Download 3301 Lecture 13

Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion
Lecture 13: Organized Religion II: Classifying Religious Organizations
Since religious groups undergo a great deal of change as they evolve, sociologists
have categorized groups with much similarity into ideal types, comparing and contrasting
typical characteristics of churches, sects, denominations, and cults/NRMs. While these
may be used for analytical purposes, the fact is that they are not perfect, and further
confusion may arise due to the different ways they have been used by various
researchers, many still feel that these categorizations remain useful as analytical tools.
The Church-Sect Typology: Early Formulations and Process Approaches:
Early on, Max Weber emphasized that religious sects are exclusive groups. To be
a member, one must meet certain conditions like adherence to a particular doctrine or
conformity to certain practices (e.g. no alcohol). For Weber, sects involve 3
characteristics: (1) membership is voluntary; (2) it is limited to those who “qualify” for
membership; and (3) it involves a substantial commitment by members. A church, on the
other hand, is depicted as: (1) a group that one is typically born into rather than choosing;
(2) inclusive – that is, encouraging all members of the larger society to join; and (3)
minimal commitment is required to remain a member.
Ernst Troeltsch wrote more extensively on this matter, including Weber’s criteria
but expanding them. For them the central characteristic of the church is its acceptance of
the secular order – including reproduction of its social hierarchy within. As such, the
church “compromises” Christian values and makes accommodations to the secular
society. Conversely, the sect tends to reject the social order and to maintain a prophetic
ministry.
Richard Niebuhr elaborated Troeltsch’s idea that the sect and church are stages in
the evolution of a religious group by adding a new type: the denomination. He also
identified factors, including internal structural characteristics, that can cause a group to
move from one end of this continuum to the other.
Both felt these divisions were rooted in socioeconomic inequalities and ethnic
prejudices contrary to core religious teachings. Sectarian reaction against these
“compromises” of the faith by churches often results in renewal and revitalization. The
first generation of sect members stresses adult conversion and commitment, but they also
establish religious education programs for their children. Eventually kids are accepted
into full membership on the basis of their knowledge of the faith rather than personal
conversion and dramatic life changes. Often later generations also experience upward
mobility and are no longer disenfranchised. The sect gradually institutionalizes as it
simultaneously assimilates secular outlook. In emphasizing this process of evolution
between sect and church, Niebuhr developed the concept of denomination, another type
that represents the midpoint on the continuum between sect and church. Formality and
orderliness (lack of spontaneity) were also marks of the trend toward denominationalism
1
– a reflection of institutionalization. This was even reflected in the tendency to a more
sober, literate, intellectual, and orderly style of worship as opposed to the emotional
expressiveness of sectarian worship.
Niebuhr stressed that the existence of different denominations is not due to mere
ideological differences, as many believe, but social stratification. He noted that religious
ideology is often used to justify economic self-interests, pointing out that groups from
different social classes tend to develop different theological outlooks. Social stratification
affects both the social organization and the theology of a group. The real source of the
schism that eventually creates new denominations is social rather than ideological.
These formulations assume a high level of correlation among many diverse
factors. While they may have been accurate for many religious groups in their day, it is
possible to point to many groups now that have some features of the sect and others of
the denomination For example, evangelical groups that both emphasize emotional,
conversion type experiences, don’t object to the stratification system of society, and talk
about building “wealth through Christ” – also known as the “gospel of greed.” Another
example is the emergence of Reform Judaism which sought to become a fuller
acculturation or modernization of an historic faith rather than a “return to the old ways”
as would be expected of a sect. Both Mormonism and the Methodist church, despite
increased institutionalization, have at times moved, respectively, more towards
traditionalism and exhibited higher tensions with the larger society at times – exactly the
opposite of what Niebuhr’s typology would suggest. Maybe, then, it is possible that
Niebuhr described the dominant trend, but the sequential evolution of sect-denominationchurch and revolution back to sect is not universal.
In effect, what we are seeing with such exceptions is the problem of all ideal
types: a significant number of groups do not seem to fit all the characteristics of any one
type. Then the question becomes: which characteristics are most important in classifying
a group?
Single-Variable Models:
Sociologists have continued to work on the concepts of church and sect to identify
factors that contribute to the formation of one type of group as opposed to another. Some
have suggested that tension or conflict with the dominant society should be the key
criterion that distinguishes a sect – being a group that rejects the social environment in
which it exists. Using this single criterion, other variables like degree of
institutionalization do not matter, only the relationship of the group to the larger society.
One problem here has to do with which value conflicts are so significant as to
warrant classification as a sect. The dominant value system in society includes a great
many different values, attitudes and beliefs, often existing independently of each other.
