In this chapter, I create a typology of Pentecostal congregations that is subsequently analyzed in relation to three levels of engagement—within church, in community, and in wider society—which are part of the theoretical typology of civic engagement discussed in chapter three. I propose that the ever-pervasive perspective of Pentecostalism as an ultra conservative, inward-looking, and otherworldly religious tradition must be revised on the basis of this study’s results. The fact is that in the last couple of decades Pentecostalism has grown significantly, but more importantly has evolved into several currents some of which are characterized by progressive social thinking and action (Miller & Yamamori, 2007; Ruano, 2007). Little research (McRoberts, 2003; Miller & Yamamori, 2007; Norman, 2007) has documented the emergence and development of various strands of Pentecostalism including the progressive type, and this dissertation looks squarely at this phenomenon and its prospects for the future.
I look at Latino Pentecostalism in Chicago, both churches and their congregants, to shed light on this very important religious phenomenon. I pay particular attention to the movement’s implications for communities and society recognizing its present size and growth patterns among the Latino community of this country and around the world.
110 I start the chapter with a very brief theoretical review of congregational research, its strengths and weaknesses, congregational typologies, and how I apply this literature to Latino Pentecostalism. I then hypothesize a typology of Latino Pentecostal congregations and use hierarchical clustering and qualitative verification to test it, and descriptive statistics (cross tabulations and comparisons of means) to analyze similarities and differences between the different types of Pentecostal churches.
In the end, I extensively discuss the results of this analysis and compare them to those obtained by other research that studied U.S. Latinos in general (at a national level) and other U.S. Pentecostals. It is imperative to keep in mind, however, that there has been very little research conducted exclusively on U.S. Pentecostals limiting the scope of these comparisons. I conclude with a summary of findings, issues and concerns, and questions in need of further research.
Theoretical Considerations
Putnam (2006) categorically stated that, “faith communities are arguably the single most important repository of social capital in America” (p. 66). Smidt takes the argument to a higher level and proposes that religious social capital is not just the most important repository of social capital, but that it is different and that consequently the resulting civic engagement is distinctive (2003, p. 3).
The congregation is the theater where religious social capital emerges and from where its resulting civic engagement emanates. Wuthnow (1999) concludes that, “civic involvement has been deeply influenced by the nation’s preponderant commitment to its religious organizations” (p. 331). More succinctly, Cnaan and colleagues (2003) state that joining a congregation in the United States “necessarily involves accepting a set of
111 norms—including the norms of contributing to the building of human and social capital and of being willing to participate in civic affairs” (p. 20).
It has been found, however, that the role churches play in the formation of social capital and the facilitation of civic engagement is a very complex one. Yet, the
socialization experienced by the churched results in civic engagement within and beyond the congregation characterized by a strong motivation to participate for religious, social, and altruistic reasons, a socialization not necessarily mirrored by the unchurched (Harris, 2003, p. 135).
Congregations are particularly important in providing disadvantaged groups in society the ability to develop civic skills that are transferable to other spheres of life including the political arena (Verba, Scholzman, & Brady, 1995; Wuthnow, 1999). These same authors found that Protestant congregations are more effective at developing and providing opportunities for practicing civic skills. Evangelical congregations, however, may not be as effective at transferring those skills to the outside world, thus limiting the production of bridging social capital (Verba, Scholzman, & Brady, 1995; Wuthnow 1999).
This dissertation seeks to address, through the Latino Pentecostal context, some of the most important religion and social capital, and religion and civic engagement issues raised by the scholars discussed. Latino Pentecostal congregations in Chicago have for decades served the most disadvantaged segments of the community and they are fertile soil for the study of the development and transfer of civic skills and the study of civic engagement behavior. However, before the Chicago Latino Congregations Study was conducted (2003 to 2007), there was no other study that had comprehensively looked at
112 Latino Pentecostal congregations in this country. Some congregational studies
(McRoberts, 2003; Cnaan, Hernandez, & McGrew, 2002; Kniss & Numrich, 2007; Wood, 1994) looked at some Latino Pentecostal churches, but came short of analyzing the similarities and differences within Latino Pentecostalism in relation to their civic engagement practices.
