Divisiveness,splintering,and the rational interpretation of text

Abstract

In a historical case study, this paper explores the mechanisms by which the rational interpretation of written text can produce divisiveness and splintering. The mechanisms of division are derived from theories of organizational rationality, cultural logics, organizational memory, and group conflict. The propositions are explored in an analysis of common sense rationality with a focus on the 19^th century Stone-Campbell movement. When emotions are not adequately integrated into the culture of rational interpretation, group conflict can arise. The material characteristics of written text combined with a high-diffusion, low-hierarchy, highly recorded and publicized, and proactively contentious, emotionally triggering environment creates a breeding ground for division. The analysis paints a multi-dimensional picture of division and splintering from a sociomaterial standpoint.

Keywords

Organizational memory sociomateriality polarization knowledge common sense

Introduction

The written text has long been considered an essential part of rational paradigms (Locke 1979; Weber 1978), but what implications has text interpretation had for social and organizational behavior? Proponents of common sense rationality view written text as a stable material object with meanings that can be deciphered similarly. American Protestant religious circles have used religious text for many generations as a means for settling disputes or inducing conformity. Organizational theory has identified stabilizing mechanisms within organizations (Hannan and Freeman 1989; Meyer 1994). For religious organization in particular, Stark and Finke (2000) delineate multiple organizational, social, and emotional components of sect formation, while Smith’s (1998) subcultural identity theory explains that cultural meanings portrayed by religious subgroups in the context of modernity correspond with the success of the splinter group. However, organizational scholars have not empirically explored the potential splintering effects of text interpretation. This study contends that text interpretation and usage contribute to divisiveness and organizational splintering, rather than functioning to unify or resolve disagreement. It is through the interpretation and usage of text that many well-known mechanisms of division are played out.

In this study, I focus on the extension of Bacon and Locke’s common sense rationality to legalistic text interpretation from Protestantism in order to better understand some of the social mechanisms of division. The historical analysis is based on my archival research on the Stone-Campbell movement. It concerns the conditions that can lead to disunity with emphasis on the instigative role of rational text interpretation and text usage. The objective is to better clarify how multi-dimensional mechanisms of divisiveness and splintering that are rooted in recorded memory (in this case, written text) and to explore the historical significance of this culture of rationality.

Common sense rationality and religion

In this section, I will briefly discuss the historical significance of rationality and text interpretation in the U.S. and its connection to religious divisiveness. Although originally treated by social theorists as irrational, religious institutions function with a high degree of rationality (Stark and Finke, 2000). The philosophy of common sense rationality has been deeply embedded into American culture, and nowhere was this more apparent than during the turn of the 20^th century. As Weber (1978: 956–1005) incorporated the notion of common sense interpretation of text into his classic description of the bureaucratic form, this practice had similarly been long introduced and institutionalized in Protestant religious groups with respect to their use of the Bible (Foster et al., 2004).

Common sense rationality suggests that objective reality can be interpreted consistently through rational, common sense principles and it became a pervasive part of science, industry, and even certain branches of Christianity. Sir Francis Bacon and John Locke were among the most influential proponents of common sense rationality. For Locke, a rational, common sense interpretation of the Bible is, in essence, a literal interpretation (Parker 2004). Not only did Locke criticize Christianity for incorrectly interpreting the Bible (Higgins-Biddle and Locke, 1999), he discussed ways of properly using language to convey meanings in a rational way (Locke 1979). Bacon delineated methods of rational interpretation of texts with ample references to biblical texts (Bacon 1926). The basic assumption justifying a common sense interpretations of the Bible was that God must have intended for the Bible to be interpreted by anyone; therefore, a common sense interpretation should be adequate. The paradigm of rational interpretation of biblical text became fundamental to many Protestant religions, but most prominently in the Stone-Campbell movement.

Common sense rationality advocated for everyday people interpreting the Bible in a logical way, moving away from traditional allegorical interpretations that required a person with special religious intelligence or authority to decipher. The biblical metaphors were not taken-for-granted, as they are in creationist sects. For example, in one lecture, Alexander Campbell (1867: 140) states, “We learn that in the beginning, God created the earth… how long ago that was, we know not. It was no part of 6 days.” Campbell uses “common sense” to conclude that the creation story is a metaphor. He goes on to reason that this story is communicating a more general point about the “perfection” of life on earth. Because this approach was intended for general readership and the rules of interpretation were not dictated by an ultimate authority figure within the churches, there was disagreement about the precise rules for interpreting biblical passages, as I shall demonstrate in the case study proper. The most fundamental requirement for a common sense rational interpretation was for the reader to make a logical, analytically sound argument. In formal settings, an argument was settled in a debate using rules of rhetoric. The winner had to successfully defend their position without logical fallacies.

There is reason to suspect that the rational interpretation of texts could contribute to the splintering of some organizations. With widespread access to religious texts, followers could hold churches accountable by finding contradictions between the written text and the practices of religious leaders (Chadwick 1995: 196–197). Ideally, this would promote the consistency of rules, norms, or practices in much the same fashion as checks and balances in democratic government. However, with the transition from spoken word to written text, and the increasing independence of the literate reader in interpreting the text, it has become the responsibility of the reader to make sense of the religious canons, especially in the absence of a speaker who has the flexibility to elaborate (Aichele 2001).

Background: The Stone-Campbell movement

The Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ both originated from the Stone-Campbell movement. This paper does not make claims about liberalism and conservatism overall, but these leanings are inseparable parts of the Stone-Campbell movement. Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone separately sought to return to a literal interpretation of the Bible and gathered their own respective followings. In 1832, they united and established the Churches of Christ. By 1906, a broad rift divided the movement with the conservative Stone legacy generally referring to themselves as the Churches of Christ and the liberal Campbell legacy taking the title of the Disciples of Christ. The Stoneites became concentrated in upper South after the Civil War as the Campbellites dominated the Midwest and Kentucky (Hughes 1996: 13). Middle Tennessee became the central region of Churches of Christ membership. According to Hughes (1996), over time, the Campbellites came to prioritize the unification of Christians over the literal interpretation of the Bible, while the Stoneites held to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Indeed, the Stoneites generally rejected all “technological innovations” in religion that were not mentioned in the Bible. The Churches of Christ were markedly more focused on the rational interpretation of religious text than the Disciples of Christ; incidentally, the former experience more subdivisions than the latter. This study poses the question: What was the significance of common sense rationality and written text usage in social division and organizational splintering of the Stone-Campbell churches?

