 | This article'slead sectionmay need to be rewritten. Please review thelead guide and helpimprove the lead of this article if you can.(September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Varioussociological classifications of religious movements have been proposed by scholars. In thesociology of religion, the most widely used classification is the church-secttypology. The typology is differently construed by different sociologists, and various distinctive features have been proposed to characterise churches and sects. On most accounts, the following features are deemed relevant:
The church-sect typology has been enriched with subtypes. The theory of the church-sect continuum states that churches, ecclesia, denominations and sects form a continuum with decreasing influence on society.[citation needed] Sects are break-away groups from more mainstream religions and tend to be in tension with society. Cults andnew religious movements fall outside this continuum and in contrast to aforementioned groups often have a novel teaching. They have been classified on their attitude towards society and the level of involvement of their adherents.
The church-sect typology has its origins in the work ofMax Weber andErnst Troeltsch, and from about the 1930s to the late 1960s it inspired numerous studies and theoretical models especially in American sociology.[1][2][3][4]
Weber characterised the church as a compulsory, bureaucratic, inclusive organisation whose membership is obtained primarily at birth by ascription, and the sect as a voluntary, democratic, exclusive organisation whose members are recruited through individual admission after establishment of qualification.[5] Ernest Troeltsch accepted Weber's definition but added the notion of a varying degree of accommodation with social morality: the church is intrinsically conservative, inclined to seek for an alliance with the upper classes and aiming at dominating all elements within society, while the sect is in tension with current societal values, rejects any compromise with the secular order and tends to be composed of underprivileged people.[6][7]
Subsequent sociological and theological studies elaborated on Weber's and Troeltsch's typologies incorporating them into a theory of the church-sect "continuum" or "movement".[6][2]H. Richard Niebuhr viewed religious groups as ranging between the poles of the sect and the church: sects are protest groups that break away from the church in search of more authentic religious experiences. Sects are inherently unstable and as they grow they tend to become church-like; once they have become established institutions, marked by compromise and accommodation, they are in turn exposed to new schismatic challenges.[7][8] The sect is a result of "the religious revolts of the poor," and the driving force of the cyclical movement between sect and church is not so much doctrinal controversy as social stratification and conflict taking place alongclass,race,ethnicity andsectional lines.[9][10]
Other scholars enriched the typology with subtypes.Howard Becker introduced a continuum of types ranging from the cult to the sect, the denomination and theecclesia, andJohn Milton Yinger delineated a sixfold typology: the universal church (e.g., theRoman Catholic Church), theecclesia, by which he meant established national churches (e.g., theChurch of England, theRussian Orthodox Church), the denomination (e.g.,Baptists,Presbyterians), the established sect (e.g.,Seventh-Day Adventists,Quakers), the sect (e.g., manyPentecostals, theWorldwide Church of God) and the cult (e.g.,The Family,Scientology).[4][11][7]Benton Johnson simplified the definition of sect and church and based it on a single variable: the degree of acceptance of the social environment. A church is a religious group that accepts the social environment in which it exists, a sect is a religious group that rejects it.[6][2]
The church-sect typology and the notion of a church-sect continuum or movement from the sect to the church came under strong attack in the sociology of religion of the 1960s onwards.[12][7] The theory suffered from lack of agreement on the distinguishing features, from proliferation of new types and from questionable empirical evidence on its core assumptions.[12][3] Many contributions to the debate were perceived as being pure classificatory in nature and devoid of significant theoretical content.[2] Eventually there was general agreement among scholars to abandon use of the typology altogether,[3] although the waning of the debate on the church-sect typology did not affect the persisting interest for Weber's contributions on the topic and more broadly for his sociology of religion.[3][5] Moreover, notwithstanding the criticisms, the distinction between sect and church has become part of the standard theoretical repertoire of sociologists.[4]
As Weber's ideas on church and sect have developed in the course of time,[5][13] what follows is a sketch of key definitions and themes.
