Angelic Belief as American Folk Religion

Angelic Belief as American Folk Religion1

Scott Draper2 and Joseph O. Baker3

Belief in angels and their intervention in the material world is prevalent in the United States. Theoret-

ically, the concept of folk religion offers an instructive lens into the popularity of these beliefs, which

exist inside, outside, and across official religious doctrines, and are therefore able to transcend the

boundaries of specific religious traditions by appealing to a diverse array of believers. Empirical anal-

yses from a recent national survey support the application of the concept of folk religion, demonstrat-

ing that these beliefs are present in substantial proportions across disparate subgroups. Belief in

angelic intervention is prevalent among conservative and ‘‘mainline’’ Protestants, Catholics, those with

high levels of conventional religious practice, biblical literalists, and even those who strongly believe in

‘‘paranormal’’ phenomena such as Bigfoot and ESP. Belief in angels and claims of angelic protection

provide compelling and flexible narratives, ready cognitive attributions, and emotional comfort. Con-

sequently, these views have strong memetic appeal and are transposable into multifarious subcultures.

KEY WORDS: angels; folk religion; paranormal belief; religious belief; religious experiences;religious practice.

INTRODUCTION

Evidence from Scripture as well as personal experience confirms to us that individualguardian, guiding angels attend at least some of our ways and hover protectively overour lives.

—Billy Graham (1986:77), Protestant evangelist

[Y]our prayers to God to send angel help will be answered. They will make a differenceto your life, for even though you can’t see or hear your guardian angel, he can see andhear you.

—Peter J. Kreeft (1995:22), Catholic author

1 The Baylor Religion Surveys are funded by the Templeton Foundation. Thanks to Chris Bader,Paul Froese, Andrew Whitehead, the anonymous reviewers, and the editor for comments on thisarticle.

2 Department of Sociology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97326, Waco, Texas 76798;e-mail: [email protected].

3 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, East Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 70644,Johnson City, Tennessee 37614.

Sociological Forum, Vol. 26, No. 3, September 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01265.x

623

� 2011 Eastern Sociological Society

You have a Guardian Angel who is appointed to you when you first incarnate andstays with you throughout all your incarnations … Your Guardian Angel wants to helpyou but under Spiritual Law cannot do so unless you ask. His greatest delight is tosmooth your life. Nothing is too small or too large. For example, he will help you toshop for perfect presents, drive safely, or introduce you to someone who can help you… If it is not your destiny to suffer or your time to die, your Guardian Angel will stepin and save you.

—Diana Cooper (2004:9), New Age author

The notion that angels exist and are readily available to intervene in thematerial world is promoted by advocates and adherents from a broad range ofreligious traditions in the United States, ranging from Catholicism and Protes-tantism to the ‘‘New Age.’’ The flexibility and appeal of this notion are evi-dent in its ubiquity in popular culture. Hollywood movies have portrayedangels as benevolent protectors in It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), sporting spiritsin Angels in the Outfield (1994), and sometimes even apocalyptic warriors as inLegion (2010). Touched by an Angel was one of the most-watched televisiondramas in the 1990s (Clark, 2005), and a study of religious consumption foundthe show to be a widely consumed visual media product incorporating reli-gion, with over half of Americans claiming to have watched the show (Parkand Baker, 2007). On stage, Tony Kushner’s two-part epic Angels in Americawon back-to-back Tony awards for ‘‘Best Play’’ in the 1990s. Popular litera-ture, too, abounds in books devoted to angels, including Sophy Burnham’sbestsellers Angel Letters (1991) and A Book of Angels (2004), and Joan WesterAnderson’s popular In the Arms of Angels (2004). Grocery store checkout linesoffer the chance to pick up titles such as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Con-necting with Your Angels (Channer and Brown, 2009). The Christian thrillergenre, recently most identifiable with Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins’s LeftBehind series (1995), had an earlier prototype in Frank Peretti’s This PresentDarkness (1986), in which muscle-bound angels fight violent battles to protectChristians from hordes of demonic forces. In the panorama of popular cul-ture, angels range from warriors to sex symbols to Precious Moments figurines(see Gardella, 2007).

Angels are diversely conceptualized, flexible supernatural beliefs employedfor a variety of reasons, by a variety of believers. Here, we evaluate theseviews from the perspective that belief in angels constitutes a contemporaryform of folk religion in the United States.

Delineating and Applying Folk Religion

The concept of folk religion provides a framework for better understand-ing the phenomena of belief in angels and attributions of their intervention inthe material world; however, conceptual clarification is necessary before appli-cation. Much like the beliefs and practices that it aims to circumscribe, theconcept of folk religion is flexible and unstandardized. It is often used to

624 Draper and Baker

describe popular religious practices of people in various world cultures, espe-cially in the East, who in a syncretistic manner fuse together features of differ-ent religious traditions (e.g., Ackerman, 2001; Harrell, 1977; Law, 2005;Zhuo, 2003). It has also been used to describe leftover, ‘‘primitive’’ belief sys-tems, either academically (Houk, 1996) or ethnocentrically (Hiebert et al.,1999). Accordingly, we seek to clarify our use of the concept by outlining itsdimensions and the manner in which we believe it can be most fruitfullyemployed.

Also referred to as ‘‘folk piety’’ and ‘‘folk theology,’’ folk religion refersto a set of religious beliefs and practices that are distinguished from beliefsand practices more explicitly affixed to formal expressions of religion. AsWuthnow notes: ‘‘Whereas formal religion is characterized by codified doc-trines, ecclesiastical organizations, and a professional clergy, folk piety con-sists of relatively amorphous beliefs, is extraecclesiastical, and is locatedamong the common people’’ (1987:187). Perhaps the most compelling andparsimonious description of folk religion is Yoder’s metaphorical observationthat it is represented by the ‘‘gap between the pulpit and the pew’’ (1974:3).In attempting to distill the critical elements from discourse on the topic,Yoder outlined the multiple ways the concept had been defined and applied.He attempted to provide a definition that would effectively point toward thebeliefs and practices scholars had classified under the umbrella of the con-cept, ultimately settling on: ‘‘Folk religion is the totality of all those viewsand practices of religion that exist among the people apart from and along-side the strictly theological and liturgical forms of the official religion’’(1974:14).

In addition to its multiplicity of uses, the concept of folk religion alsooverlaps with other forms of ‘‘implicit religion’’ such as civil religion and‘‘spirituality’’ (Lord, 2008). Folk religion can be meaningfully distinguishedfrom civil religion, a concept often applied to beliefs, rituals, and symbolsthat sacralize national values (Bellah, 1967). The two concepts are similar inthat both deal with religious expressions that transcend particular religiouscommunities. Unlike civil religion, however, folk religion lacks explicit ties toethnicity or, more importantly, to norms of citizenship in the public sphere.Civil religion contains explicit nationalistic or ethnic components and dealsdirectly with the public expression of religion (for an overview, see Gorski,2010). Folk religious beliefs and practices may be implicitly and informallytied to ethnic identities by virtue of being components of specific cultures,but folk religion lacks the explicit nationalistic characteristics of civilreligion.

