Reading the Bible in America: the Moral and Political Attitude Effect Aaron B

Hope College Digital Commons @ Hope College

Faculty Publications

9-1-2013 Reading the Bible in America: The moral and political attitude effect Aaron B. Franzen [email protected], [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Sociology of Culture Commons

Recommended Citation Franzen, Aaron B. “Reading the Bible in America: The orM al and Political Attitude Effect.” Review of Religious Research 55, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 393–411. doi:10.1007/s13644-013-0109-2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Hope College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Hope College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 DOI 10.1007/s13644-013-0109-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Reading the Bible in America: The Moral and Political Attitude Effect

Aaron B. Franzen

Received: 27 July 2012 / Accepted: 16 January 2013 / Published online: 2 February 2013 Religious Research Association, Inc. 2013

Abstract The Bible is an important text in American history, but research ana- lyzing the social consequences of reading the Bible is very limited. Research focusing on religious practices or religiosity with Bible reading as part of a scale shows a tendency towards conservatism and traditionalism, as do more literalist views of the Bible. In the present study, biblical literalism is treated as a powerful context guiding one’s reading. The focus here is a quantitative view of Bible reading, deploying two ‘conservative’ and two ‘liberal’ moral/political scales and two competing views for how Bible reading may function. Results indicate that Bible reading is positively related to both of the liberal scales as well as the conservative scales for non-literalists, but not for those with literalist Bible views. The ﬁndings begin to show the importance of independent Bible reading, how it may function differently for literalists and non-literalists, and highlights the degree to which literalism and Bible reading are different constructs.

Keywords Bible reading Á Biblical literalism Á Politics Á Moral attitudes Á Beliefs

Introduction

The Bible is one of the most inﬂuential texts in Western civilization. Its stories and messages are referenced in countless cultural mediums and its sacredness is used to legitimate countless forms of political authority. As such, it is surprising that little attention is paid to the signiﬁcance of reading the Bible. Perhaps the ubiquity of references to the Bible promotes researchers’ misperception that everyone knows what it says and, consequently, reading it is simply a habitual and ultimately meaningless activity.

A. B. Franzen (&) Department of Sociology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 394 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411

While there may be the perception that it is primarily those with higher views of the Bible that read it more often, biblical literalists are far from the only Americans who read the Bible. In fact, of Americans who read the Bible multiple times per week, 40 % do not claim to be biblical literalists and over half of those who read the Bible about weekly also do not claim literalist views (Baylor University 2007). What effect, if any, does this activity of routinely reading the Bible have on these readers? And, additionally, what is the effect of not reading the Bible on biblical literalists? Thus far, little research focuses on the effect of reading the Bible. Most of the existing research on Bible reading is either in the field of anthropology (Bielo 2009; Malley 2004), or work done by Village (2005, 2006). A significant exception is Kellstedt and Smidt’s (1993) article on literalism and Bible reading, and Ronald’s (2012) recent qualitative study is a welcome addition as it explicitly expands on ideas of interpretive communities—even when one is reading alone. The purpose of the present paper is to (1) present interesting findings of how Bible reading relates to various moral and political attitudes for both those with literal Bible views and non- literalist views, (2) to encourage more thought about what some of our religion measures are communicating about social reality, and (3) to encourage further research on Bible reading specifically. While both Bible reading and literalism will at times predict attitudes consistent with conservative political ideology measures, in other cases their effects diverge. Ultimately, the counter trends demonstrated here begin to show how reading the Bible and thinking that the Bible is literal are distinct and at times divergent religious indicators.

Religion and Attitudes

Religion is clearly a complicated social construct that does not always have a uniform affect on various social outcomes. While some measures of identity show that higher levels of religiosity are related to both conservative moral and political outcomes, other measures such as moral cosmology, reﬂecting whether one thinks ‘‘God or individuals constitute the ultimate basis of moral order’’, show that the ‘orthodox’ to some degree tend to be conservative on moral issues but liberal on some political topics (Starks and Robinson 2009, p. 650; see also Davis and Robinson 1996a, 1996b). Religion tends to be associated with conservatism and traditionalism, but can also provide resources to help moderate views and provide common ground for people (Putnam et al. 2010). Most of the extant literature that includes solitary Bible reading as a measure, both as a part of a scale as well as alone, tends to conceptualize it as merely another potentially interchangeable measure of religiosity and thereby does not focus on reading in terms of the action itself. Scales including Bible reading attempt to capture religious practices generally (Reimer 1995), ‘devotionalism’ (Young 1992), ‘general religiousness’ (Rowatt et al. 2009) or personal religiosity (Hoge and Yang 1994). Reimer (1995) shows that cultural acceptance and prevalence of various religious practices, such as praying and reading the Bible, can drive how often individuals engage in those practices. Focusing more on attitudes, Rowatt et al. 123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 395

(2009) show a negative relationship with liberal political ideology and Bible reading generally, and a positive relationship with various attitudinal measures opposing homosexuality and right-wing authoritarianism while Young (1992) shows a negative relationship with death penalty support. When solitary Bible reading is included as a single measure, it is generally related to either political conservatism or a more active religious individual who is often also more individualistic. Robinson (2006) found that black respondents who want evangelical groups to work together in order to have greater political influence were more likely to read the Bible everyday and speculates that Bible reading could be what tips the scale for black support of the Christian Right. Bible reading is correlated with religious and spiritual self-identification as is intolerance when compared with the spiritual but not religious self-identification (Shahabi et al. 2002). Bible reading is also correlated with attendance and the importance of religion in one’s everyday life (Argue et al. 1999), having mystical experiences (Levin 1993), religious switching (Hadaway and Marler 1993), increased Catholic parish involvement (Leege 1988), and higher spirituality and participation in religious activities (Johnson 2007). Additionally, Stark and Maier (2008) show that respondents who read the Bible are happier than those who do not.

Literalism and Reading: Why Does Reading Matter?

