Scholars from the social science discipline have focused on the study of religion. Their interests are geared towards understanding the various aspects related to religion. There exist certain social theories to explain this variant form of organizations, movements, beliefs, and religious ideologies.
The sociology of religion seeks to find the concept that underlies the complexities that come with religious organizations, as well as movements such as churches, cult, or even sects. However, the challenge with the sociology of religion is that, in this field, it is seldom to distinguish or separate whether the researcher’s thinking is purely sociological or religious (Hood et al, 89).
Theologians will be taught or trained in a manner that makes them biased when testing the question of sociology of religion. Furthermore, the methods they are likely to use will most likely be uninterested in sociology as a science. However, theologians are not at all insignificant in sociology.
Theologians have also had a positive impact on the advancement of sociology. In most cases, theologians introduce aspects that propagate confusion in this study. However, the study of religion has enjoyed contributions from many other disciplines which have enhanced the growth of the topic by developing themes, points of view, and certain problems that face the sociology of religion. This has enhanced the position of the sociology of religion in many social sciences and especially in sociology.
Sociological ideas may be defined through the identification of a social occurrence although the meanings deducted will vary depending on the researcher. To examine the sociological ideas behind churches and sects, show how the interpretation of these institutions will change over time, and show how their analysis and comprehension by sociologists will vary over time. One may use a three-part analysis.
In the analysis, I will begin with the church-sect typologies. Here, I will elaborate on the earlier opinions regarding the aforementioned section. Secondly, the analysis will focus on the transition period. This section will focus on the various groupings of the sect typologies. The focus will also be on the cults and other aspects related to religion. The third part covers the modern day era and seeks to show how the debate on cults and sects in the transition period enhanced the growth the debate on the same (Christiano 453).
The church-sect debate has a long history especially as far as church historians are concerned. However, the debate took a sociological perspective much later and was pioneered by Max Weber. According to Weber’s arguments, the nature of the church is closely associated with the political realm.
Weber’s argument on the definition of a sect is that a sect is voluntary, does not force or coerce to gain fellowship, and is not at all interested in the control of its followers to do things in a certain way. Furthermore, he argues that, in a church setting, the charisma is often seen to be possessed by the church. The religious leader possesses the charisma in the case of a sect. This is the argument that Weber presents and there are no additional explanation on this. However, his explanation and theory limit itself to church organizations.
Weber pioneered these analyses that shall be explained in detail. Troeltsch built on the basic explanations by Weber. He argued that the church is conservative and often time controls and dominates the masses and that this is what makes the church a universal authority. On the sect, he argues that the sect is a small entity whose aim is to gain direct and personal communion between members and further seek to counter the apparent domination of the world by the church.
Essentially, he argued that the church is more likely to be in good relations with the rulers and the state while sects tend to appeal and draw their fellowship from the lower members of the society who are disenfranchised. Guastafson criticized these two church-sect models. He argued that the typology of the church sect is ineffective and redundant. In addition, the two typologies can be used in a clear manner, in a context of Christianity, and the original point of reference.
He argued that the topologies can not be used to analyze any other religious organization save for Christianity. This perhaps explains the fact that these theories are rarely used in today’s world where there are many cults, as well as NRMs. Modern day sociologists are concerned with the historical aspects of the religious movements.
On the other hand, Troeltsch’s examination of the Christian movements was from earlier times and those of the times that he lived. H.R. Niebuhr later introduced the concept of church-sect divergence among scholars in America.
His study was aimed at explaining the difference between the church and the sect. This was done in such a manner that it made sense in the American denominationalism and aspired to make this difference clear even in the context of theology. His findings were that theology is much intertwined with the economics and the politics of the society that even its own formulation is much based on these factors.
This study was distinct in that it classified church-sect as poles of a continuum which had previously been seen as separate and independent groups. Thus, this study’s categorization of religion is that, unlike the church, it is not limited to any class. The definition of a cult by Howard Becker has largely been used by other sociologists. He defined a cult as a pseudo group representing an individual search for elated experience such as personal healing.
The transition period is the period when different kinds of sects and cult movements begun to emerge. This can largely be attributed to the spiritual, cultural, and spiritual crises that arose as a result of the World Wars. Sociologists then had to devise new methods of deciphering and analyzing religious movements.
Earlier models and theories were increasingly becoming redundant in the analyses of the new cults and sects. Wilson was one of the earlier sociologists to study the new sects. He argued that, since the sociology of religion is all about moving forward, there is the need to form groups that permit sociologists to the social roles that religious movements perform. Thus, his model involved the categorization of sects as either conversions, Adventists, revolutionist, or introversionist (Wilson 361).
Notably, there is no clear difference between the mentioned eras and evaluations given in the discussion on religious movements. The studies that have been done since then are still applicable. However, the debate is no longer on the divergence of the church and the sect. The question today is on the typologies of the sect, cult, and NRMs. Sociologists who have pioneered in this area include Robbins and Anthony whose primary focus has been on the ideologies from a morality perspective of NRMs.
Works Cited
Christiano, Kevin J, Peter Kivisto, and William H. Swatos. Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments. Walnut Creek [u.a.: AltaMira, 2002. Print.
Hood, Ralph W, Peter C. Hill, and Bernard Spilka. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. New York: Guilford Press, 2009. Print.
Wilson, Bryan R. A Typology of Sects. Oxford: All souls college, 1969. Print.