Although often not explicitly sanctioned by organized religions, folk reli-gion is derived from, and interrelated with, organized religion. It is derivedfrom organized religions in the sense that it is how adherents apply religiousmental schema to their everyday experiences. Another related, but distinguish-able, concept is spirituality. ‘‘Spirituality’’ has also been defined in a varietyof ways, but essentially refers to intrinsic and individualized religious pursuits

Angelic Belief as American Folk Religion 625

and practices. Although the terminology of ‘‘spiritual but not religious’’ hasreceived academic attention (see Fuller, 2001), research indicates that ‘‘thespiritual’’ and ‘‘the religious’’ are linked for most individuals (Marler andHadaway, 2002; Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Moreover, individuals who are‘‘spiritual but not religious’’ are typically those who have drifted away fromorganized religion while maintaining some of the associated beliefs and prac-tices (Baker and Smith, 2009; Hout and Fischer, 2002) or those who haveadopted a privatized amalgamation of religious views by sampling from the‘‘religious marketplace’’ (Roof, 1999). In spite of the potential decouplings ofreligion and spirituality, most religious organizations promote an active,intrinsic spirituality in conjunction with more public aspects of religious com-mitment, and in this sense spirituality is tightly coupled with formal religios-ity. Folk religion differs by being only loosely coupled with most formalreligious doctrines, as it is primarily communicated and maintained informallyamong believers as they apply cognitive religious schema to experience (Bow-man, 2004).4

Folk religion is syncretistic, unsystematic, informal, and largely anec-dotal (Ackerman, 2001; Hay and Morisy, 1985; Kaneko, 1990; Trachten-berg, 2004; Williams, 1980). It typically involves the intervention ofmiraculous phenomena in daily life, as in cases of illness, bereavement, andother personal tragedies for which a society’s major institutions fail to pro-vide satisfactory solutions (Wuthnow, 1987). Consequently, folk piety canbe thought of as relatively ‘‘free floating’’ in a culture (Stark, 2004:118), asopposed to beliefs and practices clearly associated with particular estab-lished traditions. This distance from organized religious groups and theirdoctrines allows folk religious beliefs to more readily transcend the symbolicand cultural boundaries between various groups, and ultimately appeal to awide-ranging pool of potential believers. That the practices and beliefs offolk religion are distinguished from formal religion does not necessitate thatthe two must be in conflict; rather, institutional religion has long main-tained a symbiotic relationship with folk religion, as ecclesiastics have‘‘negotiated’’ between the demands of their specific traditions and the popu-lar claims of unofficial religion (Greeley, 1995; Redfield, 1957; Scott, 1977;Yoder, 1974).5

Of the different varieties of religious belief and experience, angels andtheir intervention in the material world are particularly suited for the designa-tion of folk religion. Contemporary reports of the role of angelic spirits are

4 Another similar concept is the ‘‘paranormal,’’ which some scholars, such as Wuthnow (1987),classify as folk religion. However, folk religion is distinguishable from the paranormal in thatthe latter has been intentionally pushed beyond the symbolic boundaries of religion. In essence,the paranormal represents a form of ‘‘stigmatized knowledge’’ that organized, and especiallyexclusive, religious groups are prone to denounce (see Bader et al., 2010).

5 Although formal theologians may worry about the casual uses of angelic narratives (e.g.,Fackre, 1994; Welker, 1994), they nevertheless recognize that: ‘‘Angels have never lacked fornotice. Angel stories that run the gamut from serious to silly abound in folk religion’’ (Peterson,1994:395).


typically informal, unsystematic, and anecdotal, involving encounters with orattributions to the supernatural in daily life.6 Further, scholars have longapplied the concept of folk religion to beliefs about ‘‘guardian’’ or ‘‘protector’’spirits, as they are found in a variety of sociocultural contexts (Kaneko, 1990;Scott, 1977; Trachtenberg, 2004; Williams, 1980). Belief in the intervention ofintentional supernatural agents in the material world is one of the most com-mon beliefs across cultures (Boyer, 2001), and research in the fields of cogni-tive anthropology and the psychology of religion points to why this is thecase. Barrett and Lanman (2008:115) posit that belief in intentional supernatu-ral agents who can engage the world is simultaneously ‘‘minimally counterin-tuitive’’ and also ‘‘inferentially rich,’’ making its cognitive appeal strong. Thismakes such beliefs likely to be adopted, as they are ‘‘immediately relevant forhuman concerns.’’

Attribution perspectives in the psychology of religion indicate that indi-viduals tend to make causal attributions to the supernatural in uncontrollablesituations where the potential outcomes are particularly consequential(Gorsuch and Smith, 1983; Lupfer et al., 1996; Miner and McKnight, 1999;Weeks and Lupfer, 2000). The belief in divine agents who intervene in thematerial world on behalf of the believer fits into this pattern of religious attri-bution. Experimental studies of religious attributions indicate that individualscombine religious and secular schemas in piecing together the overall rationalefor a causality of events. Importantly, higher-level deities such as gods areviewed as distal or ultimate causes that facilitate more proximate causes(Weeks and Lupfer, 2000). Intentional agents acting on behalf of the divineprovide a link between these distal and proximate attributions; however, thisavenue has yet to be explored in an experimental setting.

In sum, although many studies of folk religion have focused on Easternsyncretism or on preindustrial or ‘‘primitive’’ cultures (e.g., Christian, 1989;Redfield, 1957; Scott, 1977), we suggest that folk religion, exemplified here byangelic beliefs and attributions, can also flourish in postindustrial cultures.7

Wuthnow (1987) postulated that folk religion’s persistence in postindustrialculture is related to its syncretistic and informal nature. Its ready cognitiveappeal, psychological utility, and the flexibility to be incorporated into a widevariety of belief systems helps explain its persistence.

6 Although we employ the term ‘‘supernatural’’ here and elsewhere in this study, we also recog-nize that the term arguably connotes a dualism that is biased toward a Western cosmology.Although we do not intend to bias our discussion in this manner, the term is widely used andtheoretically central in much of the relevant scholarship (e.g., Bainbridge, 2004; Boyer, 2001;Clark, 2005; Goode, 2000; Wuthnow, 1987). Absent an equivalent substitute, we employ theconcept while recognizing its limitations. In dealing with this difficulty, anthropologist RogerLohmann (2003:175) suggests an ‘‘etic’’ definition for scientific observers that sufficiently corre-sponds with what we intend here. The supernatural, he writes, is ‘‘a ubiquitous mental modelthat depicts one or more sentient, volitional agencies that are independent of a biological sub-strate and understood to be the ultimate cause of elements of physical reality.’’

7 However, it deserves note that the focus of the study (the United States) is ‘‘exceptionally’’ reli-gious among such societies (see Davie, 2002; Norris and Inglehart, 2004).