This historical analysis explores the social mechanisms by which written texts failed to function as stabilizing features of rational organizations. Protestant religious groups have historically emphasized individualistic interpretations of the Bible, as opposed to the Catholic tradition that places greater authority in its religious leadership and maintains hierarchical structures for top-down interpretation. The Stone-Campbell movement is particularly apropos, as it was founded upon the ideal of achieving consistency through the literal interpretation of religious texts. These interpretations were published by members of the churches in gospel papers, or religious journals.

Leaders of the Stone-Campbell movement demonstrated mastery over written media and a clear dedication to establishing institutions of higher education. The latter was particularly prominent on the Campbell side, which tended to attract a more urban, educated following. Stone published a well-known religious journal, the Christian Messenger, from 1826 to 1844. Campbell published several papers, the first of which was the Christian Baptist (1823–1830), a journal that expressed disdain for ecclesiastical institutions (Hughes 1996). Campbell developed a more progressive and pro-institutional inclination. This became apparent in his journal, the Christian System, which began publication in 1835 under the name Christianity Restored. By 1836, his other journal, the Millennial Harbinger, had begun to take a similar progressive orientation.

There are many important figures in the Stone-Campbell movement. They typically served as editors of gospel papers, and many of them participated in religious debates or assisted in founding or running colleges and universities. Those with the capital to finance these publications, and the editors they hired, were able to exercise influence within their respective church divisions (Harrell and Edwin, 2003; Hughes 1996). Journals competed for followings and often developed distinct theological flavors as certain articles were selected or prioritized by the editors. Although the papers usually circulated regionally and were short-lived, they provided an important means of diffusing central religious issues of the time, especially before the age of radio and television, and, therefore, serve as a useful source of archival information to historians (Harrell and Edwin, 2003; Hughes 1996).

Revivalism was introduced to the U.S. in large part by Irish and Scottish Presbyterians with “a tradition of protracted emotional awakenings” (Frost 1998: 412). Around the beginning of the 1800s, the “Second Great Awakening” witnessed in the U.S. swept over Protestant churches (Hudson 1965), as the U.S. simultaneously observed a proliferation of religious groups (Butler, 2000). Voluntary organizations also arose to support religious conversion and education, such as the establishment of Sunday schools and distribution of Bibles (Frost 1998: 428; Smith, et al., 1963: 10–19). Tocqueville (2012) famously argued that the formation of voluntary associations was unifying and empowering to the individual in democratic society, yet formal institutions were perceived by some circles during this time period as detrimental to the spirit of free inquiry (Hall 2007: 417). The Churches of Christ emerged during the late 18^th century and early 19^th century as a millennialist sect with an interest in uniting all Christians, regardless of their church affiliations, and finding common ground in interpreting the Bible rationally.¹ Rational, scientific inquiry inspired by John Locke, Francis Bacon, and others had no doubt become a pervasive part of learned culture at this point, and this culture was nowhere more evident than among the Protestants, who tended to be particularly well-educated (Hall 2007: 411–417; Hudson 1965).

Evangelist groups such as these often experienced splintering as the heightened spiritual atmosphere inspired small subgroups to form their own religious movements (Smith et al., 1963: 17–18). Since the churches of the Stone-Campbell movement define themselves as a “movement”, rather than a denomination or sect (Hughes 1996), a formal organizational split cannot be clearly identified. This is advantageous for the purpose of studying divisions in interpretations because divided viewpoints could conceivably occur well before a formal organization officially “splinters”. Based upon Wade’s (1986) historical analysis of commonly recognized splinter groups, it appears that splintering in the Stone-Campbell movement was identified by disunity among prominent religious leaders. This disunity was sometimes verbalized during a debate or in an article of a religious journal. Other times, disunity was apparent situationally in the form of local church hostilities or preferences toward persons with certain agendas or viewpoints, or in the actions taken by religious journals to hire editors or accept articles that adopted particular viewpoints.

Entering the 20^th century, the Disciples of Christ remained a more robust mainstream body, while the Churches of Christ branched off and subdivided into many niche churches. I will describe a few of the most significant subdivisions for illustrative purposes. First, the Non-Class Churches of Christ were churches which rejected formal institutions, such as the establishment of formally organized Sunday school classes or the creation of centralized missionary organizations. A second division occurred among members who rejected the use of instrumental music during worship and those who were ambivalent or in favor of it. The One-Cup Churches of Christ are another splinter group, which only use a single cup during the communion service and do not allow the use of multiple cups. Fourth, there are churches which favor or allow grape juice instead of wine during the communion service. There are some churches which strictly maintain the procedural order of worship described in Acts 2:42, while others do not acknowledge that the biblical reference provides a strict order in which the worship must proceed. Racially segregated churches were largely taken for granted until the mid-20^th century, around the same time that gender norms came under scrutiny and resulted in further divisions.

By which mechanisms would rational interpretation produce division in the Stone-Campbell movement? Several ideas can be derived from social theory.

Perspectives from organizational theory

Subcultural identity theory argues that religious sect formation is a sensible reaction to pressures from a rapidly changing world. According to Smith (1998: 116–117), “Modernity maximizes material abundance and individual autonomy. But it affords insufficient insight into the rightful purpose and meaning of material things and provides little direction regarding what people should actually do with their freedom.” The rational interpretation of biblical text combined with efforts to return to a more authentic form of Christianity exemplifies an amalgamation of the modern and the primitive for the Stone-Campbell movement. One of the most appealing (and contentious) aspects of the movement is its emphasis on the significance of material things in a modern society.