Many values within the group may be shared with the wider society (e.g. individualism,
the stress on family, hard work), while others, such as the Mormon’s original practice of
2
polygyny, are not, which actually resulted in armed skirmishes in 1857 (though there
were other factors such as resources involved as well).
But is conflict over one value perspective enough to classify a group as sectarian,
or must there be conflict in several major areas? Alternatively, is it merely the intensity of
the conflict that serves as the defining factor? Stark and Bainbridge fudge these questions
by claiming that a group is a sect if it is in intense conflict with its larger social
environment on one or more issues.
Still, Johnson (1963) pointed out the long term acculturating role of sectarian
groups, how they often socialize potentially dissident elements in dominant social values
to prevent conflicts. Thus, given this countervailing factor, focusing on value conflicts
with the wider culture as the defining characteristic is not without its problems.
Indeed, Greely (1972) and Nelson (1968) argue that perhaps the most important
characteristic of sects lies in the complexity of organization and degree of routinization.
Regardless, the move in defining the difference between church and sect seems to be
towards simplified definitions as opposed to the grand schemes favored by Niebuhr and
others in the past.
Yinger’s Multilinear Evolution Model:
Yinger, like many today, argues that earlier formulations like those of Troeltsch
and Niebuhr include too many variables, many of which are not highly correlated in
actual groups. However, he still prefers to use several factors to separate churches, sects,
and denominations. He suggests 3 central social factors and established a model that
lends insight into types of groups and their evolution. The factors are: (1) the degree to
which the membership policy of the group is exclusive and selective or open and
inclusive; (2) the extent to which the group accepts or rejects the secular values and
structures of society; and (3) the extent to which, as an organization, the group integrates
a number of local units into one national structure, develops professional staffs, and
creates a bureaucracy.
Yinger noted that in actual cases the first two factors are very closely correlated:
groups that reject secular values tend to be exclusive and selective in their membership
policies (a closed social system). Those that accept secular values also tend to be
inclusive (an open social system).
By using the first 2 factors as one axis of variation and the extent of
institutionalization as the other, Yinger developed a model that suggests several different
types of groups. His 2 dimensional model can show the progression from sect to church,
but also shows that increased institutionalization may occur somewhat independently
from both membership policy and acceptance of secular values. Much has to do with the
group’s belief system. One that focuses on sin and salvation will acculturate rather easily.
Sects whose primary concern is social evils and injustices – reformative and
transformative movements – are more likely to become established sects and may never
3
become ecclesiastical or denominational bodies. Indeed, Lawson (1998) found another of
ideological elements that may shape a sect’s trajectory toward becoming established.
Passionate commitment to pacifism, for example, has kept the Jehovah’s Witnesses more
sectarian, especially in the face of resulting persecution and alienation. Meanwhile, 7th
day Adventists (which grew from the same 19th century movement) have embraced
patriotism and become more mainstream.
Two types of religious organizations do not fit this schema. The first is the
shamanistic religion found in many non-industrialized societies. It is both universally
held (and thus not in conflict with society), yet it is not highly institutionalized. The
second is the “universal institutionalized church” exemplified by the highly
institutionalized Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. At the time, no other
religion had a significant influence in Europe: national boundaries and religious loyalties
were coextensive.
These 2 exceptions highlight that the existence of sects and denominations is a
phenomenon of pluralistic societies. Indeed, the pure form of “church” above is
impossible in a democratic and pluralistic society, just as the universal, diffused
shamanistic variant is only found in very simple, homogeneous societies. Indeed, it may
be that in a very open, pluralistic society the distinction between sect and denomination
also becomes less important as all groups converge on a single denominational model.
Social Conditions that Generate Each Type of Group:
We now turn to consider factors that seem to cause the emergence of new groups.
Niebuhr pointed to 4 factors: (1) denominations that begin to ignore the original concerns
of the faith for poverty and inequality provide ground for sectarian groups to arise from
those lower in the social order; (2) groups that serve as expressions of ethnic values,
national loyalties, or racial identity, in effect providing a “belonging” function; (3)
churches that get bogged down in bureaucratic structures foster a desire for groups that
are smaller, more informal, and less under the control of professionals and their
institutional constraints; and (4) sects can be spawned by a desire for more spontaneity
and emotional expression in worship than found in denominations that are formal,
orderly, and highly intellectual.
Of course, it is also the case that sectarian schisms can also occur over seemingly
trivial issues, such as personality conflicts or, in the case of the 7th Day Adventists,
whether Saturday or Sunday was the Sabbath.