The research team that conducted the Chicago Latino Congregations Study faced numerous challenges to develop a universe of Pentecostal congregations and to later recruit them to participate (see chapter three). Surprisingly 26 of the 32 congregations in the stratified sample participated—an 81 percent participation rate. After making some modifications to the original sample (for instance, one church was incorrectly categorized as Evangelical because it is affiliated to a U.S. non-Latino Evangelical denomination. However, the pastor and the majority of the congregants identified themselves as
Pentecostal), the study ended up with data for 32 Pentecostal congregations (N = 32), and 977 of their adult congregants (N = 977). Of those, only 31 were used for this dissertation because one was dropped for having an excessive amount of missing data for both
surveys. Of the 31 churches left in the sample, more than 85 percent of the congregants present when the surveys were administered completed them. Consequently, the Chicago Latino Congregations Study collected the most comprehensive and complete set of data that has ever been collected on Latino Pentecostal congregations and their congregants in this country.
The interest to research Pentecostal congregations and civic engagement came about as I first conducted qualitative research in their midst starting almost a decade ago (Ruano, 2003). As I studied family life, intra-Pentecostal conflict, and immigrant
113 dynamics, the diversity of opinion and the lived social and religious lives of the different Pentecostal traditions and their congregations questioned the generally accepted notion of Pentecostalism as a fairly monolithic, otherworldly, inward-looking, and an ultra
conservative religious movement (Bastian, 1990; Cleary & Stewart-Gambino, 1997; D’Epinay, 1969; Greely & Hout, 2006; Williams, 1967; Wood, 1994). I did find evidence that supported some of the old assumptions, but I also interviewed Pentecostals and observed at congregations where things “seemed” different. Many of the congregants and their leaders were college-educated, young, showed a degree of progressive thinking, and more importantly defined themselves not in opposition to Catholics, which was common practice among Latino classical Pentecostals, but in opposition to “los legalistas” (“the legalists”)—“esos de la senda antigua” (“those of the old way”)— meaning classical Pentecostals (Ruano, 2003). Some of the younger leaders told the story of a split and “massive” departure of the younger and/or more educated leaders and congregants from the old denominations into new denominations or simply into independent churches. Significant tensions followed these events because classical Pentecostal churches lost and continue to lose members, churches, and potential converts to the new types of congregations that emerged (Ruano, 2003). “Los liberales” (“the liberals”), as the classical Pentecostals call them, were reportedly younger, more educated, and cared about “cosas mundanas” (“mundane things”). This tension even spilled into the radio and TV waves where both groups went at it for a while (I studied these events a few years ago as part of my research on intra-Pentecostal conflict).
Originally I had been drawn to the study of Pentecostalism because of its prevalence among the disadvantaged in society including immigrants, the poor, the
114 poorest of the poor, the uneducated, the elderly, and single women. My research interest was particularly focused in finding out if Pentecostalism was or could be a catalyst for social empowerment or if it was an inhibitor of civic engagement and the “opium of the people,” as many researchers assumed Pentecostalism to be (Bastian, 1990; Cleary & Stewart-Gambino, 1997; D’Epinay, 1969; Williams, 1967; Wood, 1994). What I found, particularly the story of a major split within the movement among Chicago Latinos, made Pentecostalism attractive to address my social empowerment questions. Was there a new strand of Pentecostalism? Was it progressive? How progressive? How different was it from classical Pentecostalism? Given the story of a split in the movement, it meant that the new strand(s) of Pentecostalism evolved from the classical version, could it be then that there would be more steps in the evolutionary process? Might we actually see in the future strands of Pentecostalism that address social structural issues in their civic
engagement the way some Mainline Protestant traditions do?
This dissertation addresses many of these questions and it does so with both quantitative and qualitative data. The Chicago Latino Congregations Study produced an unprecedented set of data on Latino congregations and their congregants and as such it allows the analysis of different strands of Pentecostalism and their congregations in comparison to Catholic, Evangelical, and Mainline Latino traditions.
Based on the qualitative research I conducted among Pentecostal churches (participant observation and content analysis), their leaders (interviews), and many congregants (focus groups and interviews) since 2001, I hypothesized that there were at least three types of Pentecostal congregations—“traditional,” “progressive,” and
115 congregation that finds its roots in the original Pentecostal movement of the early
nineteen hundreds. “Traditional” congregations have been the majority of Pentecostal churches and have represented the movement for decades particularly among Latinos.
