Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 14.
Published in final edited form as: Sociol Relig. 2015 Jan 28;76(2):177–198. doi: 10.1093/socrel/sru067

United by Faith? Race/Ethnicity, Congregational Diversity, and Explanations of Racial Inequality

Ryon J Cobb 1, Samuel L Perry 2,*, Kevin D Dougherty 3
PMCID: PMC4944383  NIHMSID: NIHMS753979  PMID: 27429542

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which the racial composition of a congregation moderates explanations for Black/White inequality among White, Black, and Hispanic congregants. Using nationally representative data from General Social Surveys and National Congregations Studies, we find that religiously affiliated Blacks and Hispanics tend to hold different racial attitudes than religiously affiliated Whites, but these differences largely disappear inside multiracial congregations. Importantly, we find that attending a multiracial congregation is unassociated with Whites’ explanations for racial inequality, and Blacks who attend multiracial congregations are actually less likely to affirm structural explanations for Black/White inequality than Blacks in nonmultiracial congregations or Whites in multiracial congregations. We find little evidence that multiracial congregations promote progressive racial views among attendees of any race or ethnicity. Rather, our findings suggest that multiracial congregations (1) leave dominant White racial frames unchallenged, potentially influencing minority attendees to embrace such frames and/or (2) attract racial minorities who are more likely to embrace those frames in the first place.

Keywords: race, religion, racial attitudes, racial inequality, multiracial congregations

This study examines the interplay of congregational diversity and racial/ethnic differences in racial attitudes among religious Americans. Understanding the links between congregational contexts and racial attitudes is important for a number of reasons. Most fundamentally, congregations represent moral communities with built-in structures of pedagogy and constraint through which participants’ racial ideologies can either be challenged or be reaffirmed (Edwards 2008; Emerson 2006; Emerson and Smith 2000; Marti 2005). Moreover, houses of worship have historically been one of the few social spaces where racial and ethnic minorities in particular can shape their own worldviews free from the influence of dominant groups (Barnes 2014; Edwards 2008; Kim 2010). And yet, more of America’s faith communities today are slowly transforming from racially and ethnically segregated institutions to integrated organizations composed of various racial groups (Chaves and Anderson 2008). Data from different waves of the National Congregations Study (NCS) show that the percentage of multiracial faith communities—congregations in which no more than 80 percent of attendees are of the same race (Edwards et al. 2013)—nearly doubled over the first decade of the twenty-first century (Chaves et al. 2012).1 The percentage of predominantly White faith communities who had at least some non-White attendees also increased during the same time period (Chaves 2011:28–29).2 Because the intersection of race and religion has shaped notions of racial inequality for nearly three centuries (Noll 2008), a comprehensive understanding of links between race/ethnicity and racial attitudes among religious persons must explore the role of congregational diversity in potentially moderating these associations.

Using nationally representative data from the 1998 and 2006 waves of the General Social Survey (GSS) and NCS, we examine the extent to which congregational diversity moderates the relationship between race/ethnicity and racial attitudes among White, Black, and Hispanic congregants. The racial attitude of interest is how religious Americans explain the persistent socioeconomic gap between Blacks and Whites in the United States. Before proceeding with the current study, we first provide a brief overview of research on the intersections of race/ethnicity, congregational diversity, and racial attitudes.

BACKGROUND

Does Race/Ethnicity Account for Variations in Racial Attitudes among Religious Affiliates?

Over the past few decades, a growing body of research has examined the link between race/ethnicity and Americans’ racial attitudes, and particularly their attitudes on racial inequality. Results generally suggest that Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than Whites to attribute Black/White socioeconomic inequality to structural causes such as racial discrimination and/or unequal access to quality education. Research also suggests that, when compared with Whites, Blacks are less likely to attribute Black/White inequality primarily to individualist sources such as Blacks’ alleged lack of motivation (Edgell and Tranby 2007; Hunt 2007; Krysan 2000). Studies focusing on religious Americans in particular report similar findings. For example, when compared with religiously affiliated Whites, Blacks’ understanding of racial inequality is more structural and less individualist (Emerson and Smith 2000; Hinojosa and Park 2004; Taylor and Merino 2011). While we know of no study that explores whether Hispanic and White religious affiliates differ in their explanations for Black/White inequality, Hispanic religious affiliates are more likely to endorse structural explanations of poverty in general than their White counterparts (Edgell and Tranby 2007; Hunt 2002). And Hispanics on the whole are more likely than Whites to affirm structural explanations for Black/White inequality and poverty (Edgell and Tranby 2007; Hunt 2004, 2007), although findings regarding the link between Hispanic ethnicity and motivational explanations are mixed.3 In light of previous research, we expect that:

H1: Religiously affiliated Blacks and Hispanics will be more likely than religiously affiliated Whites to affirm structuralist explanations for Black/White inequality, and less likely to affirm individualist explanations for Black/White inequality.

Does Congregational Diversity Moderate the Relationship between Race/ Ethnicity and Racial Attitudes? Considering Two Perspectives

The potential link between congregational diversity and racial attitudes both within and across various racial and ethnic groups is an important issue to address because of controversies in the literature on multiracial faith communities. While the prevailing opinion is that attending racially homogenous congregations tends to reinforce racial divisions on various social attitudes (Lincoln and Mamiya 1990; Park 2012; Perry 2014), scholars are sharply divided on the issue of whether or not significant racial/ethnic differences in racial attitudes will persist in racially diverse congregations (Edwards et al. 2013; Marti 2010a, 2010b; Pitt 2010). Drawing on critical race theory, which views racial domination as a central organizing feature in the United States (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Omi and Winant 1994), some scholars contend that racially diverse faith communities are racialized institutions that typically cater to the racial sensibilities of Whites (Christerson et al. 2005; Edwards 2008, 2014; Perry 2012). As a result, these multiracial congregations, though racially diverse in attendance, remain social spaces in which the White hegemony characteristic of society at large is not challenged, but rather is reproduced within the congregation. There is some evidence to support this claim. For example, in Edwards’s ethnographic study of an interracial church, she recounts that “African-American attendees … were actually more inclined to use individually oriented explanations for racial inequality than were white attendees” (2008:96). This finding would suggest that, rather than challenge dominant White racial frames that blame Blacks for inequality, multiracial congregations may (1) actually reinforce White racial frames, thus influencing minority attendees along these lines, and/or (2) attract minority attendees who are already assimilated to the dominant White culture (Marti 2005:161; Pitt 2010). In either case, we would expect that:

H2a: Whites in multiracial congregations will affirm explanations for Black/White inequality that are no different from Whites in nonmultiracial congregations.

H2b: Blacks and Hispanics in multiracial congregations will affirm explanations for Black/ White inequality that are relatively less structuralist and more individualist than Blacks and Hispanics in nonmultiracial congregations.