Organizational studies focused on religion offer some insight into the process of sect formation. Stark and Finke (2000) offer a multi-dimensional, market-based model of sect formation that recognizes the rationality of religious organizations. Research has shown that stricter congregations have higher participation rates (Iannaccone 1994; Wollschleger 2019), but Stark and Finke note that more liberal congregations are prone to merging while conservative congregations tend to break up. Among the many sophisticated mechanisms of sect formation discussed by Stark and Finke, they propose that social class tensions are a central factor in explaining patterns of sect formation and the strictness of the religious practices adopted by congregations. Smith’s (1998) subcultural identity theory suggests that boundary distinction can lead to marginalization (Bartkowski 1999), as can be observed with the Stoneites. While extant literature identifies important social mechanisms of division, it has not yet considered written text interpretation and usage as a contributor to organizational divisiveness and splintering.

How might this occur? There are some hypothetical explanations that can be derived from organizational literature. I shall discuss several of these in the sections that follow.

Contradictory logics and inclusivity

The institutionalized treatment of written records has been the subject of much scrutiny in literature of organizational change. Bureaucracies are understood by Weber to be rational structures, optimized by highly efficient, calculable, and predictable operations. With respect to record-keeping, Weber (1978: 988) emphasizes the critical role of documents, combined with the ingrained submissiveness of bureaucrats, for maintaining order. As a basic assumption of structural inertia, Hannan and Freeman (1989) state that organizational structures are stable because they are reproduced and rules are more powerful when codified. The notion of bureaucracies as highly rationalized entities has been challenged. Rules of behavior may require more hierarchical organizational structures to be enforced, whereas highly calculable accounting records may be more consistently utilized in a low-hierarchy organization that relies more on the numerical calculations than a culture of rationality (Meyer 1994).

Thus, as an institution, rationality does not necessarily produce consistent results. Individuals draw on various, often self-contradicting, cultural logics developed over the course of their lives (Swidler 2001). This can interfere with systematic analysis where some degree of judgement is required. Sometimes individuals are forced to choose between conflicting logics (Perelman et al., 2019).

Even with contradictory logics, it is possible to maintain organizational unity through inclusivity, or tolerance of variation in the organization’s membership. Simmel (1955: 93–94) observed that the Catholic Church maintained unity “by treating dissenters as long as possible as belonging to it” until it was no longer possible to accommodate them. He contrasted this with the more stringent membership criteria of the Protestants, whose “sometimes much greater dogmatic intolerance… often led to separatist splinter groups which detracted from its unity.” Open-mindedness is associated with innovation (Kmieciak 2019), but change does not necessarily imply splintering.

I propose that there are two layers of logics to consider in this analysis. First, contradictory logics can generate conflict. However, whether or not these contradictions result in division depends on the extent to which conformity to specific group criteria is required. The second layer is one of inclusivity versus exclusivity. As a Protestant faith, the Stone-Campbell movement is inclined to adopt stringent, exclusive criteria for membership. This puts it at greater risk of splintering if contradictory logics appear.

Organizational memory and diffusion

The characteristics of written text can be conducive to argumentation. Organizational memory manifested in physical form—in this case, as written documents—are cultural objects. In much the same way that institutions must be learned, the use of cultural objects requires the acquisition of knowledge (Antunes and Pinheiro 2019; Bourdieu 1986). Written records provide individuals with greater freedom in interpreting and applying the rules (Suchman 1987). In individualistic cultures or decentralized structures, this opens opportunities for variation in interpretation.

There is a materiality and durability to text that affects its usage (Blagoev et al., 2017). It can be rediscovered and debated for as long as the text is existent and accessible. Unlike human recollections, text provides observable, multi-layered details and components that can be dissected by different people. For one who seeks an objective truth through group consensus, the written text can be a fertile ground for argumentation.

The reproducibility and interpretability of books has unique implications. Individuals have the propensity to attach sentimental value to material possessions (Dittmar 1992; Gruning 2014). In the case of a book, possession and attachment may be simultaneously personal (one feels a connection to the object and its content) and public (other people can have their own personal connection to the same book). The reproducibility of the book enables one’s sentimental possession to be critiqued and differently used and interpreted by other people.

The diffusion of information opens new opportunities for divisiveness. Written texts are an important medium by which cultural boundaries are established (Light and Odden, 2017), and potentially violated or threatened. Technological advancements in publishing and the rise in American literacy facilitated the diffusion of biblical text and religious materials. With greater media coverage (Strang and Soule, 1998) and prestige (Sherer and Kyungmook, 2002), publishers could expect their gospel papers to reach a broader and more diverse audience. Heterogeneity and alterations to social network structures can allow for the diffusion of new information, practices, or ideas (Clemens and Cook, 1999), resulting in cultural clashes.

I propose that the characteristics of written text have the propensity to exacerbate divisiveness in the right context. It is amenable to varied interpretations and its durable presence allows it to be analyzed over and over again. Human-object possession can evoke sentimentality, which, combined with the reproducibility of books and potential for public interpretation, cultivates a volatile condition. Finally, cultural clashes may occur through the disbursement of publications.

Emotions and conflict

In Kierkegaard’s (1849) existentialist philosophy, social embeddedness is a protective barrier. The individual is embedded in social life by adopting different roles and maintaining relationships, and such embeddedness becomes a distraction from the despair of solitary self-reflection and the challenges of coming to terms with one’s individuality—of being fundamentally alone in the world. In a polarized environment in which the threat of attack looms, group membership can be enticing. First, insecurities and anxieties arise from conflict, and belonging to a group is a natural way to protect oneself. Moreover, leaving the group may have negative social and emotional consequences (Pidgen 1998). There may also be distrust stemming from the introduction of someone or something new or unfamiliar (Ziller 2015). But conflict is not always aversive. Under some conditions, group conflict can elicit positive, energizing emotions (Todorova et al., 2014). One may be positively motivated to seek out conflict or reluctant to let negative feelings go, whether for justice (Mikula et al., 1998), for the thrill of the fight, or for institutional change (Tagar et al., 2011). Intra- and inter-group conflict requires positive or negative energizing emotions to be sustained. When negative emotions are enervating rather than energizing (e.g. hopelessness, disappointment), it is possible for concessions to occur (Lelieveld et al., 2011).

