R e l ig io u s St u d ie s :

I s s u e s , Pr o s pe c t s a n d Pr o po s a l s

Edited by

Klaus K. Klostermaier
Larry W. Hurtado

Scholars Press
Atlanta, Georgia
1991
 THE FUTURE INVESTIGATION OF NEW
RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS AND THE PROBLEM
OF THE IDENTITY OF RELIGIONSWISSENSCHAFT
Frank Usarski

Preliminary Remarks
At the end of the sixties new religious movements such as the Unification
Church, the Divine Light Mission, the Scientology Church and the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness became active in Western
Europe. Some years later an intense discussion about these groups began.
While the issue of “destructive cults” became a thrilling theme in the public
media, as well as a topic for politicians, scholars in different disciplines,
theology in particular, but also from psychology, medicine, law, and
education began to engage in this debate.
At the end of the seventies, 1 and the beginning of the eighties,2 historians
of religion in the Federal Republic of Germany realized that they had missed
the chance of participating actively in the discussion. In consequence of this,
they were confronted with a far reaching consensus about basic constituents
of the “cult”-phenomenon. Furthermore, an interdisciplinary agreement on
how to deal with those groups academically had been established.
This paper attempts to demonstrate that it is against the disciplinary
standards of Religionswissenschaft to enter into the current debate and
continue it in terms of the customary paradigm. Historians of religion
reflecting on formal and ideological aspects of the debate should find their
own, specific way to investigate new religiousness. This essay will conclude
with reflections on the basics of future research in new religious movements
in the framework of Religionswissenschaft. To prepare the ground for this
outlook the German discussion about new religious movements will be
reviewed briefly. Furthermore, the role which historians of religion played
in the context of this debate has to be considered.
444 RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Chronology, Structure and Contents of

the German Discussion
The German discussion about “cults” was initiated in articles and pamphlets
published by the Christian churches. Some of their officials, who were
esteemed as “experts for non-Christian world-views” and who were charged
with the observation of non-Christian religious phenomena, painted a scary
picture of these groups. 3 The Christian interest in the new movements was
twofold. On tire one hand, theologians felt challenged by difficulties faced by
parents whose children were engaged in “cults.” On the other hand, they
thought it necessary to react against potential competitors and to defend the
traditional privileges of the Christian churches. In order to minimize the
insinuated destructive influence of new religious movements as well as the
competitors’ status in society the officials of Christian churches tried to
assign an inferior status to these groups.
The initiation and support of an “anti-cult-movement” by theologians
corresponded to this twofold interest. 4 While, seen from outside, the “anti­
cult-movement” appeared to be purely an association of parents whose
children had been “damaged” by new religious groups, Christian experts used
this social platform to strengthen their influence on the press, on politicians,
and on all kinds of scholars. This way, the declared goal, namely, to put an
end to the activities of these groups, was partially realized. Even though
there was a lack of empirical proof of the destructive character of the
“cults,” the actions of the “anti-cult-movement” turned out to be successful. 5
Parental reports about brainwashed and exploited children sold well in the
press and drove the authorities to join in the debate. In addition, scholars
started discussing the “cult’’-phenomenon.
Thus, three different sociological contexts of the discussion about “cults”
had developed: Firstly, a public dimension as represented by press releases,
articles in magazines, and radio or television broadcasts; secondly, a political
dimension as represented by governmental statements on “cults,” such as
announcements by the European Parliament, 6 the German Federal
Government7 and local governments of Rheinland-Pfalz, 8 Nordrhein-
Westfalen , 9 Berlin , 10 Bayern , 11 Nieder-sachse,1' Hessen,1- or
Hamburg; and thirdly, an academic dimension as represented by different
kinds of scholarly publications and conferences. 15
 USARSKI 445

However, as far as its contents were concerned, the discussion as a whole

was very homogeneous. The initial statements by officials of the Christian
churches had been limited to eight “cults” at most. 16 At the same time they
had established an extremely negative picture of these groups, while
associating the organizations with pseudo-religiousness, totalitarianism,
kidnapping, exploitation, brainwashing, and mental illness. Later publications
perpetuated this pejorative image. Moreover, they kept on concentrating on
a small number of organizations, thus neglecting the actual variety of new
religious movements.

The Role of Historians of Religion

Historians of religion, who had not taken part in the initial phases of the
discussion, found it difficult to enter into the current debate without
abandoning their own research standards. 17 To understand this situation,
it is necessary to discuss the nature of scholarship in Religious Studies.
Generalizing the ideas expressed by Kuhn in his influential work on the
concept of “paradigm ” 18 one can conceive of a scholar as representative of
certain epistemological principles and research standards, which are
constitutive for his or her academic community. 19 Although certain rules
and ideals are taken for granted within a given academic group, these axioms
may be challenged by members of other scientific communities, and have to
be defended in the context of an interdisciplinary dialogue.
An academic also stands for a distinct profession which depends on the
acknowledgement, respect, and financial support of society. As contributions
of academic institutions to the function of a larger system are perceived by
people differently, there will always be at least a tacit hierarchy of
appreciation for professions in a society. For this reason, there may be social
pressures on one or the other discipline to justify its own position.
Finally, as an individual member of society, an academic is characterized
by specific propensities, a specific political conviction, a specific creed, and
a preference for specific ethical values. According to A. Schütz, who
differentiates between a “natural attitude” on the one hand and a
“theoretical attitude” on the other hand, it is possible that pragmatic
concerns of an academic in his or her private sphere will lead him or her to
a different view of “reality” compared with his or her theoretical perception
of the world as a professional.20
446 RELIGIOUS STUDIES

