158 Darren Sherkat
even the most rudimentary indicators of religious involvement – and only the Youth
Parent Socialization Panel Study has provided a single indicator of religious beliefs. To
my knowledge, no study has tracked parents, children, and siblings over the life course,
and there is strong theoretical reason for believing that siblings provide ongoing influ-
ences on religious preferences and choices. While a few panel studies have examined
spouses over short periods of the life course (e.g., the National Survey of Families and
Households), the data collected postdate marriage. Familial influences beyond the nu-
clear family are also likely to be influential (Glass et al. 1986; Sherkat 1998, 1991a). This
may be particularly true for subpopulations in which extended family ties are more im-
portant for childrearing and other tasks, perhaps especially for African Americans and
ethnic immigrant groups.
One important task ahead for sociologists of religion is to begin to examine ex-
tended family influences, and the reciprocal influences in families over the life course.
Of greatest theoretical importance, and absent from most examinations of religious
“socialization” is the separation of preferences from choices. As I discussed at length
earlier, families not only inform the religious beliefs and understandings of individuals,
they also provide a primary social context in which religious choices are made. Sym-
pathy, example-setting, and sanction are motivations for religious participation and
affiliation that are often rooted in the overlapping structural connection between reli-
gion and family. Valuations of family ties and their importance drive religious choices,
as family schemata are transposed into the religious field. Studies that mix measures of
belief and participation cannot hope to identify social influences on choices.
Denominations
In the latter part of the twentieth century, it became fashionable for religious scholars
to claim that denominational differences were declining – that variance within de-
nominations somehow meant that denominational influences were waning and that
denominations were no longer important. Of course, there has always been variation of
belief and commitment within denominations – in part because of internal processes
that lead to organizational domination by worldly elites, and the formation of sectar-
ian movements seeking to reestablish tension with the broader society (Finke and Stark
1992; Stark and Bainbridge 1985; Stark and Finke 2000). Despite the variance, denomi-
nations remain consequential avenues for the transmission of religious schemata, and
they help define the local markets for religious choices. Denominations constitute the
vast majority of religious resources, and even the widely touted “nondenominational”
special purpose groups are in fact divided by denominational constellations.
Denominations influence individuals through their particular orientations toward
beliefs and offerings of opportunities for religious action (Harrison and Lazerwitz 1982).
Within denominations, ministers, youth leaders, and Sunday School teachers will trans-
mit the message to parishioners in congregations. Denominational perspectives bound
the message transmitted by these denominational agents on supernatural explanations
and compensators (Finke and Stark 1992). In a sectarian Protestant group, a Sunday
School teacher will quickly be removed if they begin to teach that Jesus was not divine,
that there is no hell, or that Christ will not return. Indeed, anyone predisposed to such
liberal thinking would not be deemed fit to instruct young people – or adults, since
many sectarian groups recognize the importance of lifelong socialization and continue