While Rowatt et al. (2009) show a measure including Bible reading is negatively related to liberal political ideology and Robinson (2006) shows Bible reading is related to black support for the Christian Right, research has not yet looked at how reading the Bible as a practice relates to a wider range of moral and political views. This is important in relation to Bible reading because the orthodox/modernist measure (Starks and Robinson 2009) tends to relate to how involved a person believes God is with the world, and it is at least theoretically possible for Bible reading to be related to how engaged one thinks God is with the world (Froese and Bader 2010). Orthodox believers, in Starks and Robinson’s (2009) conceptualiza- tion reflecting those who are theologically communitarian in their beliefs, are more conservative on moral and cultural issues than modernists who tend to be more individualistic, but more liberal on economic issues, but the differences do not appear all encompassing or thoroughly polarized (Davis and Robinson 1996a, 1996b). As such, increased reading could be related to an orthodox moral cosmology, the view that God is the ultimate basis of moral order, which would then be related to some liberal political positions. While some literature indicates that Bible reading in addition to literalism is important (see especially Kellstedt and Smidt 1993), it is far from clear whether or not reading the Bible and literalism have a similar and consistent effect, whether the effect is the same for non-literalists, or whether reading the Bible even matters. There are, however, reasons for why we would expect a strong similarity between biblical literalist views and the effect of reading the Bible. Biblical literalism may primarily be an ideological boundary marker and is often bundled with notions about fundamentalist discourse and related political stances (Malley 2004; Ammerman 1987; Boone 1989). Claiming a literalist stance is primarily a claim 123 396 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 to an identity or affiliation typified by certain ideological beliefs (Bielo 2009), and leads the believer to use and apply language in a certain way (Bielo 2009; Crapanzano 2000; Keane 2007; Coleman 2006). The social context in which one reads any text is important (Long 1993; Ronald 2012), and as an ideological form, literalism can also be seen as the ‘context’ in which one reads the Bible. Paul Ricoeur (1976) argues that texts are not static with a ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ reading per se, and readers invest meaning into what is read by using their own context to understand what is read. Specifically, because texts do not have an objective and easily identifiable inherent truth, when reading a text one must infer meaning to the text. As Ricoeur (1976, p. 77) says, ‘‘there is no necessity, no evidence, concerning what is important and what is unimportant,’’ and as a result the judgment of importance falls subjectively on readers. One learns in a communal setting what is important (Collins 2010) and how to find that importance in the text of the Bible (Bielo 2009; Malley 2004). Then when he or she reads the Bible with the expectation for these beliefs to be verified, the expectation itself directs the interpretation of what is read (Malley 2004). An interpretive pretext is carried with readers when he or she actually does approach the Bible (Bielo 2009). These methods for understanding direct one’s personal reading of the Bible, as one’s ‘interpretive community’ has such a strong effect that they nearly ‘write’ the text for those community members when they do read a text (Fish 1976). The context of biblical literalist communities and conservative Christianity is important because there is a relatively strong link between these communities and conservative moral and political beliefs (Wellman 2008; Noll 2001). While Wellman (2008) argues that this connection is not logically necessary, this historical connection with conservative politics has created a powerful durable and portable worldview. Indeed, Marsden (1980) also notes the historical link between conservative Christianity and a turn towards conservative politics after the rise of the Social Gospel movement and the fundamentalist/modernist battles, creating a somewhat specific context in which one will read the text of the Bible. This strong and relatively cohesive context of literalists may lead to a contextual background for reading the Bible that functions differently from non-literalist contexts. This leads to the expectation that reading the Bible does not have an additional independent influence on one’s beliefs, or that this influence merely reifies beliefs already existing in one’s community. This contextual overshadowing of reading is likely more prominent in literalist settings. In this way biblical literalism, with its correlation with conservative religious and political beliefs, and Bible reading will have a similar relationship with conservative political attitudes and the relationship non-literalists and reading have with political attitudes is less clear. There is, however, an alternative perspective. It is possible that reading the Bible follows biblical literalism less than would be expected. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1995) argues that when one reads a text a fusion of sorts occurs between the contents of the text and the ‘contents’ or knowledge of the person reading where both are somewhat malleable. While it is true that this will always happen within some historical and hermeneutical/social context (Dostal 2002), a text necessarily affects a person and their actions (Gadamer 1995). In other words, readers bring a ‘pretext’ with them to the text, are changed by the text, and the process continues. 123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 397

While a reader’s social context is important for reading as discussed above, texts are also not infinitely malleable. Much of the New Testament and the stories relaying Jesus’ ministry seem to focus more on peace and taking care of the poor, which are, in the terms of our contemporary political discourse, liberal themes. Thus while we expect biblical literalism to affect how one reads the Bible, reading is expected to have its own independent and potentially divergent effect. Two possible mechanisms for this divergence are as follows. The first is the result of surprises in the text and a confrontation with unexpected discoveries. A text is never fully dependent on readers, who are unable to have complete and accurate expectations of a text before reading it (Armstrong 1990). He or she is bound to be confronted with something new or something that was in a sense ‘unexpected.’ Indeed, ‘‘surprise is important for the very reason that texts challenge our beliefs by frustrating the expectations they give rise to’’ (Armstrong 1990, p. 27). As a result, Armstrong emphasizes that reading must be understood as a process that treats the text both as subjugated to readers as well as a foreign imposition, stating, ‘‘we can understand the unfamiliar only by grafting it onto the familiar,’’ and as a result ‘‘escape the prison of our own identity’’ (Armstrong 1990, p. 29). Another instance where surprise makes the act of reading significant for readers is when he or she reads the Bible devotionally and creatively applies pieces of the text to specific situations in their own life, despite the possibility that these applications are taken ‘out of context’ (Malley 2004). Here, as a result of seeing the Bible as inspired by God, the believer can see the text as speaking directly to them about their own life and apply what they read to some aspect of their life that was neither present nor implied within the text. In devotional reading, people will often read until they come across something in the text that unexpectedly sticks out or conveys some kind of meaning that makes them stop and reflect (Malley 2004). This process as described by Malley is a positive form of Armstrong’s theory of frustrated expectations. Life-relevance is assumed, and this assumption may drive readers to read the Bible until struck by something that is relevant (Malley 2004, p. 106). But because the relevance is mediated by whatever life experiences the reader is having at the time, a familiar text can still become new and surprise him or her as the application for what is read has changed. The second way the effect of reading the Bible potentially diverges from the effect of biblical literalism is how readers deal with authorial intent. It is often believed that the Bible’s text was written by authors with a specific context and intent for what they were writing (Malley 2004, p. 111), and thus having a meaning also understandable and applicable in the present day. Because of this context and intent, for some readers the meaning of the text is set and it is their job to get as close to that author’s intent, however this is understood by them, as possible for understanding. In this case, the self is actively altered and changed to align with the text (Crapanzano 2000). The text is something foreign and objective, and the goal is conformity; for it to be known and embraced. In order to do this, readers shift their self to be in line with what they perceive as the content of the Bible.

