"Politics in the Pews probes the internal dynamics of political decision making within the Black church."
---William E. Nelson, Jr., Research Professor, Department of African American and African Studies, Ohio State University
As Eric McDaniel demonstrates in his study of Black congregations in the U.S., a church's activism results from complex negotiations between the pastor and the congregation. The church's traditions, its institutional organization, and its cultural traditions influence the choice to make politics part of the church's mission. The needs of the local community and opportunities to vote, lobby, campaign, or protest are also significant factors.
By probing the dynamics of churches as social groups, McDaniel opens new perspectives on civil rights history and the evangelical politics of the twenty-first century. Politics in the Pews contributes to a clearer understanding of the forces that motivate any organization, religious or otherwise, to engage in politics.
Eric L. McDaniel is Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
"Politics in the Pews probes the internal dynamics of political decision making within the Black church."
---William E. Nelson, Jr., Research Professor, Department of African American and African Studies, Ohio State University
As Eric McDaniel demonstrates in his study of Black congregations in the U.S., a church's activism results from complex negotiations between the pastor and the congregation. The church's traditions, its institutional organization, and its cultural traditions influence the choice to make politics part of the church's mission. The needs of the local community and opportunities to vote, lobby, campaign, or protest are also significant factors.
By probing the dynamics of churches as social groups, McDaniel opens new perspectives on civil rights history and the evangelical politics of the twenty-first century. Politics in the Pews contributes to a clearer understanding of the forces that motivate any organization, religious or otherwise, to engage in politics.
Eric L. McDaniel is Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
Politics in the Pews: The Political Mobilization of Black Churches
224
Politics in the Pews: The Political Mobilization of Black Churches
224eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
"Politics in the Pews probes the internal dynamics of political decision making within the Black church."
---William E. Nelson, Jr., Research Professor, Department of African American and African Studies, Ohio State University
As Eric McDaniel demonstrates in his study of Black congregations in the U.S., a church's activism results from complex negotiations between the pastor and the congregation. The church's traditions, its institutional organization, and its cultural traditions influence the choice to make politics part of the church's mission. The needs of the local community and opportunities to vote, lobby, campaign, or protest are also significant factors.
By probing the dynamics of churches as social groups, McDaniel opens new perspectives on civil rights history and the evangelical politics of the twenty-first century. Politics in the Pews contributes to a clearer understanding of the forces that motivate any organization, religious or otherwise, to engage in politics.
Eric L. McDaniel is Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780472021956 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of Michigan Press |
| Publication date: | 03/25/2009 |
| Series: | The Politics of Race and Ethnicity |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 224 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Eric L. McDaniel is Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
Read an Excerpt
POLITICS in the PEWS
The Political Mobilization of Black Churches
By Eric L. McDaniel
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS
Copyright © 2008
University of Michigan
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-472-07046-6
Chapter One The Political Transformation of Religious Institutions
Although intrinsically apolitical, religious institutions have consistently engaged in politics throughout American history. Scholars have long noted that many of the key ingredients that shape political behavior can be found in religious contexts (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee 1954; Tocqueville 1945). Places of worship help shape political attitudes and mobilize individuals for political participation (Huckfeldt, Plutzer, and Sprague 1993; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995; Wald 1997; Wald, Owen, and Hill 1988). Churches, synagogues, and mosques provide a regular meeting place in which individuals interact and discuss public events and affairs. These institutions also present an image of what the nation should be and motivate members to become politically involved. As a result, connection with these institutions leads to a strong increase in political engagement (Brown and Brown 2003; Brown and Wolford 1994; Calhoun-Brown 1996; Guth et al. 1998; Jamal 2005; McClerking and McDaniel 2005; Tate 1993).
Moreover, in the twenty-first century alone, the political engagement of religious institutions can be seen at all levels of government. A growing number of religious groups have chimed in on contemporary political issues. In such areas as placing the Ten Commandments in government buildings, advocating bans on gay marriage, or adding creationism to textbooks, the intersection of religion and politics is becoming evermore salient in the American political landscape.
Given that religious institutions seek primarily to address the spiritual needs of their members, how and why do such institutions transform themselves into political organizations? A religious institution becomes a political organization when it incorporates politics into its identity. That is, politicized religious institutions decide that politics is an important means of achieving their overall goals. In attaining this end, four conditions must be met. First, leaders must advocate organization-based political engagement. Rank-and-file members must also agree that it is appropriate for the organization to delve into politics. The organization itself must facilitate and sustain political activity. Finally, the context in which the organization exists must be amenable to political action.
I test my argument by focusing on the Black church, an ideal case for studying this phenomenon. More than any other U.S. religious institution, the Black church serves as a symbol of religious political action. The substantial variation in Black churches' levels of political activity and mobilization offers insight into the broader variation in political participation across religious entities. In addition, the dynamics that explain political activity within Black churches provide a useful starting point for a broader understanding of the role of religion in contemporary American politics.