This perspective, however, is not universally echoed among sociologists of race/ethnicity and religion. An alternative theory suggests that racially diverse faith communities may be successful in reducing and/or eliminating racial/ethnic differences in racial attitudes. Some scholars (e.g., DeYoung et al. 2003; Emerson 2006; Yancey 2007) contend that participation in multiracial congregations may promote more progressive attitudes toward racial issues, particularly among Whites. Yancey (1999, 2001), for example, reports that Whites who attend religious services with any number of Blacks exhibit a lower tendency to stereotype Black Americans when compared with Whites who attended religious services within a completely White congregation. Subsequent studies also find a positive association between attending a multiracial congregation and Whites’ holding more progressive racial attitudes on issues such as interracial families and neighborhood diversity compared with Whites who attend more racially homogenous congregations (Emerson 2006; Perry 2013; Yancey 2007). To be sure, much of this could be a selection effect. But, this relationship has been affirmed by some qualitative evidence as well (Emerson 2006; Garces-Foley 2007; Marti 2005; Wong 2009; but see Edwards 2008). Correspondingly, these scholars argue that Black and Hispanic participants in multiracial faith communities are not assimilated to dominant White racial frames, but maintain their distinctive racial views. Emerson and Yancey (2008) find that Blacks who attend multiracial congregations report racial attitudes that are no different when compared with Blacks who attend congregations where Blacks are the majority (see also Emerson 2006; Yancey 2007). Similarly, among Hispanics, Yancey (2007) finds that the racial composition of Hispanics’ congregations has little if any affect on their racial attitudes.

Yancey (2007) argues that these findings are consistent with Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis, which suggests that racial/ethnic integration potentially ameliorates racial prejudice particularly among the majority group as their misconceptions about minority groups are challenged. Such contact, however, often does not have the same result among minority group members, as they are already more familiar with the dominant group than vice versa. As it relates to congregations, these findings lend support for Emerson’s (2006) contention that, regardless of race/ethnicity, individuals who attend multiracial congregations are more likely to adopt views of racial inequality that are distinct from Whites who attend predominantly White, homogenous congregations. Based on this argument, we propose an alternative hypothesis to H2a-b.

H3a: Whites in multiracial congregations will affirm explanations for Black/White inequality that are relatively more structuralist and less individualist than Whites in nonmultiracial congregations.

H3b: Blacks and Hispanics in multiracial congregations will affirm explanations for Black/White inequality that are no different from Blacks and Hispanics in nonmultiracial congregations.

This Study’s Contribution

Though this is not the first study to link race/ethnicity, congregations, and racial attitudes, there are several differences between the present study and prior research on this topic. First, in contrast to previous works that relied on nonrandom samples, this study utilizes data from a nationally representative sample of religious attendees linked to a nationally representative sample of congregations. Second, rather than one or two religious traditions, our sample includes respondents from over 100 denominations encompassing all of the major religious traditions in the United States. Third, we offer a more rigorous analysis of race/ethnicity, congregational context, and racial attitudes. We consider whether racial/ethnic differences in racial attitudes differ by whether or not religious respondents participate in a racially diverse faith community. We must clarify, however, that our research does not attempt to test whether perceived or actual intergroup contact influences the racial/ethnic differences in racial attitudes. In this sense, our research is not an actual test of the contact hypothesis, since we do not have information about the frequency or quality of intergroup contact occurring in religious communities. Nor can we establish temporal precedence as our data are cross-sectional. Therefore, we must settle for an examination of a setting in which intergroup contact could occur and how this setting may relate to racial attitudes across racial/ethnic groups through direct influence and/or self-selection.

METHODS

Data

A strength of our study is the novel pairing of nationally representative data from two sources: the GSS and the NCS. We use individual-level data from the 1998 and 2006 GSS, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (Chaves 2007). Since 1994, the GSS has sampled roughly 3,000 persons in even-numbered years. We use GSS data from 1998 and 2006 because in these years, the survey included special modules on religion and spirituality. These individual-level GSS data are combined with data from the 1998 and 2006 NCS, a survey of a nationally representative sample of religious congregations in the United States. The 1998 and 2006 GSS included a set of items asking respondents who say they attend religious services at least once or twice a year to report the name and location of their religious congregation (Chaves and Anderson 2008). Because each NCS congregation was nominated by at least one GSS respondent who attends that congregation, congregation-level data gathered by the NCS can be linked to individual-level data collected from the GSS respondent who attends that congregation. This linkage enables us to examine the association of congregational characteristics on individuals. The response rates for the NCS were 80 percent in 1998 and 78 percent in 2006. The response rates for the GSS were 76 percent in 1998 and 71 percent in 2006.

Dependent Variables: Explanations for Racial Inequality

The dependent variables in this study are respondents’ explanations for socioeconomic inequality between Blacks and Whites in the United States. We focus on structuralist and individualistic understandings of racial inequality, as used in previous research (Emerson et al. 1999; Hinojosa and Park 2004; Hunt 2002, 2004, 2007; Taylor and Merino 2011). Three items ask whether or not racial discrimination, inadequate access to quality education, and Blacks’ lack of motivation or will-power are important in explaining socioeconomic differences between Blacks and Whites. Respondents were asked about these possibilities separately, providing three sets of dichotomous responses. We sum the items for discrimination and education to create a three-point structural explanations scale, where 0 = a respondent answered “no” to both structural items; 1 = a respondent answered “yes” to one structural item, and 2 = a respondent answered “yes” to both structural items. We use the motivation item (coded 1 for agreement and 0 for disagreement) to measure an individualist explanation for inequality. Our coding of these variables matches previous research by Taylor and Merino (2011).4

Independent Variables

Race/ethnicity

Rather than relying on a racial dichotomy such as Black/White or White/non-White (e.g., Emerson 2006; Hinojosa and Park 2004), we use a coding scheme that distinguishes non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Following Hunt (2007), Hispanics are identified as respondents who said that their ancestors came from countries or parts of the world that indicate Hispanic origins. This was accomplished using existing codes on the GSS variable ETHNIC, from which four categories were selected: those indicating (1) Mexico, (2) Spain, (3) Puerto Rico, and/or (4) other Spanish origins. Our resulting categories for race/ethnicity are Blacks (i.e., persons identified as Black on the GSS variable RACE, and who are not Hispanic), Hispanics (of any race, identified as described above), and non-Hispanic Whites (i.e., persons identified as White on the GSS variable RACE, and who are not Hispanic). Non-Hispanic Whites are the reference category in regression analyses. Due to limitations of sample size for Asians and persons of other races, we restrict our analyses to comparisons of the three largest racial/ethnic groups in the United States.