123 398 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411

Through these mechanisms, the action of reading can have an effect divergent from biblical literalism, but also non-literalist views, in at least some ways. Bielo (2009, p. 159) makes it clear that interactions with the text ‘‘is productive, informing the worldview of these readers and their ways of being and acting in the world’’. Thus, this competing perspective on reading leads to the expectation that more frequent engagement with the Bible and its frequently ‘liberally’ themed contents, again in the terms of contemporary political debates, through reading will not always be related to political attitudes in the same way that biblical literalism is. Past research shows that the relationship between religious beliefs and social and political outcomes is highly complicated, but thus far very little research has focused on what effect reading the Bible may have. This study takes some initial steps in ﬁlling this gap in the research and proposes two possible expectations. The ﬁrst focuses on readers’ social context, leading to the expectation that Bible reading will merely reify the politically conservative beliefs present in biblical literalist’s social context. The second begins with the contextual view but takes this as a starting point for readers’ interaction with the text. This view leads to the expectation that the additional interaction with the text will have its own independent and possibly divergent effect as compared with biblical literalist claims.

Data and Methods

The data used in this study is from the second wave (2007) of the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS). Consisting of a nationally representative random sample of non- institutionalized respondents over 18 years old in the United States, wave 2 of the BRS was administered and collected by the Gallup Organization. After selecting out those with a religious afﬁliation of either ‘other’ or ‘Jewish’ (described further below) and those who did not have a clear view of the Bible, an analytic sample of 1,375 is included. This sample was further split into two different samples, reﬂecting either respondents with literalist bible views (n = 322) or those without literalist views (n = 1,063). The survey used a mixed-mode design, which combined initial phone interviews and mailed self-administered questionnaires. See Bader et al. (2007) for a detailed overview of the methodology behind the BRS. To estimate multivariate relationships, separate ordinary least squares regressions were run for respondents who had literal Bible views and those who did not have literal Bible views (further discussed below). In order to more clearly parse out relationships with Bible reading once regressed on the different endogenous scales, all multivariate models were run in a step-wise manner. First the dependent variable was regressed on all of the exogenous variables except for Bible reading, and then Bible reading was introduced second.

Measurement

As mentioned, the sample was split according to the respondent’s Bible views, helping to isolate the effects of Bible reading as there is reason to think the different 123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 399 contexts function differently in relation to Bible reading. The BRS asks ‘‘which one statement comes closest to your personal beliefs about the Bible,’’ with the literalist response stating, ‘‘The Bible means exactly what it says. It should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects.’’ Affirmative responses to this option constitute the ‘literalist’ sample. Other possible responses stated that ‘‘The Bible is perfectly true, but should not be taken literally, word-for-word. We must interpret its meaning,’’ ‘‘The Bible contains some human error,’’ and ‘‘The Bible is an ancient book of history and legends’’. These responses constituted the non-literalist sample. Those who responded that they ‘‘didn’t know’’ were dropped from the analysis. The first explanatory variable is how often the respondent reads the Bible. The question on the BRS reads, ‘‘Outside of attending religious services, about how often do you read the Bible, Koran, Torah, or other sacred book?’’ All of the non- Christian and Jewish respondents were dropped because biblical literalism and reading the Bible is the focus of this study. Both groups potentially have other primary texts they may be more likely to read than the Bible. The religious nones, however, were retained because around 25 % of them still read the Bible at times (Hout and Fischer 2002). The Bible reading question on the BRS has seven response categories ranging from ‘never’ to ‘several times a week or more often.’ In order to reflect a more normal distribution and for conceptual ease, these were re-coded so as to reflect the following categories: never, less than once a year, more than once per year but not more than once a month, about weekly, and several times a week or more. Other exogenous variables included the respondent’s level of church attendance and a modified RELTRAD (Dougherty et al. 2007). The RELTRAD typology was included as a system of dummies, but altered in order to reflect the population of this study by not including those who were categorized as either Jewish or ‘other’ affiliations. As such, included in the analysis are the categories of evangelical, black Protestant, Catholic, mainline Protestant, and none. Evangelicals are used as the comparison category. Additional exogenous variables were a dummy variable for region of the country was included for the south, the respondent’s age, education, income, sex, race, marital status and political ideology. The political ideology measure asked respondents how they would describe their self politically, with responses ranging from ‘‘extremely conservative’’ to ‘‘extremely liberal’’. More liberal responses were scored higher, with a range of 0–7 (Table 1). Four different endogenous measures were used to reflect different dimensions of the respondent’s political/moral views. Specifically, two reflect what tend to be more liberal political positions referred to here as ‘neo-conservative opposition’ and ‘liberal policy views’ and two reflect more conservative political positions referred to here as ‘Christian nation’ and ‘conservative values’ (see Table 2). To construct these indexes, I first ran an exploratory factor analysis of each construct’s variables. First, a scale reflecting ‘neo-conservative opposition’ (Froese and Mencken 2009) was created. The variables of the scale generated a single-factor solution with high loadings (0.75, 0.83, and 0.85) with a good Cronbach’s alpha (0.74). The variables in the ‘liberal policy views’ scale returned a single-factor solution with moderate-to- high loadings, generally all[0.70, but with range from 0.38 to 0.77 and good inter- item reliability (a = 0.76). The measures in the ‘Christian nation’ scale returned a 123 400 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Range Mean (%) Standard Dev.