On the other hand, “progressive” and “activist” congregations are the newcomers to the Latino Pentecostal landscape; they became prevalent in the last two to three decades and have now taken a leadership role in Chicago. I also hypothesized that the “progressive” type evolved from the “traditional” one, but with time there would be “progressive” churches originating from other “progressive” churches with little or no direct roots to the “traditional” types. Finally the “activist” type evolved from the
”progressive” church and is on the vanguard of the movement particularly as it relates to civic and political engagement. “Activist” congregations address the social and structural inequalities prevalent in society for the benefit of the most disadvantaged segments of the population. They are a small minority of Pentecostal congregations, but they have the potential of showing the way for other churches to follow, and more important they have the ability to seriously empower the most disadvantaged segments of society.
With time, “progressive” congregations eventually take the quantitative leap into becoming “activist” ones. As they do this, besides providing internally for the needs of their congregants, “activist” churches get more involved in the surrounding communities and engage social structures to address social issues relevant to their congregants and the most disadvantaged in society. Finally, I hypothesized that the various types of
Pentecostal congregations influenced their congregants’ beliefs and practices. The congregants’ civic and political engagement behavior reflects the influence of the type of Pentecostal congregation they attend.
116 There was another important trend I noticed in my research of Latino intra-
Pentecostal conflict several years ago. The new types of congregations seemed to have major disagreements among themselves particularly in regards to prosperity theology (a teaching that emphasizes material possession, consumerism, and upward mobility) that has become central to the life of many Pentecostal churches. Therefore, I hypothesized that even though some “progressive” congregations would eventually evolve into
“activist” ones, others would remain as “progressive” types modeling themselves around U.S. Pentecostal churches that emphasize prosperity theology.
Cluster Analysis of Pentecostal Congregations
Given the hypothesized Latino Pentecostal church typology—“traditional,” “progressive,” and “activist”—I used cluster analysis to test if the thirty one Pentecostal churches in my sample would cluster in such a way as to confirm or disprove the
typology. The literature on cluster analysis (Garson, 2009) warned that a large enough N was needed for the procedure to produce accurate results (low levels of error). An N of 31 (the number of Pentecostal congregations in the sample) was low and likely to produce high levels of error. I, however, did not have any other statistical option and decided to use a mixed methods approach. This approach required the use of cluster analysis in an exploratory way and the use qualitative validity (based on an extensive qualitative knowledge of the congregations) to verify the accuracy of the resulting clusters. Consequently, it is important for future research with a large enough N to statistically confirm, via cluster analysis, the final Pentecostal church typology that was developed with this mixed methodology.
117 Cluster analysis “seeks to identify homogenous subgroups of cases in a
population. That is, cluster analysis is used when the researcher does not know the number of groups in advance but wishes to establish groups and then analyze group membership…Cluster analysis implements this by identifying a set of groups which both minimize within-group variation and maximize between-group variation” (Garson, 2009, p. 1). I chose hierarchical cluster analysis as my method because it allows the selection of a definition of distance, a linking method for forming clusters, and a determination of how many clusters best suit the data (Garson, 2009). Whereas other clustering approaches such as K-means and two-step clustering require a large N, hierarchical clustering works well with an N of less than 250 (Bacher, 2002, p. 3; Garson, 2009).
I clustered the cases in an exploratory mode (namely, only specifying the
variables and cases to be used) without specifying the exact number of clusters desired. I then chose an agglomerative approach in which each cluster consists of one single object (case or variable) and the clusters are combined step by step. In each step, two clusters with the smallest dissimilarity or the highest similarity are merged and iteration is continued until all objects are in one single cluster (Bacher, 2002, p. 44).
I used the Ward linkage, which has a fixed dissimilarity measure, as the
agglomerative hierarchical method because it uses criteria that are well known from other procedures (such as, cluster sum of squares) and it does not minimize the sum of squares for a specific solution (Bacher, 2002, p. 55). The Ward linkage method also allows for a clear interpretation and guarantees a continuous increase of agglomeration levels
(Bacher, 2002, p. 55). More important, Ward linkage is recommended as the method of choice for the clustering of cases when the variables are interval-scaled variables
118 (numerical) or can be treated as such (Bacher, 2002, p. 54). This approach was a good fit for this study taking into consideration that more than half of my variables are interval scaled variables while the rest are dummy variables. In the end, all the variables were converted into Z scores as a way of standardizing the data for analysis.
Simulation studies that have looked at the factors that influence the results of cluster analysis have demonstrated that even when outliers, irrelevant variables, and incorrect dissimilarity measures are added to the model only about 9.7 percent of wrong classification has occurred (Bacher, 2002, p. 98). Although researches have concluded that the selection of variables and the inclusion of irrelevant variables are the most important factors affecting the results of cluster analysis, the risk is not very significant (Bacher 2002, p. 98).