Both the church and the sect are hierocratic organisations as they enforce their orders through psychic coercion by providing or denying religious goods such as spiritual benefits (magical blessing, sacraments, grace, forgiveness, etc.) and material benefits (ecclesiastical benefices and other endowments).[14]: 54 Unlike the sect, however, the church is a compulsory organisation whose membership is typically determined by birth or infant baptism rather than by voluntary association,[15]: 38 which claims "a monopoly on the legitimate use of hierocratic coercion."[14]: 54 Because of its claim to universal hierocratic domination, the church is inclined to level all non-religious distinctions and to overcome "household, sib and tribal ties ... ethnic and national barriers.[14]: 1164 No one is in principle excluded from the church, not even the unrepentant sinners, the sceptics and the indifferents.[1][16] The church "lets grace shine over the righteous and unrighteous alike ... Affiliation with the church is, in principle, obligatory, and hence proves nothing with regard to the member's qualities."[17]: 305–306
The church is also characterised by "a professional priesthood removed from the 'world', with salaries, promotions, professional duties, and a distinctive way of life."[14]: 1164 Ministers are usually appointed on the basis of their formally certified religious education and operate in a hierarchical administrative structure.[1] The demands of the church towards the clergy can be more or less demanding but their full satisfaction – the holiness of the minister – is not a condition for the efficacy of the sacraments and for the performance of the religious rituals: the church fulfils its missionex opere operato, and sharply distinguishes betweenpersona and office, that is, betweencharisma of the individual minister, which may occasionally be lacking, and efficacy of the religious function, which is perpetual and depends on the will of God alone.[14]: 1164
While the church is "a compulsory association for the administration of grace," the sect for Weber is "avoluntary association of religiously qualified persons.[17]: 314 It is voluntary as it is based on the willingness to adopt the standards of ethical conduct required for sect membership:[13] membership is not ascribed at birth but results from the free acceptance of the sect's doctrine and discipline by the follower, and from the continuous acceptance of the follower by the sect.[5] The sect does not express a claim at universal hierocratic domination, and therefore it is exclusive – as "aristocracy of the elect" – instead of inclusive like the church. It consists of individuals whose conduct and life style "proclaim the glory of God," religiously qualified persons who believe (or hope) to be "called to salvation."[18] Being a free association of "religious virtuosos," the sect raises high demands towards its members and enforces the strictest discipline upon them.
A "sect" in the sociological sense of the word is an exclusive association of religious virtuosos or of especially qualified religious persons, recruited through individual admission after establishment of qualification. By contrast a "church," as a universalistic establishment of the salvation of the masses raises the claim like the "state," that everyone, at least each child of a member, must belong by birth.[19]
In contrast to the professional priesthood of the church, members of the sect can exercise hierocratic power only by virtue of personal charisma.Lay preaching anduniversal priesthood are the norm, as well as "direct democratic administration" by the congregation,[14]: 1208 which is jointly responsible for the celebration of the sacraments by a worthy minister in a state of grace. The ministerial position is not an "office" backed by ecclesiastical structures of authority but an appointment or "election" subject to the popular will of the congregation;[20]: 33 the minister is a servant of the congregation, and no bureaucratic separation between persona and office, between individual and function, is ever admissible.[14]: 1208
TheCatholic,Anglican andOrthodox churches are paradigmatic cases of church-like organisations; outsideChristianity, good examples of so-defined churches can be found, according to Weber, inIslam, in theLamaist form of Buddhism and, in a more limited sense, inMahdism,Judaism and probably in the late AncientEgyptian hierocracy.[21] The official management ofConfucianism stood againstBuddhist,Taoist, and sectarian pursuits of salvation of all sorts.[22]: 288 Calvinism is best characterized as a sect-like church;Baptists,Quakers andMethodists are paradigmatic cases of sects, as well asChristian Scientists,Adventists. In between these two poles, varying degrees of approximation to the church or to the sect are possible, according to Weber.Hinduism, for example, is a strictly birth-religion, to which one belongs merely by being born to Hindu parents, but is exclusive as a sect because for certain religious offences one can be forever excluded from the community.[19]