Multiracial and nonmultiracial congregations

Following previous research on racial diversity in faith communities (Christerson et al. 2005; DeYoung et al. 2003; Edwards 2008; Emerson 2006; Marti 2005; Yancey 2007), we define multi-racial congregations as places where no one racial group is 80 percent or more of the congregation. Nonmultiracial or uni-racial congregations are places where 80 percent or more of a congregation is of the same race and they serve as our reference group. In order to link GSS and NCS data together, a respondent must have attended a religious service at least once in the previous year. Consequently, our analysis is limited to American adults who identify with a faith community at least marginally. This accounts for approximately two-thirds of American adults (Chaves et al. 1999; Dougherty et al. 2007).

Control Variables

Multivariate models include a host of sociodemographic and ideological controls following research on Americans’ attitudes toward racial inequality (Edgell and Tranby 2007; Emerson et al. 1999; Hinojosa and Park 2004; Hunt 2007). Age is measured in years and captures all respondents from age 18 to 89. Education is measured in years. Homeowners are coded as a dummy variable with Homeowners = 1, and others = 0. Gender is coded “1” if female and “0” if male. In order to control for region, we created dummy variables for South, West, Northeast, and Midwest. We treat South as the reference group. Hinojosa and Park (2004) found that political orientation is strongly associated with beliefs about Black/White inequality. Therefore, we include a respondent’s political view, measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = extremely liberal, to 7 = extremely conservative. We also measure a congregation’s political view using the NCS data. The question wording for the variable was: “Politically speaking, would your congregation be considered more on the conservative side, more on the liberal side, or right in the middle?” We coded this variable 1 = liberal; 2 = middle; and 3 = conservative. We include a limited set of controls for religious tradition. Although it is customary to separate Protestants into Evangelical, Mainline, and Black traditions (Steensland et al. 2000), there are not a sufficient number of multiracial congregations in each of these categories to permit us to test our hypotheses. By necessity, we restrict our comparisons to Protestant, Catholic, and other faith. We create dummy variables for these three broad traditions. Protestants serve as the reference group in our statistical models, since Protestant congregations in the United States are recognized as lagging behind Catholic parishes and congregations of other faith groups in regard to racial diversity (Emerson 2006) and racial progressivism (Hunt 2002). Attendance is an ordinal variable that ranges from 1 = once or twice in the past year, to 7 = more than once a week. We control for congregation size using the NCS measure of number of regular attendees. We use the logged number of attendees to correct for skewness. Since we are using data from two points in time eight years apart, we also control for survey year (1998 and 2006).

Analytic Procedure

We begin by presenting descriptive statistics for the combined GSS–NCS sample in table 1. This is followed by mean comparisons of racial attitudes between attendees of multiracial and nonmultiracial congregations across Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in table 2. Our multivariate analytic strategy uses ordered logistic regression and binary logistic regression to test the relationships between race/ethnicity, congregational diversity, and explanations for Black/ White socioeconomic inequality. Table 3 presents models estimating structural and motivation explanations for Black/White inequality. For structural explanations (models 1 and 2), we estimate models for this three-point ordinal variable with ordered logistic regression. Models 3 and 4 focus on opinions about Blacks’ supposed lack of motivation. We estimate models for this dichotomous variable with binary logistic regression. For both explanations, we estimate two models. The first model tests for direct associations of race/ethnicity, congregational context, and control variables. The second model adds interaction terms for Black × multiracial congregation and Hispanic × multiracial congregation. We explore these possible joint associations further in tables 4 and 5. Table 4 divides the sample by congregation type: nonmultiracial and multiracial. For these sub-samples, we estimate models for structural explanations (models 1 and 3) and motivation as an explanation (models 2 and 4). Table 5 displays separate models by race/ethnicity for each dependent variable. In all tables, results are presented as odds ratios.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Full Sample and by Race/Ethnicity

Full sample (mean) White (mean) Black (mean) Hispanic (mean)
Structural explanations 1.81 1.76b 2.06ac 1.92b
Motivation explanation 0.48 0.49b 0.39ac 0.55b
White 0.77
Black 0.14
Hispanic 0.09
Multiracial congregation 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.49
Age 47.97 49.28 45.97 39.94
Education 13.64 13.98 13.13 11.51
Homeowner 0.73 0.80 0.57 0.46
Female 0.60 0.59 0.69 0.55
South 0.38 0.34 0.68 0.27
West 0.20 0.19 0.06 0.50
Northeast 0.26 0.30 0.14 0.11
Midwest 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.11
Political view 4.37 4.53 3.91 3.74
Congregation’s political View 2.47 2.53 2.22 2.36
Protestant 0.74 0.71 0.92 0.31
Catholic 0.28 0.26 0.07 0.69
Other faith 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00
Attendance 5.24 5.21 5.69 4.82
Congregation size (logged) 6.06 6.06 5.55 6.95
Year 2003.49 2003.39 2003.49 2004.34
N 1,485 1,156 207 122
Open in a new tab
a

Different from Whites at .05 level or better.

b

Different from Blacks at .05 level or better.

c

Different from Hispanics at .05 level or better.

Table 2.

Mean Comparisons for Explanations of Black/White Inequality across Race/Ethnicity and Congregational Context

White
Black
Hispanic
Nonmultiracial Multiracial Nonmultiracial Multiracial Nonmultiracial Multiracial
Structural 1.75 1.76 2.11 1.78a 1.94 1.89
Motivation 0.50 0.47 0.41 0.39 0.47 0.48
Open in a new tab
a

Difference between multiracial and nonmultiracial attendees significant at .01 level, two-tailed test.

Table 3.

Estimated Odds Ratios for Structural and Motivation Explanations for the Black/ White SES Gap among Religious Affiliates

Predictors Structural
Motivation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Black 2.02*** (0.27) 2.39*** (0.34) 0.67** (0.097) 0.64** (0.100)
Hispanic 1.53* (0.25) 1.48 (0.32) 1.49* (0.27) 1.68* (0.39)
Multiracial congregation 0.98 (0.11) 1.10 (0.14) 0.93 (0.11) 0.93 (0.13)
Black × multiracial congregation 0.35** (0.12) 1.39 (0.50)
Hispanic × multiracial congregation 1.02 (0.30) 0.78 (0.25)
Age 1.01** (0.0026) 1.01** (0.0026) 1.01** (0.0028) 1.01** (0.0028)
Education 1.07*** (0.016) 1.08*** (0.016) 0.91*** (0.015) 0.91*** (0.015)
Homeowner 0.82* (0.081) 0.83 (0.082) 1.05 (0.11) 1.05 (0.11)
Female 1.22* (0.10) 1.22* (0.10) 0.73*** (0.067) 0.73*** (0.067)
Westa 2.05*** (0.25) 2.05*** (0.25) 0.60*** (0.079) 0.60*** (0.079)
Northeasta 1.41** (0.18) 1.40** (0.18) 0.82 (0.12) 0.82 (0.12)
Midwesta 1.84*** (0.20) 1.87*** (0.20) 0.53*** (0.063) 0.53*** (0.063)
Political view 0.75*** (0.050) 0.76*** (0.050) 1.30*** (0.098) 1.30*** (0.098)
Congregation’s political view 0.82*** (0.023) 0.82*** (0.023) 1.21*** (0.038) 1.21*** (0.038)
Catholicb 1.01 (0.12) 1.02 (0.12) 0.86 (0.11) 0.86 (0.12)
Other faithb 0.86 (0.24) 0.87 (0.24) 1.43 (0.46) 1.42 (0.45)
Attendance 1.01 (0.022) 1.01 (0.022) 0.96 (0.023) 0.96 (0.023)
Congregation size (logged) 0.88*** (0.031) 0.88*** (0.031) 1.02 (0.039) 1.02 (0.039)
Year 0.99 (0.011) 0.99 (0.011) 1.01 (0.012) 1.01 (0.012)
χ2 243.7*** 253.7*** 201.2*** 203.2***
N 1,485 1,485 1,485 1,485
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

