Abstract
Social scientists have conducted quantitative research investigations since at least the early 1980s. However, to date no valid, reliable and objective survey instrument has been developed for sport sociologists to measure important religious ideals in contemporary sport. Historical and theoretical scholarship identifies muscular Christianity as primary to modern sport ideals. Therefore we developed and validated The Contemporary Muscular Christian Instrument, an easily distributable survey that measures the prevalence of muscular Christian values among contemporary participants and consumers of recreation and sport. Our aim in developing this quantitative instrument is to provide social sport scholars a research tool that informs their understanding of these muscular Christian values as they continue to influence notions of sport, recreation, the body, physical activity, and other social indices. This valid and reliable scale allows scholars to examine larger populations and provides data suited to identify differences in levels of the constructs measured, thus allowing researchers and theorists alike to deepen their understanding of the relationship sport and religion have in the globalized social context.
Muscular Christianity’s “reflections and representations are all around us and so normalized (usually but not always under secular rubrics) that it fails to stand out as anything unusual”. John MacAloon (2006: 692)
Sport and religion share a long history of social significance, transcending culture and geographic location. Yet, the contemporary relationship between religion and sport is often unclear and sometimes contentious. In fact, significant sport and religion scholars suggest contrasting theories on how these two cultural activities relate. Hoffman (1992, 2010) writes about the deep connections sport and religion have shared over time, whereas Chandler (1992: 55) argues sport and religion have been “confused” with each other, describing “sport and religion to be fundamentally different phenomena.” Within the contemporary global sport landscape, how can this relationship be understood if experts in the field have such differing opinions?
This essay suggests one way to discover the relationship is to trace modern concepts of sport and physical activity to mid-nineteenth century Britain, which scholars identify as the time and place modern sport ideology emerged: specifically from the social and theological movement muscular Christianity. The ideas and writings of muscular Christians during this time made physical activity and sport central in the development of Victorian notions of masculinity, fair play, and purposeful lives, especially among young men. McIntosh (1979: 28) for instance identifies the central tenants of the muscular Christian movement to be “the ideal of manliness and the association of physical prowess with moral virtue.” Many values inherent to modern sport perpetuate muscular Christian notions of fair play, sportsmanship, and the value of participation, and are expressed in the conversations and decisions made about sport every day.
Social scientists interested in exploring religious themes have developed measurement tools to understand the relationship religion has with other social indices (i.e. The Centrality of Religiosity Scale, Huber and Huber, 2012; Religious Commitment Scale, Pfeifer and Waelty, 1995). Yet, when it comes to measuring religious themes that continue to impact sport, empirical data collection has not been widespread. This may be a result of the different research methods traditionally employed by social scientists. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005: 376) have suggested that quantitative and qualitative researchers “tend to focus on the differences” between the two approaches, and acknowledge “distinctions exist” with “respect to ontology, epistemology, axiology, rhetoric, logic, generalizations and casual linkages.” In the field of sport sociology, particularly examinations of sport and religion, qualitative methodological preferences have been heightened because of the subjectivity of the fields of investigation. Traditional examinations of religious connections and values in contemporary sport have been historical and theoretical, whereby scholars describe the values and connections using theories and lenses postulating their relationship. These valuable investigations typically provide rich description of the anecdotal or theoretical evidence identified between sport and religion, along with insights on processes underlying their formation.
Although theoretical and historical assessments detail muscular Christian ideals observable in the global sport context (Ladd and Mathisen, 1999; MacAloon, 2006, 2013; Meyer, 2010, 2012; Putney, 2003; Watson et al., 2005), no quantitative examinations have been conducted to offer supporting measureable evidence. The development of a quantitative measurement tool could provide researchers the ability to reach larger populations as well as being better suited to identify differences in levels of the constructs measured, thus providing empirical support for relationships between variables. Supporting this supposition, leading author in the area of sport and Christianity, Nick Watson (Watson and Parker, 2013: 41) called for the inclusion of “empirical research” to inform academic conversations of sport and religion. Given the weight of muscular Christianity as a “socio-theological movement and (some would argue) ideology, that significantly shaped the character of modern sports” (Watson and Parker, 2014: 2), the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a quantitative scale to measure the prevalence of muscular Christian values held by contemporary sport, recreation, and physical activity participants.