In fact, the distinction between church and sect is not dichotomic, but continuous. Church and sect do not correspond exactly to any empirical phenomenon but rather stress elements common in varying degrees to most phenomena. They areideal types, that is, heuristic devices for highlighting relevant aspects of the social world, highly simplified representations of reality, "special and 'one-sided' viewpoints" according to which the researcher selects what is relevant for the purposes of historical and sociological explanation.[23] As ideal types, church and sect do not describe reality and hardly can be found in pure form, but help us understand why people act the way they do by developing meaningful social theories.[24]
One such theory developed by Weber is that the development of capitalism and democracy in the United States have been positively affected by the sectarian form of certain religious groups such as thepuritans and theBaptists.[15]: 308 According to Weber, American democracy "did not constitute a formless sand heap of individuals, but rather a buzzing complex of strictly exclusive, yet voluntary associations;"[17]: 310 American democracy is not made of isolated individuals but rather of associations which, like the sects, function as control mechanisms that foster high moral standards and encourage individual responsibility.[13]
First, Weber believes that sects generally promote individualism and freedom of conscience.[13] While the church's claim to universal hierocratic domination is inherently hostile to freedom of conscience and individual rights, the sect "gives rise to an inalienable personal right of the governed as against any power, whether political, hierocratic or patriarchal."[14]: 1209 Secondly, according to Weber there is "an elective affinity between the sect and political democracy,"[14]: 1208 which stems from the structural features of the sect – the treatment of clerical officials as servants of the congregation and the practice of direct democracy in its administration.[15]: 308 Finally, as voluntary associations of qualified people, sects maintain discipline: they select, probe and sanction their members, and are likely to have the greatest educative influence on individuals and through them the wider society.[5] Weber argues that sect membership worked in the United States as "a certificate of moral qualification and especially business morals:"[17]: 305 Sects provided proof of one’s reputation, honesty and trustworthiness, and in doing so they became a vital source of "the bourgeois capitalist business ethos among the broad strata of the middle classes (the farmers included).".[17]: 308 [20]: 133
Troeltsch largely relies upon Weber's distinction between church and sect. Like Weber, Troeltsch stresses the "objective institutional character" of the church compared to the "voluntary community" of the sect, and distinguishes the "universal all-embracing ideal" of the church, its desire to control great masses of people, from the gathering of "a select group of the elect" by the sect, which is placed "in sharp opposition to the world."[25] To these Weberian ideas Troeltsch adds a new distinguishing feature, which is the different attitude towards compromise and accommodation with societal demands. The church adapts to the secular world and exhibits a high degree of compromise with the larger society and with the civil authorities, which it supports in order to maintain itself and gain influence; in contrast to this, the sect is born out of protest, rejects any compromise and tends to be smaller and composed of underprivileged people.[8] Sectarian commitments are motivated by the social protests of the lower classes.[4]
Troeltsch arrives at his definitions of church and sect on the basis of an examination of the history of Christian Europe prior to about 1800, and conceives of church and sect as independent sociological expressions of two different interpretations of Christianity.[6] The sect emphasizes the eschatological features of Christian doctrine, which it interprets literally and in a radical manner; it is a small, voluntary fellowship of converts who seek to realize the divine law in their own behaviour, setting themselves apart from and in opposition to the world, and refusing to draw a sharp distinction between clergy and laity; it embraces ideals of frugality, prohibits participation in legal and political affairs, and appeals principally to the lower classes.[6] In theology and liturgy, the sect refrains from bureaucratic dogmatism and ritualism and, compared to the church, it adopts a more inspirational, informal and unpredictable approach to preaching and worship.[1]
Johnstone provides the following seven characteristics of churches:[26]
The classical example of achurch by this definition is theCatholic Church, especially in the past, such as theState church of the Roman Empire.
Islam is a church in countries likeSaudi Arabia and Iran, where there is noseparation of church and state. TheBasic Law of Saudi Arabia states: "[The Constitution of Saudi Arabia is]God's Book [the Qur'an] and theSunnah ofHis Prophet [Muhammad]".[citation needed] These nations are ruled under an official interpretation ofreligious law (Salafi in the case of Saudi Arabia), and the religious law predominates the legal system. Saudi Arabia, however, lacks Johnstone's criteria for an ordained clergy and a strictly hierarchical structure; however, it has theulema and theirSenior Council with the exclusive power of issuingfatwa,[27] as well asfiqh jurisprudence through thePermanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta. In theShi'a denominations, there is a professional clergy led by aGrand Ayatollah.