The presence of conflict alone is not necessarily an instigator of divisiveness. Emotional intelligence is associated with better group performance (Jordan and Troth 2004). People tend to be more reactive to negative emotions (Jarymowicz and Bar-Tal, 2006), but the way one learns to interpret and react to emotions is a product of historical, cultural, and environmental circumstances (Averill et al., 1990; Maitlis and Ozcelik, 2004). Diversity of culture, such as values, beliefs, and language, are important triggers of conflict (Ashkanasy et al., 2002). Where divisions are occurring, one must consider how cultural expectations and practices are inviting disunity.

Although group conflict can lead to a form of rational action (Greenland et al., 2020), the rational interpretation of text may be at odds with emotional logic. Group conflict and conformity pressures are driven by emotions. I propose that rational interpretation is unlikely to work as desired unless there is a strong culture that instills and normalizes high emotional intelligence, emotional resilience, and non-antagonizing decorum. Without these emotional conditions, splitting is more likely to occur.

Data collection and sample selection

This analysis has been prefaced by my personal acquisition and reading of historical documents on the Stone-Campbell movement. These documents include gospel papers, books, and pamphlets from the mid-19^th to mid-20^th centuries. I retrieved the preponderance of documents in 2017–2018 from the archives of Abilene Christian University, the Quaker Avenue Church of Christ, and digital archives from the Restoration Movement.² During my research, I received information, guidance, and assistance from several archivists and church members at Abilene Christian University, the Quaker Avenue Church of Christ, and Pepperdine University. A substantial amount of information came from gospel papers that consist of written sermons, analyses, debates, classified ads, marketing ads, obituaries, church success stories, and the like. My main sources of information are published debates and persuasive essays, published and unpublished correspondence, specific church case studies, and personal papers from preachers or key informants. Most of the older documents have not been digitalized and are not suitable for computational text analysis. I have no personal affiliation with the Stone-Campbell movement and have performed this analysis from the perspective of an outside observer.

This qualitative content analysis takes a humanistic interpretation of historical documents due to technical limitations associated with coding the archival data (Biernacki 2014). I selected documents from a wide range of perspectives within the Stone-Campbell movement based on the advice of archivists and experts. The documents include recommended texts that were known to be highly influential as well as a review of other documents that became available on the basis of convenience or through a focused search on particular topics of relevance to this paper. The emergent themes were inductively identified through a holistic reading of the text using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006). Documentation on this movement is extensive. I targeted key texts that were considered foundational or commonplace to the movement in general as well as key texts that documented aspects of its various divisions.

I selected the Stone-Campbell movement for this study because its numerous internal divisions make it an interesting case for the study of social division and organizational splintering. Their emphasis on the rational interpretation of text was intended to foster unity, but it did not achieve this end. This raises questions about how division and splintering occurred and how the rational interpretation of text played a role.

Is this a true organization? And does it even matter? The members of this religious group refer to themselves as a “movement” in order to avoid the appearance of having manmade organizational structures in place. However, the Stone-Campbell movement consists of various decentralized churches, including the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ. A formal organization may be recognized as such insofar as it complies with a given society’s institutional criteria defining what is and what is not a legitimate organization (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Since the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ are formally recognized as religious organizations by the U.S. Census Bureau, they are considered a legitimate organization.

However, this is not merely an organization by technicality. The churches possess the characteristics of organizations, in spite of having a shared affiliation to the Stone-Campbell movement. The structural and material aspects of organizations were emphasized in earlier theories of organizational change, such as contingency theory, resource dependence theory, Marxist theories, and population ecology, and institutionalism added a normative dimension which contested assumptions of rationality (Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Scott, 1994). The churches have a material presence, collective identities, rituals, formal leadership, rules, and shared resources.

Why does this matter? The social division of these church members had implications for the church organizations. This is not just a case of social disagreement; it is a case of organizational transformation. The organizational structure presents institutional opportunities and constraints that affect the analysis.

As I proceed with the analytical portion of the paper, I will focus on exploring specific examples of text-based divisiveness in order to demonstrate the processes at play. The analysis is focused on a small subset of debates originating from the mid-19^th to mid-20^th centuries, which encompasses the time period when the Churches of Christ separated from the Disciples of Christ and continued to splinter internally. Thus, there are limitations in this analysis. It does not offer a comprehensive account of all types of disputes that have occurred nor does it explore the more recent changes that the churches have undergone since their division. It is necessary to understand that the totality of fragmentation within the Stone-Campbell movement is extensive and complex. Hughes (1996, 2014) and Harrell and Edwin (2003) dissect the divisions and legacies with remarkable comprehensiveness, such that the entirety of these historical minutiae need not be included here.

Analysis: mechanisms of division

The problem of specificity

These opportunities for disagreement are rife in a culture of legalism and individualism. For disagreement to occur, there must be elements to be disagreed upon. As the level of detail increases, the opportunities for disagreement also increase.

The gospel papers contained contentious material and certainly contributed to divisiveness in its own right, a point that I will revisit in due course. However, contentious statements are not a cause, but an effect. Even with resolute consensus and commitment to the content, the Bible itself was a source of controversy. Embedded in a detail-focused culture, the Bible was the reason for the controversial statements made in the gospel papers.

The rational analysis of religious text was used extensively within the Stone-Campbell movement for determining appropriate action on ambiguous issues. Even so, the Disciples of Christ became less divisive than the Churches of Christ in the long run. This is largely attributable to differences in inclusivity. For Campbell, the default strategy was to “remain silent” where the Bible was silent on a particular issue. This liberal interpretation allowed for loose interpretations of religious doctrine in the Disciples of Christ, which produced a more inclusive organization. Victor Knowles (1976), for instance, followed Campbell’s legacy. He supported the use of instruments and multiple cups in church services, but his support for these innovations did not imply their mandated use. The Stone division splintered more readily on the basis of desiring answers to specific questions. In an article from the Firm Foundation, a gospel paper published by a Church of Christ splinter group, A. B. Finley (1943) described the rationale behind this hardline approach:

There is in the church of Christ today a growing tendency toward denominational compromise and its advocates use this as their plea: “Preach the gospel and let the other fellow alone”, If gospel preachers should try to comply with this plea it would not be long until the New Testament church would vanish from the earth. But we are thankful that many preachers both young and old are still willing to preach the whole gospel at all cost.

