The Paradox of the Group

In their study of race and evangelicalsm (Divided by Faith), Michael Emerson and Christian Smith observe that “in the context of a pluralistic society, social groups construct and maintain collective identities by forming symbolic boundaries.” These boundaries are essential to the group. Every group defines itself, to some degree, negatively, by distinguishing itself from some other group:

“Groups must symbolize and utilize symbolic boundaries to both create and give substance to shared values and identities. Thus, an ingroup always has at least one outgroup by which it creates identity. Blacks are not whites, Lutherans are not Presbyterians, evangelicals are not mainline Christians, Carolina Tar Heels are not Duke Blue Devils.” Strong, clear boundaries are necessary to group identity and solitarity. By contrast, “groups that stress tolerance, openness to diversity, and inclusiveness typically lack the ability to have strong comparison groups to define their boundaries” (142-3). This is why churches tend to support the status quo: “As churches constitute themselves agents to promote social change, they are likely to lose, rather than gain, social strength” (144, quoting Dean Kelley).

In a competitive religious situation, these dynamics tend to produce homogenous groups. Religious consumers look for religious groups that give more without asking so much: “Most people want to satisfy their needs with minimal cost,” and since the cost of maintaining diverse churches is high, such churches are socially weak. In short, “internally homogenous congregations more often provide what draws people to religious groups for a lower cost than do internally diverse congregations” (145).

America’s religious establishment, then, lends itself to perpetuating denominational, social, economic, and racial divisions within the church: “The organization of American religion is characterized by disestablishment, pluralism, competition, and consumer choice. This organization is partly shaped and often capitalized on by evangelicals. As a consequence of sociological and social psychological principles at work, congregations become and remain highly racially homogenous. . . . The need for symbolic boundaries and social solidarity, the similarity and homophily principles, the status quo bias . . . all push congregations, and volunteer organizations in general, continually toward internal similarity” (151).