Relationship to Beliefs Beyond Organized Religion

Much of the popular literature containing angel mythology and testimoni-als falls outside the cultural boundaries of institutionalized religion. Althoughangels are prevalent in conventional U.S. religious traditions such as Catholi-cism and Protestantism, they can also be found in ‘‘unconventional’’ beliefsystems, such as those associated with the ‘‘New Age’’ or the ‘‘paranormal.’’8

Angel Therapy (Virtue, 1997), Ask Your Angels (Daniel et al., 1992), andAngelspeake: How to Talk with Your Angels (Mark, 1995) are a sampling ofthe numerous angel books written from a New Age or spiritualist orientation.The information in these books is wide-ranging, but the practical value to theindividual is commonly emphasized. As is evident in the epigraph from DianaCooper’s (2004) book quoted above, angels are even available for assistance inshopping for gifts, if need be. Requiring little or no formal organizationalcommitments, they are ready to provide causal attributions, emotionalcomfort, and practical benefits.

The connection between religious and paranormal beliefs is an oft-debated topic in social scientific studies of religion (see Bainbridge, 2004;Baker and Draper, 2010; Goode, 2000; Mencken et al., 2009b; Rice, 2003). Ingeneral, this relationship is varied, depending on the beliefs in question. Cer-tain religious beliefs, such as angels and demons, have potential cross-overappeal into unconventional belief systems. Beyond the prevalence of angels inNew Age literature, many narratives of guardian angel experiences are strik-ingly similar to narratives found in reports of certain paranormal experiences.

Two brief accounts help illustrate this similarity. The first is taken from abook about angels. ‘‘Steve,’’ in this account, is suffering from a chronicdisease.

One night Steve awakened from sharp stabs of pain. [He] looked around. Somethingwas happening. ‘‘It started as a faint glow,’’ he says. ‘‘Slowly, it got brighter. Then thebedroom was bathed in this dazzling white light.’’ The light did not seem to be comingfrom any particular place but from all directions at once. It was beautiful yet frighten-ing …. What should he do? Then, at the foot of his bed a figure emerged. ‘‘It felt mas-culine,’’ although ‘‘I could not make out any facial features,’’ Steve says. ‘‘It was aboutseven feet tall, and glowing somehow within the glow.’’ (Anderson, 2004)

The next account is taken from a popular website that reports UFO sight-ings, and is characteristic of many such accounts.

I woke up last night. It was about 2 … I woke up from a very bright light that filledout the whole room. The minute I saw the light I was sure it was directed at ME—theangle it was positioned at was in such a way that I saw it as soon as I opened my eyes,shining down on me through the window. I did not feel threatened but amused, and fellback asleep immediately. I only remember thinking, ‘‘I have to check if there is a street-light that could cause this.’’ But at the same time, I knew already that it wasn’t a street-light as it was too bright, and I had never noticed lamps like that before. I woke up

8 Although groups do sometimes form on the basis of shared commitments to New Age and para-normal themes, these forms of belief predominantly remain diversified, diffuse, and largely inde-pendent of existing institutions (Bader et al., 2010; Bainbridge, 2004; Lewis, 1992).


about two hours later, and the same oval object was still present, shining down on me… There was a strange energy since the light was extremely bright and white. I was surethat I (our house) was an object under investigation. (Mutual UFO Network, 2007)9

The above testimonials both share features common to numerous angeland paranormal narratives. These include late night arousal from sleep, unu-sual forms of light from indeterminable sources, and intervention from mysteri-ous and nonterrestrial beings who are uniquely interested in the storytellers.Appropriately, a popular book on angels including testimonial accounts fromthe author and believers was subtitled True Cases of Close Encounters of theCelestial Kind (Freeman, 1993). It is therefore reasonable to assess whether thesimilarities of these narrative features and the flexibility of angelic beliefs resultsin a connection between these views and acceptance of paranormal beliefs.

The possibility that angelic beliefs and experiences can be an expressionof both conventional and unconventional religiosity will be addressed empiri-cally in the following analyses. In addition, we assess how prevalent belief inangels and their intervention is across and outside of organized religious tradi-tions in the United States. These analyses offer an empirical assessment ofangels as contemporary American folk religion.

DATA AND METHODS

This study uses data from Wave II of the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS).First conducted in 2005, the BRS examines Americans’ beliefs and attitudesthrough a combination of fixed content on religion and rotating modules on avariety of related topics. Wave II includes questions that ask respondentswhether they believe in angels or claim to have been protected from harm bya guardian angel. Wave II also includes sociodemographic variables and exten-sive measures of religious tradition, practice, belief, and experience. In addi-tion, it contains questions about belief in various aspects of the paranormal.The survey was administered and collected by the Gallup organization in thefall of 2007, and utilizes a mixed-mode sampling design of telephone and self-administered mailed surveys.

Thirty-five-hundred potential respondents were called and asked if theywould be willing to fill out a mailed questionnaire: 1,648 agreed and returnedsurveys, resulting in a response rate of 47% (1,648 ⁄3,500). Bader et al. (2007)explain in greater detail the methodology behind the BRS. Wave II consists ofa random, national sample of U.S. resident, English-speaking adults with tele-phones. All forthcoming analyses employ a weight created by Gallup thataccounts for race, region of the country, education, gender, and age using astatistical algorithm and based on information from the U.S. CensusBureau.10

9 See Bader (1995) for an overview of the diversity of alien abduction and UFO narratives.10 Analyses were also conducted without weights and the results do not differ in regard to our

variables of interest. Results available upon request.


Dependent Variables

The dependent variables assessed are based on two items. First, respon-dents were asked to indicate their level of certainty in the existence of angels,with ‘‘absolutely not,’’ ‘‘probably not,’’ ‘‘probably,’’ and ‘‘absolutely’’ asresponse options (1 to 4). Respondents were also asked whether they had everbeen protected from harm by a guardian angel. Answer choices were no (0)and yes (1). Table I displays the estimated proportion of Americans whobelieve in angels, the proportion who claim to have been protected by guard-ian angels, and comparisons to other religious beliefs, behaviors, and experi-ences. Concerning beliefs and behaviors, nearly as many respondentsabsolutely believe in angels (60%) as believe in God with no doubts (63%).Over half the sample claims to have been protected from harm by a guardianangel, making it the most popular religious experience assessed by the BRS.On both counts, angels are remarkably prevalent.

