Choosing Constituent Cues: Reference Group Influence on Clergy Political Speech^*

Abstract

Though constituent reference groups have been shown to impact clergy political behavior, studies have largely cast group influence as a fixed effect. In an update of how specific constituent groups may affect clergy political speech, I assess whether clergy intentionally select cues from specific constituencies in determining whether to sermonize on an issue of political controversy. Copyright (c) 2009 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

Encounters at the Religious Edge: Variation in Religious Expression Across Interfaith Advocacy and Social Movement Settings

“…Clergy participants have more to lose. While being fired is an unlikely result for the clergy most often involved in interfaith coalitions (i.e., mainline Protestant clergy, who are typically hired and fired by their more liberal regional counterparts-see Calfano 2009;Wood, Fulton, and Partridge 2012), parishioners may withhold financial contributions to discourage clergy participation in movements that are unpopular with congregants (Calfano 2009). However, congregational views are less likely to influence clergy political behavior when the issues are less contentious (Djupe and Gilbert 2003), and for many progressive religious people, policing religious distinctiveness is not of particular concern (Putnam and Campbell 2010), suggesting that representatives of such congregations would not feel constrained in their interfaith activities.…”

Moralizing to the Choir: The Moral Foundations of American Clergy*

“…However, clergy still do often reference controversial issues in public settings (Brewer, Kersh, and Peterson 2003;Djupe and Gilbert 2003;Guth et al 1997), though their intent is of some dispute. Some find good evidence that clergy are rational actors pressing a policy agenda (Calfano 2009(Calfano , 2010, while others find clergy assembling public argumentation consonant with their congregations, which undercuts their potential for persuasion Neiheisel and Djupe 2008).…”

“…We consider two contexts where we might observe this taking place -the congregation and community. Despite the possibility for the selection of like-minded clergy, there is considerable disagreement between clergy and their congregations (Calfano 2009;Djupe and Gilbert 2003;Hofrenning 1995). Therefore, a reasonable expectation is that when confronted with minority status, individuals would augment the importance of values that preserve their autonomy -here, favoring the importance of Care and Fairness considerations, which preserve the rights of individuals.…”

Intra‐Organizational Constraints on Churches' Public Witness

“…And as Chaves (1993:162) suggests, “intradenominational conflict has important top‐down elements that should not be overlooked” (see also Djupe, Olson, and Gilbert 2006). Nevertheless, research on church splits tends to focus on congregational explanations for such division and largely ignores the possible influence that controversy at the denominational level can exert on the congregation (Eiesland 1999; but see Calfano 2009). We therefore suspect that in the interest of keeping their congregation together clergy are wary of bringing the debates over homosexuality that have raged at denominational gatherings into their churches (though see Coffin 2005; Djupe and Neiheisel 2008).…”