting that “those who hold onto thesecularization theory are not persuaded” by the new theorists, Charon (2004: 273)gives secularization scholars the last word in his textbook. He explains that whilereligious groups may be forming everywhere, “most are generally short-lived andfickle....It is a tough road for organized religion to prevail in modern society...”(273). He finishes the section with a quote by Steve Bruce who “maintains thatalthough we might talk about the existence of religious community, ‘modernizationhas destroyed it’” (274). Religious economies theory is clearly presented in this text,but Charon regards it with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Another textbook that presents and critiques religious economies theory is writtenby Giddens et al. (2003). The authors begin their discussion by noting thecontroversy that exists among social scientists.

The debate over secularization is one of the most complex areas in thesociology of religion. In the most basic terms, there is a disagreement betweensupporters of the secularization thesis—who agree with sociology’s foundingfathers and see religion as diminishing in power and importance in the modernworld—and opponents of the concept, who argue that religion remains asignificant force, albeit often in new and unfamiliar forms (535).

After this important qualifier the authors define and discuss secularization theoryin detail. They explain that it is a nuanced concept with multiple dimensions. Theyoffer arguments to support the theory and propose that “there can be no doubt at allthat the hold of religious ideas today is less than was generally the case in thetraditional world” (Giddens et al. 2003: 536).

After their discussion of secularization, Giddens et al. (2003) present a wholesubsection on the religious economies approach.

One of the most recent and influential approaches to the sociology of religion istailored to societies like the United States, which offer many different faithsfrom which to pick and choose. Taking their cue from economic theory,sociologists who favor the religious economy approach argue that religions canbe fruitfully understood as organizations in competition with one another forfollowers (536, emphasis in original).

The authors do an excellent job of citing recent research in the area andexplaining the concepts behind the religious economies approach. But the authorsseem disturbed by the market language used by the theory and conclude their sectionby criticizing it. “The religious economy approach overestimates the extent to which

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 91

people rationally pick and choose among different religions, as if they wereshopping around for a new car or a pair of shoes” (537). After admitting that religioncurrently remains a vital force in modern society, Giddens et al. (2003) make astartling statement in the conclusion of their chapter. “It might appear strange,therefore, to suggest that the influence of religion in the modern world is actuallydeclining. However, sociologists generally agree that such a decline has taken place,considered at least as a long-term trend” (563). Additionally, religious economiestheory is entirely omitted from their summary section, but Friedrich Nietzsche’spronouncement that “God is Dead” is presented without qualification.

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper has attempted to assess whether the field of sociology promotes a view ofreligion that assumes its decline. While there are undoubtedly many possible ways totest this hypothesis, we chose to examine the coverage of religious change inintroductory sociology textbooks. We found that about 77% of introductorysociology textbooks either do not elaborate on religious change or present only thesecularization theory (this represents all textbooks from categories one and twoabove). On the other hand, approximately 23% of the textbooks in this study discussboth the secularization thesis and the religious economies approach (this representsall textbooks within category three above). Statistically, this means that by a ratio ofmore than three-to-one introductory sociology textbooks omit the sociological theorythat proposes religion is strong and stable within modern society.

This is a relevant finding because it suggests that general sociology is not inaccord with the contemporary research produced by scholars within the sociology ofreligion area. As mentioned previously, within the social scientific study of religionthe religious economies model is arguably the dominant paradigm for explainingreligious change. All recent textbooks specializing in the sociology of religion coverthis theory. In contrast to the secularization thesis, this theory proposes that religionis a strong and stable institution. It is therefore significant that such a largepercentage of general sociology textbooks do not mention religious economiestheory.

Possible reasons for this omission are worth considering. First, it may be thatmany of the current introductory textbook authors are simply unaware of this theory.As Wright (1996) and many other textbook reviewers have complained, introductorytextbooks are grossly behind the times when it comes to reporting current research.Although 21 of the 31 textbooks in this study offered an entire chapter on religion, itmay be that the topic of religious change is unfamiliar to these authors. It is probablyfair to assume that few sociological writers have ever taken a graduate level coursein the sociology of religion. Hence, a general lack of familiarity with the topic isprobably a primary reason for why so many introductory sociology textbook authorspresent an outdated explanation of religious change.