Demographic Measures

Demographic controls are included in order to take past research on reli-gious beliefs and experiences into account and to help distinguish religiousfrom sociodemographic effects in a multivariate context. The measure ofannual family income incorporates categories that range from $10,000 or less(1) to greater than $150,000 (7). Education was measured as highest gradecompleted and ranges from eighth grade or less (1) to postgraduate work ⁄

Table I. Frequency of Select Religious Beliefs, Behaviors, and Experiences

Belief, Behavior, or ExperienceProportionof Sample

Religious Beliefs ⁄BehaviorsHave ‘‘no doubts’’ that God exists 63.4‘‘Absolutely’’ believe that angels exist 60.4‘‘Absolutely’’ believe that Satan exists 53.5Pray at least once a day 48.9Attend worship services at least ‘‘once a month’’ 48.1Are at least ‘‘quite certain’’ of getting into heaven 45.5Believe the Bible should be taken literally 23.5Religious ExperiencesI was protected from harm by a guardian angel 55.0I felt called by God to do something 44.4I had a religious conversion experience 27.4I had a dream of religious significance 26.7I felt one with the universe 22.2I heard the voice of God speaking to me 19.8I received a miraculous, physical healing 15.9I spoke or prayed in tongues 7.5

Source: Baylor Religion Survey (2007).


degree (7). The other demographic variables include age (in years), as well asdummy variables for gender (female = 1), marital status (currently married orwidowed = 1), race (white = 1), and size of place (rural = 1). Finally, geo-graphic region is controlled using dummy variables for East, Midwest, andWest, with South as the suppressed category in multivariate analyses.

Religion and Paranormal Measures

Previous research has indicated that worship service attendance, frequencyof prayer, and biblical literalism are significant predictors of religious experi-ences (Baker, 2009; Hay and Morisy, 1978; Yamane and Polzer, 1994), and itfollows that these forms of religious commitment should predict belief inangels as well. Service attendance and frequency of prayer are both commonlyused by sociologists of religion as measures of religious devotion or practice,and the BRS contains a third item, frequency of reading sacred texts, that cap-tures another aspect of individual religiosity. Service attendance is measuredfrom never (0) to more than once a week (8). Frequency of prayer ⁄meditationis measured from never (0) to several times a day (5). Reading of sacred textsis measured from never (0) to more than once a week (8). In bivariate analy-ses, these variables are used separately. Principal components factor analysisof these indicators produced a single factor with an Eigenvalue greater than 1.A composite of all three measures increases the likelihood of measuring reli-gious practice across a variety of traditions, rather than using a single form ofpractice that might be more central to certain religious groups. For multivari-ate analyses, the measures were mean-standardized to account for differencesin range, then summed into a composite measure of personal religious practice(Cronbach’s alpha = .82).

Biblical literalism is frequently used by researchers as a measure of reli-gious belief, although it is more accurately conceptualized as an indicator ofidentification with particular interpretive communities (Boone, 1989). To mea-sure biblical literalism, an item is used that asks respondents to indicate theirview of the Bible by selecting from the categories ‘‘The Bible is an ancientbook of history and legends’’ (1); ‘‘The Bible contains some human error’’ (2);‘‘The Bible is perfectly true, but it should not be taken literally, word-for-word. We must interpret its meaning’’ (3); and ‘‘The Bible means exactlywhat it says. It should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects’’ (4).

To determine whether angelic belief and experience are uniquely tied toreligious affiliation, the RELTRAD typology (Steensland et al., 2000) wasemployed. Individuals were placed into the categories of conservative Protes-tant, mainline Protestant, Catholic, black Protestant, Jewish, no religion, and‘‘other’’ based on stated religious preference. These traditions are treated as aseries of dummy variables, with conservative Protestants as the suppressedcategory in multivariate analyses.


Paranormal belief was measured using responses to four separate items.Respondents were asked about the existence of ‘‘ghosts,’’ ‘‘extra-terrestrials,’’‘‘Bigfoot,’’ and ‘‘psychic phenomena such as E.S.P.’’ Response options rangedfrom ‘‘absolutely not’’ (1) to ‘‘absolutely’’ (4). These four items were analyzedusing a principal components factor analysis. A common factor emerged, andall the items had factor loading scores above .7. These items were summed tocreate an index of paranormal belief (Cronbach’s alpha = .801). These beliefsrepresent claims that are explicitly secular, having been drawn beyond thecultural boundaries of institutional religion. Therefore, a significant and sub-stantive association between these views and angelic beliefs would indicatecross-over appeal of angels beyond formal religion.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for sociodemographic and religion variables, com-paring those who report experiences of angelic intervention with those whohave not, are shown in Table II. The proportions show that roughly three offive women in the sample reported the experience, compared with one of twomen. A much higher proportion of nonwhite respondents claim the experience

Table II. Descriptive Statistics for ‘‘I Was Protected from Harm by a Guardian Angel’’

Variable Range ‘‘Yes’’ ‘‘No’’

Proportionsa

Female*** 59.9 40.1Male 49.6 50.4White*** 52.5 47.5Nonwhite 71.3 28.7Married ⁄widowed 54.9 45.1Not married ⁄ divorced 54.8 45.2Rural 57.2 42.8Nonrural 54.5 45.5Region***

East 46.2 53.7Midwest 55.6 44.3South 60.4 39.5West 52.6 47.3

Meansb

Education*** 1–7 4.5 (1.49) 4.8 (1.56)Household income*** 1–7 4.2 (1.61) 4.6 (1.51)Age 18–96 51.1 (16.26) 50.5 (17.02)Worship attendance*** 0–8 4.6 (2.74) 2.7 (2.77)Frequency of prayer*** 0–8 3.8 (1.34) 2.1 (1.77)Reading of sacred texts*** 0–5 4.1 (3.01) 1.9 (2.45)Biblical literalism*** 1–4 2.9 (0.96) 2.0 (1.09)Paranormal beliefs*** 1–16 9.6 (3.00) 8.6 (2.94)

*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001 (chi-square for cross-tabs, one-way ANOVA for means; two-tailed tests).aRow percentages reported.bStandard deviations in parentheses.


(71%) compared to white respondents (52%). Over half of those in each geo-graphic region except the East claim the experience, with southerners (60%)reporting the highest levels. Looking at mean values, household income andeducation are significantly lower for respondents who claim the experiencethan for those who do not. Religiosity variables, as would be expected, havehigher average values for those who claim the experience. Respondents whoanswer ‘‘yes’’ on the guardian angel question, on average and without control-ling for other factors, attend worship services two to three times a month, reada sacred text once a month, pray once a day, and believe the Bible is true butnot literal. Respondents who answer ‘‘no’’ might be expected to attend wor-ship services less than once a month, read sacred texts once or twice a year,pray once a week or less, and believe the Bible contains some human error.Those who claim to have been protected by guardian angels also average ahigher score on the paranormal belief index.

Table III shows that claims of angelic experience occur among the major-ity in each of the religious tradition categories, with the exception of Jewishrespondents.11 Black Protestants report the highest levels of belief and experi-ence, followed by conservative Protestants, Catholics, and mainline Protes-tants. Also worth noting, an estimated one in five respondents claiming noreligious affiliation nonetheless claims to have been protected by a guardianangel. Over half those in each of the religious tradition categories except Juda-ism also claim to absolutely believe in angels, speaking to the transdoctrinalappeal of these views.