One would expect the Bible itself to be a stable source of information. While the use of direct quotations from the Bible for support was commonplace in debates and sermons, these quotations could be interpreted in different ways or other quotes could be used to make a counterargument. The use of interpretive rules was one tactic for navigating the land mines of disagreement in biblical interpretation. However, the tendency for individuals to adopt logics that conformed to their existing beliefs and perspectives made this tactic ineffective at achieving consensus and sometimes augmented the disputes. For instance, some debators focused on the technical definitions of particular words, others gave considerations to the lessons of stories, and still others explored historical lexicon and cultural context. There are innumerable ways to interpret written text and these divergent strategies yield different interpretations.

In this way, the actual or perceived use of text was a source of division. Even if presented with textual evidence, the opponent could contend that the analysis of the text was incorrect or incomplete. In the debate of Van Bonneau and Johnson v. Hayhurst and Buchanan³, Alva Johnson accuses the opponents of cherry-picking Bible verses: “And he wants to make out like he finds a little of it here and finds a little of it here, and finds a little of it over yonder.” In other words, to rationalize the difference in interpretation of the same biblical text, the debator surmised that the opponent must be excluding certain meanings. The biblical text was objectively existent in its physical nature, but the content of the text is cultural and open to interpretation.

Controversies were perpetuated through the calling out of individuals in the gospel papers and making personal issues public. However, this was not always problematic. Individual members of congregations were socially praised or punished in the pages of the journals on a routine basis. In many cases, the call-outs involved charity efforts or reports of local goings-on, and sometimes the articles became quite personal. In one article, Tolbert Fanning (1846) discusses his complex convictions regarding a preacher named W. M. Harris whose attempt to free a young slave won the approval of his local congregation members. While approving of Dr Harris’s abolitionist effort, Fanning also discusses the man’s history of domestic abuse and ultimately opines:

He has the appearance of a most devout man… and yet he is guilty of many of the vilest deeds… I am heartily sorry for him. If he is not crazy, he is deeply depraved."

Whether or not these social commentaries inflamed personal relationships on a local level cannot be ascertained, but there is no evidence to suggest that they directly resulted in organizational splintering. The issues of racial segregation and gender roles eventually became subjects of debate, but these contextual factors were unrelated to the personal call-out of Dr Harris. Indeed, many of the social commentaries were calls for unity around charity or some other matter that were generally local and posed little threat to the institutions of the churches.

It was the intense focus on rationally interpreting the Bible for answers to specific questions that had the greatest influence on church division. The churches overwhelmingly divided on the basis of narrowly focused ritualistic protocol or organizational development goals. These divisive issues were both narrowly focused and institutional in nature. Personal situations that were narrow in scope and without institutional implications were often reported in the gospel papers, but were neither a prominent source of division nor unity.

The churches also printed myriad articles and pamphlets on living a moral life, teaching the scriptures, or other kinds of general guidance. None of these subjects became major sources of contention. The differences in opinion among brethren on specific questions with institutional relevance prompted the most divisive quarrels.

In the papers, preachers often published answers to questions and detailed their opinions on what constitutes appropriate protocol or behavior. Taylor (1906: 20–21) depicts an account of how a preacher, Isaac Errett, attempted to institute a formal code, which lead to division:

The most formidable obstacle in the way of restoring unity which had in this way been interrupted was the adoption on the part of the disaffected members of a certain document prepared by Mr. Errett, and styled a “Synopsis of Faith and Practice,” supplemented by a code of “By-Laws"… Several editors of this period, such as Benjamin Franklin of the American Christian Review, and Moses E. Lard of Lard’s Quarterly, took occasion to severely criticize both the document and the use made of it in Detroit.

The action provoked a written response from the editors of two gospel papers. In effect, the contentious issue was diffused to new local communities through written text.

The divisive power of details trumped the unifying power of adherence to the same general principles from the same biblical text. It was the combination of two factors that created this contention: (1) the narrow focus of the issue, and (2) the institutional relevance of the issue. However, neither of these factors on its own was sufficient to cause organizational splintering. The paradigm of rational interpretation was an important mechanism by which the priorities and mental focus of the congregations became narrow and institutionally focused, thereby contributing to organizational division.

The rational interpretation of text was a contributing factor to church division. Consistent with theories of cultural action, the rational interpretation of text involved many conflicting logics. These conflicts had a polarizing effect across the movement, but this effect was more prominent within the detail-driven culture of the Churches of Christ compared to the more broadly focused Disciples of Christ. The public “calling out” of individuals set the stage for division and the diffusion of this culture was facilitated by the gospel papers. The institutional relevance of the subject matter combined with detail-driven logics and call-out norms fostered the conditions needed for division.

The problem of publicity and debates

Public oral and written debates were a pervasive part of the Stone-Campbell culture. Stone (1859: 340–341) condoned the use of public debates as a means of settling disagreement:

I have known, in the course of my days, great and good religious excitements in certain places, quashed by such debates from the pulpit. I have really thought that the most effectual and shortest way to put a stop to such excitements is for two debators to propose a public debating match, or an ecclesiastical duel, on a certain day, and at a certain place. Generally at the close of the debate, ends the good excitement.

Although intended to put a calm, rational end to differences, debates of biblical text were often a source of entertainment and provoked further excitement and competition. Moderators were normally present at the debates to help maintain appropriate conduct. Nevertheless, it was common practice for debators to vilify or patronize each other. Here is one example from Joe S. Warlick (1924):

Verse 9: “And ye Masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing your Master also is in Heaven and there is no respector of persons with Him.” Why, it actually looks like Paul called the roll before he organized the class, before teaching it. This is clear enough for any reasonable person but many of the Anti-Class brethren have lost their ability to reason it would seem, so we shall go on for their personal benefit.