Dependent variables Neo-conservative opposition 3–15 6.63 2.95 Liberal policies 3–18 11.53 3.53 Christian nation 4–20 13.17 4.59 Conservative values 3–12 8.31 2.54

Independent variables Biblical literalism 0–3 1.89 0.77 Bible reading 0–4 1.80 1.42 Attendance 0–8 3.75 2.95 RELTRAD Black Protestant 0,1 5 0.22 Catholic 0,1 23 0.42 Mainline Protestant 0,1 22 0.41 None 0,1 12 0.32 Evangelicala 0,1 35 0.48 Liberal political ideology 1–7 3.58 1.62 South 0,1 34 0.47 Age 18–96 47.50 16.97 Education 1–6 3.24 1.50 Income 1–7 4.26 1.61 Male 0,1 47 0.50 Race (white: 1) 0,1 88 0.32 Married 0,1 62 0.49

Source BRS (2007) a Contrast category one-factor solution with very strong loadings ranging from 0.79 to 0.89 and an equally strong inter-item reliability (a = 0.86). Finally, the variables in the ‘conservative values’ scale returned a single-factor solution with high loadings ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 and a Cronbach alpha of 0.76. The references to ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ here refer to topics that correlate with either liberal or conservative political ideology.

Results

It would be a mistake to think that only those with more literal views of the Bible actually read the Bible. In fact, 42 % of the respondents in the BRS (Baylor University 2007) that read the Bible several times per week do not have literalist Bible views and 59 % of those who read the Bible on nearly a weekly basis do not hold literalist views. Additionally, when looking only at literalists, 60 % read the 123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 401

Table 2 Factor loadings and alpha scores for dependent variables Factor Description of item Factor loading (a)

Neo-conservatism (Q) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the federal (0.74) opposition government should… (1 = strongly agree 2 = agree; 3 = undecided; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree) (1) Declare English the national language? 0.75 (2) Expand authority to ﬁght terrorism? 0.83 (3) Punish criminals more harshly? 0.85 Liberal policy (Q) How do you feel about current government spending on the (0.76) views following? (1 = too little; 0) (1) Improving and protecting the environment. 0.71 (2) Improving and protecting the nation’s health. 0.74 (3) Improving and protecting the nation’s education system. 0.77 (4) Welfare. 0.62 (Q) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the federal government should… (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree) (5) Distribute wealth more evenly? 0.71 (6) Improve the standard of living for ethnic minorities? 0.66 (Q) How important is it to do the following if one wished to be a good person? (1 = not important; 2 = not very important; 3 = somewhat important; 4 = very important) (7) Actively seek social and economic justice. 0.38 Christian nation (Q) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the federal (0.86) government should… (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree) (1) Declare the United States a Christian nation? 0.79 (2) Advocate Christian values? 0.85 (3) Allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces? 0.85 (4) Allow prayer in schools? 0.89 Conservative (Q) How important is it to do the following if one wished to be a (0.76) values good person? (1 = not important; 2 = not very important; 3 = somewhat important; 4 = very important) (1) Have faith in God. 0.83 (2)Teach others your morals. 0.79 (3) Convert others to your religious faith. 0.85

Source BRS (2007)

Bible on a less than weekly basis. Table 3 presents the ﬁrst of two tables with scales reﬂecting conservative views, with results of OLS regressions and the conservative values scale as the outcome variable. Model 1 presents the results for those with literalist Bible views before the addition of Bible reading, and we see that those with a higher income will have lower ‘conservative values’ scores, black Protestants have higher scores when compared with evangelicals and those who attend church more often also score higher. Church attendance has a much stronger effect than anything

123 402 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 else in the model. There is little change in Model 2 with the addition of Bible reading. There was, however, a slight suppression effect for black Protestants, meaning that the difference between black Protestants and evangelicals on conservative values would be underestimated without taking into account Bible reading. Notably, Bible reading is not significant within the literalist sample, which gives partial support to the contextual argument that said the literalist interpretive community would be driving the reading to a point where Bible reading in and of itself would not explain additional variance. Turning to Models 3 and 4 of Table 3, the story is different in the non-literalist sample. There is a greater amount of total variance explained and in Model 3 we see that those in the south and those that attend church more often have higher scores on the conservative values scale. Additionally, those with more liberal political ideology, greater levels of education, higher levels of income, and are non-white all tend to have lower scores on the scale. In comparison to evangelicals, both mainline Protestants and religious nones also tend to have lower scores on the scale. Model 4 shows the addition of Bible reading, and the measures for living in the south, race and affiliating with mainline Protestantism drop out of the model. Again we have a slight suppression effect for education, showing that the relationship would be underestimated without taking Bible reading into account. There is also a statistically significant reduction in the attendance estimate, and the Bible reading measure is the strongest effect in the model.1 That is, the more a non-literalist reads the Bible, the higher they score on the conservative values scale. This partially supports the argument that independent Bible reading will make a unique contribution to the explained variance. Table 4 presents the results from the ‘Christian nation’ outcome scale. We see that for literalist respondents (Model 1), liberal political ideology and being male are negatively related to the Christian nation scale while higher levels of church attendance are positively related to the scale. This does not really change with the introduction of Bible reading in Model 2, except for the fact that church attendance drops out of the model despite the fact that Bible reading is again not significant. This is again partial support for the contextual argument. When we look at the non-literalist sample (Models 3 and 4, Table 4), there again is a much greater total explained variance. We see that in Model 3, before the addition of Bible reading, living in the south, being older, married and attending church more often is related to a higher score on the Christian nation scale. On the other hand, having a more liberal political ideology, greater levels of education, more income, being white and affiliating with mainline Protestants or having no religious affiliation in comparison to evangelicals is related to lower scores on the scale. The addition of Bible reading (Model 4) shows that we again have two small suppression effects with education and being married where the effects would be underestimated without taking Bible reading into account and both age and the difference between evangelicals and mainline Protestants drop out of the model. Additionally, we again have a significant reduction in the estimate for church attendance once we take Bible reading into account. Bible reading is again positively related with higher scores on the Christian nation scale.

