Religion and the Construction of Civic Identity

Paul Lichterman University of Southern California

Studies of religion’s public roles typically concern the ways in which religious frameworks justify opinions and actions. This article draws from participant-observation research to show how people also use religion to define the boundaries of group identities and relationships. Importantly, people do this in situation-specific ways that we cannot predict from people’s religious reasons for public actions. Evidence comes from two religiously-based organizations sponsored by the same local religious coalition, studied during 1998 to 2000 in a midsized U.S. city. One group is an alliance of lay people representing different churches, who organized volunteering and community development projects with a low-income minority neighborhood. The other is an alliance of clergy, representing different churches, that organized public events against racism. In each case, group members used religious terms to argue sharply over civic identity despite sharing the same religious reasons for their goals. Resolving the disputes required redefining or reemphasizing the boundaries of collective identity. The dynamics highlighted in my analyses provide new ways of understanding how people use religion to include or exclude others in civic relationships. Even more broadly, they reveal how religion can enhance or impede collaboration across social status and religious divides. Delivered by Ingenta to : University of Southern California Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:12:40 hat do people use religion for in public? that modern Americans have privatized religion WMany sociological works focus on the and no longer use it to legitimate public action use of religion to rationalize opinions or actions. (Berger 1967; Luckmann 1967), as well as more This focus characterizes the classic argument recent findings that Americans continue to use religious reasons to justify political and civic engagement (e.g., Casanova 1994; Regnerus and Smith 1998). The same focus on rationales Direct correspondence to Paul Lichterman, Department of Sociology, KAP 352, University of is common to scholars who say Americans use Southern California, 3620 S. Vermont Avenue, Los polarizing religious discourse to fight “culture Angeles, CA 90089 ([email protected]). A much wars” over social issues (Hunter 1991, 1994), earlier version of this article was presented at the and those who counter that religion rarely polar- American Sociological Association meetings in izes Americans’reasoning on most social issues Atlanta, August 2003. For engaged listening and (DiMaggio 2003; DiMaggio, Evans, and Bryson helpful comments, many thanks to Pamela Oliver, 1996). Even when they disagree on what kinds Robert Wuthnow, John Evans, Penny Edgell, Nina of rationales people draw from religious frame- Eliasoph, David Smilde, Tim Biblarz, anonymous works, scholars very frequently assume that ASR reviewers, the ASR editors Vincent Roscigno, religion’s capacity to provide reasons is what Randy Hodson, Chas Camic, and Franklin Wilson, makes religion sociologically interesting. along with workshop audiences in the Department of People, however, also use religion to define Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Center for the Study of Religion, Princeton collective identities. Public groups, for instance, University. Thanks to the Center for Religion and commonly use religious language to understand Civic Culture, University of Southern California, who they are, and how they relate to insiders and whose grant from Pew Charitable Trusts afforded outsiders, apart from justifying opinions on spe- me time to rework early versions of the article. cific issues or group goals. For ease of reference,

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2008, VOL. 73 (February:83–104) 84—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW we can say that groups use religion to help they represent people’s efforts to organize them- “map” their place in the civic arena. selves and create collective wills freely. Ethnographic research on two religiously-based In the United States, with its disestablished civic organizations in a midsized U.S. city—the and officially voluntary religious institutions core of this article—shows that, in each case, (Warner 1993), religious community-service group members agreed on religious reasons for and social-activist groups, as well as congre- their goals, yet used religious terms to argue over gations, count as civic groups by sociological the maps of “people like us” and “people not like definition. They have been a part of the U.S. us” that ultimately oriented their group action. civic arena from the nation’s beginnings These religiously informed disputes were the (McCarthy 1999; Wuthnow and Hodgkinson largest conflicts in each group. Resolving the 1990). Currently, almost half of Americans’ conflicts depended on redrawing identities and association memberships are related to reli- relationships on the “map,” not revising religious gious congregations, and half of Americans’ reasons behind group goals. A focus on map- volunteering takes place in a religious context ping, as this article reveals, expands our under- (Putnam 2000). In response to hotly debated claims that U.S. civic engagement is declin- standing of how people use religion in 2 situation-specific ways to include or exclude ing, numerous researchers are investigating others in civil society. The grounded observa- relations between religion and civic life, both in the United States (e.g., Ammerman 2005; tions reported also reveal subtle, sociological Chaves 2004; Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann ways in which religion works as a source of 2006; Farnsley et al. 2004; Wuthnow 2004) and conflict, as well as a source of cohesion, when elsewhere (Casanova 1994; Demerath 2001). groups try to bridge social inequalities and racial or religious divides. RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AND MOTIVE Delivered by IngentaWhere toexactly : is religion in civic life? If it is not WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH University of Southern California RELIGION IN CIVIC LIFE Thu, 14 Feb 2008absent 17:12:40 altogether, it may be present silently, in civic actors’ private commitments. We often Following Tocqueville ([1835] 1969), sociolo- think of religion working as a deep motivator, gists continue to investigate civic groups as are- and one authoritative review observes that, per- nas for active citizenship (see Jacobs 2003). haps by default, studies often approach religion Civic relationships are voluntary, public rela- as a static aspect of the self, not a presentation tionships, informal or formal, that people devel- of self, if it is a motive at all (Ammerman 2003). op relatively free of direct coercion by the state, Increasingly, though, sociological studies of the family, or the imperatives of market religion are following a larger cultural turn by exchange (Cohen and Arato 1992; Walzer 1992). taking religious language as the object of inves- They happen in volunteer groups, service clubs, tigation (Neitz 2004; Wuthnow 1987). I follow community centers, and social movements, this focus on communication and bracket the among other places.1 Even when these rela- question of whether or not the people under tionships happen in small local groups, they study are “really” acting on religious commit- are by definition public. Relationships we call ments. “civic” are not necessarily virtuous, or apoliti- Rather than gauging private beliefs, recent cal, as common usage and some scholarly works works advocate for investigating religious have implied (Berger and Neuhaus 1977), but vocabularies and forms of self-presentation that we can see and hear in everyday life, and see- ing what actions accompany them (Ammerman 1 Civic relationships may arise in governmental or business settings too, when people are interacting largely free of administrative mandates or the logic 2 For a variety of viewpoints on the putative civic of the marketplace. For example, government- decline and its consequences for U.S. public life, see employed social workers might act as community- Putnam (1995, 2000), Skocpol and Fiorina (1999), builders or advocates with the people they serve, Edwards and Foley (1997), or Sampson and col- while on the job (Brown 1998). leagues (2005). RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–85

2003; Wuthnow 1992, 1997). In this approach, mourners and political advocates, and thus they the cultural forms are not add-ons to the religion can appeal sincerely to multiple constituencies “underneath,” but rather they are inseparably (Munson 2007). Clearly, using religious lan- part of religion in practice. These studies assume guage to define civic identities and relation- that knowing that a group considers itself ships has its own concrete consequences for a Protestant, Christian, or interfaith, for instance, group and its effectiveness (Bender 2003; is not enough to tell us if, how, or where the Warren 2001). group uses religious language. Dropping older assumptions that religion must be almost entire- RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY: ly private or absent outside of religious institu- A “MAPPING” APPROACH tions, these studies also focus on religious communication beyond the congregation Drawing from these prior approaches but (Ammerman 2007; Nepstad 2004; Smith 1996). extending them, I synthesize in the remainder Parallel to the large debates mentioned above, of this article complementary insights from these recent studies often analyze people’s use interactionism, cultural sociology, and the soci- of religious language for legitimation or as ology of civic action to create the sensitizing vocabularies of motive. These studies show concept of “mapping.” Summarizing briefly, activists or volunteers using religious rationales mapping occurs when groups work to define to make their opinions sound compelling and their civic identities and relationships to other their groups worth joining (Warren 2001; groups in concrete settings. Groups may use Williams 1995; Wuthnow 1991). They argue, for religious imagery to do this work. The way a instance, that religious language can be effec- religious group does this mapping cannot always tive in recruiting low-income churchgoers to be predicted solely from knowing its members’ risky community organizing campaigns (Hart religious denominations or its religious ra- 2001; see Snow and Benford 1988). Moreover, tionales for courses of action. To achieve this Delivered by Ingentaconstructionist to : (Snow and McAdam 2000) religious language can motivateUniversity volunteers of to Southern California keep coming back for the hard workThu, of 14build- Feb 2008understanding 17:12:40 of civic identity and religion, ing new homes from the ground up (Baggett participant-observation is the method of choice. 2000). It helps to consider the civic realm as a shift- ing field whose relationships and identities are defined and redefined over time (Mische 2007), USING RELIGION TO DEFINE IDENTITIES rather than a static “sector” of society, as poli- AND RELATIONSHIPS cymakers often treat it. From an interactionist People also can use religious language to con- perspective, people must actively create civic struct civic identities and relationships—that identities and relationships by doing identity is, define insiders and outsiders—as well as to work. People use words and gestures collec- legitimate action goals. Some Pentecostals, for tively and individually to articulate who they are instance, sharply distinguish sacred church life and are not, making themselves “social objects” from the profane world of “the street.” When in the civic arena, which they and others can they join social action projects, they see them- then recognize and evaluate (Schwalbe and selves not as activists pursuing social issues Mason-Schrock 1996:120; see Snow and but religious emissaries relating to the “fallen” Anderson 1987; Stone 1962). Social movement world of the street, “taking this city for Jesus.” scholarship often points toward this everyday This imagined map of their civic identity and identity work, at least implicitly, arguing that a their relation to the social world strongly shapes social movement needs to construct a collective their effectiveness as activists (McRoberts 2003; identity since identity does not issue automat- Wood 2002). Indeed, some evangelical ically from activists’ grievances or personal Protestant pro-life activists identify their efforts characteristics (Polletta and Jasper 2001). in religious and political categories simultane- Through identity work, a group alights upon ously, surprising some secular observers who shared social representations (Farr and expect clearer distinctions between the two. Moscovici 1984), which are images