Literature review: muscular Christianity
Muscular Christianity theory and definitions first emerged in Victorian England during the middle of the nineteenth century when British educators, theologians, politicians, and social critics wrote about and created social initiatives revising Christian cultural notions of health, the body, and manliness through physical activity and sport. Muscular Christianity, as a social theology, set forth the notion that sport and physical activity could make the “bad of society good” (Ladd and Mathisen, 1999: 13), and “prove that Jesus was a tough guy” (MacAloon, 2006: 689). Additionally the movement embodied the notions that Christian moral values learned through sport could be transferred to life beyond the playing fields (Mangan, 1981; Putney, 2003). Muscular Christianity combined emerging Victorian recreational and sport ideals with mid-nineteenth century Christian theology. In doing so, physical activity participation came to be seen as socially and morally desirable, in which to not be athletic socially reflected an individual’s physical and spiritual weakness.
Freeman (1997: 127) suggests these Victorian views of sport were premised “on the moral grounds that games were a preparation for the battle of life and that they trained moral qualities, mainly respect for others, patient endurance, unflagging courage, self-reliance, self-control, vigor, and decision of character.” Farooq and Parker (2009: 280) highlight that the writings of Thomas Hughes and Charles Kingsley (among many others) focused on “the prevalence of weak and effeminate men in Victorian society… and merged traditional Anglicanism with a form of manliness that favored physical and moral strength, courage, and aggression…” Theologians were pushed by muscular Christianity to reconsider sport and physical activity as a desirable social activity.
Contemporary theorists interested in sport have also detailed the pivotal role of muscular Christianity in shaping Western perceptions of sport and physical exercise (see Kidd, 2013; Ladd and Mathisen, 1999; Putney, 2003). Miracle and Rees (1994: 233) detail how muscular Christianity continues to shape American sport ideology, particularly within educational settings, stating “the evangelical muscular Christian myth of the late twentieth century has devised a supporting folk theology that provides its adherents with a,” legitimate religious “vocabulary and rhetoric…” Recent academic conversations about muscular Christianity acknowledge its influence on the ways we think about and experience sport. For example Parker and Weir (2012) give a recent historical overview of muscular Christianity’s Protestant ethic still found in sport. Hübner (2015) discusses the “Western Civilizing Mission” of muscular Christianity in his work examining the YMCA and Eastern sport championships. And MacAloon (2013) edited a nine chapter book examining muscular Christianity’s influence through a variety of social and sporting essays. In fact, it was MacAloon (2006: 692) who most directly called attention to the persistence of muscular Christianity in contemporary sport, suggesting that, although many discussions about sport acknowledge the historical importance of muscular Christianity, rarely do they understand its continued influence (see his quote at the start of this essay). It is because of the normalized persistence of these themes that our efforts to better understand underlying religious themes in modern sport was undertaken.
A muscular Christian lens
Based on this brief review of historic and contemporary muscular Christian scholarship, the researchers first looked to scholarly discussions about the core ideas and values of the movement (see Ladd and Mathisen, 1999; Overman, 2011; Putney, 2003; Rosen, 1994; Watson et al., 2005; etc.). Our investigations led us to conclude that it was the work of Thomas Hughes, and his books Tom Brown Schooldays (1857) and Tom Brown at Oxford (1861), as well as the writings of Charles Kingsley (1874) that most popularized and distributed the sentiments of muscular Christianity. Previous scholars identify the best description of the core tenants of muscular Christianity to be found in Tom Brown at Oxford (see: Richards, 1999; Solc, 2009: 31; Watson et al., 2005: 3). They are: 1) A man’s body is given to him (by God); 2) To be trained; 3) And brought into subjection; 4) And then used for the protection of the weak; 5) For the advancement of all righteous causes; 6) And for the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of men (Hughes, 1861: 83).
Hughes’ first theme suggests is that a man’s body is given to him by God. The notion of a given body underscores the Judeo-Christian nature of the movement. Adam’s body was given by God and thus the descendants of Adam are also understood to have God given bodies. Overman (2011: 159) states that muscular Christianity “espoused the view that physical and moral behaviors were linked, that the body was an extension of moral power, and that the will displayed physical courage.” Hoffman (2010: 119) highlights the centrality of the body in notions of muscular Christian manliness, as Kingsley vehemently critiqued the effeminacy of the seminaries. “As it inculcates piety alongside pugilism, Hughes’s novel draws on the evangelical tradition,” (Adams, 2011: 230) that the strong God given body was of utmost importance to the concept of muscular Christianity.
