organisations, movements and members Flashcards
outline Troeltsch’s distinguishment of religious organisations
- Troeltsch was the first (1912) to attempt to identify the features of different religious organisations
- he distinguishes between 2 main types of religious organisations - the church and the sect
outline denomination and cult
- in addition to churches + sects, sociologists have identified other types of religious organisations
- Niebuhr: describes denominations, e.g. Methodism, as lying midway between churches + sects
outline Troeltsch’s view churches
churches:
- large organisations, often with millions of members - e.g. Catholic Church
- run by bureaucratic hierarchy of professional priests
- claims monopoly of truth
- are universalistic + aims to include all of society although tends to attract more higher classes due to their conservative ideologies + links to state
- e.g. the British sovereign is head of both the state + Church of England
outline Troeltsch’s view of sects
sects:
- sects are small, exclusive groups
- are hostile to wider society + expects a high level of commitment
- gains their members from the poor + oppressed
- led by a charismatic leader
- has a monopoly of religious truth
outline Niebuhr’s view of denominations
denominations:
- membership is less exclusive than a sect, but they don’t appeal to the whole of society like a church
- they broadly accept society’s values, but aren’t linked to the state
- imposes minor restrictions on members, e.g. forbidding alcohol
- they are tolerant of other religious organisations + doesn’t claim a monopoly of the truth
outline Wallis’ 2 similarities + differences between religious organisations
- Wallis: highlights 2 characteristics;
1) how they see themselves: churches + sects claims that their interpretation of the faith is the only true one. denominations + cults accept that there can be many valid interpretations
2) views from wider society: churches + denominations are seen as respectable and legitimate, whereas sects + cults are seen as deviant
outline Niebuhr’s view of cults
cults:
- highly individualistic, loose-knit + usually small grouping around some shared themes + interests, but lack a sharply defined + exclusive belief system
- cults are usually led by ‘practitioners’ or ‘therapists’ who claim special knowledge
- tolerant of other organisations + their beliefs
- doesn’t demand strong commitment from followers, of whom may have little involvement in the cult once they have acquired the beliefs/ techniques it offers
- many cults are world-affirming, claiming to improve life in this world
outline from cathedrals to cults
- sociologists argue that descriptions from Troeltsch + Niebuhr of R organisations are outdated;
- e.g. Bruce: Troeltsch’s idea of a church as having a R monopoly only applied to the Catholic church before the 16thC Protestant Reformation - when it had complete control
- since then, sects + cults have grown, and R diversity has become the norm
- today, churches are no longer truly churches in Troeltsch’s sense as they have lost their monopoly + reduced to the status of denominations competing with the rest
name some examples of world-rejecting NRMs
- Moonies - to a lesser extent
- the Manson family
- Children of God
- the People’s Temple
outline new religious movements
- since the 60s, the number of new Rs + organisations has grown - e.g. the Unification Churches/ Moonies, Children of God, Transcendental Meditation etc
- Wallis: categorises these new religious movements (NRMs) into 3 groups based on their relationship with the outside world; if they reject the world, accommodate to it, or affirm it
outline world-accommodating NRMs
- these are often breakaways from existing mainstream churches/ denominations - e.g. neo-Pentecostalists who split from Catholicism
- they neither accept nor reject the world + they focus on R rather than worldly matters, seeking to restore the spiritual purity of R
- e.g. neo-Pentecostalists believe other Christian Rs have lost the Holy Spirit
- members tend to lead conventional lives
outline world-rejecting NRMs
- world-rejecting NRMs are similar to Troeltsch’s sects
- varies greatly in size, from a handful of members to hundreds of thousands - they have several characteristics;
- clearly R organisations w/ a clear notion of God
- highly critical of the outside world + expect/ seek radical change
- members must leave former life behind + live communally w/ restricted contact to outside world - all aspects of members’ lives are controlled - often accused of ‘brainwashing’
- have conservative moral codes
outline world-affirming NRMs
- these groups differ from other R groups + lacks some conventional features of R, e.g. collective worship, some aren’t highly organised
- like Rs, they offer followers access to spiritual/ supernatural powers
- they accept the world as it is + are optimistic + promises followers success in mainstream goals + values, e.g. careers + personal relationships