While scholars have not ignored Black churches as political institutions, a coherent theoretical conceptualization of what constitutes a political church has not previously emerged or been tested. Researchers typically examine the behavior of members of these organizations instead of the organization itself. Accordingly, extant research provides an understanding of political churches as political mobilizers (Brown and Brown 2003; Brown and Wolford 1994; Calhoun-Brown 1996; Harris 1999; McClerking and McDaniel 2005; Tate 1993; Wilcox 1990b) but cannot speak to how the church exemplifies a politicized organization. Even the institutional studies fail to define clearly what signifies a political church. In his study of church social activism, Billingsley (1999) speaks of activist churches but never defines them. Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) discuss politically active churches but differentiate them from other churches only by their actions-that is, whether they participate. Thus, this study integrates behavioral and institutional studies of the Black church to paint a more detailed illustration of a politicized church that captures its nature both within and outside of the electoral context. This approach provides a better means of assessing if and when civic institutions can repair breaches in American democracy.
DEFINING A POLITICIZED CHURCH
For the most part, conceptualizations of politicized or activist churches have been vague. Researchers tend to define a politicized church as a church that is politically active. Calhoun-Brown (1996) provides the most direct definition of political churches: churches that "provide an environment in which politicization can take place" (941). She further explains that these churches "communicate political activity as a norm" and that the political activity is "facilitated by the institution itself" (942). Tate (1993) argues that these churches provide a setting that encourages political knowledge and skills (95-101). These definitions describe a political church in terms of its activities but say nothing about why, when, and how these activities become part of a church's repertoire.
Rather than being defined in terms of its outputs, a politicized church is best understood as a church that holds political awareness and activity as salient pieces of its identity. A church's identity encompasses a set of characteristics that members feel are central, enduring, and distinctive (Albert and Whetten 1985). An identity establishes the focal or core set of attributes that denote the essence of an organization (Ashforth and Mael 1996)-for example, an organization's mission statement. With respect to a Black church-or any church, for that matter-the main objective is to facilitate salvation. The essence of a church is to save souls.
In realizing this identity, however, churches may come to identify with other activities as well. Many organizations are hybrid organizations, meaning that they possess multiple identities (Albert and Whetten 1985). Like individuals, organizations identify with multiple activities or roles. Members of a church will recognize facilitating salvation as the core attribute of the organization but may also see a connection to political awareness and activity as an attribute of the church and choose to adopt a political identity. Similar to Olson's (1965) and Wilson's (1973) analyses of the creation of political organizations, the political identity of a church should be understood as a by-product of the church's attempt to advance its central interests. The adoption of this political identity leads to the creation of a political church.
Possessing multiple identities allows the organization to take part in a wider array of activities and services. In the case of a religious institution, adopting a political identity enables the church to engage in both secular and spiritual activities. Multiple identities, however, can also lead to role conflict and overload (Pratt and Foreman 2000). Churches must determine how much political activity they can take on without sacrificing their primary mission and/or depleting their resources.
While multiple techniques for managing identities exist, churches mainly choose to aggregate their identities as a way of striking a balance between religion and politics. Pratt and Foreman (2000) define aggregation as the retention of multiple identities by creating an identity hierarchy.
The identities of the church are prioritized-the core elements of the church's identity will be ranked at the top, while the additional identities will be ranked in the order of importance to the church's immediate goals. Churches already have a primary identity-facilitating salvation. As long as political action comes secondary to the central goal of the organization, internal strife will be avoided.
Thinking about the process by which a church becomes politicized in terms of a struggle to manage multiple identities helps provide an understanding of why quite a bit of variance occurs in political activism both within and across churches. Aggregation of identities requires a large amount of capital. It requires the organization to disperse resources to multiple programs (Pratt and Foreman 2000). The political identity of most churches is expected to remain at a high level of the hierarchy-that is, the church is expected to remain politicized-for a relatively short time. Churches with greater resources are expected to hold political identity as highly salient more often and for longer periods of time than other churches. However, no church can perpetually sustain political activism.
CREATING A POLITICIZED CHURCH
But what initially leads a church to recognize politics as part of its identity? Establishing an identity must be understood as an iterative process of negotiations between leaders and members (Scott and Lane 2000). Thus, a politicized church represents the end result of the negotiation process between the leadership and members as they decide whether to adopt a political identity. As figure 1 demonstrates, however, other factors influence this negotiation process. While the pastor and members are the key actors in the negotiation, the negotiation is also shaped by the
Pastor
Like any other organizational leader, pastors become elite figures because they provide "a face to the organization" (Scott and Lane 2000, 47). While pastors' first duty is to serve as spiritual leaders, many are also administrative leaders. Pastors are involved in all facets of churches and their direction.
