Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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: churches, sects, denominations, and cults/NRMs. Weber stated that sects involve 3 traits: (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, for Weber, is: (1) A group that one is typically born into rather than choosing; (2) Inclusive, encouraging all members of society to join; and (3) Minimal commitment is required to remain a member. Ernst Troeltsch: the central characteristic of the church is its acceptance of the secular order – including reproduction of its social hierarchy within. Conversely, the sect tends to reject the social order and to maintain a prophetic ministry. Niebuhr: emphasized the process of evolution between sect and church and 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 – a reflection of institutionalization- 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, but social stratification 1 These formulations assume a high correlation among many diverse factors. While perhaps accurate for many religious groups in their day, it is possible to point to many groups now with some features of the sect and others of the denomination. What such exceptions show 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 Some suggest that tension or conflict with the dominant society should be what distinguishes a sect. How to determine which or how many conflicts matter? What about their intensity? What about how sectarian socialization offsets the potential for conflict/non-conformity by inculcating societal values? What about complexity of organization and degree of routinization? Regardless of the criteria, the trend today is towards simplified definitions as opposed to the grand schemes of the past. Yinger’s Multilinear Evolution Model: * Yinger suggests 3 central social factors: (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. 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). 2 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. Much has to do with the group’s belief system. One that focuses on sin and salvation will acculturate easily. Sects whose primary concern is social evils and injustices are more likely to become established sects rather than denominational bodies. Social Conditions that Generate Each Type of Group: * Niebuhr pointed to 4 factors that foster the emergence of new groups: (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. 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 as a sect. If opposite conditions prevail, will be accommodated and become acculturated rather quickly. Other factors that can play a part: 3 - Separation of church and state The internal belief system of the group Ascetic theology The economy Ultimately, the formation and evolution of any group is the result of many interacting processes. 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 popular media and anti-cult movements use this term to stigmatize NRMs, leading to much confusion. Sociologists have used the term to describe either: (1) Urban, nonexclusive, loosely associated groups of people who, as kindred spirits, may either hold some esoteric beliefs relative to an aspect of reality, or belong to more conventional church groups; or (2) The beginning phase of an entirely new religion. Many now prefer the term NRM due to the stigma fostered above for the latter. Some new term may also be needed to identify quasi-religious movements that have little or no sense of group identification or cohesion (e.g. “audience cults” or “client cults.”) Sects present themselves as something old, as returning or reestablishing 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. * There are several other characteristics common to NRM’s: 4 (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 new scriptures; (2) The centrality of a charismatic leader in NRM’s. * 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. Other key considerations: - NRMs tend more to appeal to the middle and upper classes and sects to the lower. - Relative hostility toward the group by traditional religious groups in society, combined with the desire for legitimacy within the new group. - Both 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, while NRMs represent the initial stage of the development of a new or syncretistic religion. - Sects can become denominational in form; NRMs either die out or institutionalize into a new religion. - Where traditional religious organizations are weak, NRM formation is highest. Where religious tradition is strong and church membership high, NRM formation is less common. Ultimately, theories about church to sect transformations are generalizations about how this change normally occurs. They may not precisely fit a given group – at least permanently. 5