Movements for Realists: An Extended Missiological Review of “Religion for Realists” (Perry 2024)

It is increasingly common for me to slowly study a book with which I don’t agree and that has glaring limitations, yet is still incredibly profitable and stimulating. Religion for Realists: Why We All Need the Scientific Study of Religion is one such book. Author Samuel Perry is a professor of Sociology (PhD, Chicago) who also has a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary where he graduated summa cum laude in 2008. Perry has published some important works and is currently the number 1 ranked sociologist in the world by ScholarGPS. For those interested in podcasts, Perry recently discussed Religion for Realists on Dangerous Dogma, focusing on the implications of his work for the rise of authoritarian populism.

Perry believes that we need the evidence-based, empirical study of religion (i.e. “realism”) rather than our idealistic notions of it. Particularly, his subject matter is what he calls “Anglo-Protestant Christianity” in America: “The philosophical “idealism” that grounds much of the dominant Anglo-Protestant tradition has been relentlessly assaulted by evidence” (77). Perry gathers an impressive array of empirical studies, mainly in North American and Europe, to make his case. As such, the book is intended for an American audience, and primarily directed towards those in academia who tend to diminish the powerful sociopolitical role religion plays in the United States.

The focus of the book is also its limitation–at least, for global missiological purposes. Most of the research cited is on WEIRD populations and lacks an intercultural lens. Another limitation is the quantitative, macro-sociological emphasis. I read the book with my personal research in mind: church multiplication movements which tend to happen in the Majority World among deviant population samples (MBBs & HBBs). Sociological research in that setting is rare indeed, and hence the need for Motus Dei.

With those two limitations in mind, Religion for Realists is however a stimulating work current on sociological methods, and the bibliography is a gold mine of relevant resources in the sociology of religion. In my opinion, academic “religious studies” is basically missiology without mission. For committed Christians versed in the Bible who tend to think theologically, it is not difficult to make the missiological connections.

What is the main argument of Religion for Realists? From the Introduction:

This book is a short argument about how the scientific study of religion should transform our dominant understandings of religion in the West, some reasons why it has failed to do so, and what must be adjusted in the future to change that.

I have no intention of empirically debunking Protestantism or religion generally. I am, in fact, a lifelong Protestant, in a family of Protestants, with a Protestant seminary education. Yet dominant Anglo-Protestant assumptions about what motivates human beings (faith), what directs the futures of religious communities and broader societies (ideas or doctrines, often found in sacred texts), and the emphasis they place on individual agency are largely wrong. Not biblically or morally wrong. I won’t speak to either of those issues. But they are empirically wrong. Instead, I'll argue the scientific study of religion helps us understand that:

1. humans are in greater part driven by the more fundamentally cognitive "deep culture" of social norms, identities, and loyalties;
2. societies are transformed less by moral ideas or doctrines than by discernible transitions in human populations, and
3. our agency, to an extent we may resent recognizing, is powerfully shaped by social structure–the layers of laws, policies, formal roles, material resources, and institutions in which we live our lives. (4)

Religion for Realists insightfully tackles this “ambient folk theology” of Evangelicalism (xiv). In other words, the popular theology/missiology many Evangelicals are immersed in teaches that faith (beliefs), doctrines (ideas), and obedience (individual actions) are the primary elements of Christianity. Sound familiar?

Instead, Perry maintains that when you really want to understand religion (and mission), then faith, doctrines, and obedience all come downstream from social identity, population dynamics, and social structure. This sociological perspective adds interesting nuance to our missiological inquiry and should help us see our own ideologies, providing a “realist” perspective. Table 1.1 (pg. 10) outlines this argument:

Primary Operant in Religion According to Anglo-Protestant Tradition vs Reality

Domain	Anglo-Protestant Tradition	Reality
Cognitive Force	Beliefs (Faith)	Social Identity and Norms
Growth Factor	Ideas (Doctrines)	Population Dynamics
Change Agent	Individuals (Obedience)	Social Structure

Chapter 1 provides an overview, while chapters 2-4 describe each of these points in detail:

1. We Were All Wrong: Anglo-Protestant Misconceptions
2. Belongers before Believers: Group Identity and Norms
3. Evangelism the Old-Fashioned Way: Population Dynamics
4. Come Over Here and Make Me: The Power of Structure

Chapters 2-4 contain the heart of the book, and with a little nuance, are vital for missiological inquiry, including the study of CMMs (church multiplication movements) which will be my primary conversation partner in this review. (Chapters 5-6 speak to the importance of the study of religion in the secular academy and are not as relevant to our purposes here.)