Besides the above, whether and how a sect develops into a denomination depends
on how the larger society responds to the new group. If it challenges key social values,
the larger society does not have a tradition of religious tolerance, and the sect adopts a
strategy of aggressive militancy, it will either be crushed or have its antiestablishment
posture reinforced. If it does survive, its acculturation is likely to be very slow, or it may
remain forever a sect. If the opposite is true on the above dimensions, the group may be
accommodated and become acculturated rather quickly. The move from sect to
4
denomination is determined in large degrees by outsiders’ response to the group in these
respects.
Fallding (1980) notes that separation of church and state also plays a part. Where
there is state-established religion far fewer sects are generated and more denominational
mergers occur than in places where there is separation of church and state. The latter
fosters an environment conducive to religious innovation and independence, along with
an intensification of boundaries between groups. In an environment where the state does
not control religion, rational choice theorists claim that there will be more religious
vitality as there will be more religious “firms” started in a wide-open market.
The internal belief system of the group can be another important factor. If a sect’s
definition of evil and corruption is individualistic (i.e. based on choice), then
acculturation and accommodation is more likely. If it is seen as social in nature, and the
structures of society are seen as incompatible with religious values, then the group is less
likely to denominationalize (e.g. the Quakers, with their opposition to war, remain an
institutionalized sect).
Wilson (1959) argued some types of sects are more likely to denominationalize
than others. Those whose theology originally encourages a simple, ascetic lifestyle are
more likely to generate an affluent membership, as this leads to savings and accumulation
of resources. This, in turn, often leads to accommodation. As members become more
affluent, they tend to acculturate to the values of the dominant society and lose their
fervor for revolution or reform. The state of the economy also plays a part, as groups tend
to denominationalize more in a growing economy, while stagnant economic conditions
are more likely to generate permanent sects.
In the end, the formation and evolution of any group is the result of many
interacting processes: the social standing of members, ethnic factors, survival forces that
impel a group to institutionalize, responses of outsiders to the group and its message, the
belief system in question, and the state of the economy. Both internal and external factors
are at work in a group’s in affecting a given group’s organizational evolution.
New Religious Movements, a.k.a. “Cults”
The term “cult” is used by sociologists in two ways and by the media in a third.
The popular media and many anti-cult movements use it to depict a group with esoteric
or occult ideas, led by a charismatic leader, and that uses intense and highly unethical
conversion techniques. It is always depicted as totalitarian, capable of bizarre actions,
destructive of members’ mental health, and a menace to conventional society. In this
cultural sense, it is used as a stigmatizing label intended to discredit a group rather than
as a descriptive technical term to describe a social unit. This has led to much confusion.
One way that sociologists use the term has been to describe a group without much
internal discipline and a loose-knit structure. Following Becker (1932), it is seen as an
urban, nonexclusive, loosely associated group of people who, as kindred spirits, may
5
either hold some esoteric beliefs relative to an aspect of reality, or belong to more
conventional church groups (e.g. those who are involved in “spiritual healing”). The
presence of a charismatic leader is common, but not necessary. Commitment to such
groups is undemanding and membership often transient. The key defining characteristics
are the loose structure and the lack of application of the worldview to all aspects of life.
The second sociological approach is, as we have already discussed, to define a
cult as the beginning phase of an entirely new religion. The group may be loosely
structured or it may demand tremendous commitment, but it must provide a radical break
from existing religious traditions.
While both approaches have their advocates, the latter seems more common and
seems to provide a more helpful analytical tool. Nowadays, though, most sociologists
prefer the term NRM as it gets away from the hype in the media.
Furthermore, some new term may also be needed to identify quasi-religious
movements that have little or no sense of group identification or cohesion (i.e. the first
type above). Stark and Bainbridge (1985) has referred to these groups as either audience
cults or client cults, depending on the type of appeal. Thus, audience cults involve use of
mass media appeals and other publicity to promote a lecture circuit, a series of
workshops, or the sale of books or other media on esoteric and occult topics. Supporters
or such movements are essentially consumers and not members. Client cults, in contrast,
tend to involve relationships based more on a patient-therapist model, seeking out help in
specific areas (e.g. psychological adjustment, contact with the dead, predictions of the
future, etc.)
Both of these involve very loose bonds between members and little sense of group
identity. Both are concerned primarily with manipulating non-empirical forces in the
service of specific this-worldly needs – akin to magic. Occasionally these may evolve
into NRMs, but most remain, at best, only quasi-religious phenomena.
