Step 1: Faith in the power of legitimate sacred symbols, including the perception of leadership authority, is established through socialization (or as we call it association with devotees).
Step 2: A mounting set of disquieting events (e.g. scandals, personal knowledge of leadership betrayal of fiduciary responsibility to lay believers) challenges the sacred social reality. Some leaders are accused of base improprieties, others of permitting the “secondary deviance” to continue by essentially looking the other way instead of whistleblowing. This is the beginning of what could be called “symbol erosion.” It begins with a few aggrieved victims and victims’ advocates but gains momentum. Tears begin to appear in the sacred social reality for many believers.
Step 3: There are rearguard attempts by leadership to condemn or refute the scandal(s), blame the bearers of bad news, and so forth. Ultimately these efforts at corrective work backfire as the set of disquieting events expands. Leadership appears as if it is more interested in protecting its own than in offering meaningful redress to victims.
Step 4: As a consequence, the sacred symbols religious leaders called upon to obtain lay compliance, from observing special holy days to contributing financial support to even observing honorary titles begin to fail to mobilize compliance. Increasingly, perceptions of leadership legitimacy are altered among laity, disillusionment for many sets in, and authority is partially if not totally withdrawn for some.
Step 5: The end result is diminished faith for many persons. The normative power of the institution is weakened. The real symbolic interactionist process of constantly negotiating legitimacy, both on the part of religious leaders and their followers, keeps stumbling on irregularities contrary to the ideal social reality.
(Shupe, A. (2003). The Religious Institution. In R. a. Herman-Kinney (Ed.), Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism (pp. 625-637). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.)