A slight modification of thechurch type is that ofecclesia.[28] Ecclesias include the above characteristics of churches with the exception that they are generally less successful at garnering absolute adherence among all of the members of the society and are not the sole religious body. Thestate churches of some European nations would fit this type.
Thedenomination lies between the church and the sect on the continuum. Denominations come into existence when churches lose their religious monopoly in a society. A denomination is one religion among many. When churches or sects become denominations, there are also some changes in their characteristics. Johnstone provides the following eight characteristics of denominations:
Most of the major Christian bodies formed post-reformation are denominations by this definition (e.g.,Baptists,Methodists,Lutherans,Seventh-day Adventists).[29]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Sociologically, a "sect" is defined as a newly formed religious group that formed to protest elements of its parent religion (generally adenomination). Their motivation tends to be situated in accusations ofapostasy orheresy in the parent denomination; they often decry liberal trends in denominational development and advocate a return to so-called "true" religion.
Leaders of sectarian movements (i.e., the formation of a new sect) tend to come from a lower socio-economic class than the members of the parent denomination, a component of sect development that is not yet entirely understood. Most scholars believe that when sect formation involves social class distinctions, they reflect an attempt to compensate for deficiencies in lower social status.[citation needed] An often-seen result of such factors is the incorporation into the theology of the new sect a distaste for the adornments of the wealthy (e.g., jewelry or other signs of wealth).
After their formation, sects take one of three paths: dissolution, institutionalization, or eventual development into a denomination. If the sect withers in membership, it will dissolve. If the membership increases, the sect is forced to adopt the characteristics of denominations in order to maintain order (e.g., bureaucracy, explicit doctrine, etc.). And even if the membership does not grow or grows slowly, norms will develop to govern group activities and behavior. The development of norms results in a decrease in spontaneity, which is often a primary attraction of sects. The adoption of denomination-like characteristics can either turn the sect into a full-blown denomination or, if a conscious effort is made to maintain some of the spontaneity and protest components of sects, aninstitutionalized sect can result. Institutionalized sects are midway between sects and denominations on the continuum of religious development. They have a mixture of sect-like and denomination-like characteristics; examples includeHutterites,Iglesia ni Cristo, and theAmish.
Most of the well-known denominations of the U.S. existing today originated as sects breaking away from denominations (or Churches, in the case ofLutheranism andAnglicanism), includingMethodists,Baptists, andSeventh-day Adventists.
Mennonites are an example of an institutionalized sect that did not become a denomination.
The concept of "cult" has lagged behind in refining the terms used in analyzing the other forms of religious origination. Bruce Campbell discusses Troeltsch's concept in defining cults as non-traditional religious groups that are based on belief in adivine element within theindividual.[30] He gives three types of cults:
Campbell discusses six groups in his analysis:Theosophy, Wisdom of the Soul,spiritualism,New Thought,Scientology, andTranscendental Meditation.[30]
In the late nineteenth century, a number of works appeared that helped clarify what was involved in cults.[30] Several scholars of this subject, such asJoseph Campbell (1904–1987) and Bruce Campbell, noted that cults are associated with beliefs in a divine element in the individual—either one’ssoul,self, ortrue self. Cults are inherently ephemeral and loosely organized.[30] There is a major theme in many of the recent works that show the relationship between cults and mysticism.[30] Campbell highlights two major types of cults: one mystical and the other instrumental. This analysis can divide the cults into either occult or metaphysical assemblies.