Secondly, the God given body is to be trained. This theme reflects common Western notions of sport and athletics: that for any physical activity a body must be conditioned, shaped, and trained for purposes of competition. This was an image that Hughes and other muscular Christian authors focused on as being different from musclemen, individuals who focused solely on the physical development and did not worry about how his body was to be used in the world. Muscular Christianity focused on developing the physical in conjunction with the spiritual so that the total person could reflect the Christian idealism of the day. Overman (159) described that the asceticism of muscular Christianity included “a broad chest, a tireless stride, and a strong body,” and all were to be used for the service of Christ in the world.
The third theme of Hughes’ muscular Christian characterization involves the body brought into subjection. As noted above, Kingsley and Hughes were critical of the clergy of Victorian Britain, describing them to be weak and effeminate. Scholars of Victorian literature also highlight how many writings of this period identify bodily weakness as being frowned upon and prevalent through a variety of fictional character portrayals. For example, in Tom Brown Schooldays (Hughes, 1857) the character Arthur was described as physically weak, and presented as the antithesis to the hero Tom Brown. Arthur was a character symptomatic of the “waning spiritual discipline,” (Adams: 164) that Hughes was specifically targeting. Emerging from the muscular Christian focus, the body was to be subjected to limitations on moral perpetuity, and Tom Brown’s masculinity was sharply differentiated from the moral ineptness of the physically weaker characters in the narrative.
Hughes’ fourth theme emerges from the social gospel of the period. Protection of the weak was understood as doing, a way to carry Christ’s mission into the world and to use the strong bodies God had given men “in morally uplifting ways” (Ladd and Mathisen: 15). This theme again differentiated the muscular Christian from a muscleman, where the narcissism of the latter was resolved by the Christian mission of the former. In keeping with socially progressive movements, “the muscular Christian displayed a sense of duty and employed his strength for the betterment of self and society” (Overman: 160).
The fifth theme of advancing all righteous causes stems from the previous theme of protection. One of muscular Christianity’s central focuses, especially in distinguishing itself from the muscleman, was to use the strong well-exercised body in the world for Christ’s purposes. This was embedded in the notion that muscular Christians were to use their strength to “make the bad of society good” (Ladd and Mathisen: 13). Protection of those weaker than oneself was important to muscular Christians, and in the vein of Victorian empire building (Alter, 2004) the strong physical body was to be used to the full glory of God and implemented as a tool to promote the Christian gospel wherever it was needed in the world. The promotion of all righteous causes in the name of Christianity could only be done by men with strong bodies and souls fit enough to bear such heavy loads.
The sixth muscular Christian theme, subduing of the earth which has been given to the children of men, again reflects the centrality of the Judeo-Christian God. Ladd and Mathisen (15) highlight that in acknowledging God’s gift of the world, it was to be remembered that one’s body and duties on earth were also gifts from Him and that all muscular Christians would keep “at least a tacit acknowledgement of godly or Christian motivation in any subsequent activity.” Again, this would ensure that a muscular Christian was not merely a muscleman, keeping spirituality at the core of muscular Christianity. These six historical muscular Christian tenants guided the development of our scale titled the Contemporary Muscular Christian Instrument (CMCI).
Methods
Development of the Contemporary Muscular Christian Instrument (CMCI)
To develop the CMCI a 5-step methodology was used: (1) theoretical item development based on the literature, (2) modification and assessment of face validity through expert panel review, (3) initial model testing using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), (4) cross validation of the scale using CFA in two samples, and (5) preliminary examination of construct validity and internal consistency (DeVellis, 2003).
Steps 1 and 2 methods
In this investigation, face validity concerns the following idea: are the cognitions and conations measured by the scale representative of the muscular Christianity construct (DeVellis, 2003)? Face validity was established by basing item creation on information gleaned from the muscular Christianity literature and conversations with experts who study related concepts. Furthermore, as suggested by DeVellis (2003), prior to the distribution of the survey instrument an expert panel was formed to evaluate and refine scale items.