In an effort to distinguish sects from cults, Stark and Bainbridge note that sects
present themselves as something old, as returning or re-establishing an old faith. They
claim to be the authentic, old faith renewed. Cults, on the other hand, claim to be
something new relative to the other religious groups in society, often claiming a new
revelation or insight. While at times difficult to separate in practice when cults try to gain
legitimacy by noting continuity with other faiths, this remains a useful distinction. In
effect, cults are similar to sects, but they ultimately make a sharper break, in religious
terms, from the prevailing tradition of society.
The Unification Church provides an interesting example of a NRM. They believe
Rev. Moon is the Messiah. The accept that Jesus was supposed to be, but think that he
failed. He is said to provide a partial, spiritual salvation, but failed to redeem the social,
economic, and political structures of this world (which now, conveniently, Rev. Moon
will apparently do with God’s blessing). Obviously, this is a sharp break with traditional
Christianity, and, while its organizational structure make the Unification Church appear
6
to be a sect, the doctrine clearly marks it as a NRM. Nevertheless, to gain legitimacy, it
downplays doctrine and plays up its emphasis on traditional American values. We see
something similar in the early Mormon Church which, while it has new and innovative
theological claims contrary to traditional forms of Christianity, tends to claim that it is a
branch of Christianity rather than a NRM. Indeed, not to put too fine a point on it, but the
early Christians tended to think of themselves as a branch of Judaism rather than the
beginnings of a new religion, only later making a break and setting out on its own path
independent of its parent group.
While whether a group is initiating a new religion is a central issue, there are
several other characteristics common to NRM’s: (1) while sects often place a strong
emphasis on the authority of existing scripture, NRMs more frequently stress mystical,
psychic, or ecstatic experiences, at times supplemented by their own new scriptures; (2)
the centrality of a charismatic leader in NRM’s.
Bainbridge and Stark (1979) believe that there are 3 ways that NRMs may
emerge: (1) through the process of spontaneous sub-cultural evolution; (2) through the
dynamic leadership of a charismatic leader who genuinely believes in the veracity of
his/her teachings; or (3) through the leadership of a charismatic “entrepreneur” who sees
religion as a money-making scheme.
Externally the sect and NRM often look alike, though NRMs tend more to appeal
to the middle and upper classes and sects to the lower. Regardless, both rebel against
predominant social values, lack trained professional leaders and a bureaucratic structure,
and both eventually insist on a stringent membership policy requiring significant
commitment. The NRM, like the sect, is also capable of institutionalization. Indeed, as
we noted last class, this is necessary if it is to outlive its founder.
As in our earlier discussion, institutionalization and accommodation to secular
values do not occur at the same rate. Nevertheless, sects and NRMs tend to evolve along
parallel lines.
Yet, to fully understand this evolution, we must bear in mind the relative hostility
toward the group by traditional religious groups in society, combined with the desire for
legitimacy within the new group. These pressures at work can be significant. Sometimes
variations in these can cause a sect to even evolve into a NRM as its beliefs are modified
to define its separateness and to cope with being made “alien” (e.g. Jim Jones’ People’s
Temple).
Another key point is that both sects and NRMs lack organizational complexity
and reject at least some of the values of the secular society. Yet the sect sees itself as one
of purifying the traditional faith by calling members back to what are believed to be core
principles. NRMs represent the initial stage of the development of a new or syncretistic
religion. Thus, while institutionalizing and accommodating tendencies frequently cause
sects to become denominational in form, NRMs either die out or institutionalize into a
new religion.
7
The evolution of religious groups is complex, with different scholars focusing on
different factors, definitions, and aspects of religious group development.
While not possible to go through all of this, we might note that Stark and
Bainbridge (1985) add another important dimension to our understanding. They
discovered that where traditional religious organizations are weak, NRM formation is
highest. Where religious tradition is strong and church membership high, NRM formation
is less common. Thus, secularization may actually breed NRM development and success.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and, where certain human needs are unmet by traditional
religions, NRMs step in to fill the gap.
Ultimately, theories about church to sect transformations are generalizations about
how this change normally occurs. They may not precisely fit a given group. As well,
terms like sect, cult, established sect, and denomination are normally not easy to assign to
a group – at least permanently. They simply describe organizational characteristics of a
group at a particular point in history. Keeping this in mind, though, such theories can
enable us to describe the normal process of organizational change in religious
collectivities, and to identify similarities and differences between groups at a given time
(e.g. using terms like “sect-like” or “churchlike”).
In sum, if one seeks to generalize about how most groups evolve and the stages
they go through, these concepts can be helpful. Yet if one seeks to understand a specific
group, one must learn that group’s characteristics on each point (i.e. theology, orientation
to society, ritual formality and appeal, the extent of organization, and other matters).
Otherwise, one may miss much important detail obscured by too close a following of
these schemas.
8