a

Reference group is South.

b

Reference group is Protestant.

Table 4.

Estimated Odds Ratios for the Black/White SES Gap among Religious Affiliates across Congregational Characteristics

Not multiracial congregations
Multiracial congregations
Structural Model 1 Motivation Model 2 Structural Model 3 Motivation Model 4
Black 2.43*** (0.35) 0.62** (0.099) 0.63 (0.21) 1.21 (0.45)
Hispanic 1.40 (0.31) 1.68* (0.40) 2.14** (0.61) 1.42 (0.43)
Age 1.01** (0.0029) 1.00 (0.0032) 1.01 (0.0057) 1.02*** (0.0064)
Education 1.06*** (0.018) 0.90*** (0.017) 1.15*** (0.040) 0.89** (0.034)
Homeowner 0.80* (0.090) 0.99 (0.12) 0.84 (0.18) 1.33 (0.31)
Female 1.22* (0.12) 0.67*** (0.069) 1.26 (0.24) 0.89 (0.19)
Westa 2.19*** (0.32) 0.58*** (0.093) 1.97** (0.44) 0.63 (0.15)
Northeasta 1.28 (0.18) 0.85 (0.14) 1.84* (0.57) 0.79 (0.27)
Midwesta 1.95*** (0.23) 0.57*** (0.072) 1.36 (0.45) 0.26*** (0.095)
Political view 0.71*** (0.053) 1.34*** (0.11) 0.92 (0.15) 1.03 (0.19)
Congregation’s political view 0.85*** (0.027) 1.19*** (0.043) 0.70*** (0.045) 1.27*** (0.089)
Catholicb 1.08 (0.15) 0.86 (0.13) 0.80 (0.20) 0.80 (0.23)
Other faithb 1.16 (0.36) 1.67 (0.59) 0.21* (0.13) 0.89 (0.70)
Attendance 1.02 (0.025) 0.98 (0.026) 0.93 (0.044) 0.90* (0.048)
Congregation size (logged) 0.91* (0.036) 0.98 (0.043) 0.73*** (0.060) 1.17 (0.10)
Year 0.99 (0.012) 1.01 (0.014) 1.01 (0.028) 0.98 (0.030)
χ2 197.5*** 164.3*** 90.0*** 62.4***
N 1,374 1,374 311 311
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

a

Reference group is South.

b

Reference group is Protestant.

Table 5.

Estimated Odds Ratios for the Black/White SES Gap among Religious Affiliates across Racial/Ethnic Groups

Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
Structural Model 1 Motivation Model 2 Structural Model 3 Motivation Model 4 Structural Model 5 Motivation Model 6
Multiracial congregation 1.13 (0.18) 0.97 (0.17) 0.58 (0.24) 0.66 (0.31) 0.66 (0.30) 0.65 (0.31)
Age 1.01* (0.0035) 1.01*** (0.0039) 1.02 (0.010) 0.97** (0.012) 1.02 (0.014) 1.00 (0.014)
Education 1.09*** (0.024) 0.89*** (0.022) 1.10 (0.065) 0.89 (0.061) 1.10 (0.060) 0.94 (0.053)
Homeowner 0.89 (0.13) 1.15 (0.18) 0.63 (0.19) 0.96 (0.33) 0.84 (0.35) 2.03 (0.90)
Female 1.32* (0.16) 0.70** (0.091) 1.42 (0.42) 0.52 (0.18) 0.84 (0.33) 1.37 (0.57)
Westa 1.71** (0.29) 0.54** (0.10) 1.72 (1.04) 1.35 (0.90) 5.12*** (2.50) 0.43 (0.23)
Northeasta 1.60* (0.29) 0.77 (0.16) 1.52 (0.63) 0.67 (0.34) 1.25 (0.84) 0.61 (0.46)
Midwesta 2.09*** (0.31) 0.52*** (0.083) 0.77 (0.31) 1.05 (0.47) 0.091* (0.10) 0.094** (0.075)
Political view 0.73*** (0.070) 1.41** (0.15) 1.01 (0.20) 0.99 (0.23) 0.87 (0.32) 0.75 (0.29)
Congregation’s political view 0.77*** (0.032) 1.21*** (0.055) 1.08 (0.098) 1.10 (0.12) 0.84 (0.11) 1.04 (0.14)
Catholicb 0.98 (0.16) 0.87 (0.16) 1.35 (0.79) 0.75 (0.50) 0.78 (0.43) 1.63 (0.98)
Other faithb 0.66 (0.24) 1.47 (0.63) 1.65 (2.16) 2.44 (3.32) 9.4e-15 (0.00)
Attendance 0.99 (0.030) 0.96 (0.031) 1.07 (0.085) 1.01 (0.091) 1.01 (0.11) 0.99 (0.11)
Congregation size (logged) 0.90* (0.046) 1.01 (0.057) 0.87 (0.092) 1.12 (0.13) 0.77 (0.13) 1.04 (0.20)
Year 1.00 (0.014) 1.00 (0.016) 0.93* (0.033) 1.08 (0.044) 1.04 (0.055) 0.93 (0.052)
χ2 132.6*** 129.9*** 29.0 18.0 50.19*** 16.15***
N 1,156 1,156 207 207 122 122
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

a

Reference group is South.

b

Reference group is Protestant.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on all variables used in our analyses. Blacks and Hispanics are nearly 25 percent of all respondents in our sample. Approximately one in five respondents (21 percent) attends a multiracial congregation. In addition to descriptive statistics for the full sample, the final three columns list descriptive statistics by race and ethnicity. These columns give us a preliminary answer to our first research question: Does race/ethnicity account for variations in racial attitudes among religious affiliates? Consistent with previous research, religiously affiliated Blacks appear more likely to affirm structural explanations for inequality and less likely to accept the motivation explanation. Blacks have the highest mean for structural explanations (2.06) and the lowest mean for motivation (0.39) of the three groups in our study, significantly different from both Hispanics and Whites. Religiously affiliated Whites have the lowest mean for structural explanations (1.76), but this mean is only significantly different from Blacks, not Hispanics. While the mean for motivation is slightly higher for Hispanics (0.55) than for non-Hispanic Whites (0.49) in our sample, this difference is not statistically significant. These descriptive statistics strongly support our first hypothesis regarding Blacks, but not Hispanics.