Table IV shows the results of an ordinal logistic regression predicting cer-titude of belief in angels. Model 1 contains only sociodemographic predictorsand shows that angelic belief is more common among those of lower socioeco-nomic status, women, racial minorities, married and widowed respondents,

Table III. Frequency of Angelic Belief and Guardian Angel Experience by Religious Tradition

ReligiousTradition

% Who AbsolutelyBelieve

% ClaimingExperience

ConservativeProtestant

80.0 66.0

BlackProtestant

93.2 85.1

MainlineProtestant

55.7 54.5

Catholic 61.2 56.0Jewish 10.3 10.3Other 50.0 51.6None 11.4 20.3

11 The ‘‘other’’ category in the RELTRAD schematic is ambiguous in substance, essentially serv-ing as a catchall that reduces missing cases in multivariate analyses. The results presented inthese analyses for ‘‘other’’ religion are strongly driven by Latter-Day Saints who compriseroughly 40% of the category. Other traditions represented as a substantial proportion of thegrouping are Unitarians (13%), Buddhists (11%), Muslims (9%), Jehovah’s Witnesses (8%),and Orthodox (Greek or Russian) (7%).


southerners, and rural residents. Younger respondents were also more likely toclaim high certitude of belief. These trends suggest that although angelic beliefhas wide popularity, it is stronger among marginalized status groups. Model 2adds measures for religious tradition, religious practice, biblical literalism, andparanormal belief. Results show that black Protestants have higher levels ofbelief in angels than white conservative Protestants, whereas Jewish respon-dents, those in the ‘‘other’’ religion category, and the religiously unaffiliatedaverage lower levels of belief than conservative Protestants. Not surprisingly,level of religious practice and biblical literalism were the strongest predictorsin the model. Paranormal belief is also positively related to angelic belief, andis the third strongest variable in the model behind practice and literalism.12

Table IV. Ordinal Logistic Regression of Belief in Angels (Reported with Standard Error inParentheses)

Variable Model 1 Model 2StandardizedEstimate

Education ).186 (.039)*** ).131 (.051)* ).110Income ).135 (.042)*** .015 (.057) –––Female .647 (.111)*** .346 (.148)* .095Age ).008 (.004)* ).015 (.005)** ).136White ).940 (.184)*** ).347 (.265) –––Married ⁄widowed .696 (.134)*** .480 (.177)** .119East ).914 (.157)*** ).772 (.212)*** –.176Midwest ).332 (.160)* ).073 (.211) –––West ).990 (.155)*** ).332 (.210) –––Rural .142 (.062)* .174 (.084)* .091RELTRADa

Black Protestant ––– 1.521 (.702)* .179Mainline Protestant ––– ).327 (.217) –––Catholic ––– ).018 (.223) –––Jewish ––– )1.627 (.518)** –.123Other religion ––– ).745 (.301)* ).098No religion ––– ).953 (.275)*** ).167

Religious practice ––– .496 (.042)*** .683Biblical literalism ––– 1.107 (.093)*** .675Paranormal beliefs ––– .235 (.177)** .383N 1,403 1,155R2 (Cox & Snell) .151 .580)2 Log likelihood 2787.543 1460.446

*P < .05; **P < .01; *P < .001 (two-tailed).aConservative Protestant is the reference category.

12 Standardized estimates were computed using a formula provided by Allison (1999:66–69):b*j = bj*rj ⁄ rd, j = l, …, k. Here b*

j is the standardized estimate, bj is the unstandardized esti-mate, and rj is the standard deviation of independent variable Xj. rd is the standard deviationof the dependent variable. We followed Allison’s assumption that the distribution is the stan-dard logistic distribution, giving the denominator a constant value of 1.8138; however, thevalue chosen for the denominator is irrelevant because it is held constant in computing all thestandardized values. A change in denominator produces changes in the actual size of the esti-mates, while the relative size for comparing the coefficients remains the same. Consequently,the standardized coefficients reported should be compared with one another, rather thanassessed by absolute value.


Table V shows the results from binary logistic regressions predicting theguardian angel experience. Model 1 again contains only sociodemographics.Although some sociodemographic patterns emerge in this model, these vari-ables are all attenuated to nonsignificance with the inclusion of religious tradi-tion, religious practice, biblical literalism, and paranormal belief. Interestingly,when accounting for practice, literalism, and paranormal belief, there are notstatistically significant differences between religious traditions for claiming theguardian angel experience.13 Only three measures significantly increased theodds of claiming to have experienced guardian angel protection. The strongestpredictor is religious practice, followed by paranormal belief, and then biblicalliteralism. These findings suggest that it is personal practice and belief thatlead to claiming this experience, rather than a specific religious affiliation orsocial status set. This provides empirical evidence of the transdoctrinal appealof the angelic experience, and lends itself favorably to our conceptualizationof angels as American folk religion.

Table V. Binary Logistic Regression of Claiming Guardian Angel Experience (Odds Ratios)

Variable Model 1 Model 2StandardizedEstimate

Education .951 1.010 –––Income .893** .947 –––Female 1.385** .963 –––Age .999 1.002 –––White .508*** .734 –––Married ⁄widowed 1.163 .854 –––East .628*** .800 –––Midwest 1.026 1.117 –––West .803 1.189 –––Rural 1.156* 1.133 –––RELTRADa

Black Protestant ––– 1.967 –––Mainline Protestant ––– .916 –––Catholic ––– 1.073 –––Jewish ––– .328 –––Other religion ––– .604 –––No religion ––– .940 –––

Religious practice ––– 1.457*** .518Biblical literalism ––– 1.555*** .269Paranormal belief ––– 1.192*** .384N 1,443 1,153R2 (Cox & Snell) .050 .277)2 Log likelihood 1918.989 1208.354

*P < .05; **P < .01; *P < .001 (two-tailed).aConservative Protestant is the reference category.

13 Additional tests were performed with each of the other traditions as the contrast group. In eachcase, the results were the same: no statistically significant increases or decreases in odds werefound when using any religious tradition as the contrast group. These additional tests are avail-able upon request.


DISCUSSION

In all the religious tradition categories assessed except Judaism, themajority of adherents claim to have been protected by guardian angels. Thelevels of confirmation are relatively high within conservative Protestantism,mainline Protestantism, and Catholicism. This religious experience is the mostpopular among those included in these data. Beyond the boundaries of orga-nized religion, belief in angels and their intervention remains surprisingly com-mon, as roughly three of 10 Americans claiming ‘‘no religion’’ still believe inthe ‘‘probable’’ or ‘‘absolute’’ existence of angels, and one in five claims tohave been protected by a guardian angel. Finally, supernatural beliefs outsideof organized religion and institutional science—popularly referred to as theparanormal—are positively associated with angelic belief, indicating thatunconventional beliefs are potentially congruous with angelic belief. Overall,these data suggest that angelic belief crosses cultural and religious boundariesin significant ways. This is due largely to the transposability of these views, asthey are readily integrated into the lay practice of traditional religious beliefsystems, as well as those existing beyond. Religious practice, biblical literalism,and paranormal beliefs are the strongest predictors of angelic belief and expe-rience, indicating that personal piety, religious identity, and breadth of super-natural belief are the keys to understanding the prevalence of these views.14

Jewish respondents represent an interesting exception to the appeal ofangels across religious traditions, especially considering the commonality ofangels in the Hebrew Bible, as well as a rich folk tradition dealing with angelicintervention (Trachtenberg, 2004). In Table III, with respect to absolute beliefin angels, Jewish respondents rank just below unaffiliated respondents at 10%.In the next column, the same proportion of Jews claim to have experiencedangelic protection, whereas roughly twice as many unaffiliated respondentsmake the claim. Considering that the sample is random, the number of Jewishrespondents is relatively small (n = 30), making it difficult to form subsets forfurther investigation. The 2008 General Social Survey indicates that onlyabout one-third of U.S. Jews believe in God with no doubts, suggesting a sub-stantial level of secularization with regard to supernatural beliefs, althoughthis may also be an issue of question wording (see Phillips, 2010). A substan-tial portion of Jewish respondents to the BRS are ‘‘secular’’ Jews. Furtherresearch with purposively larger samples of Jewish respondents is necessary tobetter parse out the differences between secular and more religious JewishAmericans with regard to angelic belief.