and cate- When they hold funerals for unborn children, gories that signify the group’s qualities to itself these activists see themselves as both religious and others. The representations may come from 86—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW religion. In analytic terms, I approach religions Importantly, we should not equate a group’s here as large, varied cultural repertoires of rep- mapping with its members’ religious beliefs or resentations, such as “taking this city for Jesus,” rationales, or assume that if the rationales are that exist beyond a particular group’s interaction. constant the mapping must be too. In this regard, Groups may use religious representations, along Neitz (2004) points out that studies of religious with any other representations, to symbolize groups often equate a group’s identity with its group boundaries and define the group’s rela- religious beliefs, perhaps because a Protestant tion to a larger world outside the group (Lamont emphasis on identity-pervading belief has influ- and Molnar 2002). As Schwalbe and Mason- enced U.S. sociological understandings of reli- Schrock (1996) observe, boundary drawing is gion. Yet, civic groups, religious or otherwise, central to identity work.3 may identify themselves differently depending For ease of reference, I refer to drawing on the public setting in which they find them- boundaries around a collective identity as “map- selves (Lichterman 1999; Mische 2007). This is ping,” rather than simply identity work, because not necessarily because members’ beliefs change so easily but rather because different sit- the map metaphor highlights two distinct dimen- uations may key in different salient identities. sions of identity work—the simultaneous def- Different mappings can preserve a sense of inition of a group and its relevant social meaning or preserve face, depending on context surroundings. Melucci (1988) emphasizes this (Stryker 1968; see also Goffman 1959, 1963). same, relational understanding with a notion The situation keys the salient identity and the of “collective identity” that encompasses a identity also shapes the definition of the situa- group’s definition of its social field of action, tion in an unpredictable balance of influences not just its identity alone. In the examples high- (Stryker 2000; Turner et al. 1987). It is thus an lighted earlier, Pentecostals and anti-abortion empirical question as to which religious terms, activists constructed their own group identities if any, a group might draw from to create its Delivered by Ingenta to : in relation to a wider field of people closer to map. In the cases reported below, some indi- or further from those identities.University It is similar of to Southern California Thu, 14 Feb 2008viduals 17:12:40 switched maps over time. Some church when we locate ourselves on a map: “You are volunteers pictured themselves and the neigh- here.” The map metaphor also captures an endur- borhood they served as a “parish” and a ing feature of human cognition. People locate “Community of Shalom,” even though their groups that are socially near or far from them separate congregations had no religious juris- in their own minds (Zerubavel 1991). Whether diction over the neighborhood, nor were they religious or secular, civic groups draw bound- Jewish. aries that identify members in relation to allies, As scholars, we need to listen to mapping as adversaries, or other environing groups, along- it happens in concrete settings if we want to side the work of defining issues to pursue (Hunt, develop sociological insight into how groups use Benford, and Snow 1994). Mapping is crucial religion and how this informs the creation of to a group’s definition of itself, not something civic identities. This is especially true in a soci- extra that happens after identity is constructed ety that, while secularized in many ways (Eliasoph and Lichterman 2003). (Chaves 1994), has unpredictable openings for religious expression (Ammerman 2007). Participant-observation research as an analytic strategy is especially useful in this regard, open- 3 Schwalbe and Mason-Schrock (1996) and ing access to the words and imagery civic Lamont and Molnar (2002) all highlight the work of groups use to identify themselves and others, on drawing “boundaries” around group identity. their own time, and in everyday settings Schwalbe and Mason-Schrock are more concerned (Lichterman 1996; Walsh 2004). This is in con- with emergent culture that groups innovate, while trast to inferring everyday communication from many perspectives in cultural sociology emphasize words or symbols that come from preexisting reper- fixed categories of identity based on theologi- toires or vocabularies. Religions are such repertoires, cal beliefs alone (see Bourdieu 1990; Cicourel while at the same time people may do a variety of 1981). For these reasons, I conducted partici- things with religious terms in everyday life (see pant-observation, listening to how members of Eliasoph and Lichterman 2003). my two cases mapped their identities and rela- RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–87 tionships. I paid close attention to how and representative, the rest of the dozen core mem- when, if at all, members used religious terms to bers were white. Late in 1997, Lakeburg cler- define civic identities and relationships, apart gy attended a presentation by a spokesperson from using religious terms to legitimate goals from the Call to Renewal, a national, interde- or avow religious convictions. nominational alliance promoting a Christian- informed, social justice agenda (Call to Renewal THE GROUPS AND 1995). The national group’s invitation to METHODOLOGICAL Lakeburg clergy to form a local chapter did not CONSIDERATIONS specify a focus on race, but the local clergy immediately gravitated toward race issues, part- PARK CLUSTER AND RELIGIOUS ly because a Ku Klux Klan group in a distant ANTI-RACISM COALITION city had applied for a permit to march in Park Cluster was an alliance of mostly lay peo- Lakeburg. After a year of planning, the RARC ple representing seven local, mainline Protestant put on a public, counter-Klan event. churches belonging to Episcopalian, Participants in each organization attended Presbyterian (U.S.A), United Methodist, monthly meetings that ran loosely by consensus Lutheran (ELCA), and United Church of Christ decision-making, with a facilitator who helped denominations, along with one Friends con- set an agenda. Each group had 10 to 12 core gregation and one Unitarian fellowship. The members with only one overlapping partici- volunteer representatives were almost entirely pant. The majority of core members in each white and either held or had retired from mid- group had lived in the Lakeburg area more than dle-class, white-collar occupations. Park Cluster five years, most much longer, and had years of carried out community-service projects with experience doing community service on behalf the low-income Park neighborhood, about half of their congregations. of whose roughly 6,000 residents wereDelivered African by IngentaThough to : they made decisions autonomously, American, while others wereUniversity Cambodian, of Southernboth CaliforniaPark Cluster and the RARC had the spon- Laotian, or Spanish-speaking immigrants,Thu, 14 along Feb 2008sorship 17:12:40 of the Urban Religious Coalition (URC), with a few Caucasians. Cluster members said a 25-year-old community-service coalition of their goal was not to proselytize, and neither I roughly 50 congregations in the midsized, nor social workers who worked with them ever Midwestern city of Lakeburg and nearby towns.4 heard any members say they would like to do so. The URC hosted the Call to Renewal repre- They carried out service activities, such as col- sentative’s visit and had envisioned volunteer, lecting food donations and tutoring kids. The congregational “clusters” of social support as a Cluster also cosponsored collective goods, response to the human fallout feared in the including a public health nurse and an “eviction wake of the 1996 welfare policy reforms. prevention fund,” in consultation with neigh- Members of Park Cluster and the RARC had borhood leaders, social workers, and residents. common opportunities to participate in URC- The Religious Anti-Racism Coalition sponsored events and to sit on the URC execu- (RARC), mostly made up of pastors, worked tive board. The board funded groups such as against racism in Lakeburg by putting on pub- these two and incubated some of the groups’ lic events and sending representatives to city- project ideas; groups received advice from the sponsored hearings. RARC core participants board but did not need its approval for projects. represented Lutheran (ELCA), Episcopalian, Donald, executive director of the URC, also American Baptist, Presbyterian (U.S.A.), convened the RARC, and he controlled the Unitarian, Friends, Catholic, evangelical non- group agenda more completely than did Park denominational, Lutheran (evangelical, Missouri synod), evangelical Reformed, and Cluster’s rotating facilitators, but large deci- Vineyard congregations. An African American sions in either group needed the approval of men’s service group leader and a woman from attending members. a Native American performance troupe also attended regularly. Two Baha’i fellowship mem- bers occasionally attended. Except for the men’s 4 All names of local groups and individuals are service group leader and the performance group pseudonyms. 88—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Notable for this study, the URC created some bit more than the least vocal member present. intergroup relations across the mainline–evan- I neither initiated new projects nor blocked con- gelical Protestant theological divide (Wuthnow sensus. 1988). Director Donald was a mainline Lutheran My relations with group members bear fur- and the majority of the URC’s congregations ther comment: I told group members, if they had were mainline Protestant, but some evangelical not asked already, that I was a member of a Protestant congregations were affiliated with local synagogue. Park Cluster’s facilitators asked the URC and actively represented in the RARC. on occasion if I would like to get my congre- A much smaller, evangelical church network gation involved, and RARC mainline and evan- formed in Lakeburg during this study, and it car- gelical Protestants alike wanted to know if I ried out separate community service and evan- would like to get “the Jewish community” gelizing projects. Evan, the director of that involved in the counter-Klan event. Observing network, was a core member of the RARC. Two that no single person spoke for the Jewish com- years before this study began, members of a munity, I offered to pass along names of poten- tiny fundamentalist church outside Lakeburg tial contact people. Theological liberals and protested some mainline Protestant Lakeburg conservatives alike expressed happiness that I churches’ welcoming stance toward lesbians belonged to a congregation, no matter which, and gay men, and Donald convened meetings of because that meant I was not the kind of antire- local mainline and evangelical Protestant cler- ligious secularist they expected a researcher to gy in hopes of producing a statement of toler- be. While members seemed to take congrega- ance for all people regardless of sexuality. The tional membership as an important commonal- clergy came close but failed to reach a consen- ity, in at least some ways they seemed to sus. This turn of events symbolized to clergy a appreciate my different status. Several times, theological divide in Lakeburg’s Protestant cir- mainline Protestant group members asked about cles, which Donald would mention at public Jewish practices they wanted to understand bet- Delivered by Ingenta to : forums that the URC sponsored,University but like reli- of Southernter. OneCalifornia evangelical pastor in the RARC con- gious conservatives and liberals inThu, Ginsburg’s 14 Feb 2008fided 17:12:40 frustrations with mainline pastors that he (1989) study of a midwestern town’s abortion was unlikely to express to the pastors directly, debate, the clergy usually were cordial with one since the group recognized him as a bridge- another. building figure in Christian circles. One main- line Lutheran pastor said he was happy I had a religious affiliation because I might not be able METHODS to be a truly “objective” student of religious I observed and participated alongside Cluster groups if I were simply a “pure secularist.” Of members at their general monthly meetings, course there are no completely neutral stand- subcommittee meetings, and volunteer projects points for an ethnographer studying religious- in the Park neighborhood for 18 months between ly identified groups, and I cannot know what 1998 and 2000. I observed and participated people may have declined to say in my presence. alongside 15 monthly