1 2 2 Calculated by: Z = b1 - b2/H(SE1 ? SE2). 123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 403

Table 3 Conservative values and Bible reading for biblical literalists and non-literalists

Literalist Non-literalist

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

b (St. error) St. beta b (St. error) St. beta b (St. error) St. beta b (St. error) St. beta

Intercept 9.017*** 8.700*** 9.710*** 9.101*** (0.732) (0.768) (0.457) (0.451) South -0.022 -0.006 -0.054 -0.015 0.329* 0.061 0.261 0.049 (0.210) (0.209) (0.141) (0.137) Political Ideology -0.091 -0.069 -0.078 -0.060 -0.284*** -0.185 -0.253*** -0.165 (0.080) (0.080) (0.044) (0.043) Age 0.004 0.032 0.002 0.021 0.005 0.035 0.002 0.014 (0.007) (0.007) (0.004) (0.004) Education -0.077 -0.054 -0.082 -0.058 -0.137** -0.085 -0.177*** -0.110 (0.087) (0.087) (0.046) (0.044) Income -0.200** -0.180 -0.184* -0.167 -0.175*** -0.108 -0.153*** -0.095 (0.074) (0.074) (0.048) (0.046) Male -0.368 -0.099 -0.346 -0.094 -0.208 -0.043 -0.173 -0.036 (0.215) (0.217) (0.127) (0.124) White 1.008 0.210 1.011* 0.212 -0.579* -0.063 -0.320 -0.035 (0.406) (0.404) (0.287) (0.279) Married -0.011 -0.003 -0.008 -0.002 0.045 0.009 0.074 0.015 (0.249) (0.248) (0.141) (0.137) RELTRADa Black 0.999* 0.164 1.063* 0.175 0.426 0.030 0.526 0.037 Protestant (0.504) (0.503) (0.456) (0.440) Catholic 0.278 0.046 0.424 0.071 -0.125 -0.023 0.166 0.031 (0.351) (0.369) (0.169) (0.169) Mainline 0.276 0.045 0.321 0.053 -0.394* -0.070 -0.294 -0.052 (0.356) (0.358) (0.172) (0.168) None -1.188 -0.087 -1.187 -0.087 -1.647*** -0.242 -1.429*** -0.211 (0.803) (0.799) (0.220) (0.216) Attendance 0.230*** 0.318 0.191*** 0.266 0.306*** 0.345 0.192*** 0.218 (0.043) (0.052) (0.027) (0.030) Read – – 0.172 0.101 – – 0.456*** 0.241 – (0.129) – (0.062) R2 0.14 0.15 0.41 0.44 n 281 279 939 934

Source BRS (2007) * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001 a Evangelical

Model 1 of Table 5 shows the results of the neo-conservative opposition scale for the literalist sample. Living in the south, being older and afﬁliating with the Catholic Church in comparison with the evangelicals is related to lower scores on this scale. Having a more liberal political ideology and having no religious afﬁliation in comparison with evangelicals is related to an increase in opposition to

123 404 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411

Table 4 Christian nation views and Bible reading for biblical literalists and non-literalists

Literalist Non-literalist

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta error) error) error) error)

Intercept 17.687*** 17.045*** 18.522*** 17.61*** (1.157) (1.219) (0.788) (0.790) South 0.573 0.099 0.559 0.096 0.643** 0.065 0.568* 0.058 (0.332) (0.333) (0.243) (0.239) Political -0.560*** -0.270 -0.528*** -0.254 -0.911*** -0.325 -0.857*** -0.306 ideology (0.126) (0.128) (0.076) (0.075) Age -0.002 -0.009 -0.005 -0.027 0.015* 0.055 0.011 0.042 (0.010) (0.010) (0.007) (0.007) Education -0.241 -0.106 -0.249 -0.109 -0.331*** -0.112 -0.403*** -0.137 (0.139) (0.140) (0.078) (0.078) Income -0.165 -0.094 -0.138 -0.079 -0.287*** -0.098 -0.268*** -0.091 (0.118) (0.119) (0.082) (0.081) Male -0.928** -0.158 -0.846* -0.143 -0.395 -0.044 -0.301 -0.034 (0.340) (0.344) (0.220) (0.216) White 0.874 0.114 0.863 0.113 -1.668*** -0.101 -1.295** -0.079 (0.645) (0.645) (0.497) (0.491) Married -0.049 -0.008 -0.066 -0.011 0.529* 0.057 0.536* 0.058 (0.396) (0.396) (0.244) (0.240) RELTRADa Black 0.773 0.080 0.887 0.091 -0.125 -0.005 0.073 0.003 Protestant (0.800) (0.803) (0.770) (0.756) Catholic -0.233 -0.024 0.089 0.009 -0.317 -0.032 0.120 0.012 (0.555) (0.587) (0.291) (0.296) Mainline 0.555 0.057 0.686 0.071 -0.605* -0.059 -0.438 -0.043 (0.562) (0.568) (0.297) (0.294) None -1.995 -0.091 -2.002 -0.092 -4.114*** -0.333 -3.697*** -0.299 (1.268) (1.268) (0.378) (0.378) Attendance 0.213** 0.185 0.131 0.114 0.285*** 0.175 0.128* 0.079 (0.067) (0.083) (0.046) (0.052) Read – – 0.349 0.129 – – 0.653*** 0.188 – (0.205) – (0.109) R2 0.16 0.17 0.47 0.49 n 279 277 939 934

Source BRS (2007) * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001 a Evangelical

123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 405

Table 5 Neo-conservative opposition and Bible reading for biblical literalists and non-literalists

Literalist Non-literalist

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta error) error) error) error)

