Church Sect Theory : A Theory Of Origins

Stark and Bainbridge (1985) are critical of typologies, arguing that there are always overlaps between categories. Instead, they ran organisations on their tension contributed into society, as they don’t see all organised groups to be a threat. They say that Sects are small religious groups, which are an offshoot of an existing religion and are in a high degree of tension with the outside world. However, a problem with Stark and Bainbridge’s definitions is that they argue that typologies do not adequately categorise religions because the boundaries are not clear-cut, but then produce their own typology, which could be criticised for the same thing. For example, it is unclear how much involvement members have to have for an organisation to be regarded as a sect.

This work investigates the implications of theories of global change for the study of religion generally and, through a series of case studies, applications of those theories to specific religious movements. In particular, Beyer is interested in the seeming contradiction of the persistence of conflict between social units within a globalizing world that is more and more becoming a "single place." The first half of his book, the introduction and four chapters, is taken up with theoretical definitions of religion as a social system and the position of that social system with regard to other systems. The second half of the book, five chapters, explores applications of Beyer’s theorizing to a wide range of world religious particularities.

In the past couple of decades the rise in non-denominational churches has been increasing greatly and are said to be the second largest group of Protestants (Moore, 2011). It is said that most that break off and become apart of this fast growing belief come from a protestant upbringing. The study shows that more people are determining on where to worship by how they like the nursery, if the worship music is good, is it close to home, rather than I am a Catholic I need to go to a Catholic Church. As of 2010, four percent of Americans fall into this non-denominational group (Thumma, 2010).

Church buildings, musical instruments, ministers’ attire, choir robes, hymns, names of converts, schools and curriculums had Americans’ religious, cultural, and economic trademark. The Christianity that addressed issues of life in the American cultural context was transplanted in different parts of the world. Unlike the transition of the Hebraic-Christianity from the Jewish culture to the Gentile world in the first century, which developed its own unique theological, cultural, and leadership identity in a short period of time, the phenomenal growth of Christianity in the majority world has been largely influenced by the dominance of American Christianity. As the result, we have Christian faith that is not well anchored on local theology. And to most of the churches in the majority world, up until recently,

This paper explores the different views of religion between three sociologist writers, Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim. It discusses a few different religions and the percent of Indiana that is religious. It will go into examples about how religion has developed over time and how Christians all have one big thing in common. Throughout the paper, it will explain how Christians are trying to share the word of God and make their community a better place.

The main idea in Eitzen and Zinn’s article is that religion is shaped by society. The social groups that shares the same norms are connected as they are taught what society portrays as the acceptable way to behave. However, religion is also the leading cause of separation in communities due to believes being imposed upon non-believers whose preferences differ from the mainstream.

Base of the different church structure mentioned, there’s no conclusive evident that one church model is better than the others, it’s a matter of prefer to the believers on which model they will follow. The scripture show no evident that any one model should be followed. Whatever model a believer chooses cannot prove by scripture that their model is mandated. The only visible scriptural goal for all the models would have a structure that is harmonious, has revelation of God’s plan and should be use according to His purpose. An ideal church structure is nearly impossible from what I can see. Unless we go back to Eden, where it all begin and change what Adam and Eve did in the garden, church structure will always be flawed. Free will has changed God’s plan for man, and there will always be people who will not transform by the renewing of their minds. The NT only speaks about Jesus’ church, also known as Ecclesia from two words. Ek means “out” and kaleo means “to call”, so the gathering of the called-out believers is the Church. The ideal church structure would be the believers who are called-out to represent Jesus’s church. Scripture does not mention the traditional church, organic church, hybrid church, or the attractional church (Gray, 2012). In my opinion the simple church would be more ideal for me. Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger confirmed through a case study on churches that the kingdom is expanding through churches with simple process and the more complex

James M. Dixon in this review article on The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion by Peter L. Berger measures Berger’s work as important furtherance to Luckmann’s work and argues that Berger in The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory has continued where he and Luckmann ended in The Social Construction of Reality. According to Dixon, Berger explicates the link between religion and knowledge and proposes basic elements for a new or perhaps restored sociology of religion. On reviewing the work by Berger, Dixon argues that The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion is not only integral to the sociology of knowledge but to the whole sociological enterprise. Dixon reviews objectives of the

The next statement about religions in America will deal with whether the United States is not only a Christian nation but, if it’s a Protestant Christian nation. The United States in history as was mentioned throughout this paper that it has had issues with non-Christian religions. These next few paragraphs will explore some of the issues between intra-Christian and whether the country is Protestant in nature.

In this essay I will be looking at the theories of Edward Burnett Tylor and Émile Durkheim, and comparing them to see which theory I think gives a better explanation about what religion is, or whether religion is actually definable. On the one hand we have Tylor’s theory that tells us that religion is belief in spiritual beings and that religion is just a step on the way to reaching full evolutionary potential. Durkheim’s theory, however, says that religion is very much a social aspect of life, and something can only be religious or “sacred” if it is something public (Durkheim 1965:52). Ultimately these theories do not give us an outright explanation about what ‘religion’ is, but there are aspects of the theory that can be used to gain an understanding or idea.

Moreover, Durkheim compares religion to society. He says that society is the cause of the unique sensations of the religious experiences, so called “sui generis” (Ritzer, 84). This concept

To understand the religion as a social control tool, it is necessary to understand the term socialization. Many sociologists have placed more focus on defining the term socialization. Ward (2011) defined the term socialization as the process through which an individual acquires the ways of a social group or a society so as he or she can fit in it. In his invitation to sociology, Koenig (2013) defined the term ‘socialization’ as the process through which acquires knowledge of how to become a member of the society. It is only through socializing that an individual is able to learn normative values, skills, beliefs, languages as well as other essential arrangements of action as well as thoughts significant for any given social life.

However, there is another side to religion, one that is quite contrary to idea of unification and acceptance. When looking through the scope of history, we can also see religion as an exclusionary tool, often used to differentiate groups of people on an innate level. As many of these idealogies attempt to assert

A religion can be seen as a unified system of beliefs and practices which are relative to sacred things and beliefs (Giddens 1972, p.224). It can shape ones thoughts and feelings and gives people a sense of hope and something to believe in. All three main sociologist writers Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim offer different perspectives on religion and how important it is to society. Some of the theorists chose to have a positive view whilst others argue the unimportance of religion. This essay attempts to discover which theorist has the most accurate perspective of religion in modern times. This is done by firstly explaining the basic ideas regarding to religion put forward by Marx, Weber and Durkheim. Then both Marx's and

Max Weber believed the religion is a deeply rooted institution that has shaped people’s image of the world, which in turn can impact their beliefs and motives. For instance, religion is used different amongst people of various class and statues. Individuals with high class and statues will use religion legitimate their circumstances and their situation in the world. On the other end of the spectrum, underprivileged individuals will lean toward religion that promise rewards for hard work and good morals (CSP). In addition, Weber believed that religion had supplied the framework that aided the development of various social institution, in particular the economy (PA).