Table 2 presents comparisons of means on inequality explanations between attendees of multiracial and nonmultiracial congregations with Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics considered separately. There are no significant differences between Whites or Hispanics by congregational context in their likelihood to affirm either structural or motivational explanations for racial inequality. Attending a multiracial congregation is not associated with racial attitudes for either group. The only significant difference is found between Blacks who attend multiracial congregations and Blacks who attend nonmultiracial congregations regarding structural explanations. Specifically, Blacks in multiracial congregations (1.78) are significantly less likely than their counterparts in more homogenous congregations (2.11) to affirm structural explanations for inequality (p < .01). Interestingly, Blacks in multiracial congregations appear just as likely as Whites in either non-multiracial (1.75) or multiracial (1.76) congregations to affirm structural explanations. These bivariate findings would thus lend qualified support to hypotheses 2a and b. To test our hypotheses further, we turn to multivariate models.

Structural Explanations

Models 1 and 2 in table 3 estimate the association of race/ethnicity and congregational context with structural explanations for Black/White inequality, net of other congregational and individual level controls. Model 1 speaks to our first research question and hypothesis (H1). Controlling for religion and other demographic variables, religiously affiliated Blacks and Hispanics are significantly more likely than religiously affiliated Whites to affirm a structural explanation for inequality. Belonging to a multiracial congregation is not statistically significant in predicting support for structural explanations. Model 2 addresses our second research question: Does congregational diversity moderate the relationship between race/ethnicity and racial attitudes? Only the interaction term for Black × multiracial congregation is significant. Despite the increased odds of support for structural explanations of inequality held by religious Blacks overall, Blacks in multiracial congregations prove to be less likely than Blacks in non-multiracial congregations (or Whites in multiracial congregations) to hold this view. This finding supports the second hypothesis (H2b). Across both models 1 and 2, several control variables stand out as consistent correlates to structural explanations of inequality. Age and education have a positive association with structural explanations for racial inequality. Women are more supportive of structural explanations as are persons outside the South. The political views of individuals and congregations relate to structural explanations as well. Politically conservative people and politically conservative congregations are both associated with lower levels of support for structural explanations, as are larger congregations.

Individualist Explanation

Models 3 and 4 in table 3 estimate the association of race/ethnicity and congregational context with support for the claim that Blacks’ alleged lack of motivation is a contributing factor to Black/White socioeconomic disparities, net of controls. Model 3 takes us back to our first question and hypothesis (H1) about differences in racial attitudes by race/ethnicity. As expected, religiously affiliated Blacks are significantly less likely than religiously affiliated Whites to support this claim. Hispanic congregants, on the other hand, are significantly more likely than non-Hispanic White congregants to attribute Black/White socioeconomic divisions in the United States to Blacks lacking the necessary motivation to eliminate these gaps. Thus, Hispanic religious affiliates are both more structuralist (model 1) and more individualist (model 3) than their white counterparts (see Hunt 2007). Our first hypothesis is only partially supported here. Model 3 demonstrates again that the racial composition of a congregation is no guarantee of shared racial attitudes. Attendees of multiracial congregations are not significantly different from attendees of nonmultiracial congregations in regard to their views on motivation as a source of racial inequality. Pertaining to our second research question, neither of the interaction terms in Model 4 is statistically significant. The racial composition of a congregation does not seem to moderate the relationship of race/ethnicity and motivation as an explanation of inequality. Age, education, gender, region, personal political view, and congregation’s political view are significant control variables. Older adults are associated with support for structural explanations and motivation as an explanation. For all other control variables, increased support for structural explanations is paralleled by a rejection of motivation as an explanation. Women as well as residents in the West and Midwest (when compared with the South) have lower odds of explaining Black/White socioeconomic gaps on the basis of Black’s lack of motivation. Individuals and congregations with conservative political views display higher odds of holding this attitude.

Racial Attitudes by Congregational Context

Thus far, we have consistent evidence that attitudes toward racial inequality differ by race and ethnicity within congregations. The influence of congregational context seems negligible in general, but does moderate the racial attitudes of Blacks somewhat. Table 4 provides a more detailed look at influences on racial attitudes by congregational context. Models 1 and 2 predict structural and motivation explanations for Black/White inequality, focusing on individuals who attend nonmultiracial congregations. In the typical U.S. congregation where racial diversity is minimal, Blacks favor structural explanations more than Whites (model 1). Blacks and Hispanics also differ from Whites in regard to motivation as an explanation (model 2), but the direction of this association is opposite for the two minority groups. Blacks are less affirming of motivation than Whites, while Hispanics are more affirming than Whites. As seen in table 3, education, gender, region, personal political view, and congregation’s political view are associated with both racial attitudes. Models 3 and 4 predict our two explanations for Black/White inequality for individuals who attend multiracial congregations. Within multiracial congregations, significant differences in racial attitudes for Blacks and Whites disappear. While Blacks in multiracial congregations now appear slightly less structural and more individualist than their white counterparts, these differences are not statistically significant. Hispanics in multiracial congregations appear more structurally oriented than Whites (model 3), but these two groups within multiracial congregations are not statistically different in their opinion of motivation as a cause of Black/White inequality (model 4). In both types of congregations (across all four models), education and the congregation’s political view relate to both racial attitudes. Education is positively associated with structural explanations and negatively associated with motivation as an explanation. Political conservatism in congregations is related to less support for structural explanations and more support for motivation as an explanation. Larger congregations, regardless of racial composition, show a tendency toward antistructural thinking.

Racial Attitudes by Race/Ethnicity

Our final models represent another way to answer our second research question and test hypotheses 2a and b and 3a and b. Instead of comparing racial/ ethnic groups’ attitudes by congregational context, table 5 compares the association of multiracial congregations and racial attitudes by race and ethnicity. Organized this way, being in a multiracial congregation is not associated with the inequality explanations affirmed by Whites, Blacks, or Hispanics. The finding that Whites in multiracial congregations are no different from Whites in non-multiracial congregations in their explanations for Black/White inequality supports hypothesis 2a, thereby rejecting hypothesis 3a. The finding that neither Blacks nor Hispanics in multiracial congregations are significantly different from their counterparts in nonmultiracial congregations in their inequality explanations supports hypothesis 3b, thereby rejecting hypothesis 2b. The only consistent trend here would be that attending a multiracial congregation has a negligible association with respondents’ racial attitudes when compared with others of the same race or ethnicity. It is possible, however, that these null findings may be due to the decrease in sample size when models for racial/ethnic groups are estimated separately. These findings should thus be considered in conjunction with those in tables 2–4 where we find that Blacks and Hispanics in multiracial congregations do think differently about racial inequality than do White congregants or others of the same race/ethnicity in more racially homogenous congregations.