Steps 3–5 methods
These steps were addressed using surveys disseminated to a sample of university students in the United States. Participants were recruited from one large private religiously affiliated university located in the south-central region of the United States and one large public secular university located in the southeast region of the United States. Investigators emailed instructors at both institutions to determine their willingness to allow the researchers class time for survey administration. A total of 71 instructors teaching undergraduate classes required for graduation, or those with multiple sections of the same class, were targeted to ensure students from a variety of majors were included. Instructors who did not respond to the initial call were sent a follow-up email two weeks later as a second attempt. In each class the investigators explained the purpose of the study, that participation was anonymous and voluntary, that the instructor would not be in the classroom during data collection (to remove any concerns of coercion), and that no incentives would be provided for participation. Informed consent was obtained through survey completion. To describe the sample, participants were also asked to respond to 10 demographic questions that included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and religious affiliation. Consistent with racial categorizations found in the 2010 United States Census report participants were asked “with which race do you identify? (Check all that apply).” Response options were: (a) White, non-Hispanic, (b) Black, non-Hispanic, (c) Hispanic or Latino, (d) Asian or Pacific Islander, (e) American Indian, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian, (f) Biracial or Multiracial, or (g) other. Participants identifying two of these categories were coded as biracial, and participants identifying three or more were coded as other. Religious affiliation was identified by asking the open-ended question “what is your religious belief(s) and/or affiliation (e.g. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Agnostic)?” and athletic participation was ascertained through one item asking “within the last 12 months, have you participated in organized college athletics at any of the following levels?” Response options were: (a) Varsity, (b) Recreational Sports, (c) Club Sports, (d) Intramurals, or (e) Did not participate. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at both universities prior to participant recruitment.
Analysis (Steps 3-5)
Step 3
A CFA was conducted to determine the validity of the items used in the CMCI. A CFA is “a statistical technique used to verify the factor structure of a set of observed variables. CFA allows the researcher to test the hypothesis that a relationship between observed variables and their underlying latent constructs exist. The researcher uses knowledge of the theory, empirical research, or both, postulates the relationship pattern a priori, and then tests the hypothesis statistically” (Suhr, 2006). LISREL 9.1 was used to conduct a CFA in Step 3 to determine any items without hypothesized relationships with the underlying muscular Christian concepts, therefore needed to be removed from the scale owing to low factor loadings and/or cross-loading among multiple dimensions. For Step 3 goodness-of-fit of the scale was assessed using the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and non-normed fit index (NNFI) (Byrne, 1998). For the RMSEA, values ⩽0.08 indicate acceptable fit (Steiger and Lind, 1980). For the CFI (Hu and Bentler, 1995), values ⩾0.95 indicate acceptable fit; and Bentler and Bonett (1980) designated values ⩾0.95 as acceptable for the NNFI. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS 21.0.
Step 4
After determining final items in Step 3, goodness-of-fit statistics for the data from both independent samples of respondents were calculated using LISREL 9.1’s CFA multiple group procedure to cross validate the CMCI. Cross validation is “a way of obtaining nearly unbiased estimators of prediction error in…complicated situations. This method consists of (a) deleting” points “from the data set one at a time; (b) recalculating the prediction rule on the basis of the remaining…points; (c) seeing how well the recalculated rule predicts the deleted point; and (d) averaging these predictions over all…deletions” (Efron and Gong, 1983: 37). When the predictions are confirmed through the cross validation process, evidence exists to support the theory. This allowed the researchers to statistically evaluate measurement invariance between independent groups via tests of equality of factor structure (equal form) and metric invariance (equal pattern of factor loadings). The equal form test indicates “that the number of factors and pattern of indicator-factor loadings is identical across groups” and metric invariance indicates whether factor loadings are equivalent across samples (Brown, 2006: 268). The same goodness-of-fit indices and acceptable values used in Step 3 were also applied here in Step 4. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS 21.0.
Step 5
Preliminary construct validity and internal consistency of the CMCI were evaluated in Step 5. In this investigation, construct validity concerns the idea “do the items designed to measure each of the five dimensions reflect each particular muscular Christianity dimension (DeVellis, 2003)?” Construct validity, specifically discriminant validity, was examined using CFA results and the bivariate correlations among the scale’s five dimensions. It was hypothesized that the CMCI measures five related, but independent, dimensions of muscular Christianity. Brown (2006) suggests a cutoff of r=0.85 when examining independence across dimensions; an indicator of discriminant validity. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha for each of the five muscular Christianity dimensions measured by the CMCI.