Intercept 8.106*** 8.188*** 5.192*** 4.801*** (0.875) (0.923) (0.588) (0.600) South -0.856*** -0.201 -0.877*** -0.206 -0.375* -0.055 -0.425* -0.062 (0.251) (0.252) (0.182) (0.182) Political 0.382*** 0.249 0.381*** 0.249 0.86*** 0.444 0.875*** 0.452 Ideology (0.095) (0.097) (0.057) (0.057) Age -0.016* -0.123 -0.017* -0.129 -0.008 -0.045 -0.01* -0.053 (0.008) (0.008) (0.005) (0.005) Education 0.026 0.016 0.01 0.006 0.421*** 0.207 0.396*** 0.194 (0.106) (0.106) (0.059) (0.059) Income -0.015 -0.012 -0.012 -0.009 -0.063 -0.031 -0.053 -0.026 (0.089) (0.090) (0.062) (0.062) Male 0.365 0.084 0.345 0.080 0.122 0.020 0.159 0.026 (0.257) (0.261) (0.165) (0.165) White -0.262 -0.046 -0.267 -0.047 0.365 0.032 0.532 0.046 (0.492) (0.493) (0.369) (0.371) Married 0.444 0.098 0.441 0.097 -0.013 -0.002 -0.007 -0.001 (0.299) (0.299) (0.183) (0.183) RELTRADa Black -0.031 -0.004 -0.023 -0.003 -0.387 -0.021 -0.282 -0.016 Protestant (0.612) (0.615) (0.590) (0.588) Catholic -0.929* -0.132 -0.918* -0.131 -0.23 -0.033 -0.045 -0.006 (0.419) (0.444) (0.218) (0.225) Mainline -0.067 -0.009 -0.056 -0.008 -0.139 -0.020 -0.044 -0.006 (0.423) (0.428) (0.223) (0.224) None 2.223* 0.139 2.25* 0.141 1.906*** 0.223 2.078*** 0.242 (0.957) (0.958) (0.284) (0.288) Attendance 0.022 0.026 0.019 0.023 0.091** 0.081 0.021 0.019 (0.051) (0.062) (0.035) (0.040) Read – – 0.007 0.003 – – 0.282*** 0.117 – (0.155) – (0.083) R2 0.12 0.12 0.37 0.38 n 277 275 943 938

Source BRS (2007) * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001 a Evangelical

123 406 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 neo-conservative political views. Model 2 shows the introduction of Bible reading, which apart from some very slight suppression effects and other slight reductions in estimates does not change the model. Again, as with the prior two literalist samples, Bible reading is not significantly related with the outcome variable. Models 3 and 4 show the results of one’s opposition to neo-conservative political views for the non-literalist sample. Initially (Model 3) living in the south is the only exogenous variable related to an increase in neo-conservative views. On the other hand, having a more liberal political ideology, having greater levels of education, attending church more often and claiming no religious affiliation in comparison to evangelicals is related to more opposition to neo-conservative views. With the introduction of Bible reading, the effect of church attendance drops out of the model and there is also a slight suppression effect in the betas for liberal political ideology and the difference between religious nones and evangelicals as well as living in the south but in the opposite direction. Bible reading is significant again, reflecting greater opposition to neo-conservative political views. The models presenting the liberal policy scale (see Table 6, Models 1 and 2) have the highest total explained variance for all the literalist sample’s outcome scales. Model 1 shows that before the introduction of Bible reading, liberal political ideology, and mainline Protestants in comparison with evangelicals are positively related to liberal policy views. As in all of the prior outcomes for the literalist sample, there are not many changes with the introduction of Bible reading apart from the difference between mainline Protestant affiliation and evangelical affiliation. In the non-literalist sample (Models 3 and 4), having a more liberal political ideology, and affiliating with the black Protestant tradition, mainline Protestants or Catholics as compared with the evangelicals all are positively related with higher scores on the liberal policy views scale. When Bible reading is introduced in Model 4, the difference between religious nones and evangelicals is significant with nones having higher scores and we would also have underestimated the relationship with the scale and political ideology, and the difference between evangelicals and black Protestants, Catholics, Mainline Protestants and religious nones. Here again we see that more Bible reading is positively related with higher scores on the liberal policy views scale.

Discussion

While some argue that ‘orthodox’ believers could hold liberal views on economic policy while remaining conservative on moral issues (Starks and Robinson 2009), others argue that conservative believers tend to be conservative on both moral and economic policy issues (Smith et al. 1998). Still other research (Hall 1997) focuses on the existence of both a ‘‘Religious Right’’ and a ‘‘Religious Left,’’ showing that religious conservatives are more conservative on all issues when compared to those of the ‘left.’ With this past research in mind, it is signiﬁcant that the present study is the ﬁrst to document that, all things being equal, Bible reading also contributes to

123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 407

Table 6 Liberal policy views and Bible reading for biblical literalists and non-literalists

Literalist Non-Literalist

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta b (St. St. beta error) error) error) error)

Intercept 13.996*** 14.034*** 8.084*** 7.687*** (1.368) (1.446) (0.679) (0.691) South 0.316 0.042 0.276 0.037 -0.212 -0.028 -0.249 -0.033 (0.392) (0.394) (0.206) (0.206) Political 0.644*** 0.241 0.638*** 0.240 1.281*** 0.587 1.290*** 0.592 Ideology (0.150) (0.152) (0.065) (0.065) Age -0.015 -0.065 -0.015 -0.063 0.003 0.015 0.002 0.010 (0.012) (0.012) (0.006) (0.006) Education -0.367* -0.126 -0.372* -0.127 -0.002 -0.001 -0.018 -0.008 (0.164) (0.166) (0.067) (0.067) Income -0.401** -0.177 -0.398** -0.177 -0.276*** -0.120 -0.262*** -0.115 (0.139) (0.140) (0.070) (0.070) Male -0.618 -0.082 -0.652 -0.087 -0.058 -0.008 -0.019 -0.003 (0.402) (0.408) (0.187) (0.187) White -1.462 -0.148 -1.455 -0.148 -1.078* -0.081 -0.937* -0.070 (0.767) (0.767) (0.437) (0.438) Married -0.91 -0.115 -0.889 -0.113 0.123 0.017 0.107 0.015 (0.465) (0.465) (0.208) (0.207) RELTRADa Black 1.736 0.138 1.738 0.139 1.798** 0.088 1.894** 0.093 Protestant (0.950) (0.953) (0.681) (0.679) Catholic 0.75 0.061 0.716 0.059 0.754** 0.097 0.954*** 0.124 (0.651) (0.689) (0.249) (0.257) Mainline 1.321* 0.106 1.284 0.103 0.602* 0.076 0.712** 0.089 (0.665) (0.671) (0.253) (0.255) None 0.224 0.008 0.236 0.009 0.609 0.064 0.771* 0.082 (1.486) (1.488) (0.320) (0.323) Attendance 0.007 0.005 0.013 0.009 0.061 0.049 -0.005 -0.004 (0.080) (0.097) (0.039) (0.045) Read – – -0.015 -0.004 – – 0.270** 0.101 – (0.243) – (0.094) R2 0.31 0.3 0.39 0.39 n 273 271 906 903