A second possibility for these textbooks’ misrepresentation of religion is relatedto the nature of the textbook industry. Hamilton and Form (2003: 708) point out thattextbook writers possess “a heavy dependence on the handed-down categoricalusages and, obviously, the avoidance of complexity, nuance, and detail.” The

92 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

writer’s goal is often not so much to be academically precise as it is to provide clear,simplistic concepts to unenthusiastic readers. In regard to the standard of simplicity,secularization is probably superior to religious economies. Moreover, in fashioning atextbook, writers often conform to the coverage provided by authors before them.Graham (1988) suggests that textbook authors generally copy substance and stylefrom each other, hence if a perspective is not covered by established textbooks it isunlikely to be incorporated by up-and-coming challengers. This unfortunate realityprovides little opportunity for newer theoretical developments, such as religiouseconomies, to appear in unspecialized textbooks.

A third reason for why religious economies theory is omitted by so manyintroductory sociology textbooks is worth considering. In describing his view of thefluctuations of the systems of truth, Sorokin (1937: 117) argues that most scientistsand scholars believe that faith is “doomed to die out” because they believeempiricism has triumphed over religion. And since “many truths of faith areregarded by science as mere superstition,” religion is not only expected to decline itis anxiously anticipated (Sorokin 1937: 108). This animosity to religion, accordingto Sorokin (1937: 114), is due to the social and natural scientist’s belief that religionis a “waste of one’s good mind” and “mere delusion.” He goes on to warn that suchthinking has become dominant among academics and intellectuals of the present era.

Sorokin does not spare his own field of sociology from such criticisms. Whichleads one to wonder whether most sociologists writing introductory textbookssimply possess a diminutive view of religion and accept the idea that religion willdecline in modern societies. A recent survey of 1,646 scholars at 21 top-tier researchuniversities by Elaine Howard Ecklund (2005) may support this position. Ecklund’sfindings indicate that social scientists are considerably less religious than the generalpopulation. About half of the social scientists in the survey indicated they had notattended religious services in the past year and about a third professed not to believein God.11 These behavioral and ideological results may reveal a considerable amountof religious indifference among academics. If this is the case, then there could belittle inclination for likeminded sociologists to cover religious economies theory. Thetheory may simply be skipped because it is perceived as incongruous and distastefulto these authors’ personal perceptions of religious change.

Whether these textbook authors personally harbor antagonistic feelings towardsreligion is beyond the scope of this study. In his own sociology textbook review,Friedman (1991: 141) found that textbook writers favored radical and leftideological positions, but he was “uncertain whether this was mainly because ofthe social composition of the profession or the inherent nature of the subject matterof sociology.” Motivation is a very difficult attribute to measure and can be left forfuture research studies. What this analysis demonstrates is that secularization theoryis disproportionately presented among contemporary introductory sociology text-books. This result has consequences. If Babchuk and Keith (1995) are correct thatthe introductory textbook is a dominant voice for our field, then sociology ispresenting the message that religion is in decline.

11 Compare these results regarding academics to findings of the General Social Survey (2004) whichreports that twenty-three percent of Americans attend religious services less than once a year and onlythree percent say they do not believe in God.

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 93

Such a message is problematic in several ways. First, it represents an inaccuratedepiction of what empirical research tells us about the current state of religion. It issimply incorrect. Second, it is insulting to religiously active people sincesecularization implies that religious individuals are irrational and unsophisticated.It perpetuates an offensive stereotype. Finally, it reinforces the perception thatsociology promotes an anti-clerical ideology. It casts social science against religionand perpetuates the myth often presented by textbooks that sociology possesses asuperior level of knowledge (Friedman 1991). We believe these are valid concernsworthy of further investigation.

Before we conclude, we must offer some caveats to our findings. First, it isimportant to note that while a majority of textbooks present the secularization theoryexclusively, not all of the authors promote the idea that religion will continue todecline. As noted in our analysis, several authors seem to be uncomfortableconcluding that religion will simply fade away. This is not surprising given the factthat almost every introductory textbook makes reference to the events surroundingSeptember 11, 2001 and the influence of the Christian Evangelical movement onAmerican politics. The underlying message of these sections is that religious groupshave an increasingly global impact on culture, politics, and international securityconcerns.