Results
Step 1: Theoretical item development based on the literature
Premised on the writings of Hughes, as well as theoretical publications and literature reviews conducted by MacAloon (2006) and Meyer (2010, 2012), items were developed for the CMCI. These items were generated to represent the salient themes identified within historical and contemporary muscular Christian literature building off of Hughes’ six statements (1861: 83): 1) A man’s body is given to him (by God); 2) To be trained; 3) Brought into subjection; 4) Used for the protection of the weak; 5) Used for the advancement of all righteous causes; and 6) Used for the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of men. Four items representing each theme were generated, resulting in 24 original CMCI items.
Step 2: Item modification and face validity through expert panel review
These 24-items were reviewed by scholars with expertise in these areas to establish face validity based on appropriateness of items in representing muscular Christian themes. The external reviewers included two muscular Christianity, sport and religion scholars; two sport culture and religion scholars; one scholar with scale development expertise; and one scholar for general feedback on language. Redundant or irrelevant questions were edited based on feedback provided by the expert scholars, resulting in 19 items (see Table 1). Based on discussions with expert panel members, the 19 items were reorganized into five overall themes that represented the six historical muscular Christian themes found in the literature: 1) Protect, 2) Control 3) Create, 4) Influence, and 5) Exercise. For example, it was determined that the themes of ‘subduing the earth’ and ‘training the body’ were both variations of ‘control’. The theme of Protect included four statements; Control four statements; Create three statements; Influence five statements; and Exercise three statements (see Table 1). A 5-point Likert scale was developed with response options ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Hypothesized muscular Christianity scale.
As noted in the results section, items removed from final model owing to low CFA factor loadings.
Step 3: Initial model testing using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
Sample characteristics
Students were recruited from 37 classes across the two institutions (public university = 19 classes and private university = 18 classes); 793 undergraduate students returned surveys, of which 678 (85.5%) were useable (public university n=340; private university n=338). Students were 18–25 years of age (M=20.8 years, SD=1.3; public university: M=21.2 years, SD=1.24; private university: M=20.52 years, SD=1.33). Most respondents were White, non-Hispanic at both universities (public university: 70.3%, n=239; private university: 66.9%, n=226). The total sample included 68.6% (n=465) White, non-Hispanic students (includes Middle Eastern); 16.2% (n=110) Black, non-Hispanic students; 4.9% Hispanic or Latino students (n=33); 4.6% of students selected 2 or more races (n=31); 4.3% Asian or Pacific Islander students (n=29); and .9% reported “other” (n=6). The majority of the combined sample were female (68.7%, n=463); 31.3% were male (n=211). These proportions are similar to the overall schools’ composition, indicating between 8–17% more female undergraduate students for public and private universities respectively. The majority of respondents self-identified as Protestant (53.6%, n=356), with 20.3% (n=135) non-denominational, 18.5% (n=123) Catholic, 5.3% (n=35) Atheist/Agnostic, and 1.8% (n=14) other. Just under half of the participants (47.9%, n=325) stated they did not participate in athletics; 277 (40.9%) reported any level of club, recreation, or intermural sport involvement; and 72 (10.6%) identified varsity athletics involvement.
Scale CFA results
CFA was used to assess the hypothesized 19-item, five-dimension CMCI (see Table 1) using LISREL 9.1. As previously described, data were pooled from both samples to conduct the CFA in Step 3 (Brown, 2006). Goodness-of-fit indices indicated removal of six items owing to low factor-loading and/or cross-loading between dimensions. Thirteen items remained among the five dimensions (see Table 1). See Table 2 for results of the two independent CFAs. Fit indices (Table 3) for the final set of items were within an acceptable range (pooled sample: χ2df=55=137.68, RMSEA=0.05, NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98; private 1: χ2df=55=215.31, RMSEA=0.07, NNFI=0.94, CFI=0.96; public: χ2df=55=164.16, RMSEA=0.05, NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98), indicating that the measurement model was a good fit for the data. The Appendix shows the 13-item CMCI items and response options.
Descriptive statistics and CFA results for each data set.
Private: χ2df=55=215.31, RMSEA=0.07, NNFI=0.94, CFI=0.96; Public: χ2df=55=164.16, RMSEA=0.05, NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98.
Results of multiple-group CFA and measurement model hypothesis testing.