Belongers before Believers: Group Identity and Norms (Cognitive Force)

In Chapter 2 of Religion for Realists, Perry argues that religion is primarily about group identity and social norms. Theology serves as a flexible tool to reinforce group cohesion, functioning more as a marker of belonging than as a transformative belief system. This might sound backwards, but think about it: depending on your own theological tribe, your position on the complementarianism vs egalitarianism issue (or charismatic gifts, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.) is the defining feature of your faithfulness to Jesus!

Theology often operates as “sacralized groupness,” driven by relational impulses and social concerns rather than, primarily, doctrinal beliefs. Shared stories, symbols, and rituals bind communities together, while theological beliefs simply help narrate these bonds. Humans are “belongers before believers,” with group identity shaping religious behavior and biblical interpretation.

Ultimately, religion works through group status concerns, biases, and norms. Its fundamentally social nature prioritizes maintaining community over theological consistency or individual transformation. In fact, groups often switch their theologies when it suits the preferences of the group.

So let’s think through this missiologically. Movements avoid extracting individuals from their contexts and instead rely on social embeddedness (e.g. The Homophilous Unit Paradox: Church Planting Movements Within and Beyond the Oikos). Transformation often occurs collectively rather than solely through isolated individual decisions. In CMMs, as individuals within a social group begin to follow Christ, their shared norms and communal identity adapt, creating a ripple effect that leads others in the group to embrace faith.

This process does not negate personal conversion but recognizes that transformation is deeply embedded in the social context where beliefs and behaviors are shaped. This should challenge missiological frameworks that center theology as static and primary. It should also challenge Western individualistic approaches to mission.

Let’s also consider the sociological primacy of social identity and norms from the perspective of DBS (Discovery Bible Study). Perry references one very interesting study, How the Bible Works: An Anthropological Study of Evangelical Biblicism (Malley 2004):

What people are doing in group Bible studies has little to do with inductive education. People aren’t asking “How can I build my theology from the ground up based on what I see here in the text?” Instead it turns out to be more a collective exercise in connecting what they’re reading in the text with what their group has already decided the Bible teaches on that topic. [Malley] calls this “establishing congruence.” Our social group gives us an interpretive tradition such as “The Bible teaches traditional gender roles” or “The Bible teaches racial segregation” or “The Bible teaches that slavery is evil,” and we work to establish congruence between our group's traditional interpretation and the actual text. (53)

[Again, this study was on a WEIRD population. What about with non-Christian background, semi-literate oral preference learners who have never done an inductive group study of the Bible before?]

This is not to say that the Bible is not “living and active” with the utility to change people. Group identity and norms are powerful mechanisms for change, aligning with how DBS fosters transformation through shared engagement with Scripture. By immersing groups in the Word of God, DBS leverages the communal nature of belief formation, allowing the Spirit to work within relational networks to bring both individual and collective transformation.

The success of church multiplication movements depends on their ability to navigate and address deeply rooted social realities, rather than simply preaching rigid theological abstractions. As was said previously in Chapter 1 of Motus Dei (15-16), people will accept or reject a new religion based on whether they see it as strengthening or weakening a valued part of their social identity.

Evangelism the Old-Fashioned Way: Population Dynamics (Growth Factor)

In Chapter 3, Perry argues that religious transformation is primarily driven by population dynamics, not only superior ideas or doctrines. “Bodies precede ideas,” (70) with religious growth and decline resembling ecological systems rather than religious debates or marketplace competitions. Religious success depends on producing more members with durable social identities and norms.

Historically, religious groups have grown through high fertility rates and cohesive subcultures, especially in conservative, pro-natalist communities. As societies modernize, pluralism and secular civic options increase, leading to disaffiliation and the normalization of secularization. I found this quote fascinating:

Political scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart show that as economic development increases around the world, citizens increase in their “existential security,” meaning they don’t live in constant fear of famine, disease, war, or political corruption. And when existential security increases, populations simultaneously experience lower birth rates, rising individual-choice norms, and lower levels of religiosity. (83)

But seculars have fewer babies, right? Yes. Then why is secularism increasing in the West? Because population dynamics are about more than just fertility and immigration. In the West, there are now enough religiously unaffiliated persons in the population to where secularity is an increasingly live option “that people rarely switch back from once they embrace” (87).