Campbell proposes that cults are non-traditional religious groups based on belief in a divine element in the individual. Other than the two main types, there is also a third type – the service-oriented cult. Campbell states that "the kinds of stable forms which evolve in the development of religious organization will bear a significant relationship to the content of the religious experience of the founder or founders."[30]
In standard sociological typology,cults are, like sects, new religious groups. But, unlike sects, they can form without breaking off from another religious group, though this is not always the case. The characteristic that most distinguishes cults from sects is that they do not advocate a return topure religion but rather promote embracing something new or something that has been completely lost or forgotten (e.g., lost scriptures or new prophecy). Cults are also much more likely to be led bycharismatic leaders than are other religious groups, and charismatic leaders tend to be the individuals who bring forth the new or lost component that is the focal element of the cult.[31][need quotation to verify]
Cults, like sects, often integrate elements of existing religious theologies, but cults tend to create moreesoteric theologies synthesized from many sources.[citation needed] According to Ronald L. Johnstone, cults tend to emphasize individual and individual peace.[32]
Cults, like sects, can develop into denominations. As cults grow, theybureaucratize and create many of the characteristics of denominations. Some scholars are hesitant to grant cults denominational status because many cults maintain their more esoteric characteristics. However, their closer semblance to denominations than to thecult type allows them to be classified as denominations. Sample denominations in the U.S. that began as cults includeChristian Science and theNation of Islam.
From the second half of the 20th century, some scholars in the socialscientific study of religion have advocated referring tocults asnew religious movements (NRMs)[33] hoping to avoid the often pejorative and derogatory connotations attached to the word "cult" in popular language.[34]
Religious scholarJohn A. Saliba notes the many attempts to draw a classification or typology of cults andsects but concludes that the divergences that exist in these groups' practices, doctrines, and goals do not lend themselves to a simple classification that has universal approval. He argues that the influx of Eastern religious systems, includingTaoism,Confucianism, andShintoism, which do not fit within the traditional distinctions between church, sect, denomination, and cult, have compounded typological difficulties.[35]: 24–25 Koehrsen shows that the difficulties of classifying religious groups according to the typology even apply to Christian congregations. Single congregations continuously move on the church-sect spectrum. They switch between "churches" and "sects", strategically adapting their religious practices to the given context.[36]
Lorne L. Dawson examines the history and future of the church-sect typology in a 2008 article, opining that the typology survives as a useful tool.[37]
The sociologistRoy Wallis (1945–1990) introduced differing definitions ofsects andcults. He argued that a cult is characterized by "epistemological individualism" by which he means that "the cult has no clear locus of final authority beyond the individual member." According to Wallis, cults are generally described as "oriented towards the problems of individuals, loosely structured, tolerant, non-exclusive", making "few demands on members", without possessing a "clear distinction between members and non-members", having "a rapid turnover of membership", and are transient collectives with vague boundaries and fluctuating belief systems. Wallis asserts that cults emerge from the "cultic milieu." Wallis contrasts a cult with asect in that he asserts that sects are characterized by "epistemological authoritarianism": sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate attribution of heresy. According to Wallis, "sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation, such ascollective salvation, and their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'."[38][39]
In 1975, the sociologistsRodney Stark andWilliam Sims Bainbridge[40] distinguish three types ofcults, classified on the basis of the levels of organizational andclient (or adherent) involvement:[40][35]: 140–141
The sociologistPaul Schnabel has argued that theChurch of Scientology originated from anaudience cult (the readership of Hubbard's bookDianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and theAstounding Science Fiction article which had preceded it) into aclient cult (Dianetics) then into a cult movement (the Church of Scientology).[41]
The sociologistRoy Wallis introduced a classification system ofnew religious movements based on movements' views on and relationships withthe world at large.[40][35]: 140–141 [42][43]
a sort of trust foundation for supernatural ends, an institution, necessarily including both the just and the unjust, whether for increasing the glory of God (Calvinistic) or as a medium for bringing the means of salvation to men (Catholic and Lutheran)...
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Cults also have a strong individualistic emphasis, stressing peace of mind and getting the individual in tune with the supernatural, while exhibiting relatively little concern with social change.
'New religious movement' (NRM) is the label generally used today [... ]. [...] In particular, it was employed to serve as a counter-measure to the pejorative associations that had become associated with the label 'cult'.
[...] church-sect typology [...] continues to be useful, in both specific and highly general ways, and because a logical and empirically preferable alternative has yet to be devised.
The Church-Sect Typology at Wikibooks