Among the control variables, only region is statistically significant across racial/ethnic groups. Whites and Hispanics in the West are more structuralist in their thinking about Black/White inequality than are members of the same race/ ethnicity in the South (models 1 and 5). Whites and Hispanics in the Midwest are less individualist than members of the same race/ethnicity in the South (models 2 and 6). Whites and Hispanics in the Midwest diverge in their support for structuralist explanations however. Whites in this region are more structuralist (model 1), while Hispanics are less structuralist (model 2). There are no regional variations in racial attitudes for Blacks. Only for Whites are any other control variables significant. Structuralist explanations are more common for Whites who are older, more educated, female, living outside the South, more politically liberal in their personal politics, in more politically liberal congregations, and in smaller congregations (model 1). An individualist explanation for inequality is more common for Whites who are older, less educated, male, living outside the West or Midwest, more politically conservative, or in more politically conservative congregations (model 2).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we used congregational-level data from the NCS linked to individual files in the GSS to examine the interplay of race/ethnicity and congregational context in predicting the racial attitudes of religious Americans. The results of our analyses generally support our first hypothesis. Consistent with other work on religion and racial attitudes, explanations for racial inequality among religiously affiliated Blacks are more structural and less individualist than their White counterparts, holding all else constant. Slightly different, however, Hispanics understanding of racial inequality was both more structuralist and more individualist than Whites (table 3: models 1 and 3). On the surface, these findings point to limitations in the assumption of racial/ethnic similarity thesis (Hunt 1996; Hunt et al. 2000, 2013), which suggests that the social psychological processes that shape racial attitudes do not vary across racial/ethnic groups. The finding that religiously affiliated Hispanics tend to embrace both structuralist and individualist explanations for racial inequality suggests that, while acknowledging the role of structural barriers, they may cling more tightly to the American Dream than Blacks, believing that all racial/ethnic minority groups can prosper if they work hard enough (Hunt 2002, 2007).

Beyond racial/ethnic differences in racial attitudes, we were interested in the possible moderating influence of congregational context. We posed competing hypotheses. Hypotheses 2a and b predicted that Whites in multiracial congregations would hold similar attitudes to other Whites, while Blacks and Hispanics in multiracial congregations would show more similarity to Whites’ racial attitudes, i.e., being less structuralist and more individualist in their explanations of Black/White inequality. Hypotheses 3a and b proposed the opposite: a change in racial attitudes for Whites in multiracial congregations, but not for Blacks and Hispanics. Our results reveal that race/ethnicity and religion do intersect in meaningful ways to shape the racial understandings of Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Blacks that attend racially homogenous congregations are significantly more likely than Whites in such congregations to affirm structural explanations for inequality and less likely to affirm individualist explanations (tables 3 and 4). However, Blacks that attend religious services in multiracial congregations are significantly less likely than either Whites in multiracial congregations (see Edwards 2008:96) or Blacks in more racially homogenous congregations to endorse structuralist understandings of racial inequality (tables 2 and 3). This lends some support to hypothesis 2b. Blacks in multiracial congregations may be influenced by such congregations to embrace a dominant White racial frame in which the importance of structure is diminished, and such congregations could also be attractive to Blacks who already embrace those perspectives on inequality. This finding is complicated however by the fact that Blacks in multiracial congregations looked no different in their racial attitudes from Blacks in nonmultiracial congregations, as seen in table 5. The impact of multiracial congregations seems to be more a reduction of attitudinal differences across racial/ethnic groups than a stark contrast between people of the same race in different types of congregational settings. The attitude most affected within multiracial congregations is structuralist thinking. Blacks in multiracial congregations are less structuralist, relative to their white counterparts (tables 2 and 3), while Hispanics in multiracial congregations are more structuralist (table 4).

For Whites, our findings match the expectation stated in hypothesis 2a. We found no statistically significant differences in support for structural explanations of racial inequality between Whites who attend multiracial congregations and those who attend nonmultiracial congregations (tables 2 and 5). Hence, multiracial congregations are not necessarily social contexts in which dominant White racial frames are challenged, but in fact, such contexts may actually affirm the dominant White cultural perspectives (Christerson et al. 2005; Edwards 2008; Marti 2005). We did, however, observe statistically significant differences in racial attitudes between Hispanics who attend religious services in multiracial congregations and their White counterparts, with Hispanic attendees being more likely to affirm structural explanations for Black/White inequality than White attendees (table 4). This finding does not align with either of our competing hypotheses (2b or 3b). It may be that Hispanics in multiracial congregations are at least more progressive on this issue than Whites. Lastly, when analyzing each racial/ethnic group separately, we found no substantive differences between attendees of multiracial congregations and attendees of nonmultiracial congregations for any race/ethnicity on their tendency to affirm motivation as an explanation for Black/White inequality. The findings reported in table 5 match our predictions hypotheses 2a and 3b.

Several other consistent influences on racial attitudes are apparent in our tables. Education is related to more structuralist and less individualist views of Black/White inequality. Political conservatism for respondents and for congregations is associated with less support for structuralist explanations and more support for the individualist explanation. Our findings on education are hardly surprising. Education has been at the forefront of U.S. efforts to combat racial hostilities for over five decades. The impact of political views is a novel contribution of our study. Congregations are voluntary associations composed of individuals who with similar backgrounds and beliefs. Politics may be part of what draw people together within religious groups. Hence, congregations may possess a political orientation that attract some but repel others. Some scholars point to the perceived confluence of religion and conservative politics in the United States as a factor explaining the rise of religiously unaffiliated Americans, many of whom are politically liberal (Hout and Fischer 2002, 2014). Our analysis shows that conservative politics is not conducive to progressive racial attitudes in congregations. It is important to point out, however, that the effects of education and political views seem to apply most noticeably to White congregants. These variables are statistically significant in tables 3 and 4, but they are significant only for Whites in table 5. Another caveat worth noting is that political views may be a proxy for theological conservatism. We do not control for the theological orientation of a congregation and our markers of religious tradition (Protestant, Catholic, and other faiths) are necessarily broad. As a result, we cannot definitively say that political conservatism, separate from theological conservatism, alters racial views inside congregations. Our analysis does call attention to the racial implications of religion and politics.