Source BRS (2007) * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001 a Evangelical

123 408 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 this body of research showing that Bible reading has its own independent influence on one’s views; but not in all cases. This article began with a discussion about the importance of readers’ context and interpretive communities when he or she approaches a text as well as potential avenues that effects of Bible reading could have an independent relationship with different outcomes. I have shown here that both of these may be true, and that Bible reading may function differently in different populations. Specifically, it appears that the interpretive community and context of literalism is potentially dominant to the point that increased reading does not necessarily independently influence one’s political and moral views on the topics presented. This, however, was not the case for the non-literalist sample where we did see Bible reading having an independent influence. At least one reason for this difference is that while the literalist ‘interpretive community’ may be relatively more cohesive, this is probably far from the case for the non-literalist sample as we would expect much more variation there. Thus, if Starks and Robinson’s (2009) orthodox measure reflects one who believes God is more closely involved and interested in the world and this measure is related to both some conservative views as well as other more liberal views, then it is possible that reading the Bible more often makes readers more ‘orthodox’ in terms of their moral cosmology. This effect could be due to focusing on reading certain sections of the Bible more often than others or different explanations for the same sections, but it is difficult to know why we see this effect apart from further research focusing on the content of what is read or how it is understood by readers (Froese and Bader 2010; Davis and Robinson 1996a). For this reason, it would be helpful for future research to look at how readings of the Bible unfold in group settings where the literalist or non- literalist would be learning what sections of the Bible to read and how to read them. It may even just be the case that the Bible has passages urging people to love and help others, and that the more one encounters these passages, both liberals and conservatives, the more they adopt those views that also happen to resonate with some contemporary politically liberal positions. Despite the fact that the content of the reading is unknown, it is still striking that the effect of reading the Bible is in the same direction as some liberal views and other conservative views and that these relationships differ by the population one focuses on. These comments are clearly speculative at this point because the data used here does not allow any conclusive causal case to be made. Another possible explanation is that an individual is slightly more politically liberal in terms of the various outcomes included in this analysis, and they want to affirm their Christian identity through increasing their religious practices by reading their Bible more often. While this is possible and may to some degree be partly what is happening (a clear limitation of the current study’s use of cross-sectional data is that this cannot be ruled out), the inverse seems more likely. That is, a reader is exposed to some themes considered ‘liberal’ in current political debates when they read the Bible, with themes of turning the other cheek and caring for the poor, and this impacts their political views to some degree.

123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 409

Conclusion

Actively engaging in religious practices such as reading the Bible is generally thought to indicate a more religious individual, but reading the Bible does not have the same relationships for different groups. While there is indeed a correlation between biblical literalism and reading the Bible, indicating that those with more literal Bible views tend to read the Bible more often, this frequent reading may not have a very strong influence on readers beyond their ‘interpretive community’. The same is not the case, however, for the non-literalist readers. More frequent Bible reading was associated with shifts in political and moral views for that sample, as there was an associated increase in the conservative scales as well as an increase in the liberal scales. Future research should focus on why reading the Bible is related to these shifts in one’s moral and political views, but also why this is not true for all readers, such as literalists or non-literalists. While some anthropological works (Bielo 2009; Malley 2004; Crapanzano 2000) and some psychological studies (Carpenter and Marshall 2009) are a good start, it is clear that research on interacting with the Bible is underdeveloped. Specifically, in order to more clearly theorize about why reading the Bible has these effects it would be helpful to know what readers are reading. It could also be the case that certain traditions tend to read certain portions of the Bible more frequently than others, or that some sections of the Bible are commonly read in some traditions and not others. While Bielo’s (2009) qualitative work looks at Bible study groups, this is also an area where more quantitative work should be focused as understandings of texts are often communal and solitary Bible reading tends to also be correlated with being involved with Bible study groups. Additionally, Bible reading needs to be measured in a fashion that leads to sufficient variation in responses. For example, Bible reading was a question on the 1998 GSS but the response options leave researchers with a challenging measure. It is highly detailed for frequent readers, with response options of ‘several times per day,’ ‘once per day,’ ‘several times per week,’ and ‘once a week,’ but conflates everyone else into ‘less than once per week’ and ‘never’ categories. By doing so, we have lost those who read on a relatively regular basis but miss some days or weeks. These individuals are surely different than those who very rarely read the Bible— especially if the effect of reading is cumulative in some way. Related to measurement issues, it would also be beneficial if Bible reading was included on surveys that also contain information about one’s congregation. In this way, using multi-level modeling techniques, we could parse out whether the present effect for non-literalists is actually an indirect indicator of how much the respondent is embedded in or connected to their place of worship and the ideology present there. All religious practices and beliefs do not have the same effect for different groups of people. That is, increased levels of attendance, biblical literalist views, as well as other measures such as prayer are frequently used with the expectation that the effects are similar. Here it was shown that this expectation of uniform effects from practices is not always true. It has long been known that the actual practice of religious adherents is not always in line with the texts or teachings of the religion. This is why knowing what effect reading the Bible has on readers is interesting for 123 410 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 research, especially when the effect differs from what one may expect. It may be time for further theorizing and research to focus attention on what each of these different religious activities and dispositions are doing and what they mean to the believer and for their life and beliefs more generally.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Paul Froese for many comments throughout this project, as well as helpful comments from Samuel Stroope, Andrew Whitehead, and Kevin Dougherty and the anonymous reviewers.