- are inclusive + tolerant of other Rs, but claim to offer additional special knowledge/ techniques that enable followers to unlock their own spiritual powers + achieve success/ overcome issues such as illness (‘psychologising religions)
- most are cults, whose followers are often customers rather than members + entry is through training - few demands placed on them + can continue normal lives
outline evaluations of new religious movements
- its unclear whether Wallis is categorising the movements according to their teachings, or individual members’ beliefs
- Wallis himself recognises that real NRMs rarely fit neatly into his typology + some may have features of all 3
- Stark + Bainbridge: rejects the construction of typologies altogether - we should distinguish between R organisations using just 1 criterion - the degree of conflict/ tension between the R group + wider society
name some examples of world-affirming NRMs
- Scientology
- Soka Gakkai
- Human Potential
outline Stark + Bainbridge’s distinguishment of religious organisations
- Stark + Bainbridge: identify 2 kinds of organisations that conflict with society - sects + cults;
- sects: results from schisms (splits in existing organisations) - they break away from churches usually due to disagreements about doctrine. they promise ‘other-worldly’ benefits (e.g. heaven) to those suffering econ or ethical deprivation (values conflicting with society)
- cults: are new Rs, e.g. Scientology + Christian Science, or ones new to the particular society that have been imported, e.g. TM. offers ‘this-worldly’ benefits (e.g. good health) to more prosperous individuals who are suffering psychic deprivation (e.g. homelessness) or organismic deprivation (e.g. illness)
outline Stark and Bainbridge’s subdivision of cults
- Stark + Bainbridge sub-divide cults based on how organised they are;
1) audience cults
2) client cults
3) cultic movements - they make useful distinctions between organisations, e.g. their idea of using the degree of conflict within wider society to distinguish them is similar to Troeltsch’s distinction of sect + church - however some examples don’t fit neatly into 1 category
outline Stark and Bainbridge’s ‘audience cults’ subdivision of cults
- audience cults are the least organised + don’t involve formal membership or much commitment
- there is little interaction between members - participation may be through media, e.g. astrology, UFO cults
outline Stark and Bainbridge’s ‘client cults’ subdivision of cults
- client cults are based on the relationship between a consultant + client + provide services to their followers
- in the past, were often purveyors of medical miracles, contact with the dead - but emphasis has shifted to ‘therapies’ promising personal fulfilment + self discovery
outline Stark and Bainbridge’s ‘cultic movements’ subdivision of cults
- cultic movements are the most organised + demand a higher level of commitment than other cults
- movement aims to meet all members’ religious needs + unlike followers of audience or client cults, they are rarely allowed to belong to other religious groups simultaneously
- an e.g. of cultic movements is the Moonies
- some client cults become cultic movements for their most enthusiastic followers, e.g. Scientology, which developed out of the client cult ‘Dianetics’
- some Doomsday cults that predict the end of the world + practise mass suicide are best seen as cultic movements
what is the pattern of growth of sects + cults membership
- since the 1960s, there has been rapid growth in the number of sects + cults, and in the number of members
- e.g. there are an estimated 800 NRMs + over half a million individuals belonging to these + other non-mainstream Christian churches in the UK
what are the 3 main trends for the growth of religious movements
1) marginality
2) relative deprivation
3) social change
outline marginality as an explanation for the growth of religious movements
- Troeltsch: sects tend to draw their members from the poor + oppressed
- Weber: also says how sects arise in the marginalised - such groups may feel that they are disprivileged (not receiving their justified economic rewards or social status)
- Weber: sects offer a solution to their issues by offering their members a ‘theodicy of disprivilege’ (a R explanation + justification for their suffering)
- this explains their misfortune as a test of faith - e.g. holding out the promise of rewards for keeping faithful
- many sects + millenarian movements have recruited from the marginalised poor, but since the 60s, world-rejecting NRMs, e.g. Moonies, have recruited from more affluent, well educated, young, White people
outline an AO3 evaluation for the claim that sects no longer recruit from the marginalised
- Wallis: the idea that sects now recruit from well-educated, MC, young White people doesn’t undermine Weber’s ‘theodicy of privilege’, as many of these individuals had become marginal to society
- despite their MC origins, most were hippies, dropouts and drug users