The problem, as I have described it (Chapter 1), exists where people' s religious claims have moved into an area of fundamentalism: from which they will repulse all that requires them to question or doubt their position. Dogma, the content of belief, is handled as possessing the kind of authority which is beyond doubt or questionning, and which renders open religious reflection an irrelevance.
These preliminary studies in psychology, sociology and theology bave provided me with an essential background to the research and
a contemporary context within which to conduct this qualitative investigation.
The psychological studies have again and again illuminated the findings, clarifying the recognition of occurrences of authoritarianism or prejudice, or, on the other hand, of openness and freedom from prejudice. From the doors of a church emerge those who are authoritarians and those who are not; those who are prejudiced and those who are not (Adorno, 1950; Argyle, 1958). Sanua indicated plausibly (Sanua, 1969) that churches can attract authoritarians because they (the churches) may constitute "safe, powerful, superior, in-groups"; and that they may attract tolerant people because of their creed of universal brother and sisterhood. Argyle found a generally higher-than-average level of authoritarianism among religious people: yet the most committed ones seemed freer from prejudice than the average person (Argyle: op cit) (cf. Holtzman, 1956). Allport and Ross maintained that intrinsically motivated people (those who "lived out" their religion) were significantly less prejudiced than the extrinsically motivated (who merely attended church but didn't get involved).
So-called "indiscriminately pro-religious people" were the most prejudiced of all (Allport and Ross, 1967). These categories, however, were severely criticized by Hunt and King (1971) as
over-generalized. The suggestion, however, that conventionally religious people are more prejudiced than the 'sincerely devout' seemed to Argyle to be substantiated (Argyle, 1958).
This interesting, if inconclusive, field of research suggests to me the need to look carefully, in my study, at the use of authoritarian or prejudiced language about religious matters, and to see whether it relates in any way to the level of religious commitment of the subject,
The insights of psychoanalysis indicated, in the conclusions of Faber (1976), a real link between religion and neurosis. There would be libidinous and aggressive elements, and the concept of projection, where people "behave as though not only feelings but important aspects of themselves are contained in others" (Brown and Pedder: Introduction to Psychotherapy: 1979). The tendency to separate good and bad aspects of the self and represent them in the creation of heroes and monsters, gods and devils, idealization and contempt for others, has also been noted (Brown and Pedder, op cit). Fear and insecurity were, in the view of Freud, essential characteristics of religion (Freud: "The Future of an Illusion", 1927). The developmental stages of infancy identified by Freud (Introductory Lectures, 1916 - 17) suggested to him that where an individual had failed to develop through a particular, stage he or she might demonstrate respectively an
incapacity for giving or receiving love and trust (oral phase); the inability to let go leading to pharisaism or puritanism (anal phase); or the tendency to experience God as an authoritarian figure leading to a primary emphasis on guilt, and the need for forgiveness and reconciliation (the oedipal stage).
In my study it will be important, therefore, to consider indications of neurosis in religious behaviour. The relationship of a subject's explicitly religious language and behaviour must be made to the whole person. David Jenkins found that the volleys of anger loosed against him as a "doubting" bishop indicated that: "the area of religious belief is often charged with intense anxiety and, alas, real neurosis". This, in his view, reinforced the opinions of those who held that "religion is more part of the pathology of humanity than of its health"
(Guardian 'Agenda': 17.12.84).
The sociological studies have indicated the decline in the ascribed status of clergy and all they stand for. Where an authoritarian or dogmatic stance is discovered it can no longer rest in an automatic and universally accepted view either of that role or of the tenets of faith which it appears to represent. The identification by Towler of ideal typologies has assisted both in clarifying the understanding of stances adopted by members, and also in seeing how these individuals stand out in unique and
individual ways from the typology. The sociologists provide the essential context for this study. If Wilson is right that we live in a secular society where people have effectively ceased to be religious, what does that mean for the churchgoer today (Wilson, 1966)? What pressures does it exert? Are support for ecumenism, episcopacy, or interest in liturgical renewal "death- throe" activities, as Wilson claims? (op cit). Are they defensive postures, or signs of continuing faith and life? If Clark is right, on the other hand, that "a large amount of religious activity takes place outside church or chapel" (Clark "Between Pulpit and Pew", 1982) then what does it mean to those in my study that their way is still to attend church regularly? Luckmann described how the secular ideas of the American Dream had now pervaded American religion (Luckmann, 1967). There will be an endeavour, in my study, to note whether any such tendency to what he calls "internal secularization" exists here in Britain as well.
Towler fs study on "The Need for Certainty" (1984) comes close to my own field. It becomes necessary to ask whether evidence of a clinging to dogma and authority and the refusal to reflect or question fundamentally is part of what Towler perceives as the "lust for certitude": where, in his words, faith has "overshot the mark". Towler found this tendency most evident among
"conversionists" and "traditionalists", and it has to be asked whether my subjects belong among the five ideal types to be identified in conventional religion: exemplarist, conversionist, theist, gnostic, or traditionalist.
These preliminary studies in psychology, sociology and theology bave provided me with an essential background to the research and a contemporary context within which to conduct this qualitative investigation.
The psychological studies have again and again illuminated the findings, clarifying the recognition of occurrences of authoritatianism or prejudice, or, on the other hand, of openness and freedom from prejudice.
The sociological studies have indicated the perceived decline in the ascribed status of clergy and all they stand for. Where an authoritarian or dogmatic stance is discovered it can no longer rest in an automatic and universally accepted view either of that role or of the tenets of faith which it appears to represent. The identification by Towler of ideal typologies has assisted both in clarifying the understanding of stances adopted by members, and also in seeing how these individuals stand out in unique and individual ways from the typology.
The theological studies illustrate contemporary issues - those of which these members could not fail to be aware and to which they
relate in the course of the interviews: especially to the visit at that time of Dr Billy Graham to conduct a mission in Britain and for the controversial enthronement, and events surrounding the enthronement, of the Bishop of Durham. The debates about dogma, authority and religious reflection thus moved around these and other current issues at the time I was conducting my study. I have not pretended that the theological and general context in which members of the Church of England live and move is other than a very confused one. It is to the project itself that I now turn, seeking to discover how the main participants, the members of one particular parish church, will move out of this, their background: how they will relate to it, to one another, and to me as both priest and researcher.