In thinking through where there are church multiplication movements today, my hunch is that nearly every place that is seeing a movement is also experiencing population growth, including overall Christian growth. In the US, Ryan Burge has documented that growing churches are also much more likely to be in counties with positive population growth. This adds an important caveat for those seeking to explain the rise of CPMs globally. Where Christianity (of various kinds) is declining, you are also less likely to have CPMs. The reverse is also true.

Understanding movements requires a focus on population trends and their interplay with societal changes. And of course, this is not to deny that God is the author of authentic Jesus movements.

Come Over Here and Make Me: The Power of Structure (Change Agent)

In Chapter 4, Perry argues that religious life is fundamentally shaped by social structures—the rules and resources that organize, constrain, and reproduce societal behaviors and arrangements. Western societies often overlook this, focusing instead on individual belief and conversion. Modernity has created structural alternatives to religion, such as existential security, urbanization, and state welfare programs, which reduce both the need for and trust in religion. These structural shifts are typically irreversible except under authoritarian regimes.

Religious groups privileged by the state often decline in participation and piety, while religious minorities tend to grow. This dynamic reveals that state involvement in religion frequently fosters negative associations, further accelerating secularization. In authoritarian contexts, religion may grow, but this growth is often tied to nationalist fervor rather than genuine religiosity. Modern structural arrangements fundamentally alter how religion functions in society, prioritizing identity over practice and weakening traditional religious participation.

Concerning persecution, there is little evidence that state repression directly catalyzes Church growth. Justin Long is quoted here:

Missiologist Justin Long cross-referenced international data from Pew Research Center on government and social persecution in particular nations with Operation World's numbers on annual growth of Christian populations in those nations and the combination yielded no discernable pattern. (111) [See Sorry, Tertullian at CT]

Social structures, more than personal beliefs or evangelistic strategies, determine the trajectory of religiosity within modern societies. This reinforces the need for missiological strategies that account for structural realities rather than solely focusing on individual conversions. “We are bodies, then belongers, then believers” (99).

The insights in this chapter refer to the challenges of movements in both urban and secular contexts, covered also in Chapter 1 of Motus Dei (12-13). To address this, CMMs involve fostering smaller, tightly knit communities with strong relational bonds that resist the isolating effects of modern urban environments.

Additionally, the growth of minority religions in contexts where they lack state privilege highlights the importance of resilience and adaptability. CMMs can thrive by embracing grassroots, decentralized models without crippling institutional dependency.

So, Were Jesus and Paul Sociological Realists?

I would like to wrap up this lengthy book summary and review by offering a brief reflection. To do so, a thought experiment might help. What would Jesus or Paul say about Religion for Realists? Three ideas come to mind.

1. Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 5-7 align closely with Perry’s insights, emphasizing identity and norms over doctrinal precision. Rather than telling the crowd what to believe, Jesus focuses on who they are to become (identity as salt and light) and how they are to live (norms like loving enemies and practicing justice). Paul, similarly, often addresses churches as communities defined by shared behaviors and relational unity rather than solely on abstract theological arguments. Both suggest that the early Jesus movement thrived when they prioritized forming durable social identities and shared practices, resonating with Perry’s argument that belonging and embodied norms are central to religious transformation.

2. Jesus’ statements in Matthew 10:5-7 and 15:23-24, where He emphasizes being sent “only to the house of Israel,” reflect an initial focus on a specific social and cultural identity. Similarly, Paul in Romans 15:8–9 highlights Jesus’ mission to Israel as a means to fulfill God’s promises, paving the way for the inclusion of Gentiles into the New Covenant people of Jesus. These passages might align with Perry’s insights on the power of social structures and group identity in religious movements. Jesus and Paul recognize the importance of working within existing social frameworks (Israel’s identity and norms) before expanding outward. This possibly illustrates that sustainable CMMs grow by embedding within a community’s structures and promoting an adaptive, movemental ecclesiology for broader inclusion.