Despite these acknowledgments, however, most authors continue to forwardsecularization in some way while failing to provide a very scholarly explanation forwhy religion remains influential. Since the majority of these textbooks do not offerthe religious economies approach, they are limited in their ability to explain sectariangrowth. Often these textbooks discuss the decline of religion and then attempt toexplain away any evidence of religious growth by suggesting that these are merelytemporary reactions to secularization. The result is that the theory and the dataprovided within these texts do not match up. Unfortunately, readers are left to sortthis inconsistency out for themselves. Still it would be incorrect to conclude that justbecause an author omits religious economies theory he or she necessarily promotesthe idea that religion will continue to decline indefinitely.

A second caveat is also in order. We are not arguing that simply includingreligious economies theory in the introductory textbook solves the problem. Asnoted above, authors can cover religious economies theory only to condemn it andsupport religious decline. We are also not proposing that religious economies theoryis obviously correct and should therefore totally displace secularization theory. Whatwe are suggesting is that introductory sociology textbooks act as a proxy for the fieldof sociology, hence their authors should be careful to present religion in a balanced,up-to-date, and research guided manner. Acknowledging both theories is at theminimum a good starting point.

Finally, while we doubt that ignorance is the only reason for secularization’sdominance within introductory textbooks, we acknowledge that the topic of religionis not a major subject of discussion in sociology textbooks today (see Schweingruber2005). It may be that just as it took time for religion specialists in sociology toquestion the secularization theory and change their minds; it is taking time forgeneral sociologists to become aware of the mounting research and reconsider theclassical explanation of religious change. We hope this article contributes to thisdevelopment. Future studies addressing this topic as well as comparisons of

94 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

historical and contemporary sociological writings could help to provide greaterclarity on this issue. We encourage all sociologists as well as social scientists whospecialize in religion to begin a serious dialogue about whether religion is beingprovided fair and accurate treatment in our discipline.

Acknowledgement We are grateful to Kevin Dougherty for helpful comments on an early version ofthis manuscript.

References

Anderson, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2004). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society (3rd ed.). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.

Anderson, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2005). Sociology: The essentials (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Babchuk, N., & Keith, B. (1995). Introducing the discipline: The scholarly content of introductory texts.

Teaching Sociology, 23, 215–225.Berger, P. (1967). The sacred canopy. New York: Doubleday.Berger, P. (1997). Epistemological modesty: An interview with Peter Berger. The Christian Century, 114

(30), 972–975, 978.Berger, P. (2001). Secularization and pluralism. In S. C. Monahan, W. A. Mirola, & M. O. Emerson (Eds.),

Sociology of religion: A reader (pp. 201–204). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Blau, J. R., Land, K. C., & Redding, K. (1992). The expansion of religious affiliation. Social Science

Research, 21, 329–352.Brinkerhoff, D. B., White, L. K., Ortega, S. T., & Weitz, R. (2005). Essentials of sociology (6th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Bruce, S. (2000). Choice and religion: A critique of rational choice theory. New York: Oxford University

Press.Brym, R. J., & Lie, J. (2005). Sociology: Your compass for a New World (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.Budd, S. (1973). Sociologists and religion. London: Collier-Macmillan.Charon, J. M. (2004). Ten questions: A sociological perspective (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Chaves, M. (1995). On the rational choice approach to religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 34, 98–104.Christiano, K., Swatos, W. H., Jr., & Kivisto, P. (2002). Sociology of religion: Contemporary

developments. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Curry, T. J., Jiobu, R. M., & Schwirian, K. (2005). Sociology for the twenty-first century (4th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Davie, G. (2003). The evolution of the sociology of religion: Theme and variations. In M. Dillon (Ed.),

Handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 61–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.Demerath, N. J. III. (2001). Secularization extended: From religious ‘Myth’ to cultural commonplace. In

R. K. Fern (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to sociology of religion (pp. 211–28). Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishers.

Drakeford, W., Leone, P. E., Hamlett, N., & Vickery, K. (2005). An examination of disability issues inintroductory juvenile and criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2),280–291.

Durkheim, E. (1893). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life: A study in religious sociology. New York:

Macmillan.Ecklund, E. H. (2005). Research@rice: Spirituality high among university Scientists. Rice University, Retrieved

August 23, 2006. (http://www.explore.rice.edu/explore/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7680).Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (2004). In conflict and order: Understanding society (10th ed.). Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.Farley, J. E. (2003). Sociology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Ferrante, J. (2003). Sociology: A global perspective (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Finke, R., & Iannaccone, L. R. (1993). Supply-side explanations for religious change. The Annals of the

American Academy, 527, 27–39.