The debates included language that indicated a heightened sense of in-group loyalty. This statement by J. L. Musgrave (est. 1945: 33–34)⁴ concerned the use of one or multiple cups during the eucharistic ceremony:

It can be seen readily these scholars do not agree with the “one-container” theory. But what if they did? Personally, I had rather take Christ than all the college professors in the entire world.

These divisions were not only expressed verbally, but institutionalized. Splintered churches within the movement advertised themselves by their niche preferences (One-Cup, Non-Class, Instrumental Worshop, etc.) and founded their own gospel papers. Debates were often published in competing gospel papers.

The publicity of the arguments raised the social stakes of concession. Followers of the Church of Christ were less educated and less wealthy than the Disciples of Christ followers. According to Hughes (2014), pride, insecurity, and the desire to prove themselves motivated Church of Christ debators to fight more aggressively than the Disciples. On an emotional level, the publicity of the debates themselves were incendiary. The feeling of humility or shame was described by one church leader (Sommer 1932: 10):

They were so busy exposing the errors of others that they failed to keep clear of errors among themselves. And now many of them are so well established in error that a marvel of humility will be needed for them to renounce their errors…

There is one well-known, exceptional case in which a debator conceded to the opponent in the debate of Whitten v. Lanier. The debate concerned biblical support for conducting Sunday School classes. There were genuine social and emotional consequences to admitting wrong. D. J. Whitten (1945: 9) explains:

It is very hard for anyone to give up his early training. We hate to accept anything that might seem to prove that we have been at fault in our teaching and practice. For over twenty-five years I earnestly opposed class teaching. I went far and near to hear able men discuss the question… I knew what it meant for me to surrender—I knew I would be disfellowshipped by my best friends in the church. My mental worry was great, but I had sought the truth in the hard way and was satisfied that I had found it.

While it is possible for a human being to summon the fortitude and introspection to rationalize a decison over a conflicting emotional pull, a truly rational, emotionally confined decision becomes less likely with high social hostility and a culture that is more emotional than analytical.

The paradigmatic expectation of rational analysis can lead to splintering when human emotions are added to the equation. Provocative emotions, such as excitement and humiliation, spread widely due to the public nature of the debates; hence, they very seldom resulted in unification. The condition of insecurity provoked in-group cohesion and exclusivity, leading to the formation of separate churches and media.

Returning to the role of text, the documentation of the debates exacerbated the divisiveness in several ways. First, the gospel papers facilitated the widespread diffusion of controversy to churches in different geographical areas, rather than keeping them contained. The text could be spread spatially at a faster rate than word of mouth. Second, the documented debates could be saved and revisited over time. They could be debated yet again from a new cultural vantage point.

More broadly, the capacity for public debate and the feasibility of debate culture is made possible through the material nature of the Bible itself. As a compilation of religious documents, the Bible has the same potential for divisiveness as the gospel papers. Controversies within the Bible can be debated and interpreted differently. However, not all Christian groups are as divided as the Stone-Campbell movement. Debate culture helped to trigger the emotional mechanism necessary for splintering to occur.

Additional considerations

The Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ took different strategies for maintaining the legitimacy of their belief systems during a time of great technological and social change in the U.S. This broader cultural transformation posed an interesting problem for all religious organizations, which were faced with the choice of adapting their interpretations and rituals; splintering away from the change-seekers and remaining the same; or ignoring change and allowing diverse or loose interpretations. Consistent with subcultural identity theory, the application of rational text interpretation that characterized each distinctive subculture resulted in varying degrees of marginalization.

Religious historians of the Stone-Campbell movement identify a fundamental theological disparity between early conservative members, who focused on restoring an “ancient order” by interpreting the Bible literally, and liberal members, who were more concerned with uniting Christians (Hughes 1996; Harrell and Edwin, 2003). For conservative members, splintering was a preferable approach for upholding the legitimacy of the ancient order. The more liberal-minded Disciples of Christ sought legitimacy in numbers. Gaining a substantial following required the churches to either adapt their beliefs or allow for loose interpretations. Although the churches formally rejected hierarchy, the different visions of Campbell and Stone also set a tone of divisiveness. Over time, Campbell’s beliefs evolved as he began rejecting emotional displays of worship and accepting institutionalization and conformity, whereas Stone maintained his focus on the pious aspects of faith and individual freedom from formal institutional control (Hughes 1996).

Innovation and membership turnover counteracted the stability of written text. Written text enables the retention of knowledge, and knowledge retention has a stabilizing effect by allowing institutions to be reproduced by new generations of organizational members. However, as innovation and turnover increases, change is more likely to occur (March 1991). The Stone-Campbell movement was acquiring new membership rapidly during its formative years, with new members bringing their own ideas and priorities. The turn of the century was also a time of great innovation in the U.S. Even as the Stone-Campbell Movement advocated for a more primitive form of Christianity, technology was advancing at a rapid pace.

Change can be impeded by powerful coalitions or restricted based on historical legacies (Galaskiewicz 1979; Fligstein 2001; Quadagno 2005; Skocpol 1980). The Stone-Campbell movement has a short history and a low-hierarchy, decentralized organizational structure. The Stone-Campbell movement advocated for decentralized churches, which left them without an institutional body to impose unifying standards and exercise authority to settle debates. Without a centralized system of authority, the rational interpretation of rules was insufficient to create unity.

Discussion

The Stone-Campbell movement arose at a time of great cultural change. The significance of materiality and the rational interpretation of text to the congregations reflected the realities of burgeoning modernity. The increasing interconnectedness of the world created social complexity and normative ambiguities, but splintering offered protective in-group seclusion. Collective effervescence and a sense of belonging could be preserved through clear material-based rituals. The analysis presented here suggest that conformity and membership criteria, material characteristics of texts, and expectations for how emotions should be interpreted and expressed can explain key dimensions of splintering resulting from the rational interpretation of text.