3. Let me close with this: if you thought that either myself or Perry have lost our theological minds, then this last reflection is especially for you. Perry’s claim that the scientific study of religion reveals the “game plan” of authoritarian, ethno-nationalist politicians raises a critical tension for biblical missiology.

“My goal in writing this book is not to give authoritarian ethnonationalists on the far-right something like a game plan. Rather I believe the scientific study of religion reveals their game plan… Academics like me–those who deal professionally in the discovery and dissemination of facts–have something of a missional obligation to inform the world.” (122-23)

So what are we to make of this? Is Perry’s “realist” religion for our edification, or for our admonition? I think both.

In the New Testament, terms like stoicheia and exousiai are used to describe structures and principles and powers that exert influence over humanity, often opposing God’s purposes. The norms and structures that Perry mentions can be for good or evil, either outer manifestations or inner spiritual realities. Biblically, Paul warns against being taken captive by “the elemental principles of the world” (stoicheia) in Colossians 2:8, highlighting the potential of these forces to lead believers away from Christ.

So while sociological studies provide valuable insights into how social structures and norms influence religious behavior, they also expose systems that may perpetuate oppression or divert communities from biblical truths. Jesus and Paul were acutely aware of these dynamics, often challenging prevailing social and religious structures that contradicted God's kingdom values. For example, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) redefines righteousness beyond Israel’s norms, and Paul confronts the “powers” (exousiai) that hinder the gospel’s advance (Eph. 6:12).

This tension underscores the necessity for missiological strategies to prioritize biblical norms and discernment. While empirical studies reveal the realities of human social behavior, they should not dictate our mission or ethics. Instead, believers are called to critically engage with these insights, recognizing the influence of stoicheia and exousiai. In doing so, we can navigate the complexities of societal structures without compromising faithfulness to Jesus.

So, even though Jesus and Paul were obviously not sociologists, their teachings exhibit a profound understanding of both social dynamics and spiritual forces. The missiological task of integrating sociological insights into a biblical framework requires careful discernment to ensure that the Church remains aligned with the motus Dei, resisting the subtle influences of worldly powers that seek to undermine mission.

CPMs Within and Beyond the Oikos

The latest issue of IJFM is out, titled Homogeneity and Hybridity: Does McGavran’s Homogeneous Unit Principle fit the Realities of a Multiethnic World?

Yep, the debate surrounding the infamous HUP remains as lively as ever.

I contributed an article using the phenomenology of CPMs as a conversation partner. Historically, there have been some passionate one-sided takes on the HUP, but I believe every article in this issue of IJFM offers much needed nuance. 

Here is my contribution: The Homophilous Unit Paradox: Church Planting Movements Within and Beyond the Oikos. Pardon the quirky title—it seemed like a good idea at the time! From the intro:

At a fundamental level, the discipline of frontier missiology is based on “crossing difference:” dissimilarities between peoples are significant enough to require an intentional apostolic effort to engage such peoples. By contrast, much of contemporary missiology is based on “uniting difference:” distinctions between peoples are harmful to the unity of Church and a pastoral response requires the ministry of reconciliation. In this regard, Donald McGavran’s infamous Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP) serves as an inflection point between frontier missiology and contemporary missiology. The apparent contradiction lies between an apostolic function and a pastoral function, both of which are needed, but at different times and in different ways. Phenomenologically, church planting movements (CPMs) highlight this tension. In this lecture, after presenting three short case studies introducing CPM’s intersection with the HUP, I’ll share what I’ve discovered specifically as it relates to the nature of church multiplication within networked oikos churches. Along the way, I’ll make two proposals: 1) that “homophilous” is a more appropriate term than “homogeneous,” and 2) the HUP is better understood as a “paradox” and not a “principle.”

So what is my proposal? The Homophilous Unit Paradox…

…guards against cultural paternalism to promote polyphonic worship from all ethne and yet can also endorse racism and segregation if left unchallenged.

Read the whole thing. Feedback welcomed.

The Underground Network and Disciple Making Movements: Potentials for Integration?

Underground People by PJ Accetturo:

In this documentary, I look deeper into who the Underground Network is, and why their model for church could change the way the Western Church operates.

[Underground People from PJ Accetturo on Vimeo.]

There seems to be a lot of overlap from this model and disciple making movements (DMM).

