Sam Perry's "Religion for Realists"
Reimagining The Scientific Study of Religion
I first became aware of University of Oklahoma sociology professor Samuel Perry when I was preparing the syllabus for a sociology of religion class I taught in the Spring of 2019. When I taught that class I always used a text accompanied by two monographs. The one I selected for that semester was Sam’s Growing God’s Family: The Global Orphan Care Movement and the Limits of Evangelical Activism.
After reading God’s Family, I paid attention to what Sam was up to. He wrote a book on conservative protestants and pornography use. He wrote two on Christian Nationalism: one with Andrew Whitehead and one with Phil Gorski (didn’t read the latter). It was always great to say hi at SSSR meetings.
When I saw the SSSR Pittsburgh program, I noted that there was an “author meets the critics” session on Saturday about Sam’s most recent book, Religion for Realists: Why We All Need the Scientific Study of Religion (which had officially released earlier that week). The “critics” in question were well-respected figures in the social science of religion and I knew two of them well. After hearing their reflections and Sam’s responses, I ordered the book before the session was over. I finished it last night.
There are six chapters in this relatively short book. The first four deal with how those of us who study religion commonly understand religion and religious change and offer correctives to the assumptions undergirding those understandings. The last two offer a critique of how the study of religion is viewed by the academy (particularly sociology) and how we should become more public facing in our analyses.
I’ll deal with these latter chapters first so I can spend most of my focus on the first four. In chapter five, titled “More than Benign Disinterest” Sam analyzes the marginalization of religion as a relevant topic in sociology. It is hard to find faculty positions build around religion and is often combined with other (“more repectable”) areas of study. Why is religion marginalized in sociology? Because it is seen as a personal topic (what Sam calls “me-search”) and might actually be a stigma that one is overly conservative and/or fundamentalist.
I realized while reading that my experience in Christian universities was exactly opposite of what Sam discusses. The assumption is that I would be religious (a condition of hiring) but the sociology was likely marginalized (which is why Christian universities are cannibalizing, subsuming, or eliminating their sociology departments). Studying religion was great; critiquing patterns not so much.
The sixth chapter outlines the need for public-facing scholarship on religion. After bemoaning the small circle of influence most research has, with a limited journal readership, Sam outlines the importance of sharing data and presuppositions with the broader public. This, he argues, is key to building an enhanced sense of trust with the general public. As much as social scientists are accused (rightly or wrongly) of debunking religion, our research needs to be better understood by those outside the academy. This is why I started this SubStack even though I’m not doing as much quantitative research as I’d like (I’m slowly learning R).
It is the first part of the book that holds the most importance for those who study or practice religion in our contemporary context. It asked questions and challenged assumptions I’ve been wrestling with myself for a long time.
In the first chapter, Sam tells the story of the analysis in Growing God’s Family. In exploring the differences between how families described their motivations for adoption and the theological justifications1 given, he writes this:
The discrepancy in accounts points to a foundational Anglo-Protestant assumption. It’s an assumption that extends far beyond these evangelical communities, which is why secular journalists were so quick to buy the testimonials of these adoptive families as fact. This is the assumption that religious action is driven by faith in some theological idea. On the contrary, as is more the rule than the exception, theology came later. (24)
Sam builds upon this recognition in the second chapter He argues that group identity precedes theology.2 I am part of such and such a group and they say that they believe so and so. I will claim that belief as well because belonging to that group is important to me.
Our dominant Western understanding of “religion” need to transition away from understanding theological beliefs as the primary drivers of social behavior, but instead as markers of group memberships. In the service of social identity, theology mostly gives the tools to narrate our circumstance to ourselves and others. It allows us to locate ourselves within a collective, while also infusing what might otherwise be secular “us vs. them” conflicts with Ultimate and cosmic significance. (42)
He illustrates this in several ways but one of my favorites has to do with oft-used survey questions about what one believes about the Bible. These questions usually have one response option on inerrancy, one that is slightly modified (we’d call it biblical authority), one positing that it was written long ago and may not apply, and one that suggests that the Bible is just a bunch of stories. Respondents tend to pick the first option even though practically they are closer to the second. Sam explains that they are really answering “Do I want to think of myself as a religious person?” and then pick the response (the inerrant one) that best answers that question.
This is a profound shift in understanding. It helps us understand data patterns that don’t quite fit the smell test. For example, right before Christmas polls will show huge percentages of respondents saying they believe in the virgin birth. Right before the Super Bowl, they will say that God influences the outcomes of major sporting events.3 But maybe what is really happening is that people are saying, “I’m with those who believe the Bible” or “We believe God is always in control”.
Grasping this distinction could be huge for religious freedom cases. Here in Colorado, we’ve had numerous cases make it to the Supreme Court arguing that baking a cake or making an imaginary wedding announcement for a same-sex couple would “violate one’s religious beliefs.” But maybe the answer is really about, “my fellow religionists wouldn’t be happy with me if I made the cake/wedding announcement.”
Chapter three explores the age old question of church growth and decline. The Anglo-Protestant framework has led many to argue that conservative churches grow while liberal ones decline. That people want ot hold traditional ideas and will gravitate toward those groups that espouse them. A far better predictor of these shifts have to do with other factors: differential birth patterns, suburbanization, ethnic transition, and economic transformation. I’ve long argued that the pastor of a declining rust belt city who holds the congregation together has accomplished far more than the megachurch pastor in a rapidly expanding suburb.
In chapter four, Sam addresses the relationships between government and religion. It is here that he explores some of his work on Christian Nationalism and looks at differential social structures between various world governments and religion. In short, he argues that throwing government support behind dominant religious groups actually aids in secularization.
But when those in power try to revive flagging religious identification or participation in their nation by changing laws to privilege some religion or marginalize another, they end up weakening the spontaneous, personal, spiritual sort of religion further. Or worse, they end up resurrecting, not conventional religiosity, but a Frankenstein’s monster of authoritarian ethnonationalism. (100)
Obviously, I liked Sam’s book a lot. It resonated with many frustrations I’ve had in recent years when trying to make sense of our religious landscape. It’s a valuable book, not just for sociologists of religion and like-minded scholars, but for pastors, denominational leaders, and journalists.
Sam has an M.Div. from Dallas Theological Seminary, so he isn’t dismissing theology altogether.
Scot McKnight wrote about this on his own SubStack. I’m hoping he and I can dialogue about the book as we follow each other’s writing.
Which is what Jayden Daniels said after the Hail Mary pass that put the Washington Commanders over the Chicago Bears.
On that concluding point, John, Tocqueville of course argued almost 200 years ago that the most important factor contributing to the strength of religion in America was the separation of church ad state. As so often, it's hard to go wrong reading Tocqueville!