The significance of written text for divisiveness has broader implications for the modern age. Sects can provide cultural direction in a modern world marked by material abundance (Smith 1998). This study marries several layers of organizational analysis to give due attention to an often overlooked sociomaterial aspect of division and splintering. There are pros and cons to these kinds of changes, and I shall leave it to the reader to make this determination. If there is one lesson to be learned from the splintering of the Stone-Campbell movement, it is that no conflict is too small or specific to cause divisiveness. However, further research is needed into the role of sociomaterial mechanisms of splintering—or perhaps of unification—as they function across other religious groups, or other institutional contexts beyond religion, such as business or law. If individualized written text interpretation achieves long-term unity in a different context, what are the social and cultural mechanisms that bring about this unity? If this pattern of splintering repeats itself, how do these mechanisms compare to those of the Stone-Campbell Movement?

The sociomaterial aspects of division discussed here have potential implications beyond religion. American society is free of the constraints of hierarchical cultural authority and robust in individualism and innovation (especially in communications). Deleting records is more challenging in this new technological environment, leaving information available for endless debate and scrutiny. Media is not only readily available, but more public and more entertaining—enhancing the emotions that trigger splintering and inhibit unification. Social stratification only exacerbates the material divide. Globalization may offer material security and social connectedness to the middle class, as demonstrated by the middle class Campbellians, but the poor and working class are often left behind educationally and economically. The tendency for the poor/working class Stoneites to build security through exclusive communities are a reflection of this vulnerability. Socioeconomic status is resource-based and highly material by definition. The sociomaterial aspects of splintering are highly applicable to class relations.

The mechanism of “calling out” a congregation member has commonalities with contemporary call-out culture, suggesting that this reaction is borne not from a particular ideology per se, but from social mechanisms that transcend politics. Call-out culture refers to the phenomenon of publicly censuring individuals who are viewed as deviating from acceptable social norms or values. This culture has received mixed criticism and support in popular media. It is a source of empowerment for many individuals who are confronted with hostile reactions or misinformation from members outside their own group (Huell 2020), but it is also a source of polarity that perpetuates cultural unsettlement (Chua 2018; Swidler 1986). Long-standing group conflicts are inflamed as contradictory logics collide with more frequency than ever before and the “debate stage” of social media allows anyone to readily engage in a battle of common sense rationality. There remains more to be understood about the sociomaterial side of organizational and group dynamics across institutional contexts.

Conclusion

The rational interpretation of text in the Stone-Campbell movement evokes commonly seen mechanisms of division and splintering. Rational interpretation was individualistic and legalistic, but when group membership was not allowed to be loosely defined, it generated division. The materiality and easy diffusion of written text permitted call-out culture to flourish and spread. Debates were public and concession had emotional and social consequences. There were few cultural constraints to prevent group conflict. The splintering of the churches occurred during a time of innovation and social change. Without a formal hierarchy, with highly decentralized churches, and with divided, binary leadership, there were few structural mechanisms in place to facilitate unification.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jacqueline Joslyn

Notes

References

Aichele

(2001) The Control of Biblical Meaning : Canon as Semiotic Mechanism. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Antunes

HJG

Pinheiro

(2019) Linking knowledge management, organizational learning and memory. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 5(2): 140–149. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2019.04.002.

Ashkanasy

Zerbe

Härtel

CEJ

(2002) Managing Emotions in the Workplace. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Averill

Catlin

Chon

(1990) Rules of Hope. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Bacon

(1926) In: Wright

W. A.

(ed), The Advancement of Learning. 5th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bartkowski

(1999). Review of American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving, by C Smith, M Emerson, S Gallagher, P Kennedy, & D Sikkink. Social Science Quarterly, 80: 614–615.

Biernacki

(2014) Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37: 173–188. doi: 10.1007/s11133-014-9277-9.

Blagoev

Sebastian

Kahn

, et al. (2017) The career of a catalogue: uses of the past, organizational memory and digitization at the BM. Academy of Management Proceedings 1(August 2017): 17770. DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.17770abstract.

Bourdieu

(1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press, 241–258.

10.

Butler

(2000) The flowering of religious diversity. Religion in Colonial America. Oxford University Press, 53–73.

11.

Campbell

(1867) Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch. Delivered before the Morning Class of Bethany College during the Session of 1859-1860. Cincinnati, OH: H.S. Bosworth.

12.

Chadwick

(1995) A History of Christianity. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

13.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition Thousand Oaks, CS: Sage Publications.

14.

Chisholm

Wood

(1950) Debate on the Bible Class Question: A Discussion between L. W. Hayhurst, Logan Buchanan, Alva Johnson, and Van Bonneau Held in Crescent Hill Church of Christ. Brownfield, TX: J.R. Chisholm and Jimmy Wood, 53.

15.

Chua

(2018) Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

16.

Clemens

Cook

(August 1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 441–1466. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441.

17.

Dittmar

(1992) The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To Have Is to Be. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

18.

Fanning

(1846) Another bad man. The Christian Review 3(8): 2t.

19.

Finley

(1943) A rapidly growing tendency. Firm Foundation 60: 45.

20.

Fligstein

(2001) The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

21.

Foster

Blowers

Dunnavant

Newell

(2004) The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

22.

Frost

(1998) In: Kee

Albu

Lindberg

, et al. (eds), Christianity: A Social and Cultural History. 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 411–444.

23.

Galaskiewicz

(1979) Exchange Networks and Community Politics. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

24.

Greenland

Proulx

Savage

, et al. (February 2020) Dying for the cause: the rationality of martyrs, suicide bombers and self-immolators. Rationality and Society 32: 93–115. DOI: 10.1177/1043463119900327.

25.

Gruning

(2014) Primacy of paper: the importance of the medium in records management. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 51: 1–4. DOI: 10.1002/meet.2014.14505101142.

26.

Hall

(2007) In: Amory

Hall

(eds), A History of the Book in America: The Colonial Book and the Atlantic World. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1.

27.

Hannan

Freeman

(1989) Organizational Ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

28.

Harrell Jr Edwin

(2003) Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900. In: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, Vol 2.

29.

Higgins-Biddle

Locke

(1999) The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

30.

Hudson

(1965) Religion in America. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

31.

