Advertisement

Review of Religious Research

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 175–196 | Cite as

Biblical Literalism: A Test of the Compensatory Schema Hypothesis Among Anglicans in England

  • Andrew VillageEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The compensatory schema hypothesis (Hoffmann and Bartkowski, Soc Forces 86:1245–1272, 2008) has been used to explain why women seem to have higher levels of biblical literalism than men in some Christian denominations. Based on social structuration and gender theories, it proposes that biblical literalism is a key social schema in some denominations that deny women access to institutional power. Women compensate for the lack of access to institutional social resources (leadership) by stressing the accepted schema (literalism) more strongly than men. The theory was tested using two samples from the Church of England, one lay (N = 394) and one ordained (N = 1,052). Laywomen were more literal than laymen among evangelicals and Anglo-catholics, where opposition to women’s ordination is highest, but in both cases the difference was largely explained by differences in education levels between the sexes. Clergywomen, with access to leadership resources, were less literal than clergymen in both Anglo-catholic and evangelical traditions. The results offer rather weak support for the compensatory schema hypothesis, and alternative explanations of the findings are discussed.

Keyword

Anglican Biblical literalism Clergy Gender Social structuration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Leslie Francis and Mandy Robbins for allowing me to use a dataset on clergy which we collected together.

References

  1. Adams, Jimi. 2007. Stained glass makes the ceiling visible. Gender & Society 21(1): 80–105. doi: 10.1177/0891243206293773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammerman, Nancy T. 1987. Bible believers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bader, Christopher, and Paul Froese. 2005. Images of God: The effect of personal theologies on moral attitudes, political affiliation and religious behaviour. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1: Article 11.Google Scholar
  4. Bartkowski, John P., and Lynn M. Hempel. 2009. Sex and gender traditionalism among conservative Protestants: Does the difference make a difference? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(4): 805–816. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01487.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bendroth, Margaret. 2001. Last gasp patriarchy: Women and men in conservative American protestantism. The Muslim World 91(1–2): 45–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-1913.2001.tb03706.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bielo, James S. 2009. Words upon the word: An ethnography of evangelical group Bible study. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boone, K.C. 1989. The Bible tells them so: The discourse of Protestant fundamentalism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bramadat, Paul. 2000. The church on the world’s turf: An evangelical Christian group at a secular university. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brasher, Brenda E. 1998. Godly women: Fundamentalism and female power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burn, Shawn Meghan, and Julia Busso. 2005. Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly 29(4): 412–418. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chadwick, Henry. 1998. Tradtion, fathers and councils. In The study of Anglicanism, ed. Stephen Sykes, John E. Booty, and Jonathan Knight, 100–115. London: SPCK/Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  12. Church of England. 1993a. The Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993. http://www.ChurchofEngland.org/media/35648/episactofsynod.rtf. Accessed 17 January 2012.
  13. Church of England. 1993b. Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1993/2/contents. Accessed 17 January 2012.
  14. Church of England. 2010. Ordinations and Reader admissions 1994 to 2009. http://www.ChurchofEngland.org/about-us/facts-stats/research-statistics/licensed-ministry.aspx. Accessed 7 August 2011.
  15. Cottone, John, Philip Drucker, and Rafael A. Javier. 2007. Predictors of moral reasoning: Components of executive functioning and aspects of religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(1): 37–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00339.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crapanzano, Vincent. 2000. Serving the Word: Literalism in America from the pulpit to the bench. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  17. DeBerg, Betty A. 1990. Ungodly women: Gender and the first wave of American fundamentalism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  18. Field-Bibb, Jacqueline. 1991. Women towards priesthood: Ministerial politics and feminist praxis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Forward in Faith. http://www.forwardinfaith.com/about/uk_index-uk.html. Accessed 6 January 2012.
  20. Francis, Leslie J., Mandy Robbins, and Jeff Astley. 2005. Fragmented faith? Exposing the fault-lines in the Church of England. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press.Google Scholar
  21. Funk, Robert W. 2001. The Jesus Seminar and the quest. In Jesus then & now: Images of Jesus in history and christology, ed. Marvin W. Meyer, and Charles T. Hughes, 130–139. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
  22. Funk, Robert W. (ed.). 1998. The acts of Jesus: The search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.Google Scholar
  23. Funk, Robert W., and Roy W. Hoover (eds.). 1993. The five Gospels: The search for the authentic words of Jesus: A new translation and commentary. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gill, Sean. 1994. Women and the Church of England: From the eighteenth century to the present. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
  26. Gore, Charles (ed.). 1889. Lux Mundi. A series of studies in the religion of the incarnation. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  27. Hayter, Mary. 1987. The new Eve in Christ: The use and abuse of the Bible in the debate about women in the Church. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
  28. Hoffmann, John P., and John P. Bartkowski. 2008. Gender, religious tradition and biblical literalism. Social Forces 86(3): 1245–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hylson-Smith, Kenneth. 1989. Evangelicals in the Church of England 1734–1984. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
  30. Hylson-Smith, Kenneth. 1993. High churchmanship in the Church of England from the sixteenth century to the late twentieth century. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
  31. Jelen, Ted G. 1989a. Biblical literalism and inerrancy: Does the difference make a difference? Sociological Analysis 49(4): 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jelen, Ted G. (ed.). 1989b. Religion and political behavior in the United States. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, Ian. 2004. Women and priesthood in the Church of England: Ten years on. London: Church House Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, Tod E. 2003. The Broad Church: A biography of a movement. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  35. Kellstedt, L.A. 1989. The meaning and measurement of evangelicalism: Problems and prospects. In Religion and political behavior in the United States, ed. Ted G. Jelen, 3–22. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  36. Kling, David William. 2004. The Bible in history: How the texts have shaped the times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Leege, D.C. 1989. Toward a mental measure of religiosity in research on religion and politics. In Religion and political behavior in the United States, ed. Ted G. Jelen, 46–63. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  38. Lehman, Edward C. 1980. Patterns of lay resistance to women in ministry. Sociological Analysis 41(4): 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehman, Edward C. 1987. Research on lay church members attitudes toward women clergy: An assessment. Review of Religious Research 28(4): 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marsden, George M. 1991. Understanding fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  41. Marty, M.E. 1994. Literalism versus everything else: A continuing conflict. Bible Review 10(1): 38–43, 50.Google Scholar
  42. McGrade, A.S. 1998. Reason. In The study of Anglicanism, ed. Stephen Sykes, John E. Booty, and Jonathan Knight, 115–128. London: SPCK/Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mickelsen, Alvera M. 1986. Women, authority & the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nason-Clark, Nancy. 1987. Ordaining women as priests: Religious vs. sexist explanations for clerical attitudes. Sociology of Religion 48(3): 259–273. doi: 10.2307/3711522.Google Scholar
  45. Nesbitt, Paula D. 1997. Clergy feminization: Controlled labor or transformative change? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36(4): 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nockles, Peter B. 1994. The Oxford Movement in context: Anglican high churchmanship, 1760–1857. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Norusis, Marija. 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics 19 statistical procedures companion. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
  48. Peek, Charles W., George D. Lowe, and L. Susan Williamson. 1991. Gender and God’s Word: Another look at religious fundamentalism and sexism. Social Forces 69(4): 1205–1221.Google Scholar
  49. Petre, Jonathan. 1994. By sex divided: The Church of England and women priests. London: Fount.Google Scholar
  50. Pierce, Ronald W., Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee. 2005. Discovering biblical equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  51. Randall, Kelvin. 2005. Evangelicals etcetera: Conflict and conviction in the Church of England’s parties. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  52. Reform. Covenant statement. http://reform.org.uk/about/reform-covenant. Accessed 6 January 2012.
  53. Robbins, Mandy. 2007. Clergymen and clergywomen: The same inclusive gospel? Journal of Beliefs & Values 28(1): 55–64. doi: 10.1080/13617670701251561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sani, Fabio, and Steve Reicher. 1999. Identity, argument and schism: Two longitudinal studies of the split in the Church of England over the ordination of women to the priesthood. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2(3): 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sani, Fabio, and Steve Reicher. 2000. Contested identities and schisms in groups: Opposing the ordination of women as priests in the Church of England. British Journal of Social Psychology 39(1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scotland, Nigel. 2004. Evangelical Anglicans in a revolutionary age, 1789–1901. Carlisle: Paternoster.Google Scholar