Biblical literalism is a strong correlate of belief in and experience ofangels. As noted, this measure likely pertains more to efforts by certain inter-pretive communities to create collective and individual identities than to any

14 Supplemental analyses showed that the effect for religious service attendance was quite small incomparison with frequency of prayer and scripture reading. This further clarifies that whilepublic participation in religion does tend to increase the likelihood of claiming the experience,private efforts to communicate with the supernatural are more crucial covariates.


particular hermeneutic method. Individuals who claim to literally interpretscripture, in fact, often disagree on fundamental issues (Ammerman, 1987;Bartkowski, 1996; Hoffmann and Bartkowski, 2008). Of importance for thecurrent purposes, biblical literalism relates to identification with particularkinds of communities with strong belief in the interventionist powers of thesupernatural, as in fundamentalist or Pentecostal religious groups.

Given this link between biblical literalism and angelic belief and experi-ence, it is intriguing to find that level of belief in the paranormal is also astrong correlate. In many respects, it would be difficult to find two subculturesthat evoke such divergent popular perceptions as do biblical literalists andbelievers in the paranormal.15 Previous research (Mencken et al., 2009b), aswell as supplemental analyses conducted for this study, indicate that literalismand paranormal belief are not operating in concert to affect angelic belief;rather, Americans tend to buy into one or neither of these perspectives, butrarely both. Put another way, there are multiple cultural pathways compatiblewith the belief in angels and their interventionist powers.

To further identify cultural pathways favorable to paranormal beliefs,respondents whose scores fall above the 75th percentile on the paranormalindex are identified as ‘‘paranormalists.’’ These are compared with those whofavor literal interpretations of scripture. Figure 1 displays three belief groupsas the proportion of those who claim to have experienced guardian angel pro-tection: (1) biblical literalists only, (2) paranormalists only, and (3) those whoare both literalist and paranormalist. Roughly one-fourth of those claimingthe angel experience are literalists, roughly another one-fourth are paranor-malists, but only a small proportion are both; leaving about half of thoseclaiming the experience relating through other cultural pathways. In general,there are many potential cultural and cognitive schemas incorporating angelicbelief and experience, including conservative and fundamentalist religiousperspectives, as well as unconventional supernatural belief systems.

CONCLUSION

Angels are among the more compelling characters in a wide variety ofmythological traditions. They take the form of messengers, warriors, comfort-ers, intermediaries, sometimes even rebels and adversaries. Falling somewherebetween the mundane and the divine, they provide compelling narratives andpotential explanations for complex real-world events. Commonly perceived asagents of the supernatural, they are a conduit for interaction between thematerial and immaterial in the minds of believers, typically serving their needs

15 In additional analysis, literalists and paranormalists (the highest quartile on the paranormalindex) were compared on a number of sociodemographic indicators. Significant differences werefound between the groups in six of seven indicators. Literalists were more likely to be white,older, from the South, married, and have lower average levels of income and education. Thegroups did not significantly differ by gender.


without demanding anything in return. As such, they are cognitively andemotionally appealing figures whose purported existence indicates believers’spiritual significance.

Belief in and experience of angels does not conflict with organized religionbut, instead, transcends its boundaries. Using the concept of folk religion, wesuggest that the prevalence of these views is due to the versatility of belief inintervening spiritual agents. There is much to recommend Boyer’s (2001)assessment that intentional and knowing supernatural agents are among themost common and cognitively appealing potentialities for belief in the immate-rial. Their cultural memetic appeal is strong and broad.

Some interesting possibilities present themselves for future study. First,although we have focused on predictors of belief and experience, futureresearch could explore the potential consequences of each, at both individualand group levels of analysis. These consequences could be further exploredwithin subsets of the population. Our findings also indicate that qualitativeexplorations of interpretive communities advocating either biblical literalismor belief in the paranormal would yield differing uses of angel narratives andbeliefs. By taking a more quantitative approach, we hope to clarify paths forqualitative research, which could more effectively speak to the diversity andtransposability of these views.

15

20

25

30

ho c

laim

the

guar

dian

ang

el e

xper

ienc

e

0

5

10

biblical literalism only paranormal beliefs htobylno

perc

enta

ge o

f all

wh

24.3

21.2

4.9

Fig. 1. Biblical literalism, paranormal beliefs, and the guardian angel religious experience.


Another promising avenue would be to explore angelic experiences andbeliefs as a link between conventional and unconventional religiosity. Whatare the potentialities of these views as ‘‘gateway’’ beliefs, especially when com-pared with those for whom angelic belief is housed only within a conventionalreligious belief system? That a West Coast telepath and a Mississippi Baptistmight claim with equal conviction to have had a similar encounter with spiri-tual beings suggests an intriguing opportunity for cultural analysis. Additionalresearch is also needed to identify how folk religion might contribute to theerosion or reinforcement of symbolic boundaries between subcultures that arebased on conventional or unconventional beliefs.

Comparisons between data from the United States and other parts of theworld, especially other postindustrial nations, would also be informative. Sub-stantial debate surrounds the process of secularization in such societies, withmuch discussion of the implications of ‘‘fuzzy fidelity’’ (Storm, 2009; Voas,2009) or New Age spiritualities (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005; Houtman andAupers, 2007). The degree to which intentional spiritual agents do or do notplay a folk religious part in these trends remains an open question. Expansionor retraction of the scope of analysis employed here would be an interestingand welcome addition to our efforts.