CONCLUSION

Much of the previous literature on religion and racial attitudes has concentrated on the racial attitudes of White Americans, and has often elided the role of congregational factors in providing an important context for the interplay religion, race/ethnicity, and racial ideology. We attempt to expand on this discussion by empirically examining how congregational diversity moderates the association between race/ethnicity and racial attitudes. Specifically, we provide more nuance and detail to the discussion of racial differences in racial attitudes by assessing whether these race-based attitudes vary by the racial composition of religious congregations. In doing so, we join a growing list of researchers investigating multiracial congregations, and our study informs current discussions about the extent to which racially integrated congregations serve as spaces where racial/ ethnic divisions may be ameliorated (DeYoung et al. 2003; Marti 2005; Yancey 2007) or fortified (Edwards 2008; Edwards et al. 2013; Pitt 2010).

Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, our data are cross-sectional and thus we cannot make claims about causation or consistency of the observed associations over time. Second, since individuals are not clustered within congregations in our linked data sets, we cannot use more sophisticated statistical procedures, such as multilevel modeling. Third, although we theorize about the importance of context, we have no way to test cross-racial interactions in congregations. Nor do we examine which specific groups are present in multiracial congregations. Both of these are fascinating follow-up questions that we hope future research will explore. Given these limitations, we have tried to be cautious in presenting our results to avoid making sweeping claims.

Our results suggest that race/ethnicity, congregational diversity, and racial attitudes interact in revealing ways. First, White explanations for racial inequality are not associated with whether they attend a diverse congregation or not. This important finding sheds some light on the supposed potential of multiracial congregations to challenge the racial status quo. It has been argued that interracial contact may decrease antiblack sentiment and promote more progressive racial attitudes among Whites (Allport 1954; Yancey 2007). While this may be the case under the right conditions, our study demonstrates that Whites in multiracial congregations are just as likely as Whites in predominantly White congregations to question the importance of social structure in accounting for Black/ White inequality and emphasize the importance of Blacks’ own motivation. And second, Blacks who attend multiracial congregations are less likely to affirm structural explanations for racial inequality than Blacks in nonmultiracial congregations. In other words, Blacks who attend multiracial congregations seem to embrace explanations of racial inequality that are more in line with the dominant White racial frame, diminishing the importance of structural factors such as discrimination or lack of access to education. This finding would lend greater support to the argument of scholars (e.g., Edwards 2008; Pitt 2010) who question the potential of multiracial congregations to challenge White hegemony within society at large. Indeed, our findings suggest that multiracial congregations may (1) influence minority attendees to embrace dominant White racial frames and/or (2) select on minority attendees who already embrace such frames in the first place.

Our findings highlight the need for deeper examination into how contexts impact White/non-White racial attitudes. Previous studies suggest the effects of ethno-racial diversity on racial attitudes are conditional on socioeconomic factors within a context (Branton and Jones 2003; Gay 2004). Socioeconomic factors also play into the development of racially diverse congregations (Dougherty and Huyser 2008; Yancey and Kim 2008). Thus, it is worth exploring whether socioeconomic context likewise modifies linkages between race/ethnicity and racial attitudes. The complex intersection of race and social class is not adequately disentangled in present congregational research. Second, the link we discover between a congregation’s political orientation and the racial attitudes of congregants is worth further exploration. Congregations are not immune from the racial politics echoing outside their doors. Ideas about racial inequality link in powerful ways to race, religion, and politics. Multiracial congregations are a valuable setting for understanding the competing forces that shape Americans’ racial attitudes.

Finally, we propose a continued examination of ethnic/racial interaction within racially diverse congregations. We do not wish to argue here that intimate cross-race relationships are absent within diverse congregations, or that these relationships do not powerfully affect participants. Ethnographic research consistently affirms that both majority and minority racial group members within diverse congregations are powerfully influenced by the experience of diversity in a variety of complex ways (Christerson et al. 2005; Emerson 2006; Marti 2005; Wong 2009). Rather, our findings suggest that, despite the potential of multiracial congregations to bridge racial differences and promote religious unity within the congregation (Marti 2005), the dominant racial ideologies outside these congregations are powerful and, consequently, interracial interaction within multiracial congregations may still leave certain racial beliefs unchallenged, or even import those racial ideologies to congregants (Christerson et al. 2005; Edwards 2008). Future research on the consequences of participating in multiracial congregations for individuals should seek to disentangle the mechanisms by which diverse faith communities promote solidarity and change across ethno-racial lines, or conversely, reinforce dominant racial ideologies within individuals.

Footnotes

1

Comparing data from the 1998 and 2012 NCS shows that the percentage of multiracial congregations increased from 7 percent in 1998 to 13 percent in 2012 (Chaves et al. 2012).

2

Chaves (2011:29) shows that among congregations that were at least 90 percent white, between 1998 and 2006, the percentage that had at least some African Americans rose from 27 percent to 36 percent; for Latinos, the percentage rose from 24 percent to 32 percent; and for Asians, the percentage rose from 17 percent to 20 percent.

3

Edgell and Tranby (2007) found no link between Hispanic ethnicity and motivational explanations for Black/White inequality. However, in Hunt’s (2007) study, he found that while Hispanics and Blacks were less likely than Whites to affirm motivation alone as an explanation for Black/White inequality, they were more likely than Whites to affirm both motivation and structural explanations for Black/White inequality. Elsewhere, Hunt (1996) found similar results regarding poverty explanations.

4

The GSS included another option to explain socioeconomic differences between Blacks and Whites in the United States: Because most Blacks have less in-born ability to learn. Less than 6 percent of Black, White, and Hispanic religious adherents in our survey responded yes to this question. Consistent with previous research on race/ethnicity and beliefs about socioeconomic differences between Blacks and Whites (e.g., Emerson and Smith 2000; Hinojosa and Park 2004), we exclude this measure from our analysis.

Contributor Information

Ryon J. Cobb, University of Southern California

Samuel L. Perry, University of Chicago.

