Prophetic at Any Price? Clergy Political Behavior and Utility Maximization*

Abstract

Objective. I examine the degree to which U.S. clergy might be considered utility maximizers in determining whether to undertake political behavior among their parishioners. Specifically, I investigate whether mainline Protestant clergy elect not to engage in political activities due to a general concern that their behavior might lead to a downturn in parishioner contributions. Methods. Six maximum likelihood models are employed to analyze survey data of clergy in the Presbyterian Church, USA, and the Episcopal Church, USA. Results. Evidence from six maximum likelihood models shows that clergy are less likely to undertake political behavior when this financial motive is in play, suggesting that even religious elites are susceptible to the maximization motive. Conclusions. These results have implications for elites in voluntary organizations more generally. An example is interest group leaders who might be compelled to take the views of their rank-and-file members into account in making policy when group solvency is a concern. Overall, these findings advance the literatures on clergy politics, interest groups, and elite theory, and recommend a reexamination of the general assumptions about elite influence in organizational settings-both religious and secular.In surveying the general literature on elite-mass influence, one is struck by the bidirectional nature of the relationship between leaders and those they lead. On the one hand, elites have been found to exercise significant suasion over public preference formation and behavior (Downs

Parables and Politics

“…Whether the minister is serving in a prophetic leadership role (Djupe & Gilbert, 2002) or, as Calfano (2010) suggests, the minister's attitudes are a response to the membership and his or her fiduciary role in the church, cannot be determined from this data. Variables that are most closely associated with the clergy member's attitude toward illegal immigration are the church philosophy-conservative, moderate, or liberal-and the ethnicity of the church membership.…”

“…Knoll (2009) opines that in churches where religious leaders have spoken out on immigration, members may be more likely to do the same. Calfano's (2010) research, however, indicates the "bidirectional nature of the relationship between leaders and those they lead" (p. 649) and demonstrates the reluctance of clergy to express political opinions when such expression could reduce contributions upon which the church and the minister are dependent. Calfano's (2010) research, however, indicates the "bidirectional nature of the relationship between leaders and those they lead" (p. 649) and demonstrates the reluctance of clergy to express political opinions when such expression could reduce contributions upon which the church and the minister are dependent.…”

“…This suggests that even if clergy attitudes are not revealed in the pulpit, they may be reflected in program planning or communicated in other way as a means of means of fulfilling the prophetic role (Calfano, 2010;Djupe & Gilbert, 2002) of interpreting political issues. When parishioners have heard a sermon on immigration, 78.6% have provided outreach, compared to 66% in churches where immigration has not been addressed.…”

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).…”

Hearing Clergy Speak About Social and Political Issues: Examining the Effects of Religious Tradition and Personal Interest*

“…Despite this qualitative evidence that clergy are often speaking about social and political issues, there has been little research that would allow for generalizable conclusions about the extent and patterns of these messages. Research that does exist has often focused on measures of how often clergy say they speak about a social or political issue (e.g., Calfano, , ; Padela et al., ). However, the perceptions and memory of the attendees about what their clergyperson says could be very different from what the clergyperson is actually saying or thinks he or she is saying (see Djupe and Gilbert, : 62–71).…”