RARC meetings during Still, these scenarios suggest that my “insider- the same period, and I attended 10 special meet- outsider” identity (see Lamont 1992) as ings held either to plan or evaluate the counter- researcher, congregant, and Jew mitigated the Klan event. I introduced myself as a researcher risk that group members would perceive me as to a general meeting of each group and sought either an intimidating, antireligious professional permission to study them. All assented easily in or else someone who would have understood the each group, after which I offered to volunteer groups too well to ask naïve questions about for routine tasks, such as taking meeting min- what they were doing. My relative distance utes or setting up a meeting hall, which required from intra-Christian disagreements, and the low no special skills and were unlikely to implicate profile I sought to maintain, likely helped group me in major group decisions. The balance of my members articulate to me opinions that may participant-observation in each group weighed have been too risky for some Christian listeners. more heavily on the observation side (see Gold I also maintained a file of all the brochures, 1958). Following Thomas and Jardine’s (1994) handouts and flyers, internal group memos, and example, I participated in group discussions a position statements produced by both groups, RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–89 and I analyzed these with categories appropri- case could broaden and clarify the scope of ate for participant-observation data. These two claims about religious language. On both dimen- cases are part of a larger study that includes sions, Park Cluster was a case that should min- interviews with all core members of the two imize the possibilities of religious language groups, as well as other cases (Lichterman entering a religious group’s dynamic, while the 2005). Apart from several brief supporting ref- RARC should maximize those possibilities.5 erences below, the interview data and the other cases are unnecessary for the arguments made USING RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE here. The two cases in this article include much TO GIVE REASONS unpublished participant-observation data and reanalyses of data that do not appear elsewhere. To concretely distinguish the use of religion in In both groups I took field jottings during meet- reason-giving from the use of religion in map- ings—seeing that others took notes too—and ping, I summarize first how religion worked as immediately afterward expanded them into com- a rationale in each organization. Each group plete field note sets (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw used religious language to articulate motives 1995). I coded notes using procedures well- (Wuthnow 1991) for the action goals they established in Glaser and Strauss (1967) and framed collectively (Snow and Benford 1988). Strauss (1987) and then recoded notes to arrive While both groups endured internal conflicts, at analytic categories that better fit patterns in members argued little if at all over religious the data. reasons for their collective action goals. My choice of these two cases for comparison follows the qualitative logic of “theoretical sam- LOOSE RELIGIOUS RATIONALES: pling,” distinct from statistical sampling. The PARK CLUSTER cases are conceptually comparable as religiously based, local civic groups, yet they can maximize Park Cluster members did not produce highly Delivered by Ingentatailored to religious : rationales for their goals, but variation on two factors related toUniversity religious lan-of Southern California guage, the conceptual focus of this studyThu, (Glaser 14 Feb 2008rather 17:12:40 general, loose, and brief statements of and Strauss 1967). First, Park Cluster was a religious conviction. They very rarely if ever largely lay group, while the RARC was mostly expounded on religious teachings and beliefs at clergy. One may not expect mainline lay people all at public meetings, let alone at events for a to use much explicitly religious language at all larger community audience. In 18 months of (Ammerman 1997; Davie 1995), but as Weber field notes on Cluster meetings, I counted only and others might observe (Chaves 1994), cler- five instances in which Cluster members direct- gy are professionals whose occupational and ly or indirectly affirmed their own religious perhaps social status depends on using religious convictions out loud or appealed to religious language, even if they do not have a monopoly on it. Claims made here about uses of religious language in civic life could become broader 5 With two cases, I do not claim to generalize with support across the professional/nonpro- about the many U.S. congregation-based alliances fessional dimension. Second, Park Cluster was (Ammerman 2005), nor explain whether or not reli- almost entirely mainline Protestant, while the gion caused success or failure in either case. large majority of RARC members were a mix Lakeburg’s relatively high average level of schooling, of mainline and evangelical Protestants. U.S. for instance, may have dampened religious conflicts, mainline Protestants have a reputation for avoid- affecting this study’s generalizeability, if higher edu- ing strident religious talk as “impolite” and cation correlates with pluralism and cosmopolitanism unnecessary for Christ-like action (Wuthnow (Hoge, Johnson, and Luidens 1994). The logic of and Evans 2002), in contrast with evangelicals. theoretical sampling, though, does not require tight- ly controlled comparison groups (Glaser and Strauss Thus, we might not expect Park Cluster to use 1967). It may have been more ideal to compare two much religious language, let alone to use it in organizations dedicated to exactly the same issues, arguments. Studies of mainline–evangelical ten- but fighting racism may be one of relatively few sions often focus on clashing language, espe- endeavors that can bring mainline and evangelical cially clashing rationales, so the mixed Protestant representatives together in one group mainline–evangelical RARC as a comparison (Emerson and Smith 2000). 90—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW rationales for goals or worldviews. None of for their actions, did so more frequently, and these five instances involved an elaborate reli- attached the religious rationales more closely to gious rationale for action or a reference to sacred the issue they framed for the group. At an early texts. Most were quick references, not impas- RARC meeting, a subcommittee including an sioned, sustained, biblically-inspired discourse evangelical pastor, a Unitarian minister, and an of the sort pictured in other studies of religion administrator from a regional synod of the main- in community organizing or community ser- line Lutheran (ELCA) church needed just 20 vice (Warren 2001; Wood 2002). minutes to draft a public proclamation to accom- The Cluster’s main brochure for potential pany the counter-Klan celebration they were members and congregations did invoke reli- planning: “We want to unite as people of reli- gious rationales. Typical of Cluster writings, gious faith united [sic] in believing that all peo- however, these rationales were very general in ple are created in the image of God.” It was hard nature. The brochure, for instance, explained to believe this group could write the preamble that “as people of faith we believe we are called so easily. Yet the Unitarian minister told me the to act in solidarity with our neighbors as they group all agreed easily and whole-heartedly on work to rebuild and renew their neighborhood.” the wording; her answer corroborated what I The activities it felt called upon to carry out were overheard from the group’s table. named “service, community building and advo- At another meeting, evangelical Reformed cacy.” Religious faith itself, unspecified, was a pastor Matthew distributed to RARC members reason for Cluster members to be involved with a statement “on racial and ethnic unity and the Park neighborhood as community builders Christian Faith” that used scriptural references and advocates, but the brochure did not articu- to state a more elaborate message: late the Cluster’s goals in very specific or tight- Genesis 1 speaks of a world that is marvelously fitting religious terms. The group’s first varied.|.|.|. God loves diversity.|.|.|. The church by brochure included a single biblical quote, Isaiah Delivered by Ingentaits actions to : and failures to act has too often partic- (1:17): “Devote yourselves to justice,University aid ofthe Southernipated California in racial prejudice, discrimination, and wronged. Uphold the rights of theThu, orphan; 14 Feb 2008 hatred.17:12:40 We call each other .|.|. to prayerfully exam- defend the cause of the widow.” ine ways we participate in racial sin by where we One member implied to me that the group live, invest our money, build and manage our was actually avoiding issues of injustice, while schools .|.|. to confess such sin to God and one another—who participated in writing the another and to turn from it.|.|.|. The Apostle Paul declared: “For he (Jesus Christ) is our peace, who brochure—lamented to me privately that the has made the two (Gentile and Jew) one and has group stretched too far toward justice issues, destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostili- beyond direct-service volunteering. “Defending ty” (Ephesians 2:14–16). widows and orphans” covered the Cluster’s vol- unteer and community-development projects Taken as an individual’s message, the group in only the loosest, metaphorical way, and when appreciated the statement and there was no the brochure-writing committee informed the argument. Cluster that it was replacing the passage from The pastor’s statement suggests two different Isaiah with a quote from Margaret Mead on the kinds of “racial sin,” both of which animated beneficent power of small groups, everyone RARC discussions. Members agreed it was assented without further comment. During my important to work against the personal sin of field work I never heard Cluster members argue racism. The Unitarian minister, the Lutheran over religious or secular rationales for different synod administrator, the United Church of action goals, nor over the goals of service, com- Christ minister, and the leader of an evangeli- munity building, and advocacy. They agreed cal, community-service group all used the terms 6 that different goals all had their place. “sin” or “confession” (sometimes both) to

SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS RATIONALES: THE RARC 6 Quotations not attributed to research literature are quotes from the people researched, recorded in par- Compared to Park Cluster, RARC members ticipant-observation field notes, unless otherwise articulated more specific religious rationales specified. RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–91 acknowledge their own racism. Mainline and Christian discourse of sin specifically to legit- evangelical Protestant members came to agree imate work against interpersonal and institu- that a social-structural kind of racism existed tional racism. In both of these cases, though, and was sinful too. The director of the RARC members agreed readily on their stated reasons instructed that “‘structural racism’is power and for goals without any sustained conflict. prejudices of the dominant class, affecting insti- tutions and disabl[ing] people who are not part USING RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE TO of these.” He intoned that “this group is feeling DRAW THE MAP called by God to deal with structural racism” and he asked members to give examples of it. Park Cluster and the RARC both understood Mainline and evangelical Protestants alike gave themselves as caught in situations that made examples with people in institutional settings; some aspect of members’social identities awk- none were about purely interpersonal, private ward or challenged. Members of each group relationships. All of the 12 congregational rep- imagined themselves as a “social object”—to resentatives in the room, including five evan- both outside audiences and themselves gelical and six mainline Protestant (Schwalbe and Mason-Schrock 1996). Each congregations, affirmed a willingness to com- used religious terms to map their place in rela- mit their congregations to “work on structural tion to the surrounding audiences, constructing racism.” relative insiders and outsiders in their situa- An alternative interpretation might hold that tions. This section shows that two maps emerged evangelicals went along with a focus on struc- in each group and illustrates that using religion tural racism mainly as a strategic face-saving for mapping is analytically distinct from using gesture. Emerson and Smith (2000) observed religion in rationales for group plans. that white evangelical Christian theology