Two things stood out to me from the Underground Network: 1) their focus on affinity groups, 2) a decentralized, flat structure that values individual leadership initiative.

Concerning 1, it seems they don’t target whole communities, but gather people together around affinities; like drinking beer, or anti-trafficking, or mentoring teenage girls. I think there is a lot of power in being able to focus on just a single issue and do it really well. This is not the homogenous unit principle but the congruence of cultural values.

Concerning 2, being decentralized and having a difficult time articulating a common vision indicates they are more values based. There are strengths and weaknesses for both vision-based and values-based organizations.

There are several other questions I have in mind though, the major one being fruitfulness and impact. Yes that is great that he started a Bible study with others who like beer, but is it more than just one study? I know of several friends who have done the same thing, but does it multiply and have deep impact in the community? I have similar questions for the other ministries who were spotlighted in the video (other than the Filipino pastor who said they started 100 house churches).

The video brings up an important point, that you really can’t or shouldn’t try to change the culture/structure of the established, attractional/traditional church. Just work in partnership with them and do something alongside them among areas/peoples that they typically miss. We need each other.

Throughout history, God has used two structures for his redemptive, missional purpose in the world. The first is called a "modality" and it refers to an inclusive group of people that nurtures its members and is structured. Examples are a local congregation or what we typically all a “church.” Modality structures handle local matters essential to the group. A second structure is called "sodality." Sodalities serve and extend modalities. Modalities are limited in their capacity because they serve local needs. But sodalities are flexible, exclusive structures that serve special functions. They are task oriented, like a mission agency or an NGO. The local church (modality) is essential for mission, but so is a mission agency or apostolic structure (sodality). Both serve in parallel to one another. Problems exist when one believes it doesn't need the other.

I like the idea that our ecclesiology should include both modalities (local congregations) and sodalities (apostolic bands, NGOs, seminaries)- both structures are biblical and needed in God’s redemptive mission where the “church” is central to transformation.

A final thought, is that I would love to see what it would look like for these ministries to have a more explicit integration with DMM principles, as outlined in Kingdom Unleashed. Sometimes the DMM literature speaks of things like “access ministry” as if it was only tangential to the essential mission of church planting. Instead, the Underground Network rightly conceptualizes this as more central to mission. But from what I can tell, the DBS concept is less prominent in the ministries in the Underground Network.? DBS could be more integrated in these groups to see Jesus-centered diffusion into their affinity groups.

Thoughts?

Challenging the Monochromatic View of Islam, Accad

From MISSION IN A WORLD GONE WILD AND VIOLENT: CHALLENGING THE MONOCHROMATIC VIEW OF ISLAM FROM A SILENT MAJORITY POSITION, by Martin Accad:

The ‘world religions’ approach has a tendency to view people of faith as prisoners of theological systems, whose every move can be predicted by their communities’ sacred scriptures. Whereas the ‘sociology of religions’ approach offers a dynamic vision of mutually-influential forces between theology and the practice of religion. I would argue that the latter vision offers us a far richer field of inquiry, engagement, and action than the former. From a missional perspective, therefore, it is far more useful, far more empowering and energizing; it invites us to new possibilities in terms of creative and constructive action required for the mission of God.

“Conversionary Protestants” and Democracy

Christianity Today has a nice story on Bob Woodberry’s (Dudley’s son) research that has received a lot of attention in the last 5 years, called, “The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries: They didn’t set out to change history. But one modern scholar’s research shows they did just that.” Here is the thesis:

Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in nongovernmental associations.

From CT: “In short: Want a blossoming democracy today? The solution is simple—if you have a time machine: Send a 19th-century missionary.”

Here is Bob Woodberry’s landmark essay, “The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy.”

The Congruence of Cultural Values (Part 6 in the “How are Muslims coming to Christ?” Series)

Previous posts in this series: How are Muslims coming to Christ? Introduction, Part 1: Conversion is a Contextual Process, Part 2: The Prominence of the Affective Dimension, Part 3: The Silent Witness of Love and Integrity, Part 4: A Patron – Client View of the Gospel, and Part 5: Conversion in Layers of Identity.