Finally, angelic beliefs and experiences can be examined for their rele-vance to specific areas of social theory, such as efforts to conceptualize therole of nonhumans in social interaction (see Cerulo, 2009; Cerulo and Barra,2008). This perspective emphasizes how individuals’ perceptions of nonhumansocial interactants can influence social action. Related lines of thinking can befound in several areas of the sociology of religion. Stark and Bainbridge(1987), for instance, posit the basis of religious activity as an exchangebetween humans and gods wherein a wide scope of behavior is influenced byperceptions of expected rewards and consequences. Belief in angels presents anintriguing extension of this approach, and perceived relationships with divineagents may operate under alternate patterns of exchange. Taking this further,researchers could seek to define different types of exchange relationships withangels (e.g., a perceived life-long relationship with a guardian angel vs. one ofshorter length), and investigate relevant social correlates of the different types.In other strains of theory in the sociology of religion, researchers have pro-vided evidence that how individuals imagine God (e.g., as angry, loving,active, or passive) impacts a wide range of religious and secular beliefs andbehaviors (see Froese and Bader, 2010; Greeley, 1995; Mencken et al., 2009a;Unnever et al., 2006). Social scientists could augment this approach by theo-rizing and modeling how varying conceptions of angelic personalities mightlead to differentiated patterns of social action. Such approaches could lendadditional support to theoretical work positing a central role for nonhumansin larger webs of ‘‘social networks’’ (Latour, 2005; Law, 1992).

Overall, we suggest that social scientists revisit the notion of folk religionoften found in folklore studies, and consider its contemporary relevance as aprevalent and consequential form of religious expression. As exemplified by


angelic beliefs and experiences, folk religion functions as a source of low-costand practical religious engagement. Although claiming these views is more pre-valent among the religiously active, such beliefs do not typically necessitatestrong normative constraints or participation costs. Individuals are able toreceive the benefit of knowing that powerful spiritual agents are concernedwith the welfare of humanity in general, and their own lives in particular. Thatsuch views persist in myriad forms in the postindustrial world is an intriguing,but understandable, social phenomenon.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Susan E. 2001. ‘‘Divine Contracts: Chinese New Religions and Shamanic Movementsin Contemporary Malaysia,’’ Journal of Contemporary Religion 16(3): 293–311.

Allison, Paul D. 1999. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application. Cary,NC: SAS Publishing.

Ammerman, Nancy. 1987. Bible Believers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Anderson, Joan Wester. 2004. In the Arms of Angels. Chicago, IL: Loyola Press.Bader, Christopher. 1995. ‘‘The UFO Contactee Movement from the 1950’s to the Present,’’ Stud-

ies in Popular Culture 17(2): 73–90.Bader, Christopher, F. Carson Mencken, and Paul Froese. 2007. ‘‘American Piety 2005: Content

and Methods of the Baylor Religion Survey,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(4):447–463.

Bader, Christopher, F. Carson Mencken, and Joseph O. Baker. 2010. Paranormal America: GhostEncounters, UFO Sightings, Bigfoot Hunts, and Other Curiosities in Religion and Culture. NewYork: NYU Press.

Bainbridge, William S. 2004. ‘‘After the New Age,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion43(3): 381–394.

Baker, Joseph O. 2009. ‘‘The Variety of Religious Experiences,’’ Review of Religious Research51(1): 39–54.

Baker, Joseph O., and Scott Draper. 2010. ‘‘Diverse Supernatural Portfolios: Certitude, Exclusiv-ity, and the Curvilinear Relationship Between Religiosity and Paranormal Beliefs,’’ Journal forthe Scientific Study of Religion 49(3): 413–424.

Baker, Joseph O., and Buster G. Smith. 2009. ‘‘None Too Simple: Examining Issues of ReligiousNonbelief and Nonbelonging in the United States,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion48(4): 719–733.

Barrett, Justin, and Jonathan Lanman. 2008. ‘‘The Science of Religious Beliefs,’’ Religion 38: 109–124.

Bartkowski, John. 1996. ‘‘Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants andthe Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture,’’ Sociology of Religion 57(3): 259–272.

Bellah, Robert. 1967. ‘‘Civil Religion in America,’’ Daedalus 96(1): 1–21.Boone, Kathleen. 1989. The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Bowman, Marion. 2004. ‘‘Phenomenology, Fieldwork and Folk Religion,’’ in Steven J. Sutcliffe

(ed.), Religion: Empirical Studies: pp. 3–18. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New

York: Basic Books.Burnham, Sophy. 1991. Angel Letters. New York: Ballantine.Burnham, Sophy. 2004. A Book of Angels. New York: Ballantine.Cerulo, Karen. 2009. ‘‘Nonhumans in Social Interaction,’’ Annual Review of Sociology 35: 531–

552.Cerulo, Karen, and Andrea Barra. 2008. ‘‘In the Name of …: Legitimate Interactants in the

Dialogue of Prayer,’’ Poetics 36: 374–388.Channer, Cecily, and Damon Brown. 2009. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to: Connecting with

Your Angels. New York: Penguin.Christian Jr., William A. 1989. Local Religion in Sixteenth-Century Spain. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.


Clark, Lynn S. 2005. From Angels to Aliens: Teenagers, the Media, and the Supernatural. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Cooper, Diana. 2004. Angel Inspiration: Together, Humans and Angels Have the Power to Changethe World. Scotland: Findhorn Press.

Daniel, Alma, Timothy Wyllie, and Andrew Ramer. 1992. Ask Your Angels. New York: Ballantine.Davie, Grace. 2002. Europe: The Exceptional Case. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.Fackre, Gabriel. 1994. ‘‘Angels Heard and Demons Seen,’’ Theology Today 51(3): 345–358.Freeman, Eileen Elias. 1993. Touched by Angels: True Cases of Close Encounters of the Celestial

Kind. New York: Warner Books.Froese, Paul, and Christopher Bader. 2010. America’s Four Gods: What We Say About God—And

What That Says About Us. New York: Oxford University Press.Fuller, Robert C. 2001. Spiritual, But Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America. New

York: Oxford University Press.Gardella, Peter. 2007. American Angels: Useful Spirits in the Material World. Lawrence, KS:

University Press of Kansas.Goode, Erich. 2000. Paranormal Beliefs: A Sociological Introduction. Prospect Heights, IL: Wave-

land Press, Inc.Gorski, Philip. 2010. ‘‘Civil Religion Today,’’ Association of Religion Data Archives ‘‘guiding

papers’’ series. Retrieved August 9, 2010 (http://www.thearda.com/rrh/papers/guidingpapers/gorski.asp).

Gorsuch, Richard L., and Craig S. Smith. 1983. ‘‘Attributions of Responsibility to God: An Inter-action of Religious Beliefs and Outcomes,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22(4):340–352.

Graham, Billy. 1986. Angels: God’s Secret Agents. Waco, TX: Word Books.Greeley, Andrew. 1995. Religion as Poetry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, Inc.Harrell, Stevan. 1977. ‘‘Modes of Belief in Chinese Folk Religion,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion 16: 55–65.Hay, David, and Ann Morisy. 1978. ‘‘Reports of Ecstatic, Paranormal, or Religious Experience in

Great Britain and the United States—A Comparison of Trends,’’ Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 17(3): 255–268.

Hay, David, and Ann Morisy. 1985. ‘‘Secular Society, Religious Meanings: A ContemporaryParadox,’’ Review of Religious Research 26(3): 213–227.