high- lights individual accountability for actions and Delivered by IngentaIMAGINING to : INCLUSION ON THE MAP: PARK sins, making “structural racism” seem like a University of SouthernCLUSTER California needless or even dangerous abstraction.Thu, If 14 evan- Feb 2008 17:12:40 gelical pastors, who made up nearly half the core It was not obvious to Park Cluster’s church rep- group, had preferred to side-step structural resentatives who they could be in relation to a racism, they could have insisted that the imper- low-income, mostly minority neighborhood ative to confess personal racism was enough for that, at the start, had little if any connection to now. Yet “structural racism” was already famil- Cluster churches. The Park neighborhood cen- iar to at least some evangelical members. At an ter’s black nationalist director told Cluster mem- earlier meeting, one had already brought up on bers, and a local media outlet, that she was his own that race and poverty seemed related wary of white church volunteers. Members’ and suggested that the RARC focus on “socie- comments suggest they felt a salient, white, and tal systems and structural issues” along with middle-class outsider identity, since many talked “the personal stuff.” Pastor Matthew partici- anxiously about how to be an acceptable pres- pated in a mayor’s task force that was investi- ence in the neighborhood. Two members empha- gating the charge that police stopped minority sized they did not want to be associated with drivers extraordinarily frequently. In short, it is volunteer do-gooders who would impose an plausible that the evangelicals in the RARC outside community’s standards on the neigh- were not troubled by the social-structural lan- borhood (see Daniels 1988). A leading member guage. Other research has also started finding warned me after my first meeting that well- evangelical churches that criticize racism in meaning “outsiders” came into the neighbor- social-structural terms (Rehwaldt-Alexander hood with preformed ideas about how to help, 2004). insisting on planting trees for instance. Others In different ways and to greatly varying criticized a draft of the Cluster’s goal statement degree, the RARC and Park Cluster used reli- for sounding paternalistic with a reference to gion to legitimate notions of what is right or “doing what’s good for the neighborhood.” wrong to think and do. The Cluster used a few These were all instances of “policing” the religious references loosely to legitimate a wide Cluster’s boundaries, as Schwalbe and Mason- variety of projects, while the RARC used a Schrock (1996) would say, even before contact 92—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW with Park residents over the activity or statement sponsored institution for the neighborhood as a in question. Later in the study, some Cluster whole. members mounted a door-to-door survey to In a similar vein, one core member told me find out which issues mattered to Park resi- she attended a “Communities of Shalom” train- dents because these members had learned not ing, sponsored by the United Methodist Church, to assume they knew. When Cluster members though she was an Episcopalian at the time. found out that the neighborhood center direc- The training taught churches how to create non- tor had violated city regulations by using grant proselytizing social support relationships with money to buy a lock for the Cluster’s food surrounding low-income, high-violence locales. pantry, the Cluster did not broach the subject “Community of Shalom” became another way right away because most members did not think that Cluster participants moved Park Cluster they were in a socially legitimate position to symbolically into the neighborhood. One judge a local black leader. Cluster member affirmed the Communities of At monthly meetings, Cluster members used Shalom idea as a good model for Park Cluster religious terms along with secular ones to make because it involved “faith communities organ- themselves insiders on the map they imagined. ized in stressed neighborhoods, and the church On what became the dominant map, Cluster is usually at the center, so the church becomes members defined their group as a respectful a center, as a [social support] source, in a more religious partner to a low-income neighbor- conscious way than faith communities usually hood of diverse minority populations. Members are.” Another Cluster member proposed a drew boundaries around their civic identity, dis- “Communities of Shalom” project at a brain- tancing it from paternalistic volunteers. They storming session held by the Urban Religious used religious terms such as “neighborhood Coalition. The Park neighborhood social work- er who attended monthly Cluster meetings sug- church,” “Community of Shalom,” and “parish” gested that a children’s event organized by the repeatedly, in similar ways, especiallyDelivered when by Ingenta to : Cluster at a city fair could link Park neighbor- pondering how to be in the neighborhood.University Such of Southern California hood children with “other Shalom terms might help Cluster membersThu, associate 14 Feb 2008 17:12:40 Communities.” their initially difficult, outsider social identity Cluster members used the term “parish” sim- with some continuous, affirming meaning ilarly, to understand their relationship to the (Hewitt 1989) and give them someone else to neighborhood as a supportive, religious alliance. be besides white outsiders. None of these terms Strikingly, neither during my field study nor in received any elaboration as theological ra- documents available to me did Cluster members tionales. Rather, the terms were aids for mapping ever expound on the theological meaning of the Cluster, or as Somers (1994) or Ammerman “parish” or its relation to group goals. Yet (2003) would point out, they implied story- Cluster members used the term “parish” con- lines—the solicitous church that serves a neigh- sistently to name the public health nurse they borhood, or the collectivity that prizes mutually cosponsored along with an African American respecting peace (“shalom”)—that could make church’s community-development corporation members’ group identity meaningful. and Lutheran Home, a senior care facility. It At one meeting, for instance, when mem- might have signaled that the Cluster was pro- bers puzzled over how to create respectful two- moting religious observance, revealing the way communication with the neighborhood, rationale for its neighborhood presence. This member Betty associated the Cluster with “the possibility seemed only more likely when concept of a neighborhood church.” “Most peo- Cluster members agreed with Lutheran Home’s ple have a concept of it, even if they’re not able decision to administer the nurse from the to make it work,” Betty said, and making it Home’s “pastoral care” rather than “nursing” work would mean making a church into a kind department. The nurse herself said she would of community center. No Cluster churches were offer Park residents a “healing worship service.” located in the Park neighborhood, and no Park Parish nursing is a new, still-evolving profes- residents regularly attended Cluster churches. sional specialty that tries to unite physical heal- Being a “neighborhood church” identified the ing and spiritual growth by way of a nurse who Cluster symbolically as a supportive, church- serves one congregation (Solari-Twadell and RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–93

McDermott 1999). This nurse would not serve Cluster to promote religious avowal as an end any particular congregation, so what did it mean in itself. to Park Cluster members to sponsor a Without secular comparison groups, these religiously-identified “parish nurse”? examples cannot tell whether or not religious Cluster members thought that sponsoring commitments caused the Cluster to gravitate such a nurse would help identify them “in sol- toward particular projects. We cannot use these idarity with our neighbors,” as another way to examples to gauge the internal religious fervor map themselves inside the neighborhood circle of Cluster members who spoke of the parish or with Park’s black residents. Cluster members got the Community of Shalom. The point, rather, is the idea that Park’s African Americans, the plu- that Park Cluster did use religious language rality of neighborhood residents, identified with repeatedly as part of its work of mapping, apart religious wisdom, although they did not try ver- from justifying the goals of providing public ifying the assumption during this study. The health services, housing assistance, and com- black church’s community-development cor- munity development. poration, which cosponsored the nurse, claimed that a “holistic” and “spiritual” nurse was cul- AN ALTERNATIVE MAP IN PARK CLUSTER turally appropriate for African Americans such Several Cluster members maintained a different as those in the Park neighborhood. In a two-page map of the Cluster’s social relations with some- prospectus, the development corporation said what different notions of inclusion and exclu- that such a nurse would be “culturally sensitive” sion. The most vocal was Ned. On Ned’s and resonate with clients’ “cultural strengths,” imagined map, Park Cluster was a moral using these two phrases a total of 12 times. The guardian, situated amid “respectable church- message was clear: a religiously-identified nurse goers” from outside the neighborhood and was the right kind for Park neighbors. Park sometimes less “Godly” residents inside the Cluster accepted this definition of appropriate-Delivered by Ingentaneighborhood, to : and the relationship between ness from a black organization itUniversity perceived of as Southern California Thu, 14 Feb 2008Cluster 17:12:40 and residents was one of moral tutelage. better positioned than white church volunteers To give one illustration: at one meeting Ned to define what was appropriate for low-income urgently asked whether there were enough trash African Americans. cans in the small neighborhood center that host- In Cluster conversations, no one ever asked ed the Cluster’s meetings and housed nearly about the content of the parish nurse’s worship two dozen community services. He emphasized service. Every conversation I heard the Cluster that the center’s appearance mattered: “We’re have about the nurse, or with the nurse direct- teaching—that’s the way it looks; that’s the way ly, had to do with her relationship to the neigh- it should look. The center needs to be a haven borhood—her “cultural appropriateness” or her of goodliness and Godliness.” Ned said in an willingness to get church volunteers acquaint- interview that he worried about what the cen- ed with the neighborhood. Cluster members’ ter would look like to church volunteers from praise for the nurse project always mentioned its outside the neighborhood, as well as what its potential to support a community, not its poten- appearance taught Park residents. I learned that tial to spread the Gospel. Member Steve, for Ned raised the same issue every spring. example, said in an affirming tone: “The typi- Ned did not say the Cluster or the center cal nurse program would rely on referrals from should teach anything religious in particular or clergy. There are none (no clergy referrals) advocate religiosity for center patrons, nor that here.|.|.|. That shows this is a community program religious beliefs compelled him to want a more (emphasis his).” The neighborhood warmly tidy center. Rather, he was implying with his use received the nurse, who quickly became busy of religious language that Cluster members with consultation hours. Whether or not the could identify themselves with goodness and Cluster accurately perceived Park neighbors’ symbolize a moral model for the neighborhood spiritual interests, or were trading on racial gen- center, which in turn would be an exemplar for eralizations, it would be hard to argue either that neighborhood residents. One might imagine a the nurse’s religious identity was irrelevant or map of concentric circles. Most other core that the nurse was primarily a means for the Cluster members avoided or rejected Ned’s 94—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW assumption that the Cluster was a moral exem- of this map emerged at one meeting when Evan, plar. As one member told me after this meeting, the leader of an evangelical community-service Ned’s approach was the wrong one because if network, switched the conversation from a ques- the issue was not already on the center board’s tion of what “faith communities” could do to own agenda, “it looks like imposing this outside what “the Church” could do about racism: “In standard.” Ned, in contrast, did not hesitate to faith communities, and in my perspective the apply his outside standard. Instead, he saw vol- Church, it’s [the race problem is] the barriers that unteers like himself as doing “good works” in already exist in the Church.” Evan said this was the neighborhood, and he contrasted this wide- the problem with using “issues” such as race to ly-known religious term with the neighborhood unite people. He thought the RARC “should center director’s “political” agenda. Political go back to addressing the character of the acts were morally unsavory, far from Godliness, Church itself.