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 95

Finke, R., & Stark, R. (1988). Religious economies and sacred canopies: Religious mobilization inAmerican cities, 1906. American Sociological Review, 53, 41–49.

Finke, R., & Stark, R. (1992). The churching of America 1776–1990: Winners and losers in our religiouseconomy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Finke, R., & Stark, R. (2003). Dynamics of religious economies. In M. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook of thesociology of religion (pp. 96–109). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Finke, R., & Stark, R. (2005). The churching of America 1776–2005: Winners and losers in our religiouseconomy (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Friedman, N. L. (1991). What do we really teach in introductory sociology textbooks? Three underlyingmessages and their instructional implications. The American Sociologist, 22(2), 137–145.

Froese, P., & Pfaff, S. (2001). Replete and desolate markets: Poland, east Germany, and the New Religiousparadigm. Social Forces, 80, 481–507.

Giddens, A., Duneier, M., & Appelbaum, R. P. (2003). Introduction to sociology (4th ed.). New York:Norton.

Graham, F. C. (1988). Some observations on sociology textbooks: An editorial perspective. TeachingSociology, 16, 356–365.

Greeley, A. (1996). The new American paradigm: A modest critique. Paper read at the Annual Meeting ofthe German Sociological Association. Cologne, Germany.

Groski, P. S. (2003). Historicizing the secularization debate: An agenda for research. In M. Dillon (Ed.),Handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 110–122). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hadden, J. K. (1987). Toward desacralizing secularization theory. Social Forces, 65, 587–611.Hamilton, R. F., & Form, W. H. (2003). Categorical usages and complex realities: Race, ethnicity, and

religion in the United States. Social Forces, 81, 693–714.Hammond, P. E. (ed.) (1985). The sacred in a secular age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Henslin, J. M. (2005). Sociology: A down to Earth approach (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Henslin, J. M. (2006). Essentials of sociology: A down to Earth approach (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.Hughes, M., & Kroehler, C. J. (2005). Sociology: The core (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1180–1211.Iannaccone, L. R., & Everton, S. F. (2004). Never on sunny days: Lessons from weekly attendance counts.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 191–207.Ingram, L., & Keller, A. (2003). Religion. In C. B. Tweedell (Ed.), Sociology: A Christian approach for

changing the World (pp. 195–213). Marion, IN: Triangle Publishing.Jagodzinski, W., & Greeley, A. (1997). The demand for religion: Hard core atheism and ‘Supply Side’

theory. Andrew Greeley’s Web Page, Retrieved August 14, 2006. (http://www.agreeley.com/articles/hardcore.html).

Johnson, D. P. (2003). From religious markets to religious communities: Contrasting implications forapplied research. Review of Religious Research, 44, 325–340.

Johnstone, R. L. (2004). Religion in society: A sociology of religion (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.

Keith, B., & Ender, M. G. (2004). The sociological core: Conceptual patterns and idiosyncrasies in thestructure and content of introductory sociology textbooks, 1940–2000. Teaching Sociology, 32, 19–36.

Kelley, D. (1972). Why conservative churches are growing. New York: Harper and Row.Kendall, D. (2004). Sociology in our times: The essentials (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Kendall, D. (2005). Sociology in our times (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Kornblum, W. (2005). Sociology in a changing World (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Lechner, F. J. (1997). The ‘New Paradigm’ in the sociology of religion: Comment on Warner. American

Journal of Sociology, 103, 182–192.Lenski, G. E. (1963). The religious factor: A sociological study of religion’s impact on politics, economics,

and Family life (Revised Ed.). Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Lewis, T. L., & Humphrey, C. R. (2005). Sociology and the environment: An analysis of coverage in

introductory sociology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 33, 154–169.Lindsey, L. L., & Beach, S. (2003). Sociology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Macionis, J. J. (2005). Sociology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Marsden, G. (1994). The soul of the American university. New York: Oxford University Press.McGuire, M. B. (2002). Religion: The social context (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.McIntyre, L. J. (2006). The practical skeptic: Core concepts in sociology (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.McKeachie, W. J. (1999). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and

university Teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

96 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

Mills, C. W. (1967). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Mitchell, C. (2004). Is Northern Ireland abnormal? An extension of the sociological debate on religion in

modern Britain. Sociology, 38, 237–254.Monahan, S. C. (2001). Introduction to the secularization debate. In S. C. Monahan, W. A. Mirola, & M.