If a church is a politicized organization, pastors become political elites. Zaller (1992) describes political elites as "persons who devote themselves to some aspect of politics or public affairs" (6). Kingdon (1995) discusses elites in terms of policy entrepreneurs, describing them as people with a "willingness to invest their resources-time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money, in the hope of a future return" (122). As church leaders, pastors behave as activists and incur the initial costs of politicizing the organization. Historically, clergy have taken on the role of the activist to achieve some political goal. Clergy have used the power of their pulpits to affect public opinion and to rally their members and communities around particular issues. Generally speaking, clergy facilitate the connection between religion and politics (Beatty and Walter 1989; Smidt 2004).
During the twentieth century, clergy clearly used their resources to change the American political landscape. During the Prohibition movement, for example, clergy used their authority to lobby not only local governments but also the national government to ban alcohol. Clergy also used their influence during the 1960s and 1970s to pursue social justice issues, such as civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam War (Findlay 1993; Hadden 1967; Quinley 1974). More recently, evangelical clergy, a group that had historically remained outside of the political realm, have become involved and now exercise a strong presence in policy making (Guth et al. 1997, 1998). These evangelical clergy channel their messages to confront a variety of issues, including morality, education, and the environment (Crawford and Olson 2001; Jelen 1993).
Black clergy in particular have historically taken on the role of political elite. As the primary symbol of the Black church, the most independent Black institution, clergy have been called on to employ their resources to influence policy. During slavery, Black clergymen such as Richard Allen, Daniel Payne, and Henry Highland Garnet were ardent abolitionists (Harding 1969; Pinn and Pinn 2002). Nat Turner, a Baptist minister, led the Southampton slave revolt (Greenberg 2003). Many of the first Black elected officials in the South during Reconstruction were clergy. Clergy in the Black Methodist and Black Baptist denominations also lobbied government to help protect the rights of the newly freed men and women (Hamilton 1972; Pinn and Pinn 2002). Later, C. H. Mason, the founder of the Church of God in Christ, was arrested several times for protesting U.S. involvement in World War I (Sanders 1996). In the post-World War II era, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. used the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York City's Harlem to create a political power base that provided him with a great deal of influence in Congress (Hamilton 1972; Wilson 1960). The prime example of Black clergy serving as political elites came during the civil rights movement, when Black clergy used their influence to mobilize their members, transforming attitudes so that parishioners recognized the need for political activism (Harris 1999). Both Aldon Morris (1984) and Charles Payne (1995) recognize pastors' influence as one of the reasons why people joined the movement. Black clergy also used their resources to provide meeting space and to raise funds for organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).
Today, Black clergy remain important as political elites. The Reverend Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns in the 1980s showed that clergy could use their status to recruit support (Tate 1993). Furthermore, George W. Bush has made several attempts to appeal to African Americans by recruiting Black clergy. Most recently, the presidential campaign of the Reverend Al Sharpton attempted to rekindle some of the same activities associated with the Jackson campaign (Walton and Smith 2006).
Members
Members too play key roles in the organization. They comprise the lifeblood of a church, resembling stakeholders in a corporation. Members are the church's capital, providing financial resources as well as labor. Because churches are voluntary organizations, they depend strongly on members' support. If congregants choose to reduce their support, either in terms of financial contributions or labor, the church will be harmed. Thus, although the pastor serves as the face of the church, without the support of the members, the organization will crumble. Pastors and members therefore must work together to develop the church's identity.
Black clergy have an image of independence, but like other political elites, they are constrained by their constituencies. Members of the U.S. Congress are accountable to the people in their districts; pastors are responsible to their congregations. Several studies demonstrate that clergy have less independence than was earlier believed to be the case: during the social movements of the latter half of the twentieth century, White liberal clergy clashed with their congregations. Quinley's (1974) study of activist clergy in California during the 1960s describes the consequences of the activism: many pastors faced decreased giving, membership losses, and in some cases removal. Campbell and Pettigrew (1959) find that White ministers who supported the integration of the public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, faced a great deal of opposition from members, which led to decreased attendance and funds. Hadden (1967) records similar findings at the denominational level: when the "new breed" of socially liberal Presbyterian clergy came into contact with socially conservative congregations, the denomination faced substantial losses. These instances are not confined just to that era. Jelen (1993) documents the admitted failure of one White clergyman to address racial issues in a town with a strong Ku Klux Klan presence because he feared the repercussions from his congregation. Similarly, Guth et al. (1997) find that pastors who believe that members or potential members disapprove of political activism either refrain from participation or lower their levels of participation.
Black clergy have also encountered these limitations. During the civil rights movement in particular, many clergy faced opposition from members of their churches. Ture and Hamilton (1967) document that some Black clergy resisted joining the movement at least in part because of congregants' sentiments. Hamilton (1972) documents cases of clergy who wanted to be active but could not gain the support of their congregations. One young Black Episcopalian minister, for example, wanted to be politically active, but his largely West Indian and African congregation did not relate to the issues he sought to address. The congregants ridiculed him for his actions, and he consequently discontinued his political activity to prevent conflicts in the church.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from POLITICS in the PEWS by Eric L. McDaniel Copyright © 2008 by University of Michigan . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.