References

Ammerman, Nancy T. 1987. Bible believers: Fundamentalists in the modern world. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Argue, Amy, David R. Johnson, and Lynn K. White. 1999. Age and religiosity: Evidence from a three- wave panel analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(3): 423–435. Armstrong, Paul B. 1990. Conflicting readings: Variety and validity in interpretation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Bader, Christopher, F. Carson Mencken, and Paul Froese. 2007. American piety 2005: Content and methods of the Baylor Religion Survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(4): 447–463. Baylor University. 2007. They Baylor Religion Survey, Wave II. Waco: Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. Bielo, James S. 2009. Words upon the word: An ethnography of evangelical group Bible study. New York: New York University Press. Boone, Kathleen C. 1989. The Bible tells them so: The discourse of Protestant fundamentalism. Albany: State University of New York Press. Carpenter, Thomas P., and Margaret A. Marshall. 2009. An examination of religious priming and intrinsic religious motivation in the moral hypocrisy paradigm. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(2): 386–393. Coleman, Simon. 2006. When silence isn’t golden: Charasmatic speech and the limits of literalism. In The limits of meaning: Case studies in the anthropology of christianity, ed. Matthew Eric Engelke and Matt Tomlinson, 39–62. New York: Berghahn Books. Collins, Randall. 2010. The micro-sociology of religion: Religious practices, collective and individual. State College: Association of Religion Data Archives Guiding Papers. Crapanzano, Vincent. 2000. Serving the word: Literalism in America from the pulpit to the bench. New York: New Press. Davis, Nancy J., and Robert Robinson. 1996a. Are the rumors of war exaggerated? Religious orthodoxy and moral progressivism in America. American Journal of Sociology 102(3): 756–787. Davis, Nancy J., and Robert Robinson. 1996b. Religious orthodoxy in American society: The myth of a monolithic camp. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(3): 229–245. Dostal, Robert J. 2002. The Cambridge companion to Gadamer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dougherty, Kevin D, Byron R Johnson, and Edward C Polson. 2007. Recovering the lost: Remeasuring U.S. religious affiliation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(4):483–499. Fish, Stanley E. 1976. Interpreting the ‘Variorum’. Critical Inquiry 2(3): 465–485. Froese, Paul, and Christopher Bader. 2010. America’s four gods: What we say about god and what that says about us. New York: Oxford University Press. Froese, Paul, and F. Carson Mencken. 2009. A U.S. holy war? The effects of religion on Iraq war policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 90(1): 103–116. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1995. Truth and method. New York: Continuum. Hadaway, C.Kirk, and Penny Long Marler. 1993. All in the family: Religious mobility in America. Review of Religious Research 35(2): 97–116. Hall, Charles F. 1997. The Christian left: Who are they and how are they different from the Christian right? Review of Religious Research 39(1): 27–45. Hoge, Dean R., and Fenggang Yang. 1994. Determinants of religious giving in American denominations: Data from two nationwide surveys. Review of Religious Research 36(2): 123–148.

123 Rev Relig Res (2013) 55:393–411 411

Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review 67(2): 165–190. Johnson, Byron. 2007. The case for empirical assessment of biblical literacy in America. In The Bible and the University, ed. David Lyle Jeffrey, Craig Bartholomew, and C. Stephen Evans, 240–252. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Keane, Webb. 2007. Christian moderns: Freedom and fetish in the mission encounter. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kellstedt, Lyman A., and Corwin E. Smidt. 1993. Doctrinal beliefs and political behavior: Views of the Bible. In Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics, ed. David C. Leege and Lyman A. Kellstedt, 177–198. Armonk: ME Sharpe. Leege, David C. 1988. Catholics and the civic order: Parish participation, politics, and civic participation. The Review of Politics 50(4): 704–736. Levin, Jeffrey S. 1993. Age differences in mystical experience. The Gerontologist 33(4): 507–513. Long, Elizabeth. 1993. Textural interpretation as collective action. In The ethnography of reading, ed. Jonathan Boyarin, 180–211. Berkeley: University of California Press. Malley, Brian. 2004. How the Bible works: An anthropological study of evangelical biblicism. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Marsden, George M. 1980. Fundamentalism and American culture: The shaping of twentieth century evangelicalism, 1870–1925. New York: Oxford University Press. Noll, Mark A. 2001. American evangelical Christianity: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Putnam, Robert D., David E. Campbell, and Shaylyn Romney Garrett. 2010. American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon & Schuster. Reimer, Samuel H. 1995. A look at cultural effects on religiosity: A comparison between the United States and Canada. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34(4): 445–457. Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. Robinson, Carin. 2006. From every tribe and nation? Blacks and the christian right. Social Science Quarterly 87(3): 591–601. Ronald, Emily K. 2012. More than ‘Alone with the Bible’: Reconceptualizing religious reading. Sociology of Religion 73(3): 323–324. Rowatt, Wade C., Jordan LaBouff, Megan Johnson, Paul Froese, and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2009. Associations among religiousness, social attitudes, and prejudice in a national random sample of American adults. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 1(1): 14–24. Shahabi, Leila, et al. 2002. Correlates of self-perceptions of spirituality in American adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 24(1): 59–68. Smith, Christian, Michael Emerson, Sally K. Gallagher, Paul Kennedy, and David Sikkink. 1998. American evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stark, Rodney, and Jared Maier. 2008. Faith and happiness. Review of Religious Research 50(1): 120–125. Starks, Brian, and Robert Robinson. 2009. Two approaches to religion and politics: Moral cosmology and subcultural identity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(4): 650–669. Village, Andrew. 2005. Assessing belief about the bible: A study among Anglican laity. Review of Religious Research 46(3): 243–254. Village, Andrew. 2006. Biblical interpretative horizons and ordinary readers: An empirical study. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 17: 157–176. Wellman, James K. 2008. Evangelical versus liberal. New York: Oxford University Press. Young, Robert L. 1992. Religious orientation, race and support for the death penalty. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31(1): 76–87.

123