  57. Sewell, William H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sinha, Cynthia B. 2003. Opposition to women clergy: Directive from God? Examining fundamental gender inequality in the religious sector. Paper presented at the Southern Sociological Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 27–30 March 2003.Google Scholar
  59. Smidt, C. 1989. Identifying Evangelical respondents: an analysis of “born-again” and Bible questions used across different surveys. In Religion and political behavior in the United States, ed. T. Jelen, 23–43. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, Krista Lynn, and Daphne Pedersen Stevens. 2003. Attitudes of laypersons toward female clergy and priests: Testing two theological arguments against ordination. The Social Science Journal 40(3): 419–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00514.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steiner-Aeschliman, Sherrie, and Armand L. Mauss. 1996. The impact of feminism and religious involvement on sentiment toward God. Review of Religious Research 37(3): 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sykes, Stephen, John E. Booty, and Jonathan Knight (eds.). 1998. The study of Anglicanism. London: SPCK/Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  63. Village, Andrew. 2005a. Assessing belief about the Bible: A study among Anglican laity. Review of Religious Research 46(3): 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Village, Andrew. 2005b. Christian belief about the Bible and the Holy Spirit in relation to psychological type. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 16(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  65. Village, Andrew. 2005c. Factors shaping biblical literalism: A study among Anglican laity. Journal of Beliefs and Values 26(1): 29–38. doi: 10.1080/13617670500047566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Village, Andrew. 2006. Biblical interpretative horizons and ordinary readers: An empirical study. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 17(1): 157–176.Google Scholar
  67. Village, Andrew. 2007. The Bible and lay people: An empirical approach to ordinary hermeneutics. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  68. Village, Andrew. 2010. English Anglicanism: Construct validity of a scale of Anglo-catholic versus evangelical self-identification. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Empirical Research in Theology (ISERT), Rome, 14–18 April 2010.Google Scholar
  69. Village, Andrew, and Leslie J. Francis. 2005. The relationship of psychological type preferences to biblical interpretation. Journal of Empirical Theology 18(1): 74–89. doi: 10.1163/1570925054048929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Village, Andrew, and Leslie J. Francis. 2009. The mind of the Anglican clergy: Assessing attitudes and beliefs in the Church of England. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  71. Village, Andrew, and Leslie J. Francis. 2010. An anatomy of change: Profiling cohort-difference in beliefs and attitudes among Anglicans in England. Journal of Anglican Studies 8(1): 59–81. doi: 10.1017/S1740355309990027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Village, Andrew, and Leslie J. Francis. 2011. The visibility of mission agencies in general and USPG in particular among recently ordained Anglican clergy: An empirical enquiry. Transformation 28(2): 129–137. doi: 10.1177/0265378810396299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wakeman, Hilary (ed.). 1996. Women priests: The first years. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.Google Scholar
  74. Warner, Rob. 2007. Reinventing English evangelicalism, 1966–2001: A theological and sociological study. Milton Keynes: Paternoster.Google Scholar
  75. Watt, David Harrington. 2002. Bible-carrying Christians: Conservative Protestants and social power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wilcox, C. 1989. The New Christian Right and the mobilization of the Evangelicals. In Religion and political behavior in the United States, ed. Ted G. Jelen, 139–156. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  77. Wuthnow, Robert, and John Hyde Evans (eds.). 2002. The quiet hand of God: Faith-based activism and the public role of mainline Protestantism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  78. Young, Frances. 2008. Hermeneutical questions: The ordination of women in the light of biblical and patristic typology. In Women and ordination in the Christian churches: International perspectives, ed. Ian Jones, Janet Wootton, and Kirsty Thorpe, 21–39. London; New York: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
  79. Zigerell, L.J. 2010. Science knowledge and biblical literalism. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662510391723.

Copyright information

© Religious Research Association, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and TheologyYork St John UniversityYorkUK

Personalised recommendations