|.|.|. If we could get the walls to in this binary (Moon 2004). Ned, like other come down” and “experience a new kind of Cluster members, felt like an outsider in at least connectedness—that would solve some of these some ways, but on Ned’s preferred map, the problems.” On Evan’s map, churches were the Cluster did not have to identify so closely with main actors of interest, Christians were the main the neighborhood center and could instead judge audience, and stronger Christian faith, rather it from the outside, or else inject an external than anti-racist ideology, was the surest basis for standard into the heart of the neighborhood. uniting people against racism. The evangelical RARC members wanted the counter-Klan event to include worship— TWO CONTENDING MAPS: THE RARC Christian worship. The pastor of an evangelical Though RARC members quickly agreed on a Vineyard Christian Fellowship said, “What religious rationale for an anti-Klan public event, attracts me [to this event] is the opportunity to they spent a lot of time discussing what kind of worship with people.” He said he felt more response to the Klan was best. AllDeliveredmembers by Ingenta to : University of Southerncomfortable California being among Christian worshippers agreed they should identify the eventThu, as a14 pub- Feb 2008like 17:12:40 himself than in a group that defined itself lic religious response, not just a public response as people with “cultural differences” coming that happened to be organized by religious peo- together, because cultural difference may offer ple. They all told each other and stated in their no immediate affinity the way Christian iden- public proclamation that religion offered their tity would with someone of any race. Other main reasons for opposing racism. It was a chal- evangelical RARC members agreed that shared lenge, though, to represent the RARC to some faith was the sturdiest basis for public relation- imagined public, the definition of which was ships. Evan had proposed an idea for an “ecu- integral to the RARC’s own identity (Eliasoph menical choir” that symbolically would unite and Lichterman 2003; Melucci 1988). Planning (Christian) Lakeburgers. When another member discussions revealed two different maps of the suggested that the RARC’s anti-racist event RARC’s identity and its relation to Lakeburg, “build on” the ecumenical choir idea, Evan each informed by religious language from two objected: “We want this to be an event that broadly different Christian theological approach- brings people together. We want this—on a es. Each map charted a different response to the Sunday—to not be issue oriented. I’d be open Klan with somewhat differently defined insid- to that [race issue] on a Saturday, but .|.|. it’s a ers and outsiders. celebration of Jesus.” The most meaningful pub- Evangelical Protestants imagined the RARC lic relationships, on Evan’s map, were Christian as a Christian-identified group bridging racial relationships, and a shared “celebration of differences primarily in “the Church” or among Jesus” would bring together the people he imag- “the body of Christ.” The body of Christ had suf- ined—Christians—of any race. fered racial divisions and needed healing. The rest of the RARC, mostly mainline Evangelicals allowed that non-Christians in Protestants, identified the RARC on their map Lakeburg might participate in the counter-Klan as “people of faith” (in God) speaking to event, watching Christians symbolically purify Lakeburg citizens—not only Christians, nor the Church of racism, standing at the margins even necessarily religious people—urging them symbolically and literally. A typical expression to overcome racism. RARC director Donald, a RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–95 member of a mainline (ELCA) Lutheran church, definition they are not going to be about goodness said that he “would be excited by how faith and anti-racism. .|.|. This event will show our love. communities would call on God [to oppose Cheryl (Catholic): It’s the best response to cel- racism].|.|.|. In faith communities we could sup- ebrate all of our diversity .|.|. all that is good. port each other in this, as well as calling on the Pastor Matthew: There may be pressure—that when the Muslim prays, “I’ll pray to whom he is spirit of God to move among us.” On Donald’s praying” because it’s the polite thing to do. Or map, the RARC was representative of “faith when the Buddhist or Hindu .|.|. communities” empowering themselves with the Bob (evangelical, Vineyard Christian spirit of God to fight racism in Lakeburg, not Fellowship): My heart is to get the body of Christ Christians healing divisions in the “body of together—Protestants, evangelicals, Roman Christ” with a celebration of Jesus. The Catholics—there’s no love lost there, that’s big nonevangelicals imagined that the force of reli- enough. When I think of involving all the others, 7 gious faith could lead to interracial relation- I get lower in the chair .|.|. ships, just as the evangelicals did. For the The counter-Klan event, titled “All in the nonevangelicals, though, this was an interfaith Image of God,” featured a long program that force, one that takes form when diverse religious included the mayor’s welcome, a gospel music people express faith in concert. performance, a reading from St. Augustine, and The nonevangelical members of the RARC a multicultural dance act. Evangelical Pastor wanted the counter-Klan event to include wor- Matthew had said months before, “I can do ship, just as the evangelicals did, but they imag- interfaith, the food kind of thing—the sky is the ined an interfaith worship event. Nonevangelical limit. But if I’m going to be called to worship members affirmed the vision of Dawn, the not in the scripture, I can’t do it.” Evangelicals leader of the Native American performance cautioned that the dance act—which one pastor troupe, who said, “If you have your pastors, said resembled a traditional tribute to a Central and your Buddhist .|.|. and a Jewish rabbi, and American sun deity—dangerously smudged Delivered by Ingenta to : a Methodist, all stand in a circle and each say boundaries between “religion” and “culture” a prayer in their own language—toUniversity the Creator, of Southern California Thu, 14 Feb 2008that 17:12:40 evangelicals needed to sharpen, but which to Christ .|.|. we would all be in prayer togeth- Donald and other mainliners were happy to er with mutual respect.” In response to the evan- keep fuzzy. Once again, members worked from gelical objections she expected, Dawn insisted different maps. that an interfaith gathering is “not generic— Unlike in Park Cluster, different maps rough- rather it makes people get back in touch with ly lined up with different theologies inside what they really believe. The whole thing leads Christianity. The evangelicals’ greater concern back to people’s own faith traditions.” with clearly drawn boundaries around religious The difference in mappings became increas- truth is integral to evangelical Protestantism ingly obvious as planning for the counter-Klan (Smith 1998). Yet as the mainline Lutheran pas- event proceeded. As the following excerpts from tor said, there had been non-Christian partici- one typical conversation illustrate, evangelicals pants in the RARC from the start, and no one tended to raise boundaries on their map between had argued over that. No one had ever said that Christians inside the circle of full participants some religious rationales for opposing racism and others they imagined outside the circle. In were unacceptable. No one claimed to have felt contrast, nonevangelicals tended to picture compelled to worship the sun deity. The issue Christians and non-Christians closer together, was whether or not the RARC and its events with fuzzy lines between them, and emphasized should be known as having an interfaith identity. a boundary against racism but not against par- Both Park Cluster and the RARC straddled ticular religions. members’ differing maps, but in neither case DT (mainline Lutheran): I don’t want to go down could one reduce these differences easily to the Christian-only road. There has been non- stated religious rationales for collective goals. Christian involvement in this from the start. Pastor Matthew (evangelical, Reformed): How about the Satanic cult? Are they going to be wel- come [at the event]? 7 Block-indented passages are excerpted directly DT: Satanic cults are proponents of evil, and the from participant-observation field notes unless oth- struggle against racism is about goodness, so by erwise specified. 96—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Both the RARC and the Cluster had set out to Yet the social ministries grid did not suggest involve themselves in community life explicit- particular projects that could challenge injustice ly as religious groups, in conjunction with the or promote compassionate service. Instead, Urban Religious Coalition, so it is reasonable Cluster members developed questions to ask to think that religious identity was salient themselves about how they presented them- (Stryker 2000) for members of both groups as selves: Were they “partners” with the neigh- they were doing their community work. In each borhood, or was the relationship one of “givers case, tensions over how the community might and receivers”? Did the Cluster’s agenda-setters perceive the group finally boiled over. include representatives of the community? In 18 months of meetings, Cluster members never elaborated on the theology of social ministry, CONFLICTS OVER THE MAP unlike Warren’s (2001) affordable housing advo- In both the RARC and Park Cluster, the biggest cates, for instance, who drew explicitly on the conflicts erupted over how to define, shrink, or Bible in hopes of arriving at a “theology of lengthen the social distance between groups on housing.” They used the tag of “social min- their maps. The RARC’s conflict involved more istry” instead to help map identities and rela- specifically or articulately theological under- tionships, and that is how it functioned during standings of maps than did Park Cluster’s con- a moment of crisis. flict. These conflicts were mostly not, however, At the most emotional meeting held during the disputes over religious rationales said to my field research, members were devising a provoke “culture wars,” nor were they disputes new, more formal organizational structure. over how to frame issues (Benford 1993). They Several interrelated, contentious issues had were more akin to the conflicts over collective come to a head. First, the parish nurse had just identity that researchers have observed inside started working in the neighborhood. Several members complained sarcastically that they did some congregations (Becker 1999) Deliveredand social by Ingenta to : not know who was doing what with whom in the movement organizations (GamsonUniversity 1995; of Southern California neighborhood. Who would even pay the nurse? Lichterman 1995). Park Cluster resolvedThu, 14 Febits 2008 17:12:40 Second, a new African American, Afrocentric conflict by ratifying the dominant map, drawn neighborhood center director, Charmaine, had with the religious tag “social ministry.” The assumed her position recently, and Cluster mem- RARC’s resolution depended on members’ bers blamed themselves for at least part of the agreement with a bifurcated, sometimes chill in relations with her. One said, “When we Christian-only, sometimes interfaith map that bring Charmaine in here .|.|. there needs to be also gave a bigger presence to an anti-racist healing.” Ned, whom earlier complained that identity. Cluster members ought to ask “drug dealers” up the street to “do something for their communi- INSTALLING A DOMINANT MAP: ty,” offered a mea culpa: “I admit I’ve been the PARK CLUSTER major bad guy .|.|. and I’ll make a studious effort to avoid that in the future.” Before this study began, a consultant from a In the middle of this discussion, Betty said, statewide council of churches had talked to “The social ministry grid was very helpful.” Cluster members about potential religious She read aloud from a piece of paper with a grid responses to the 1996 welfare reforms. The con- of questions about relationship-building that sultant helped Cluster members develop a members had received by e-mail before the “social ministries grid,” a set of questions meeting. Then she summarized, “Those of you designed to help church volunteers think about doing hands-on work—with kids, the after- their roles. The idea of social ministry, derived school program .|.|. in the perception of people from the social gospel of early-twentieth-cen- you’re working with, we are not givers and tury mainline Protestantism, is that Christians receivers, but partners. We become not givers of should work toward bringing about God’s king- the community but partners of the community— dom on Earth by challenging unjust social struc- that we be perceived not as directors but part- tures. Social ministry can easily be a religious ners.” The repetition suggested that the point rationale for getting involved in social reform. mattered greatly to her. No one disagreed. Betty RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–97 did not use “social ministry” to legitimate par- agreeing on religious rationales for goals. ticular projects, and she implied that the social Shortly after the counter-Klan event, the RARC ministry grid could apply to direct-service vol- endured its single biggest conflict during this unteering, community development, and social study. The conflict concerned whether the advocacy. She used the phrase to map egalitar- RARC should be an interfaith (Christian and ian relationships, different from the relation- non-Christian) rather than an ecumenical ships on Ned’s map of moral guardianship. A Christian group. The compromise that ended this few more monthly meetings made clear that tense standoff depended at least partly on this tense meeting had been a watershed. Betty’s redrawing the group’s map. vision of the Cluster’s relations became the At one meeting, director Donald compiled a dominant one. Cluster members now regularly list of sensitive activities that members would scrutinized their relation to different entities in agree not to carry out together if the RARC the Park neighborhood. was interfaith. The list included worshipping in Ned and the two quieter members who sup- common, developing new congregations, hold- ported him were losing the battle over the map. ing religious classes, and writing new theolog- Ned complained at several meetings that the ical credos on racism. Members all agreed they group worried too much about how to relate to would not attempt activities on that list if the whom. Benevolent paternalism continued to RARC were to be officially an interfaith group. inform his preferred map, one on which social After the group arrived at this agreement, all but workers and Park Cluster members were func- one of the evangelical representatives said their tionally equivalent. He told me, for example, that congregations still could not participate in an social workers ought to go door-knocking in the interfaith RARC that had already ruled out the Park neighborhood, encouraging parents to wake theologically sensitive projects. In turn, three up and get their kids ready for school. This was mainline Protestant pastors said their congre- his model for Cluster members, too. The Cluster, Delivered by Ingentagations to could : not participate in an RARC that as Ned saw it, was less and less about “good University of Southernwould California be ecumenical Christian-only. One of works” and more about complicated, tedious Thu, 14 Feb 2008the 17:12:40 three asked what it must feel like to non- work. Ned felt diminished by the group, even Christians in the room, such as the two Baha’is, though members said they valued his contribu- to hear this conversation. At that point, pastor tion, and he threatened to quit altogether. Matthew asked the group to consider writing a Ned’s theological stance was not discernibly statement against partial-birth abortion, justi- different from that of other members. Like most Cluster members, he and his wife attended a fying the request with a platform plank from the mainline Protestant church that hosted a variety “Cry for Renewal.” The group had quickly set- of charitable, nonproselytizing outreach activ- tled into a focus on race months earlier, but ities. He helped write the Cluster brochure’s Matthew’s sudden proposal was now calling statement of purpose. Apart from the switch the group’s de facto purpose into question. from the prophet Isaiah to Margaret Mead, the Others responded: Cluster never considered a change in the state- Unitarian minister (cautiously): It’s not about race. ment of purpose, so it is unlikely that Ned’s Matthew: Race is what the group has become— theological rationales for Cluster work differed Evan, leader of the evangelical community- much from those of other members. Private service group: That’s right, it’s not about race. Are interviews gave no indication of significant dif- we going to become so consumed with race that ferences either, as other members also talked we don’t [take up] the other positions [on the plat- about being compassionate or doing “God’s form]? Matthew started reading aloud from the “Cry for work.” In group interactions, though, their maps Renewal”: We believe that every human life is a were different. gift from God and we are called to protect, nurture, and sustain life wherever it is threatened—whether REDRAWING BOUNDARIES by abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, IN THE RARC poverty— Donald (cutting in loudly): As chair, I want to In the RARC, in contrast, members recognized raise the issue of commitment to find common some explicit theological differences while ground. 98—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

The meeting adjourned with a festering ambi- present, he said without hesitation, “Oh, being guity about the RARC’s religious identity, and at the same event—that’s fine, fine, I rub shoul- a new uncertainty about its most basic goals. ders with them. We’re in the world together.” At the next month’s meeting, the Unitarian Rather, Matthew had to be able to accept the pastor facilitator suggested a change in the RARC’s status as a “social object,” its reputa- RARC’s identity. She proposed the group cre- tion. ate “space” for interfaith initiatives and Keith, an evangelical associate pastor, need- Christian-only initiatives, because “sometimes ed the same change to continue working with the we need the Jesus language.” Using a mapping RARC. When Keith named his congregation metaphor, she was redrawing boundaries with among those that could not work in an interfaith religious tags: Jesus language spoken in one group, he justified the decision with a quick, space, a language of “faith” in the other. Now, embarrassed recitation of his church’s mission Matthew boldly offered to ratify the new bound- statement: “To build the unity of the Church and aries: see the Word of Jesus Christ proclaimed.” Yet, If we could do what we said at the outset we were Keith was not literally advocating that the going to do—racism for instance, or one of the RARC promote the Word of Jesus Christ any other issues—if we can keep that the issue, and this more than Matthew was. Rather, Keith used his is a big change in opinion from previous meetings, church’s statement of motives to map boundaries then [the proposal is ok]. We’re not here to promote against an interfaith identity. When another pas- our faith perspective, we’re here to [work against] tor asked why Keith had come this far, only to racism. Now for me that means speaking from the say no to an officially interfaith identity, Keith teachings of Jesus. For some other people it may said, “We have not had these questions about mean something else. As long as we can keep the interfaith basis in the foreground before. Now focus on the topic of racism, I can see my way clear. they are.” When pushed on the issue, he need- Four other evangelical members assented read- ed to draw firmer boundaries between Christians Delivered by Ingenta to : ily to Matthew’s new picture Universityof the group, of Southernand peopleCalifornia known to be non-Christians. A group though the other regularly attendingThu, evangeli- 14 Feb 2008publicly 17:12:40 known to be interfaith would smudge cal said he would not be able to stay in the those boundaries. A deft, complex redefinition group. of the group’s status as a social object enabled Given Matthew’s long tenure in Lakeburg the RARC to hold together. and the prominence of his congregation, it was not surprising that other evangelicals in the DISCUSSION RARC followed his initiative. But how did he change his mind? A URC leader confided to me When translating religious commitments into that one of the mainline Protestant pastors had civic action, people must do the work of iden- sat down with Matthew in private, discussed tifying themselves and the insiders and out- biblical passages, and convinced him that fight- siders in their field, both to themselves and ing racism ought to be compelling on its own. their audience. Just as with nonreligious actors, Yet Matthew’s statement about his “big change” religious actors’ civic identities are situational implies that theological rationales for anti- to some extent and we cannot reduce these iden- racism, while important, were not enough with- tities to actors’ belief systems or rationales for out the new map. Matthew was saying the goals. Whether theologically articulate or not, RARC needed to agree to make its focus on race civic groups may use religious language to more distinct and make its religious identity address the practical problems of creating col- complex and situation-specific. Matthew would lective identities and working together. still identify his moral source publicly as “the This study adds to the growing investigation teachings of Jesus,” alongside others who might of where and how people express religious lan- identify differently. The issue was not that asso- guage in ordinary, everyday public settings in ciating with non-Christians might threaten the United States (e.g., Ammerman 2007; Matthew’s own core Christian rationales. When Bender 2003; Patillo-McCoy 1998). The map- I asked Matthew before the counter-Klan cele- ping perspective is not a replacement for large- bration how he felt about attending an event scale, sociohistorical accounts, such as the where Hare Krishnas or cult members might be religious privatization or culture wars theses, nor RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–99 secularization theories in general (e.g., Chaves bracketing questions of inner religiosity on 1994), but rather it helps us ask new questions methodological principle and taking uses of and sensitizes us (Blumer 1986) to new findings religious language as socially significant in at the level of everyday life. On one hand, themselves. An interactionist focus bids us ask research on groups’mapping efforts may enlarge how people “wear” religious identity in differ- our empirical grasp of the particular ways that ent ways, amid different groups in public. The religious privatization, deprivatization, or con- “mapping” approach helps us understand how flict play out in everyday group settings. On the people can use religious terms to define in- other hand, one may investigate what people groups and out-groups, and establish relations do with religious language in everyday life apart between them, without making assumptions from one’s stance on privatization or “culture about actors’deep religious motives. Important wars” as general overviews of American reli- previous studies have asked people how they gion. One may also investigate what people do identify themselves in relation to a field of reli- with religious language separately from asking gious beliefs or denominations (e.g., Regnerus questions about religion’s causal role in a group’s and Smith 1998; Sikkink 1998; Smith 1998). achievements. Locating religious language more The focus on mapping helps us understand how precisely, and hearing what people do with it, people create religious identity amid a variety can help us ask more comprehensive questions of public identities, religious or not. There is later about religion’s causal roles or its power as nothing intrinsic to religious groups that makes a cultural structure (Alexander 2003; them more in need of mapping than are other Lichterman and Potts forthcoming). civic entities. Their mapping may be more or The question of why people turn to religious less fraught depending on the situation. language at all to map public identities requires The mapping perspective helps integrate more case comparisons, but the evidence here ethnographic observations on religious identi- offers important clues. The two cases suggest ty into ongoing research on group process more Delivered by Ingenta to : that using religious language forUniversity mapping may of Southerngenerally. California For instance, the RARC’s experiences depend partly on which identities Thu,are salient14 Feb 2008support 17:12:40 the notion that a shared, superordinate inside the group in question, as well as beyond identity can smooth intergroup relations by it. The salience to Cluster members of awk- reducing the salience of original group bound- ward racial and economic differences between aries (Gaertner