Magnus and Sherrick: Rural Churches and Resource Provision

In Saviors and Services: The Interface of Neoliberal Deprivation, Hegemonic Christianity, Social Exclusion, and Rural Church Resource Provision, Amy M. Magnus (California State, Political Science) and Alyse Sherrick (University of Maryland, Criminology) explore how rural socio-economic struggles, combined with a lack of non-religious resource providers, situate churches as gatekeepers with considerable power in rural communities.

Before the twentieth century, churches were the primary resource provider in the United States. Today, rural churches continue to routinely step in to provide a variety of social services. While there are benefits to relying on churches as resource providers, this article addresses two main questions. First, how do rural people weigh the benefits and drawbacks of churches being one of the main resource providers in rural areas? Second, how does their assessment shape help-seeking and access to those resources?

For this study, the authors focused on a town given the pseudonym “Gordon.” The town has six notable churches, and the population is predominantly white, with a 17% poverty rate. The authors centered two main concerns: (1) first, whether a lack of funding for churches may lead to instability and uncertainty in resource provision, and (2) second, whether churches use ostracization or coercive tactics to recruit members using social services.

The authors found great nuance in Gordon’s church community, with “smaller,” localized churches taking on greater resource provision and “larger,” organized churches more often evangelizing and gatekeeping their resources. The smaller churches engaged in what the authors call “genuine helping” (i.e., giving resources regardless of the status of those receiving resources), whereas the larger churches engaged in what the authors frame as “performative helping” (i.e., giving resources based on whether or not those receiving resources could be useful to the organization).

What really sets this study apart, however, is that the authors asked for recommendations from the research participants on how to fix the problems identified. The participants suggested, among other things, establishing and more strongly leveraging non-religious organizations to fill the gaps left by local churches. Considering these recommendations, the authors suggest future studies examining how religious leaders come into their role in a rural context.

This study shows the significant impact religion has on policy-making in rural areas. The larger organized churches in the study also have the most political power in the area. The fact that these larger churches are also gatekeeping resources gives them even more leverage over the behavior of those receiving resources. This is the central idea of hegemonic Christianity posed by the authors. Hegemony theorizes mechanisms and tools leveraged by those with power to maintain their power. Hegemonic Christianity, the authors suggest, demonstrates the power of religion and how Christianity, in particular, influences society’s day-to-day lives and social policy—perhaps especially in rural communities.