![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/religious-mormon-man-reading-bible-750x375.jpg)
A new large study reveals that a person’s household income shapes how they interpret the Bible’s teachings on poverty and charity, with wealthier and lower-income believers drawing starkly different conclusions. The research, published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, shows that highly religious low-income Americans tend to view biblical charity as a call for societal transformation. Highly religious affluent Americans tend to view it as a call for individual philanthropy. These patterns suggest that religious belief often amplifies the economic interests of a person’s social group rather than uniformly justifying economic inequality across all classes.
Sociologists have debated the fundamental nature of religion and its relationship to economic inequality for more than a century. One prominent theory originated with the 19th-century philosopher Karl Marx, who proposed that religion acts as an opiate for the masses. In this view, religious ideas offer a set of comforting illusions that persuade lower-income groups to accept their disadvantaged position.
By framing the current economic system as normal or divinely ordained, religion supposedly drains the motivation to fight for a fairer society. Modern scholars building on this idea argue that religion offers psychological compensators, promising eternal rewards that make present-day inequalities seem less important.
A competing theory takes a different perspective, viewing religion primarily as a tool for binding groups together. Rooted in the work of early sociologist Émile Durkheim, this concept suggests that religious norms and practices serve to unite an in-group and validate that specific group’s interests. Under this framework, religious beliefs do not automatically make people accept the economic status quo. Instead, believers might project their own group’s economic needs onto their theology.
Samuel L. Perry, a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma, wanted to test these two competing frameworks. He designed a study to see if high levels of religious commitment are associated with justifying the current economic system regardless of a person’s own wealth. Alternatively, he wanted to see if religious commitment amplifies different biblical interpretations based on how much money a person makes.
To answer this question, Perry analyzed data from the 2022 Public Religion Research Institute and Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey. This provided a large, nationally representative sample of 5,701 adults living in the United States. The survey included a question asking respondents what they thought Jesus and the prophets primarily meant when speaking about taking care of the poor in the Bible.
Respondents had to choose between two interpretations. The first option stated that biblical teachings on the poor primarily refer to charitable acts by individuals. This represents a more individualized approach to social issues, focusing on personal generosity without challenging the underlying economic system. The second option stated that these teachings primarily refer to an obligation to create a more just society. Scholars often refer to this as structural transformation, which involves altering systemic inequalities.
The researcher looked at two different measures of religious commitment. The first was a private expression of faith, measured by how often the respondents attended religious services. The second was a more public and ideological expression, measured by a person’s adherence to Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism is an ideology that seeks to closely merge Christian identity with American civic life and government policy.
The survey categorized respondents by their annual household income. Perry grouped the participants into three broad economic brackets. These included households earning less than $50,000, those earning between $50,000 and $99,999, and those earning $100,000 or more.
To ensure the results were not skewed by other variables, the statistical models controlled for a wide array of demographic and ideological factors. These included political ideology, political party affiliation, age, race, gender, educational attainment, religious denomination, and geographic region. The control variables performed as expected, with self-identified conservatives and Republicans being less likely to favor the structural-transformation reading of the Bible. In contrast, atheists, non-evangelical Protestants, and highly educated individuals were more likely to affirm the structural reading.
By analyzing these variables together, the study revealed distinct patterns that contradicted the idea of religion acting as a universal opiate. Among Americans in the lowest income bracket, greater religious commitment was linked to a higher likelihood of choosing the structural-transformation interpretation. Highly religious people in this group were more inclined to believe the Bible demands the creation of a just society.
The opposite pattern emerged among Americans in the highest income bracket. For those earning $100,000 or more, high levels of religious attendance and high levels of Christian nationalism were linked to the individualized charity interpretation. As religiosity increased for these affluent earners, they were much more likely to say the Bible teaches that helping the poor is a matter of individual charitable acts.
Middle-income earners fell somewhere in between, though they trended slightly toward the individualized interpretation as their Christian nationalism increased. As their religious attendance increased, they moved toward the individualized interpretation at a pace similar to the highest earners. Overall, the statistical models showed a distinct divide across income groups that widened alongside religious devotion.
The gap in biblical interpretation was widest among the most devout participants. For Americans who rarely attended religious services or scored very low on measures of Christian nationalism, household income was not associated with differing views on biblical charity. Less religious people across all income brackets were about equally split between the two interpretations of poor relief. It was only among highly religious individuals that economic position became strongly associated with a specific theological view.
The author suggests that these results support the in-group cohesion theory over the opiate theory. Instead of deadening the political desires of lower-income people with promises of future rewards, religion seems to amplify the economic interests of whatever class a person belongs to. Wealthy believers favor an interpretation that protects their assets while encouraging personal generosity, while lower-income believers favor an interpretation that demands systemic fairness.
These results come with a few methodological limitations. The survey data is cross-sectional, meaning it captures a single snapshot in time. Because of this design, the study cannot definitively prove that a combination of income and religion directly causes a specific interpretation of the Bible. It is theoretically possible that a person’s theological views might influence their economic position or religious attendance, though the researcher notes this is a less plausible explanation.
Additionally, the study relies on household income as a stand-in for social class. A person’s class is often defined by a combination of factors, including educational background, occupational prestige, and subjective feelings about their own social standing. Future research might incorporate these broader measures to see if the patterns hold up across different definitions of economic status.
The survey also used a single question to measure attitudes about biblical teachings on poverty. Researchers could build on these findings by incorporating multiple questions that ask how participants understand the Bible’s views on getting ahead in life or economic inequality more broadly. Identifying similar trends across a wider variety of questions would provide additional support for the current results.
The study, “Opiate or In-Group Amphetamine? Religion, Economic Position, and the Bible’s Teaching on Charity,” was authored by Samuel L. Perry.