Kevin D. Dougherty, Baylor University

References

  1. Allport Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1954. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes Sandra. The Black Church Revisited: Toward a New Millennium DuBoisian Mode of Inquiry. Sociology of Religion. 2014;75(4):607–621. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bonilla-Silva Eduardo. Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation. American Sociological Review. 1997;62:465–80. [Google Scholar]
  4. Branton Regina P, Jones Bradford S. Re-Examining Racial Attitudes: The Conditional Relationship between Diversity and Socioeconomic Environment. American Journal of Political Science. 2005;49(2):359–72. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chaves Mark. National Congregations Study. Durham, NC: Department of Sociology, Duke University; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaves Mark. American Religion: Contemporary Trends. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chaves Mark, Anderson Shawna. Continuity and Change in American Congregations: Introducing the Second Wave of the National Congregations Study. Sociology of Religion. 2008;69(4):415–40. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaves Mark, Anderson Shawna L, Eagle Alison. National Congregations Study. Cumulative data file and codebook. Durham, NC: Duke University, Department of Sociology; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaves Mark, Konieczny Mary Ellen, Beyerlein Kraig, Barman Emily. The National Congregations Study: Background, Methods, and Selected Results. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1999;38:458–76. [Google Scholar]
  10. Christerson Brad, Edwards Korie L, Emerson Michael O. Against All Odds: The Struggle for Racial Integration in Religious Organizations. New York: New York University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  11. DeYoung Curtiss Paul, Emerson Michael O, Yancey George, Kim Karen Chai. United by Faith: The Multiracial Congregation as an Answer to the Problem of Race. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dougherty Kevin D, Huyser Kimberly R. Racially Diverse Congregations: Organizational Identity and the Accommodation of Differences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2008;47(1):23–43. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dougherty Kevin D, Johnson Byron R, Polson Edward C. Recovering the Lost: Remeasuring U.S. Religious Affiliation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2007;46:483–99. [Google Scholar]
  14. Edgell Penny, Tranby Eric. Religious Influences on Understandings of Racial Inequality in the United States. Social Problems. 2007;54:263–88. [Google Scholar]
  15. Edwards Korie L. The Elusive Dream: The Power of Race in Interracial Churches. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  16. Edwards Korie L. Role Strain Theory and Understanding the Role of Head Clergy in Racially Diverse Churches. Sociology of Religion. 2014;75(1):57–79. [Google Scholar]
  17. Edwards Korie L, Christerson Brad, Emerson Michael O. Race, Religious Organizations, and Integration. Annual Review of Sociology. 2013;39:311–28. [Google Scholar]
  18. Emerson Michael O. People of the Dream: Multiracial Congregations in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. Emerson Michael O, Smith Christian. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  20. Emerson Michael O, Smith Christian, Sikkink David. Equal in Christ, but not in the World: White Conservative Protestants and Explanations of Black–White Inequality. Social Problems. 1999;46(3):398–417. [Google Scholar]
  21. Emerson Michael O, Yancey George. African Americans in Interracial Congregations an Analysis of Demographics, Social Networks, and Social Attitudes. Review of Religious Research. 2008;49:301–18. [Google Scholar]
  22. Garces-Foley Kathleen. Crossing the Ethnic Divide: The Multiethnic Church on a Mission. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gay Claudine. Putting Race in Context: Identifying the Environmental Determinants of Black Racial Attitudes. American Political Science Review. 2004;98(4):547–62. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hinojosa Victor J, Park Jerry Z. Religion and the Paradox of Racial Inequality Attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2004;43(2):229–38. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hout Michael, Fischer Claude E. Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations. American Sociological Review. 2002;67:165–90. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hout Michael, Fischer Claude S. Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987–2012. Sociological Science. 2014;1:423–47. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hunt Matthew O. The Individual, Society, or Both? A Comparison of Black, Latino, and White Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty. Social Forces. 1996;75(1):293–322. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hunt Matthew O. Religion, Race/Ethnicity, and Beliefs about Poverty. Social Science Quarterly. 2002;83(3):810–31. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hunt Matthew O. Race/Ethnicity and Beliefs about Wealth and Poverty. Social Science Quarterly. 2004;85(3):827–53. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hunt Matthew O. African-American, Hispanic, and White Beliefs about Black/White. Inequality, 1977–2004. American Sociological Review. 2007;72:390–415. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hunt Matthew O, Jackson Pamela Braboy, Powell Brian, Steelman Lala Carr. Color-blind: The Treatment of Race and Ethnicity in Social Psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2000;63:352–64. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hunt Matthew O, Jackson Pamela Braboy, Kye Samuel, Powell Brian, Steelman Lala Carr. Still Color-Blind? The Treatment of Race, Ethnicity, Intersectionality, and Sexuality in Sociological Social Psychology. Advances in Group Processes. 2013;30:23–45. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim Sharon. Shifting Boundaries within Second-Generation Korean American Churches. Sociology of Religion. 2010;71(1):98–122. [Google Scholar]
  34. Krysan Maria. Prejudice, Politics, and Public Opinion: Understanding the Sources of Racial Policy Attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology. 2000;26:135–68. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lincoln C Eric, Mamiya Lawrence H. The Black Church in the African American Experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  36. Marti Gerardo. A Mosaic of Believers: Diversity and Innovation in a Multiethnic Church. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  37. Marti Gerardo. The Religious Racial Integration of African Americans into Diverse Churches. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2010a;49:201–17. [Google Scholar]
  38. Marti Gerardo. When Does Religious Racial Integration ‘Count?’ A Caution about Seeking Ideal Ethnographic Cases. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2010b;49:224–30. [Google Scholar]
  39. Noll Mark A. God and Race in American Politics: A Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  40. Omi Michael, Winant Howard. Racial Formation in the United States: From 1960s to 1990s. New York: Routledge; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  41. Park Jerry Z. Racial Insularity and Ethnic Faith: The Emerging Korean American Religious Elite. In: Chen Carolyn, Jeung Russell., editors. Sustaining Faith Traditions: Race, Ethnicity, and Religion among the Latino and Asian American Second Generation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2012. pp. 135–55. [Google Scholar]
  42. Perry Samuel L. Racial Habitus, Moral Conflict, and White Moral Hegemony within Interracial Evangelical Organizations. Qualitative Sociology. 2012;35(1):89–108. [Google Scholar]
  43. Perry Samuel L. Religion and Whites’ Attitudes toward Interracial Marriage with African Americans, Asians, and Latinos. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2013;52:425–42. [Google Scholar]
  44. Perry Samuel L. More Like Us: How Religious Service Attendance Hinders Interracial Romance. Sociology of Religion. 2014;75(3):442–62. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pitt Richard N. Fear of a Black Pulpit? Real Racial Transcendence versus Cultural Assimilation in Multiracial Churches. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2010;49(2):218–23. [Google Scholar]
  46. Steensland Brian, Robinson Lynn D, Wilcox W Bradford, Park Jerry Z, Regnerus Mark D, Woodberry Robert D. The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art. Social Forces. 2000;79(1):291–318. [Google Scholar]
  47. Taylor Marylee C, Merino Stephen M. Race, Religion, and Beliefs about Racial Inequality. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2011;634(1):60–77. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wong Erica. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 2009. Can Religion Trump Race? Interracial Friendship in Protestant Churches. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yancey George. An Examination of the Effects of Residential and Church Integration on Racial Attitudes of Whites. Sociological Perspectives. 1999;42(2):279–304. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yancey George. Racial Attitudes: Differences in Racial Attitudes of People Attending Multiracial and Uniracial Congregations. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion. 2001;12:185–206. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yancey George. Interracial Contact and Social Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yancey George, Kim Ye Jung. Racial Diversity, Gender Equality, and SES Diversity in Christian Congregations: Exploring the Connections of Racism, Sexism, and Classism in Multiracial and Nonmultiracial Churches. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2008;47:103–11. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES