Scholars of Religion: They’re Finding an Audience That Will Listen

They tend to talk in sociological jargon. Their lengthy, scholarly papers are filled with polysyllabic words and convoluted sentence structure.

A kind of obscure class of eggheads, they are nonetheless the pulse-takers and predictors of the world of religion, drawing on the technical tools of historical research, sociological analysis, psychological testing and opinion sampling.

And, despite the suspicions of many pastors and not a few custodians of religious institutions that the scholars are out to undermine the faithful’s beliefs, groups like the 1,400-member Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and the smaller Religious Research Assn. are being listened to more intently.

The circulation of their journals has grown, more students are taking up religious studies in college and more media representatives than ever attended the three-day joint conference of the two groups that ended here Sunday.

“Academicians are the most incredible species in the world,” laughed Jeffrey K. Hadden, a University of Virginia sociologist and the society’s immediate past president. “The general public doesn’t know what we do, but supports us anyway.”

The organizations, which have only recently begun to win the media’s ear and some religious practitioners’ cautious respect, now find they are often near the cutting edge of religious events.

For example, of the more than 300 papers presented here, about a dozen dealt with events that threatened to make the papers obsolete almost before they were read.

In one instance, reports of developments in the recent Utah bombing deaths of several dealers in possibly fraudulent Mormon documents filtered in even as sociologist Anson Shupe of the University of Texas presented a paper, “Religious Faith and Victimization: The Case of Mormon Scams.”

His thesis is that the propensity of Mormons to fall victim to scams “can frequently be explained by their being embedded in a quasi-familial network as well as possessing certain subcultural expectations that their leaders . . . can be unquestionably followed without harm, that Mormons are immune from the risks and misfortunes of market investments, and that a millenial timetable justifies attempts to secure quick-return (rather than long-term) investments.”

In another, Dean R. Hoge, a Presbyterian professor of sociology at the Catholic University of America, gave a keynote lecture on “Interpreting Change in American Catholicism: The River and the Floodgate.”

The paper was set against an epochal “extraordinary synod” meeting next month in Rome of Pope John Paul II and the world’s national hierarchies of Catholic bishops. By the time Hoge’s paper is published in the association’s quarterly, the synod--which he called “a struggle of center versus periphery in the worldwide Roman church,” and “a major media event . . . (convoked) . . . for unknown reasons which are the subject of unending rumors”--will already be history.

Though the society’s program theme was “Religion and the Political Order” and the association’s “Conflict and Unity in the Churches,” the papers and lectures covered a smorgasbord of concerns.

There was a paper on “Black Religious Sisterhood: Harlem Political Action in the Great Depression.” Another tracked “Finnish Interest in Indian Religions from 1880 to the Present Day.” Others tackled “The Place of Prophecy in Hindu Society,” “The Catholic Church as an Invisible Community” and “Faith Healing: Benefits to Families.” Three professors analyzed “The Quixotic Quest for Civility: The Interaction Between the New Christian Right and Secular Humanists,” and another two considered “Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Religion?”

Their conclusion: AA is quasi-religious. “We do not mean by this that AA is a religious entity which pretends to be secular, nor do we mean that AA is a secular organization which bears a resemblance to religious collectivities,” they wrote. “Rather, we mean that a tension between sacred and secular is an integral part of the AA program.”

Although greater public awareness of the groups may be new, the organizations themselves have existed for decades.

The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, a body of 1,400 members from 35 countries, was created 36 years ago in the mold of sociologists Margaret Mead and Gordon Allport “and other scholars interested in religion from a theoretical point of view,” according to Hadden. The smaller Religious Research Assn. grew out of denominations’ interest in demographic studies in the 1960s, he added.

Sociologists compose about 60% of the society’s membership; anthropologists, another 5%; religious ethicists, theologians and church historians together account for about 10%. Less than 10% are pastors and denominational staff workers.

“But there’s no litmus test of a Ph.D. or anything” to join, Hadden said.

The society, once $17,000 in debt, has banked several hundred thousand dollars, Hadden added in an interview. It is making grants of up to $3,000 to members to pursue research. A business manager handles the groups’ affairs plus those of a third, the Assn. for the Sociology of Religion. A smaller, though related, organization, it was originally founded 50 years ago as the American Catholic Sociological Society.

There Are Suspicions

Although many social scientists of religion appear to be basking in the sun of interdisciplinary recognition and at least a modicum of media attention, old suspicions die hard.

“Catholic bishops today have two minds about sociology,” Hoge said. “On the one hand they are convinced that it may be helpful, but on the other hand they don’t want any findings made public that might embarrass the church, or even more . . . any bishops. So there is great caution about research. . . . There is always an attempt to monitor any studies to control any ‘inconveniences’ which may be uncovered.”

Mainline religious leaders are not the only ones who have misgivings, however.

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the Indian guru who heads an embattled, sprawling Oregon city-commune, sent a videotape on “the new religions.” On tape, he reponded to a question about the merits of the scientific study of religion.

‘Ridiculous Question’

“It is the most ridiculous question I have ever heard,” the bhagwan said after a long silence. Religious experience, he said, is subjective and thus cannot be analyzed scientifically.

But Phillip E. Hammond, professor of religious studies and sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was sanguine.

“There is an undeniable openness on the part of religion scholars to recognize the potential value of the scientific study of religion,” Hammond, who took office Sunday as the society’s new president, told a reporter. “It has been a long time coming, but I think the gates are about to be opened.”

Noting the previous lack of exchange between “the scholarly community and those who interpret religion” to the public, Wade Clark Roof, a University of Massachusetts sociologist, added:

“We have people here who not only have the expertise, but who like to align themselves in service to institutional religion. . . . It’s just a good time to be a sociologist of religion; things are happening.”