The chi-square difference test indicated no difference in the pattern of factor loadings between the two data sets
Step 4: Cross validation of the CMCI in two samples
Step 4 was to cross validate the CMCI with the two independently collected data sets using CFA. The results from both samples in the multiple group CFA are presented in Table 3. Acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (χ2df=110=186.64, RMSEA=0.05, NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98) for the test of equal form indicates that the number of factors and pattern of indicator-factor loadings is identical between the private and public university data sets, supporting cross validation. Furthermore, a chi-square difference test indicated no significant difference in the pattern of factor loadings between the private and public data (Δχ2=17.6, Δdf=13, p⩽0.17). Together these cross-validation tests indicate that the CMCI behaved similarly across both samples.
Step 5: Preliminary examination of construct validity and internal consistency
Preliminary discriminant validity, a sub-set of construct validity, was evaluated using CFA and bivariate correlations. It was through the measurement model that the scale measured five related, but independent dimensions of muscular Christianity. The acceptable results of the CFA supported these results. Moreover, the five dimensions were only slightly-to-moderately correlated (r=0.07−0.49) with one another, well below the .85 cutoff suggested by Brown (2006). Hence, the scale exhibits acceptable discriminant validity. Internal consistency was acceptable (α⩾0.70) for all five factors when considering the public university sample (α=0.73−0.87) and acceptable for most of the factors within the private university sample (α=0.61−0.87; see Table 2). As suggested by Cortina (1993), who indicated that it is acceptable to retain factors with lower alpha values when working with new scales or factors with a low number of items, all dimensions (factors) of the CMCI were retained.
Discussion
Sport and religion represent two significant cultural practices common to the human social experience. Examining core historical muscular Christian ideals used to justify modern physical activity ideology (including sport and recreation) allows scholars to better understand the contemporary global relationship these activities have with religion. Beginning with key literature evaluation, followed by the use of an expert panel, data collection, and subsequent validity examination, this investigation resulted in the 13-item CMCI, a valid and reliable scale designed to identify and explore the persistence of muscular Christian values in contemporary culture and sport ideology, as well as linkages between muscular Christianity and other socio/psychological constructs. The CMCI provides a quantitative mechanism to investigate muscular Christian values, allowing for broader assessments of how these ideals influence notions of sport, the body, physical activity, and other social indices.
As previously mentioned, the CMCI was developed in part to address Watson’s (Watson and Parker 2013: 41) acknowledgement of “a distinct lack of quality empirical research” in the scholarly examinations of sport, religion, and spirituality. Moreover, the CMCI also responds to MacAloon’s (2006: 687) urge to provide context of hegemonic muscular Christian themes found in contemporary sport and society, and in “resurrecting the original Christian social version of the muscular Christian ethos,” scholars will be better able to “confront explicitly the hyper-masculinist, chauvinistic and self-righteous” themes that persist today. The CMCI provides a quantitative tool to gather and better understand such persistent values.
Scale use
The CMCI should be considered when investigating a variety of sport sociology and religious sport studies topics. As this scale demonstrates the continued presence and reliance on muscular Christian themes, it may be useful to a variety of scholars in sport ethics and sport philosophy. For example the CMCI could be used to help better understand notions of Christian ideology in contemporary sport and the continued blurring of sport and religion, an emerging area of scholarly inquiry (see Watson and Parker, 2014). The CMCI could also be used to investigate perceptions of athletes as role models and how the media’s characterization of such individuals perpetuates muscular Christian themes.
The CMCI may aid sport sociologists in addressing research topics that have been identified by scholars at the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS) and the International Sociology of Sport Association (ISSA). Using the CMCI, scholars may come to better understand individual and cultural perceptions of athletic bodies (images of fit athletic bodies versus what is deemed unfit and the moral implications of these images), what athletic bodies are to be used for (i.e. personal glory or used to help others), and how they can be understood within the cultural context (what values are important in a given culture about how athletes understand their body). The CMCI offers insights regarding the role of religion among such constructs as fan behavior, character development in youth sport leagues or physical activity experiences, definitions of ‘character’ in contemporary sport, and the celebrity-athlete influence in popular culture, or what Jay Coakley has called “The Great Sport Myth” (Guest, 2015). The CMCI also provides a measurement tool for sport sociologists examining, for-cause events (i.e. Race for the Cure; Relay for Life; LiveSTRONG Challenge) and the notion of “doing well for others through sport and physical activity” (e.g. King, 2006) or masculinity, femininity, and the role of gender in sport and popular culture. The CMCI could be distributed at youth sporting events to understand how young female and male athletes (and even their parents) perceive the role of sport in their lives or the meaning of sport gives them. Additionally, sport chaplains and ministers could also benefit from the information gleaned from the CMCI to better understand their role among youth and professional athletic populations (i.e. Waller et al., 2012).
Additionally the CMCI could be distributed to recreational users of sport landscapes and recreational spaces to examine whether muscular Christian values are found among casual players on inner city basketball courts, or appear with hikers visiting national parks. These populations represent the less formalized athlete, but none-the-less understands sport and physical activity to be part of their lives. Measuring how these individuals see her/his physical activity as part of the wider value-laden sport landscape could provide valuable insight on participation decisions linked with overall health and well-being, even potentially informing legislation about funding inner-city playgrounds or national parks.
Using the CMCI to identify muscular Christian values, along with a range of socio-demographic values, may provide researchers with new insights to existing questions, such as examining how African-American male athletes particularly understand the muscular Christian value of having a strong, well-exercised bodies, furthering, for example, Rhoden’s (2006) work on the historic labeling of African-American bodies. Similarly, extending Darby et al. (2007) one could examine West African athletes’ understanding of the muscular Christian value of using their athletic body for the promotion of all righteous causes, or contextualize Dube’s (2015) investigation of muscular Christian themes in contemporary South Africa.
Finally, the CMCI may also be applicable and useful for sport professionals working in athletics (non-athletes) and in the business of sport. The CMCI could provide coaches, athletic trainers, sport psychologists, or sport managers insights about the cultural meaning of sport today. For those who work daily in sport and recreation, a more informed understanding of the underlying values of their occupations could enhance the value they place on their work. They could also be better informed about expected social outcomes that shape their work experience. For example, from a sport marketing perspective, to understand the muscular Christian values that are woven into contemporary sport serves to enhance their ability to understand basic core tenants that society expects of sport and recreation experiences. These muscular Christian values, although historically situated, remain guiding moral principles within contemporary sports’ cultural attraction. If those who sell sport better understand how consumers and athletes value experiences, their ability to provide a product that is marketable would only be enhanced. These and other topics found in the sport studies literature may be informed using the CMCI.
Limitations
Although the data suggest that the CMCI holds promise to address the call for empirical investigations, all research has limitations. First, this sample was narrowly defined, as college students, aged 18 to 22 years old from the southern United States. The CMCI may reveal differing results if distributed beyond the southern United States, where values and beliefs, particularly toward sport and religion could be different (Bain-Selbo, 2008). Future samples from other populations could then be compared to these current findings. In addition predictive validity was not assessed in this analysis. Future research should examine potential relationships between muscular Christianity, as measured by the CMCI, and constructs related to identity, body image, and health.
Secondly, the low reliability coefficient for the exercise dimension reported for the private university respondents indicates a possible need for scale refinement. Even though we chose to proceed with the investigation because the 0.61 value was only slightly below the accepted value of 0.70 and because this is a new scale with a low number of items for the dimension (Cortina, 1993), we acknowledge that future research should further examine this dimension and the CMCI in larger and diverse samples.
Thirdly, the lingering debate about using scales in social scientific research has long been acknowledged by scholars (Bulmer, 1980; Long, 1987; Reid, 1987). Quantitative assessment measures for any social investigation have potential limitations regarding transparency (Freese, 2007), objective verification (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005), and reflexivity (Ryan and Golden, 2006). The development of the CMCI has made all attempts to be transparent and reflexive, and we encourage the use of the CMCI to help social researchers discover further objective findings that challenge and bring new light to biases in sport studies measurement tools.
Conclusion
The muscular Christian movements’ lasting effects are embedded in the contemporary globalized sport landscape. Present-day perceptions of the body, masculinity, and the value of participation still embody ideals of the original muscular Christians underlying the value centered ideas, conversations, and decisions today. Sport in the modern era holds these ideals as essential to their promotion and mass consumption, and yet prior to the CMCI no quantitative measurement or evaluative tool to account for these hegemonic ideals of sport and physical activity existed. The CMCI provides sport scholars a lens through which to observe and study how these values operate beneath the surface of contemporary sport and physical activity, allowing for better understanding of the current and future sporting landscape around the globe.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.