Rather than getting bogged down in a debate about contextualization and syncretism, I think Greenlee’s term “The Congruence of Cultural Values”  better fits this sociological theme of factors that influence Muslims to embrace biblical faith (from this article):

6. The Congruence of Cultural Values

Continuing with the sociological discussion of conversion, some missiologists argue that a paradigm shift is happening in church planting and evangelism strategies (Gray and Gray 2010a). Previous strategies argued for an aggregate (or “attractional”) model of church planting, where new believers/seekers who do not previously know each other are gathered together in fellowship. In contrast, the social network[i] (or “transformational”) model seeks to implant the gospel into a group of people who have previously formed social relationships, and thus not try to introduce unknown believers to one another. “The ‘church’ meets when the normal social network gathers” (Gray and Gray 2010b, 278).

This idea of spreading the gospel through social networks is very similar the “homogeneous unit principle” (HUP) posited by Donald McGavran, who famously stated that “People like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers” (1990 [1970], 163). Arguing against this as a strategy for mission, René Padilla declared that the HUP is not only counter to the example of Jesus and the apostles who intentionally worked with an aggregate model, but also fails to take the ministry of reconciliation seriously and has “no biblical foundation” (1982, 29).

However, since research shows that “facilitating the movement of the gospel through natural social networks [contra the aggregate model] seems to be correlated with planting more churches” (Gray et al. 2010, 94), it seems best to think of social network theory as a provisional, temporary strategy until there are more robust forms of church that reach the biblical goal of the so-called “Ephesian moment” (Walls 2002), where people of different caste, race, gender, etc., who have little in common except Jesus are reconciled together in fellowship through him. In any case, a key theme in factors that influence conversion is the congruence of cultural values between the MBB and the values of the witnessing community.[ii]

Implications?

The Congruence of Cultural Values – Contextualization is not a dirty word. It is inevitable, and we need to work hard at it. But even more so, MBBs need to contextualize as they share the gospel through their social networks. We have much to learn from MBB local theologizing. 

Next: Part 7, The Differing Female Experience.

Sociology 1

If missiology is the integration of theology and the social sciences, then I have to admit that my weakest point is the social sciences (although my theology needs to go much deeper as well! I’m a horrible theologian!).  To address this deficiency, I’m going to try to watch some lectures from Ann Swidler at Cal, teaching Sociology 101.  Here are my rough notes for her Lecture 1:

• The sociological way of thinking about the world does not come easily to most Americans.  We tend to think in terms of our own individual traits.  American “heroes” are not part of a social institution, they are lone rangers.  So how do Americans think about the power of social forces?
• Sociology is the systematic study of social life.  Sociology attempts to explain the causes and consequences of social phenomenon.
• Emile Durkheim in his classical book “Suicide” gives one of the most brilliant demonstrations of the relationship between individual life and social life ever created. What seems like the most individual act a person can commit (suicide) is actually profoundly social in its causes.  Durkheim studied suicide rates between groups.  Protestants (he found) are less like likely to commit suicide than Catholics and Jews, because Protestantism taught people to rely more on their own judgment, their own conscience, their own reading of the Bible.  Protestants were vulnerable to suicide because they were too reliable on their own judgment.  This is egoistic suicide.  If you have to answer the question, what should I live for, and the answer the question is “me!” and you don’t like yourself, then they answer is not much outside of self matters. 
• On the other side of the question, is anomic suicide which is a loss of rules or regulation.  Catholics and Jews had strong authoritarian communities.  Anomie is the breakdown of social ties, or normlessness.  This tends to exists in periods where there is a rapid social change.  Suicide increased rapidly with modernity (economic advance or depression).  You no longer know what the rules are.  The suicide of frustration.  When you don’t know what the rules are, you are in danger of making a lot more mistakes.  Durkheim says, you don’t live in the “objective” truth, you live in the “social” truth.  [He has a point, although monotheists should always be ontological realists.  All meaning is relational.]  You live in the social world that defines what is an appropriate aspiration.  Social worlds create our limits and regulate our aspirations and tell us when we have done enough.  So anomic suicide happens when others don’t know what their limits are.
• An institution is a pattern of expected action of individuals or groups enforced by social sanctions (rewards and punishments). Family, education, law, economy, gov’t, etc.  What it means to be a person is anchored in your connection to an institution.  Institution is something that is lasting.  Even a widow is part of the institution of marriage.  Because there are rules and punishments, they tend to help you know what to do with yourself, and they provide a sense of identity.