O. Emerson (Eds.), Sociology of religion: A Reader (pp. 196–200). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Montgomery, J. D. (2003). A formalization and test of the religious economies model. AmericanSociological Review, 68, 782–809.

Neubeck, K. J., & Glasberg, D. S. (2005). Sociology: Diversity, conflict, and change. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Newman, D. M. (2004). Sociology: Exploring the architecture of everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Pine Forge Press.

Perkins, R. (1987). Looking both ways: Exploring the interface between Christianity and sociology. GrandRapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Perrucci, R. (1980). Sociology and the introductory textbook. The American Sociologist, 5, 39–49.Ramet, S. P. (1998). Nihil obstat: Religion, Politics, and social change in East-Central Europe and

Russia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Reif, K., & Inglehart, R. (eds.) (1991). Eurobarometer: The dynamics of european public opinion.

London: Macmillan.Reuben, J. A. (1996). The making of the modern university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Roberts, K. A. (2004). Religion in sociological perspective (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.Robertson, R., & Chirico, J. (1985). Humanity, globalization, and worldwide religious resurgence: A

theoretical exploration. Sociological Analysis, 46, 219–242.Roof, W. C., & McKinney, W. (1987). American mainline religion: Its changing shape and future. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Schaefer, R. T. (2004). Sociology: A brief introduction (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Schaefer, R. T. (2005). Sociology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Schweingruber, D. (2005). Looking for the core in the wrong place. Teaching Sociology, 33, 81–89.Schweingruber, D., & Wohlstein, R. T. (2005). The madding crowd goes to school: Myths about crowds in

introductory sociology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 33, 136–153.Shepard, J. M. (2005). Sociology (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Smith, C. (2003). Secularizing American higher education: The case of early sociology. In C. Smith (Ed.),

The secular revolution: Power, interests, and conflict in the secularization of American public life (pp.97–159). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Sorokin, P. A. (1937). Social and cultural dynamics: Volume two-fluctuation of systems of truth, ethics,and law. New York: American Book Company.

Spickard, J. V. (1994). Texts and contexts: Recent trends in the sociology of religion as reflected in UStextbooks. Social Compass, 41, 313–328.

Stark, R. (1998). Sociology (7th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.Stark, R. (2004). Sociology (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Stark, R., & Finke, R. (2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.Stark, R., & Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). A supply-side reinterpretation of the ‘Secularization’ of Europe.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 230–252.Steele, S. F., & Price, J. (2004). Applied sociology: Topics, terms, tools, and tasks. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.Sullivan, T. J. (2004). Sociology: Concepts and applications in a diverse World (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.Thio, A. (2005). Sociology: A brief introduction (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Thompson, W. E., & Hickey, J. V. (2005). Society in focus: An introduction to sociology (5th ed.). Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.Tischler, H. L. (1988). Textbooks are a reflection of the discipline. Teaching Sociology, 16(4), 370–372.Tischler, H. L. (2004). Introduction to sociology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Wallace, A. F. C. (1966). Religion: An anthropological view. New York: Random House.Warner, R. S. (1993). Work in progress toward a new paradigm for the sociological study of religion in the

United States. American Journal of Sociology, 98(5), 1044–1093.Wilson, B. (1966). Religion in secular society. London: C. A. Watts.Withrow, B. L., Weible, K., & Bonnett, J. (2004). Aren’t they all the same? A comparative analysis of

introductory criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(1), 1–18.

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 97

Wright, R. A. (1995a). Was there a ‘Golden Past’ for the introductory sociology textbook? A citationanalysis of leading journals. The American Sociologist, 26(4), 41–48.

Wright, R. A. (1995b). Women as ‘Victims’ and as “Resisters:’ Depictions of the oppression of Women incriminology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 23, 111–121.

Wright, R. A. (1996). Do introductory criminology textbooks cite the most influential Criminologists?Estimating the ‘Match’ between what journals report and what textbooks discuss. American Journalof Criminal Justice, 20(2), 225–235.

98 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98