118
JOURNAL FOR
THE
SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
we distinguish among religious groups on the basis of their origins? If so, whatnames should we employ for this distinction? And what of the many "quasi-religions" such
as
astrology, Yoga, and the like? Are they religiousmovements? Howshall we identify them? These questions are not merely academic. They must besettled by anyone who wishes
to
theorize about religious movements.
In
our own work, we are immodestly attempting to construct anintegrated set ofdeductive theories of major religious phenomena.
An
important part of our effort
is
directed towards
a
theory of religious movements. We intend to present
a
series ofdeductive chains, based on common axioms, to explain the formation of religiousmovements, how such movements succeed or fail, how they recruit members, and soforth. Before we could proceed, however, we found it necessary to redefine
a
numberof key concepts so they could adequately serve our theoretical needs. We also foundthat satisfactory treatment of these conceptual matters required that we devote
a
separate paper to this task.This paper consists of
a
conceptual preface to
a
series of essays on religiousmovements.
In
it we first attempt to delimit the boundaries of the phenomenon to becalled religion. We do this in two steps. First, we review the case for what we havealready identified as the dominant definition in the field-a definition we support.But we then show that this definition of religion can be translated accurately into
a
new terminology we have developed as part of the core theory on which all of ourmore narrow theories of religious phenomena rest (Stark
&
Bainbridge,forthcoming). The purpose of this translation
is
to coordinate the definition with ourdeductive system and render its elements fully operationalizable. That is,translation makes the definition scientifically useful both by permitting the logicaldeduction of many new propositions from it and by facilitating their verificationthrough empirical research. Having thus established a definition of religion, we turnto religious movements and consider concepts available
to
designate different kindsof movements. We preface this discussion with an examination of
a
false notionabout ideal types which is widespread among social scientists and which hasfrustrated useful conceptions of churches and sects. We then draw upon theimportant work of Benton Johnson (1963) to establish
a
fruitful basis for the church-sect continuum. Next we show that the church-sect conceptualization
is
too limited toserve fully the needs of
a
theory of religious movements. Therefore, we demonstratethe utility of a third concept-the cult-and clarify its use. Along the way we defineother key terms such
as
religious movement, church movement, and religiousinstitution. In conclusion, we exhibit therelevance of these concepts for approachingthe basic questions that must be answered by any adequate theory of religiousmovements.DEFINING "RELIGION"
An
enormous amount has been written to define religion. Scrutiny of thisliterature reveals two key problems. First of all, the definition must be quite broad.
As
Sirnmel(1905) pointed out long ago we must achieve analytic power without losinggenerality, we must find:
Leave a Comment