et al. 1999). The RARC meld- them and Park residents may have made the ed an amalgam superordinate identity— Cluster’s religious sponsorship a safer or more sometimes Christian, sometimes “people of compelling source of mapping terms than it faith,” always focused against racism—that would have been otherwise. Religious terms mainliners and evangelicals could work under may have offered Cluster members a meaning- without completely effacing their own group ful story about who Park Cluster could be in the identities. There are different strategies for cre- neighborhood, regardless of any putative reli- ating a superordinate identity. Future research giosity among Park residents. We need com- might explore whether or not evangelicals pre- parison cases to test this notion. Conversely, in fer “recategorization” strategies that allow orig- the RARC, it is plausible that disputes over inal group boundaries to endure under a larger salient religious differences made a shared non- shared aegis (Brewer and Schneider 1990), and religious identity of anti-racism, alongside a liberal Protestants prefer “personalization” sometimes-interfaith religious identity, a strategies (Brewer and Miller 1984) that soften stronger basis for collaboration amid differ- original boundaries, as when the RARC pastor ences. Both the RARC and Park Cluster asked the few non-Christians what it felt like to “policed” boundaries, even apart from outsiders’ hear a conversation that might result in their immediate responses. exclusion from the group. More ethnographic Combining insights from cultural and inter- studies of mapping can specify the contextual, actionist approaches (Eliasoph and Lichterman social, and cultural factors in cohesion across 2003) yields new insights on public religion. A group lines. cultural focus bids us follow religious lan- The concepts and findings presented here guage—conceived as coming from repertoires suggest other new research agendas. First, for that exist beyond any single situation—while U.S. cases, a focus on mapping might over- 100—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW come the impasse in the culture wars debate. These very brief applications simply suggest that Proponents of the culture wars thesis hold that studying mapping can enlarge our grasp of reli- conflicts between religious conservatives and gious differences and conflict, far beyond the religious liberals or secularists play out largely United States. at the level of discourse produced by interest Second, we need more studies of when and groups. Opponents of the thesis have looked to how religion helps groups unite across social surveys of individual Americans’ opinions, cleavages for civic ends. If much of the recent found relatively little polarization beyond the decline in U.S. civic engagement has resulted signal topic of abortion, and concluded that from the declining participation of socially sub- culture wars do not exist. Focusing on con- ordinate groups (Wuthnow 2002), there may flicting styles of mapping, apart from conflict- now be fewer potential participants to perform ing theological rationales, may increase our the “bridging” ties between socially unlike peo- understanding of how, if ever, and in which set- ple that civic engagement scholars promote tings different kinds of religious conflict (Putnam 2000), ties such as those Park Cluster develop. cultivated. Future comparative research on reli- The mapping notion may sensitize us to gious and secular civic alliances can show when important dimensions of interreligious conflict religiously informed definitions of insiders and beyond U.S. or Christian cases too. For instance, outsiders help, or hinder, majority–minority ethnographic researchers are starting to ask how alliances. Muslims in western Europe “perform” Muslim Third, welfare policy reforms in North identity in multireligious or secular contexts, America and Western Europe have invited reli- taking the performance as analytically separate gious organizations to provide more social sup- from, albeit related to, Muslim belief (Amiraux port, making it newly important to understand and Jonker 2006:17). Amiraux (2006:32) illus- what people do with religion in public (Bane, trates, for example, how a Muslim woman Delivered by IngentaCoffin, to and : Thiemann 2000; Uppsala Institute activist argued with other devout Muslims who University of Southern2003). California Typologies of “faith-based” social- said her failure to wear a headscarf gave the Thu, 14 Feb 2008service 17:12:40 organizations are proliferating (Sider French public a “bad image of Muslim women.” and Unruh 2004), and researchers are compar- She honored the theology of her challengers ing how religious and secular social-service and wanted to help Muslims become better practitioners of their religion, yet also said “I am organizations run programs and present them- a Muslim, but people do not need to know what selves to clientele (Ebaugh et al. 2003; Wuthnow I do as a Muslim.” It was not that she had a dif- 2004). Yet there is more to do. If religion has dis- ferent religious rationale for Muslim community tinctive influences on social service delivery, is activism, but she had a different map of how to it because of religion’s influence as a rationale project a Muslim identity. In her study of middle- for goals, or as an aid to including or excluding class Pakistani youth in Islamic organizations, people, or both? What conditions make an Blom (2007) finds that everyone, regardless of explicit religious identity desirable or irritat- their particular sect, reasoned that joining the ing to social service agencies, community organizations was part of “getting closer to organizations, and service populations? Islam” and attaining self-betterment, yet join- Policymakers have implied that faith-based ers learned different maps of how to be a social service is not only more effective and Muslim in relation to the wider world. Some cheaper than the work of state agencies, but it said each must find the right religious “path” will also empower Americans as charitable, and contrasted these privatized commitments responsible partners in a new social contract with governmental enforcement of religion. (DiIulio 2001). Initial findings (Chaves 2004) Others similarly disfavored governmentally cast doubt on the notion that church-based social enforced religion but assumed that their uni- service is an efficient or easily available alter- versities should be inside the circle of religious native to government agencies. To assess domes- authority, and on that basis they opposed music tic policy’s broader assumptions about the civic instruction on campus. The point is not that uses of religion, we need more studies of how theological rationales don’t matter, nor that the- public religious actors map themselves into the ological differences inside Islam don’t matter. wider world. RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–101

Paul Lichterman is currently Associate Professor Benford, Robert. 1993. “Frame Disputes Within the of Sociology and Religion at the University of Nuclear Disarmament Movement.” Social Forces Southern California. Much of his research investi- 71:677–700. gates the cultural and social dynamics of volunteer Berger, Peter. 1967. The Sacred Canopy: Elements groups, community organizations, and social move- of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, ments. Recently he has studied religious communi- NY: Doubleday. ty-service groups responding to U.S. welfare policy Berger, Peter and Richard J. Neuhaus. 1977. To reform. He is the author of The Search for Political Empower People: From State to Civil Society. Community and Elusive Togetherness: Church Washington, DC: AEI Press. Groups Trying to Bridge America’s Divisions. He is Blom, Amélie. 2007. “‘I Am New in Islam’: Militant beginning a project, ultimately cross-national, on Re-Islamization among the Pakistani Youth.” how different group styles and public rhetorics cir- Presented at Muslim Mobilization and Claims- culate in the field of organizations working on hous- making in Secular Europe and Beyond: An Inter- ing issues. disciplinary Challenge? May 25–26, European University Institute, Florence, Italy. Blumer, Herbert. 1986. “What is Wrong with Social REFERENCES Theory?” Pp. 140–152 in Symbolic Interactionism. Alexander, Jeffrey. 2003. The Meanings of Social Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Life: A Cultural Sociology. New York: Oxford Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. University Press. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Amiraux, Valerie. 2006. “Speaking as a Muslim: Brewer, Marilynn B. and Norman Miller. 1984. Avoiding Religion in French Public Space.” Pp. “Beyond the Contact Hypothesis: Theoretical 21–52 in Politics of Visibility: Young Muslims in Perspectives on Desegregation.” Pp. 281–302 in European Public Spaces, edited by G. Jonker and Groups in Contact: The Psychology of V. Amiraux. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Desegregation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Publishers. Brewer, Marilynn B. and S. Schneider. 1990. “Social Amiraux, Valerie and Gerdien Jonker. 2006. Identity and Social Dilemmas: A Double-Edged “Introduction: Talking about Visibility—Actors,Delivered by IngentaSword.” to :Pp. 169–184 in Social Identity Theory: Politics, Forms of Engagement.”University Pp. 9–20 of in SouthernConstructive California and Critical Advances, edited by D. Politics of Visibility: Young Muslims Thu,in European 14 Feb 2008 Abrams17:12:40 and M. Hogg. New York: Springer-Verlag. Public Spaces, edited by G. Jonker and V. Amiraux. Brown, Michael P. 1998. RePlacing Citizenship: New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. AIDS Activism and Radical Democracy. New York: Ammerman, Nancy. 1997. “Golden Rule Christianity: Guilford Press. Lived Religion in the American Mainstream.” Pp. Call to Renewal. 1995. “The Cry for Renewal: 196–216 in Lived Religion in America, edited by Biblical Faith and Spiritual Politics.” Washington, D. Hall. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DC: Call to Renewal. Retrieved July 26, 2006 ———. 2003. “Religious Identities and Religious (http://www.calltorenewal.com/about_us/ Institutions.” Pp. 207–24 in Handbook for the index.cfm/action/history.html#faith). Sociology of Religion, edited by M. Dillon. Casanova, Jose. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2005. Pillars of Faith: American Chaves, Mark. 1994. “Secularization as Declining Congregations and Their Partners. Berkeley, CA: Religious Authority.” Social Forces 72:749–75. University of California Press. ———. 2004. Congregations in America. ———. 2007. Everyday Religion: Observing Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Modern Religious Lives. New York: Oxford Cicourel, Aaron. 1981. “Notes on the Integration of University Press. Micro- and Macro-Levels of Analysis.” Pp. 51–80 Baggett, Jerome. 2000. Habitat for Humanity: in Advances in Social Theory: Toward an Building Private Homes, Building Public Religion. Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, edit- Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. ed by K. Knorr-Cetina and A. Cicourel. Boston, Bane, Mary Jo, Brent Coffin, and Ronald Thiemann. MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 2000. Who Will Provide? The Changing Role of Cohen, Jean and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society Religion in American Social Welfare. Boulder, CO: and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Westview Press. Daniels, Arlene Kaplan. 1988. Invisible Careers: Becker, Penny Edgell. 1999. Congregations in Women Civic Leaders from the Volunteer World. Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Press. Davie, Jody. 1995. Women in the Presence: Bender, Courtney. 2003. Heaven’s Kitchen: Living Constructing Community and Seeking Spirituality Religion at God’s Love We Deliver. Chicago, IL: in Mainline Protestantism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Chicago Press. University of Pennsylvania Press. 102—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Demerath, Jay. 2001. Crossing the Gods: World Debate in an American Community. Berkeley, CA: Religions and Worldly Politics. Rutgers, NJ: University of California Press. Rutgers University Press. Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The DiIulio, John. 2001. “John M. Olin Foundation Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Lecture on the Moral Foundations of American Aldine Publishing Company. Democracy.” April 27, Princeton University, Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Princeton, NJ. Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. DiMaggio, Paul. 2003. “The Myth of Culture War: ———. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management The Disparity between Private Opinion and Public of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Politics.” Pp. 79–97 in The Fractious Nation?, Hall. edited by J. Rieder and S. Steinlight. Berkeley, Gold, Raymond. 1958. “Roles in Sociological Field CA: University of California Press. Research.” Social Forces 36:217–23. DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans, and Bethany Bryson. Hart, Stephen. 2001. Cultural Dilemmas of 1996. “Have Americans’Social Attitudes Become Progressive Politics. Chicago, IL: University of More Polarized?” American Journal of Sociology Chicago Press. 102:690–755. Hewitt, John. 1989. Dilemmas of the American Self. Ebaugh, Helen Rose, Paula Pipes, Janet Saltzman Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Chafetz, and Martha Daniels. 2003. “Where’s the Hoge, Dean, Benton Johnson, and Donald Luidens. Religion? Distinguishing Faith-Based from Secular 1994. Vanishing Boundaries. Louisville, KY: Social Service Agencies.” Journal for the Scientific Westminster/John Knox Press. Study of Religion 42(3):411–26. Hunt, Scott, Robert Benford, and David Snow. 1994. Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas “Identity Fields: Framing Processes and the Social Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists As ‘Other’: Moral Construction of Movement Identities.” Pp. Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American 185–208 in New Social Movements: From Ideology Society.” American Sociological Review to Identity, edited by E. Laraña, H. Johnston, and 71(2):211–34. J. Gusfield. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Edwards, Bob and Michael Foley, eds. 1997. Press. American Behavioral Scientist.DeliveredVol. 40 by IngentaHunter, to James : D. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle (March–April). Issue devoted to University“Social Capital, of Southernto CaliforniaDefine America. New York: Basic Books. Civil Society, and Contemporary Democracy.”Thu, 14 Feb 2008———. 17:12:401994. Before the Shooting Begins: Eliasoph, Nina and Paul Lichterman. 2003. “Culture Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture in Interaction.” American Journal of Sociology War. New York: Free Press. 108:735–94. Jacobs, Ronald. 2003. “Toward a Political Sociology Emerson, Michael and Christian Smith. 2000. of Civil Society.” Research in Political Sociology Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the 12:19–47. Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and University Press. Manners. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Emerson, Robert, Rachel Fretz, and Linda Shaw. Press. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, Lamont, Michèle and Virág Molnár. 2002. “The IL: University of Chicago Press. Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Farnsley, Arthur II, N. J. Demerath III, Etan Diamond, Annual Review of Sociology 28:167–95. Mary L. Mapes, and Elfriede Wedam. 2004. Sacred Lichterman, Paul. 1995. “Piecing Together Circles, Public Squares: The Multicentering of Multicultural Community: Cultural Differences American Religion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana in Community Building Among Grass-Roots University Press. Environmentalists.” Social Problems Farr, Robert and Serge Moscovici. 1984. Social 42(4):513–34. Representations. Cambridge and New York: ———. 1996. The Search for Political Community. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Gaertner, Samuel, John Dovidio, Jason Nier, Press. Christine Ward, and Brenda Banker. 1999. “Across ———. 1999. “Identity Talk in the Public Sphere: Cultural Divides: The Value of a Superordinate Broad Visions and Small Spaces in Sexual Identity Identity.” Pp. 173–212 in Cultural Divides: Politics.” Theory and Society 28(1):101–41. Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict, ———. 2005. Elusive Togetherness: Church edited by D. Prentice and D. Miller. New York: Groups Trying to Bridge America’s Divisions. Russell Sage Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gamson, Joshua. 1995. “Must Identity Movements Lichterman, Paul and C. Brady Potts. Forthcoming. Self Destruct? A Queer Dilemma.” Social The Civic Life of American Religion. Stanford, Problems 42:101–18. CA: Stanford University Press. Ginsburg, Faye. 1989. Contested Lives: The Abortion Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The Invisible Religion: RELIGION AND CIVIC IDENTITY—–103

The Problem of Religion in Modern Society. New Action.” American Journal of Sociology York: Macmillan. 111(3):673–714. McCarthy, Kathleen. 1999. “Religion, Philanthropy, Schwalbe, Michael and Douglas Mason-Schrock. and Political Culture.” Pp. 297–315 in Civil Society, 1996. “Identity Work as Group Process.” Advances Democracy, and Civic Renewal, edited by R. in Group Processes 13:113–47. Fullinwider. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Sider, Ronald and Heidi Unruh. 2004. “Typology of Littlefield. Religious Characteristics of Social Service and McRoberts, Omar. 2003. Streets of Glory: Church Educational Organizations and Programs.” and Community in a Black Urban Neighborhood. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 33(1):109–34. Melucci, Alberto. 1988. “Getting Involved: Identity Sikkink, David. 1998. “‘I Just Say I’m a Christian’: and Mobilization in Social Movements.” Pp. Symbolic Boundaries and Identity Formation 329–48 in International Social Movement among Church-Going Protestants.” Pp. 49–71 in Research. Vol. 1, edited by B. Klandermans, H. Re-Forming the Center: American Protestantism, Kriesi, and S. Tarrow. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 1900 to the Present, edited by D. Jacobsen and Mische, Ann. 2007. Partisan Publics. Princeton, NJ: W. V. T rollinger Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Princeton University Press. Skocpol, Theda and Morris Fiorina. 1999. Civic Moon, Dawne. 2004. God, Sex, and Politics. Berkeley Engagement in American Democracy. Washington, and Los Angeles, CA: University of California DC and New York: Brookings Institution Press Press. and Russell Sage Foundation. Munson, Ziad. 2007. “When a Funeral Isn’t Just a Smith, Christian. 1996. Disruptive Religion: The Funeral: The Layered Meaning of Everyday Force of Faith in Social Movement Activism. New Action.” Pp. 121–35 in Everyday Religion: York: Routledge. Observing Modern Religious Lives, edited by N. ———. 1998. American Evangelicalism: T. Ammerman. New York: Oxford University Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Press. Snow, David and Leon Anderson. 1987. “Identity Neitz, Mary Jo. 2004. “Gender and Culture: Work among the Homeless: The Verbal Challenges to the Sociology of Religion.”Delivered by Ingenta to : Construction and Avowal of Personal identities.” Sociology of Religion 65(4):391–403.University of Southern California American Journal of Sociology 92:1336–71. Nepstad, Sharon. 2004. Convictions Thu,of the 14 Soul: Feb 2008 17:12:40 Snow, David and Robert Benford. 1988. “Ideology, Religion, Culture and Agency in the Central Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” America Solidarity Movement. New York: Oxford Pp. 197–217 in International Social Movement University Press. Research. Vol. 1, edited by B. Klandermans, H. Patillo-McCoy, Mary. 1998. “Church Culture as a Kriesi, and S. Tarrow. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Strategy of Action in the Black Community.” Snow, David and Doug McAdam. 2000. “Identity American Sociological Review 63:767–84. Work Processes in the Context of Social Polletta, Francesca and James M. Jasper. 2001. Movements: Clarifying the Identity/Movement “Collective Identity and Social Movements.” Nexus.” Pp. 41–67 in Self, Identity and Social Annual Review of Sociology 27:283–305. Movements, edited by S. Styker, T. Owens, and R. Putnam, Robert. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s White. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy Press. 6:65–78. Solari-Twadell, Phyllis and Ann McDermott, eds. ———. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and 1999. Parish Nursing: Promoting Whole Person Revival of American Community. New York: Simon Health within Faith Communities. Thousand Oaks, and Schuster. CA: Sage. Regnerus, Mark and Christian Smith. 1998. Somers, Margaret. 1994. “The Narrative Constitution “Selective Deprivatization among American of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach.” Religious Traditions: The Reversal of the Great Theory and Society 23:605–49. Reversal.” Social Forces 76:1347–72. Stone, Gregory. 1962. “Appearance and the Self.” Pp. Rehwaldt-Alexander, Jeremy. 2004. “Racial 86–118 in Human Behavior and Social Processes, Reconciliation among Evangelicals: The Limits edited by A. Rose. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. and Possibilities of Congregational Efforts.” PhD Strauss, Anselm. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social dissertation, Department of Religion, Vanderbilt Scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University University, Nashville, TN. Press. Sampson, Robert, Doug McAdam, Heather Stryker, Sheldon. 1968. “Identity Salience and Role MacIndoe, and Simon Weffer-Elizondo. 2005. Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic “Civil Society Reconsidered: The Durable Nature Interaction Theory for Family Research.” Journal and Community Structure of Collective Civic of Marriage and Family 30(4):558–64. 104—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

———. 2000. “Identity Competition: Key to Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Differential Social Movement Participation?” Pp. Press. 21–40 in Self, Identity and Social Movements, Williams, Rhys. 1995. “Constructing the Public edited by S. Stryker, T. Owens, and R. White. Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources.” Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Social Problems 42:124–44. Thomas, George M. and Douglas S. Jardine. 1994. Wood, Richard. 2002. Faith in Action. Chicago, IL: “Jesus and Self in Everyday Life: Individual University of Chicago Press. Spirituality through a Small Group in a Large Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order. Church.” Pp. 275–99 in “I Come Away Stronger”: Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. How Small Groups Are Shaping American ———. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion, edited by R. Wuthnow. Grand Rapids, Religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University MI: Eerdmans. Press. Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1835] 1969. Democracy in ———. 1991. Acts of Compassion. Princeton, NJ: America, edited by J. P. Mayer. Translated by G. Princeton University Press. Lawrence. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. ———. 1992. Vocabularies of Public Life. New Turner, John C., Michael A. Hogg, Penelope Oakes, York: Routledge. Stephen Reicher, and Margaret Wetherell. 1987. ———. 1997. “The Cultural Turn: Stories, Logics Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self- and the Quest for Identity in American Religion.” Categorization Theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Pp. 245–65 in Contemporary American Religion: Blackwell. An Ethnographic Reader, edited by P. E. Becker Uppsala Institute for Diaconal and Social Studies. and N. L. Eiesland. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira 2003. Welfare and Religion in a European Press. Perspective: A Comparative Study of the Role of ———. 2002. “Bridging the Privileged and the Churches as Agents of Welfare within the Social Marginalized?” Pp. 59–102 in Democracies in Economy. Uppsala, Sweden: Diakonivetenskapliga Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in institutet. Contemporary Society, edited by R. Putnam. Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2004. Talking About Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Politics: Informal Groups and SocialDelivered Identity in by Ingenta———. to 2004. : Saving America? Faith-Based American Life. Chicago, IL: UniversityUniversity of Chicago of SouthernServices California and the Future of Civil Society. Princeton, Press. Thu, 14 Feb 2008 NJ:17:12:40 Princeton University Press. Walzer, Michael. 1992. “The Civil Society Wuthnow, Robert and John Evans. 2002. The Quiet Argument.” Pp. 89–107 in Dimensions of Radical Hand of God: Faith Based Activism and the Public Democracy, edited by C. Mouffe. London, UK: Role of Mainline Protestantism. Berkeley, CA: Verso. University of California Press. Warner, R. Stephen. 1993. “Work in Progress toward Wuthnow, Robert, Virginia Hodgkinson, and a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Associates. 1990. Faith and Philanthropy in Religion in the United States.” American Journal America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. of Sociology 98:1044–93. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Warren, Mark R. 2001. Dry Bones Rattling: Distinctions in Everyday Life. New York: Free Community Building to Revitalize American Press.