Heelas, Paul, and Linda Woodhead. 2005. The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Wayto Spirituality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hiebert, Paul G., R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tienou. 1999. Understanding Folk Religion: A Chris-tian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Hoffmann, John, and John Bartkowski. 2008. ‘‘Gender, Religious Tradition, and Biblical Literal-ism,’’ Social Forces 86(3): 1245–1269.

Houk, James. 1996. ‘‘Anthropological Theory and the Breakdown of Folk Religions,’’ Journal forthe Scientific Study of Religion 354(4): 42–447.

Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. ‘‘Why More Americans Have No Religious Prefer-ence: Politics and Generations,’’ American Sociological Review 67(2): 165–190.

Houtman, Dick, and Stef Aupers. 2007. ‘‘The Spiritual Turn and the Decline of Tradition: TheSpread of Post-Christian Spirituality in 14 Western Countries, 1981–2000,’’ Journal for theScientific Study of Religion 46(3): 305–320.

Kaneko, Satoru. 1990. ‘‘Dimensions of Religiosity Among Believers in Japanese Folk Religion,’’Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29(1): 1–18.

Kreeft, Peter. 1995. Angels (and Demons): What Do We Really Know About Them? San Francisco,CA: Ignatius Press.

LaHaye, Tim, and Jerry B. Jenkins. 1995. Left Behind. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New

York: Oxford University Press.Law, John. 1992. ‘‘Notes on the Theory of Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogene-

ity,’’ Systems Practice 5(4): 379–393.Law, Pui-Lam. 2005. ‘‘The Revival of Folk Religion and Gender Relationships in Rural China: A

Preliminary Observation,’’ Asian Folklore Studies 64(1): 89–109.Lewis, James. 1992. ‘‘Approaches to the Study of the New Age Movement,’’ in James Lewis and

J. Gordon Melton (eds.), Perspectives on the New Age: pp. 1–14. New York: State Universityof New York.


Lohmann, Roger Ivar. 2003. ‘‘The Supernatural Is Everywhere: Defining Qualities of Religion inMelanesia and Beyond,’’ Anthropological Forum 13(2): 175–185.

Lord, Karen. 2008. ‘‘Implicit Religion: A Contemporary Theory for the Relationships BetweenReligion, State, and Society,’’ Journal of Contemporary Religion 23(1): 33–46.

Lupfer, Michael B., Donna Tolliver, and Mark Jackson. 1996. ‘‘Explaining Life-AlteringOccurrences: A Test of the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ Hypothesis,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion 35(4): 379–391.

Mark, Barbara. 1995. Angelspeake: How to Talk with Your Angels. New York: Simon & Schuster.Marler, Penny L., and C. Kirk Hadaway. 2002. ‘‘‘Being Religious’ or ‘Being Spiritual’ in America:

A Zero-Sum Proposition?’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(2): 289–300.Mencken, F. Carson, Christopher Bader, and Elizabeth Embry. 2009a. ‘‘In God We Trust: Images

of God and Trust in the United States Among the Highly Religious,’’ Sociological Perspectives52(1): 23–38.

Mencken, F. Carson, Christopher D. Bader, and Ye Jung Kim. 2009b. ‘‘Round Trip to Hell in aFlying Saucer: The Relationship Between Conventional Christian Beliefs and ParanormalBeliefs in the United States,’’ Sociology of Religion 69(1): 65–85.

Miner, M. H., and J. McKnight. 1999. ‘‘Religious Attributions: Situational Factors and Effectson Coping,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(2): 274–286.

Mutual UFO Network. 2007. ‘‘Fort Collins,’’ Mutual UFO Network. Retrieved October 5, 2008(http://www.mufon.com/mufonreports.htm).

Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Park, Jerry Z., and Joseph Baker. 2007. ‘‘What Would Jesus Buy: American Consumption ofReligious and Spiritual Material Goods,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(4):501–517.

Peretti, Frank. 1986. This Present Darkness. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.Peterson, Eugene H. 1994. ‘‘Writers and Angels,’’ Theology Today 51(3): 394–404.Phillips, Bruce A. 2010. ‘‘Accounting for Jewish Secularism: Is a New Cultural Identity Emerg-

ing?’’ Contemporary Jewry 30(1): 63–85.Redfield, Robert. 1957. The Primitive World and its Transformations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-

sity Press.Rice, Tom W. 2003. ‘‘Believe It or Not: Religious and Other Paranormal Beliefs in the United

States,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(1): 95–106.Roof, Wade C. 1999. Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Reli-

gion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Scott, James C. 1977. ‘‘Protest and Profanation: Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition, Part

I,’’ Theory and Society 4(1): 1–38.Stark, Rodney. 2004. Exploring the Religious Life. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press.Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. 1987. A Theory of Religion. New York: Peter Lang

Publishing.Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark Regnerus, Lynn Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and

Robert Woodberry. 2000. ‘‘The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the Stateof the Art,’’ Social Forces 79(1): 291–318.

Storm, Ingrid. 2009. ‘‘Halfway to Heaven: Four Types of Fuzzy Fidelity in Europe,’’ Journal forthe Scientific Study of Religion 48(4): 702–718.

Trachtenberg, Joshua. 2004. Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion. Philadel-phia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press (Orig. pub. 1939).

Unnever, James, Francis Cullen, and John Bartkowski. 2006. ‘‘Images of God and Public Supportfor Capital Punishment: Does a Close Relationship with a Loving God Matter?’’ Criminology44(4): 835–866.

Virtue, Doreen. 1997. Angel Therapy. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House.Voas, David. 2009. ‘‘The Rise and Fall of Fuzzy Fidelity in Europe,’’ European Sociological

Review 25(2): 155–168.Weeks, Matthew, and Michael B. Lupfer. 2000. ‘‘Religious Attributions and Proximity of

Influence: An Investigation of Direct Intervention and Distal Explanations,’’ Journal for theScientific Study of Religion 39(3): 348–362.

Welker, Michael. 1994. ‘‘Angels in the Biblical Traditions,’’ Theology Today 51(3):367–380.


Williams, Peter W. 1980. Popular Religion in America: Symbolic Change and the ModernizationProcess in Historical Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Yamane, David, and Megan Polzer. 1994. ‘‘Ways of Seeing Ecstasy in Modern Society: Experien-tial-Expressive and Cultural-Linguistic Views,’’ Sociology of Religion 55(1): 1–25.

Yoder, Don. 1974. ‘‘Toward a Definition of Folk Religion,’’ Western Folklore 33(1): 2–15.Zhuo, Xinping. 2003. ‘‘Research on Religion in the People’s Republic of China,’’ Social Compass

50(4): 441–448.Zinnbauer, Brian J., Kenneth I. Pargament, Brenda Cole, Mark S. Rye, Eric M. Butter, Timothy

G. Belavich, Kathleen B. Hipp, Allie B. Scott, and Jill L. Kadar. 1997. ‘‘Religion and Spiritual-ity: Unfuzzing the Fuzzy,’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36(4): 549–564.


Angelic Belief as American Folk Religion

Documents

Transcript of Angelic Belief as American Folk Religion