Sources of Influence and Influences of Agency 159
Sunday School for all ages. In a liberal church, a minister or teacher will be rebuked
for claiming that salvation is exclusive to Christians, that there is a real devil, or that
good Christians should witness their faith to others. Particularities are also evident
in denominational socialization. For example, ministers, deacons, and Sunday School
teachers in the Churches of Christ or Southern Baptist Convention would be censured
for claiming that the Holy Spirit gives messages to the faithful through interpretations
of glossalalia. Agents of the Assembly of God or Church of God in Christ would be
sanctioned for claiming that people are not filled with the Holy Spirit, or arguing that
evidence of being spirit filled is unimportant for salvation (or evidence of demonic
possession!).
Denominational agents also are channeled in their influence on people’s prefer-
ences by published materials that are generally provided by, or at least approved by,
denominational hierarchies. Workbooks for Sunday School, themes for special worship,
agendas for denominational age and sex-specific groups (women’s groups, youth
groups, men’s groups) are machinations of denominational elites. Indeed, conflict
within denominations is often spurred by denominational literature that is at vari-
ance with the preferences of the masses. While the denomination may influence the
laity, ́elite influence is bounded by the agency of individuals, and congregants’ abili-
ties to engage in collective action through sectarian movements or schism (Stark and
Bainbridge 1985; Finke and Stark 1992).
Denominations also provide distinctive contexts for collective activities, thereby
channeling peer influences on religion. Through these collective settings, individuals
come to identify with the particular understandings and commitments of a religious
body, and may hold these denominational identities as cognitive resources (e.g., Sherkat
and Ellison 1999). Of course, within a denomination there will be collectivities with
varied identities (Dillon 1999a), but common to each is some understanding of distinc-
tive religious themes. Feminist Catholics retain identification with Catholicism, rather
than switching to other traditions that might be more supportive of their political goals
or desires for more opportunities within a religious organization. If denominations were
not influential, there would be little reason for loyalty, nor motivation to voice oppo-
sition for change or support for continuity – exit would be the primary response to
variance from personal preferences (Hirschman 1970).
As I noted above, some religious commentators have contended that denomina-
tional identities are no longer as salient as they once were, and that boundaries be-
tween religious groups have diminished to the point that denominations are less rele-
vant units of analysis. Denominational differences in status, regional distribution, and
ethnic identity have arguably decreased (Wuthnow 1988, 1993). The attenuation of de-
mographic differences is presumed to influence the belief systems of denominations –
and scholars have asserted that religious beliefs now vary more within denominations
than between denominations (Wuthnow 1988: 86–7, 1993: 156–7; Hunter 1991: 86–7).
Wuthnow (1993:156) argues, “Over the past half-century, denominationalism has de-
clined seriously as the primary mode of identification in American religion. Indica-
tions of this decline include increased interfaith and interdenominational switching,
heightened tolerance across faiths and denominational boundaries, ecumenical coop-
eration, and a deemphasis in many denominations on distinctive teachings and spe-
cific membership requirements.” Yet empirical research finds no evidence of declining
denominationalism.