Once the analysis is run, clusters are identified using the dendogram, and the icicle plots produced. The dendogram (Figure 1) shows the pattern of clustering the cases with connecting lines to the right indicating more distance between cases and clusters (Garson, 2009, p. 8). The icicle plot is a “visual way of representing information on the agglomeration schedule but without the proximity coefficient information” (Garson, 2009, p. 9). In the vertical icicle plot (Figure 2), the bottom row shows all cases on the model as separate one-case clusters except the first pair clustered while subsequent rows show further clustering steps (Garson, 2009, p. 9).
In order to empirically create a typology of Pentecostal congregations, I used several important variables that have been identified in the sociology of religion and social capital and civic engagement literatures (Chavez, 2004; Greeley & Hout, 2006; Loveland, 2005; Schlozman, et al., 1999; Smidt, 2003; Putnam, 2000; Verba, et al., 1995;
119 Wuthnow, 1999, 2004) including variables for both the pastor or key leader of the
congregation and its congregants. These characteristics of churches and pastors include the pastor’s age and education, the church’s membership size and budget, and the congregants’ average age and annual household income (see Table 1 for more details).
Table 1. Church/Pastor and Congregant Variables Used for Cluster Analysis Congregant Variables Church/Pastor Variable
Immigrant status Latino origin
Gender Denominational status
Number of children Paid staff
Home ownership Church budget
Annual household income Size of church membership
Religious orientation Language of worship services
Educational attainment Pastor’s religious orientation
Latino origin Pastor’s language
Age Pastor’s age
Language Pastor’s gender
Religious switching Pastor’s education
Pastor’s immigrant status
N = 977 N = 31
Source: Chicago Latino Congregation Study Survey 4 (Adult Churchgoers), and Surveys 2, and 3 (Pastor/Leader), 2007.
Note: the congregant variables were converted into aggregate variables before being analyzed. For example, the mean age of the congregants was used as a congregational variable.
While the pastor or key leader variables included in the analysis came directly from the surveys the pastor or key leader completed, the congregant variables had to go
120 through a process of conversion to be used as aggregate congregational variables. For instance, the mean of the age of the congregants (obtained from each congregant survey) was used as a congregational variable.
The hierarchical clustering technique I used produced two clearly distinguishable clusters of congregations (see Figure 1 and Figure 2): one with seventeen churches, and the other with fourteen.
According to Garson (2009), the utility of clusters must be assessed by three criteria. First, the issue of size—all clusters need to have enough cases. One or more very small clusters indicate the researcher has chosen too many clusters, and a very large dominant cluster may be evidence that too few clusters have been chosen (Garson, 2009, p. 1). Second, the resulting clusters should be “substantially interpretable”
(meaningfulness); and third, the results should pass the test of criterion validity. Namely, the cross tabulations of the cluster “identification numbers by other variables known from theory or prior research to correlate with the concept which clustering is supposed to reflect, should in fact reveal the expected levels of association” (Garson, 2009, p. 1).
The assessment of the two clusters using Garson’s criteria produced generally satisfactory results. Namely, Cluster 1 had seventeen congregations, 55 percent of all congregations, while Cluster 2 had fourteen or 45 percent—each of the clusters was large enough. I proceeded to conduct an evaluation of substantive meaningfulness and validity by running cross tabulations of relevant variables and by qualitatively analyzing the clusters based on first-hand knowledge of most of the churches in the sample. After analyzing the results of this evaluation, I concluded that the fourteen congregations in Cluster 2 were “traditional” while the seventeen in the other cluster were “non-
121 traditional” churches. Important differences were identified between these two types of congregations after running cross tabulations and comparisons of means on key
demographic and social and political orientation variables.
For instance, it was found that while 89 percent of the “non-traditional” Latino Pentecostal pastors had completed a Bible institute certificate or had an undergraduate degree or more, 79 percent of the “traditional” congregation pastors had done so. The results of other cross tabulations further confirmed the differences. For instance, while 50 and 37 percent of “traditional” and “non-traditional” Pentecostal church pastors,
respectively, stated that the Bible is the word of God that must be taken literally. Then too, 50 percent of “traditional” church pastors claimed to be conservative religiously speaking, but only 27 percent of their “non-traditional” counterparts made such a claim.
Also, only 43 percent of “non-traditional” congregation pastors compared to 50 percent of the “traditional” ones stated that abortion is never acceptable. Finally, while 43