Huell

(2020) Merited or inherited?: Doubling down meets call-out culture. Departures in Critical Qualitative Research 9: 11–19. (March 1). DOI: 10.1525/dcqr.2020.9.1.11.

32.

Hughes

(1996) Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

33.

Hughes

(2014) How Can We Account for the Extraordinary Culture of Biblical and Religious Scholarship in Churches of Christ? Nashville, TN: Churches of Christ Scholarship Oral History Project. 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/coc_scholarship_oralhistory/2.

34.

Iannaccone

(1994) Why strict churches are strong. The American Journal of Sociology 99(5): 1180–1211.

35.

Jarymowicz

Bar-Tal

(May 2006) The dominance of fear over hope in the life of individuals and collectives. European Journal of Social Psychology 36(3): 367–392. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.302.

36.

Jordan

Troth

(2004) Managing emotions during team problem solving: emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance 17: 195–218. DOI: 10.1207/s15327043hup1702_4.

37.

Kierkegaard

(1849) The Sickness unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Edification and Awakening. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

38.

Kmieciak

(2019) Improving SME performance through organizational memory: the role of open-mindedness culture. Journal of Organizational Change Management 32(4), no. 473–491 (July 1). DOI: 10.1108/JOCM-01-2019-0003.

39.

Knowles

(1976) The One Cup Faith: Memoirs of a Movement. West Concord: Vanguard Books.

40.

Lelieveld

G-J

Van Dijk

Van Beest

, et al. (May 2011) Disappointed in you, angry about your offer: distinct negative emotions induce concessions via different mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47(3): 635–641. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.015.

41.

Light

Odden

(2017) Managing the boundaries of taste: culture, valuation, and computational social science. Social Forces 96(December 1): 877–908. DOI: 10.1093/sf/sox055.

42.

Locke

(1979) In: Nidditch

(ed), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 474–524.

43.

Maitlis

Ozcelik

(August 2004) Toxic decision processes: a study of emotion and organizational decision making. Organization Science 15(4): 375–393. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0070.

44.

March

(1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(no. 1): 71–87.

45.

Meyer

(1994) Social environments and organizational accounting. In: Scott

Meyer

(eds), Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 121–136.

46.

Meyer

Rowan

(1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363. DOI: 10.1086/226550.

47.

Mikula

Scherer

Athenstaedt

(1998) The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 24(7): 769–783. doi: 10.1177/0146167298247009.

48.

Musgrave

(1945) The Cup Question: A Scriptural Treatise Exposing the “One Container” Contention. Abilene, TXest: Gospel Tidings.

49.

Parker

(2004) The Biblical Politics of John Locke. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

50.

Perelman

Yaish

Bental

(2019) the price of religiosity: enticing young haredi men into secular academic studies. Rationality and Society 31: 129–151. doi: 10.1177/1043463119831271.

51.

Pigden

(1998) Mind 107(426): 482–485. www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2659892 ((accessed on 19 May 2020)).

52.

Quadagno

(2005) One Nation Uninsured: Why the U.S. Has No National Health Insurance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Scott

(1994) Institutional analysis: variance and process theory approaches. In: Scott

Meyer

(eds), Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 81–99.

54.

Sherer

Kyungmook

(2002) Institutional Change in Large Law Firms: A Resource Dependency & Institutional Perspective. Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 102–119. February 1. DOI: 10.2307/3069287.

55.

Simmel

(1955) Conflict: The Web of Group-Affiliations. Glencoe: The Free Press.

56.

Skocpol

(March 1980) Political Response to Capitalist Crisis: Neo-Marxist Theories of the State and the Case of the New Deal. Politics & Society 10: 155–201. DOI: 10.1177/003232928001000202.

57.

Sommer

(1932) Appeal for Unity. Indianapolis: Apostolic Review.

58.

Smith

(1998) American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

59.

Smith

Handy

Loetscher

(1963) American Christianity: An Historical Interpretation with Representative Documents, 1820–1960. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2.

60.

Stark

Finke

(2000) Acts of Faith : Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.

61.

Stone

(1859) In: Mathes

(ed) To Young Preachers. Cincinnati, OH: Moore Wilstach.

62.

Strang

Soule

(August 1998) Diffusion in organizations and social movements: from hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology 24(1): 265–290. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.265.

63.

Suchman

(1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

64.

Swidler

(April 1986). “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review 51(2): 273–286. doi: 10.2307/2095521.

65.

Swidler (2001) Ann. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

66.

Tagar

Federico

Halperin

(2011) The positive effect of negative emotions in protracted conflict: the case of anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47(1): 157–164. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.011.

67.

Taylor

(1906) A History of the Plum Street Church of Christ. Detroit: Mich. Stone-Campbell Books. Obtained from the Abilene Christian University Archives.

68.

Tocqueville

Ade

(2012) Democracy in America. In: Two Volumes. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Incorporated ProQuest Ebook Central.

69.

Todorova

Bear

Weingart

(2014) Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(3): 451–467. doi: 10.1037/a0035134.

70.

Wade

(1986) The Sun Will Shine Again, Someday: A History of the Non-class, One Cup Churches of Christ. Springfield, MO: Yesterday’s Treasures.

71.

Warlick

(1924) A Debate on the Sunday School Question: Is it Scriptural to Have a Sunday School? between Joe S. Warlick and Geo. W. Phillips. Dallas, TX: George Pepperdine College Library.

72.

Weber (1978) Max. economy and society. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2.

73.

Whitten-Lanier

(1945) Debate between D. J. Whitten (Stockdale, Texas) and Roy H. Lanier (Abilene, Texas): The Debate Which Converted the Man in Error. 2nd edition. Abilene, TX: Mrs Roy H. Lanier.

74.

Wollschleger

(2019) Beyond strictness: mainline protestant religious participation. Rationality and Society 31: 182–203. DOI: 10.1177/1043463119831274.

75.

Ziller

(2015) Ethnic diversity, economic and cultural contexts, and social trust: cross- sectional and longitudinal evidence from european regions, 2002–2010. Social Forces 93(3): 1211–1240.