G. Winter points out that wherever research takes place there is a distinct
sociological context which entails definitions of what is worthwhile to be
investigated by a scientific community. At the same time, these definitions
prescribe how selected empirical aspects of research have to be treated in
accordance with obligatory research standards. G. Winter assumes that what
is relevant for research is not generated in accordance with the specific
position of a scholar in the day-to-day-world. Rather, it depends on the stage
of development of the discipline and the problems which have to be solved
in order to guarantee its further development. 21
A. W. Gouldner draws our attention to research stimuli in the form of
inconsistencies appearing in the private life of a researcher. He obviously
prefers a standpoint opposite to G. Winter’s perspective. To A. W.
Gouldner, it appears probable that, if a researcher examines a problem which
is important in his or her personal everyday-life, he would feel challenged to
deepen his pertinent theoretical understanding. 22
B. Vetter distinguishes between “individual problems” and “scientific
problems.” If the individual awareness of a problem is an expression of a
person’s incompetence to utilize resources of “problem-solving-potentiality,”
which are already available within the social community, this cognitive
dissonance cannot be qualified as a scientific problem. Rather, the latter has
to be described as a lack in the stock of knowledge which is at a society’s
disposal and which can be paraphrased as an ever-evolving collection of
strategies to master individual and social life. Therefore, a research problem
is represented by the overall necessity to add an innovative element to the
collective accumulation of “practical formulas.” An element not previously
available and which is capable of enhancing the quality of life of the
community. Hence, the function of research is to expand the stock of
knowledge wherever there is the social need to find a solution to a problem
which is relevant for the society at large. 23 Without supporting B. Vetter’s
position in all its theoretical consequences and ideological implications, we
can think of cases where political institutions delegate the solution of social
problems to appropriate academic disciplines.
There is yet another way in which representatives of a scholarly
community can be inspired to concentrate on a specific topic. Sometimes
scientific problems situated previously in the domain of only one discipline
become popular in the larger academic world. Interdisciplinary conferences
 USARSKI 447

and research-programs such as those proposed by M. Büttner," 4 for

instance, are good opportunities for this kind of interchange.
In summary, as a social individual, a researcher participates in different
spheres of society. In correspondence to specific interests in social life, and
in accordance to the roles he or she has to play, he or she may be influenced
by events occurring in his or her private sphere, the political sphere and in
the context of interdisciplinary dialogue. It may thus happen that press
releases about a certain incident which is personally relevant to the
researcher may prompt him or her to a specific reaction. Also, we can think
of cases where he or she feels challenged as a professional because politicians
call upon academics to help solve a social problem. Finally, it is conceivable
that his or her contacts with researchers from other disciplines extend the
scope of research. Hence, setting aside G. Winter’s position for a moment,
the ideas represented by A. W. Goulder, B. Vetter and M. Büttner together
illuminate aspects of scholarly research.
Implications for the German Debate about
New Religious Movements
What are the implications of the considerations outlined above for the debate
about new religious movements? Let me first demonstrate that the public
dimension of the debate does, in fact, influence research in an
epistemological sense. E. Barker, for instance, investigated the motivations
of individuals who became members of the Unification Church. Before
presenting the results of her studies she remarks:
The problem was outlined quite sharply, because it seemed to be evident for anyone
from outside that it is impossible for a person in his or her right mind to join the
Unification Church. I found that attitude as my own, because I couldn’t see any reason
for joining [...] an authoritarian sect, committed to a strange creed, whose members were
obviously exploited by a gentleman from Korea, who gave nothing, but took
everything2’
A second example is provided by a quotation from an examination paper of
two students at the University of Cologne, who also investigated the
Unification Church. One of the candidates writes:
Before I visited the Unification Church for the first time, I entertained the customary
image of “cults,” which-I guess-most German people share. I had received my
information exclusively from [...] the press... So, I first approached this work with the
feeling that it would be a risky venture, and I tried to protect myself against potential
threats [...] I was afraid [...] to be manipulated in such a skilled and shrewd way that I
448 RELIGIOUS STUDIES
wouldn’t even realize it. I expected a so-called “brainwashing,” with psycho-terror,
massive indoctrination, an authoritarian leader, permanent control, a rigid schedule, and
a self-contained, rigid group consisting of uniformed clones.26
A statement made by G. Künzlen, on the state of the German Protestant
Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen, at Stuttgart, leads us
to another matter. Troubled by the dramatic increase in the belief in
reincarnation, G. Künzlen called for research to demonstrate that the belief
in reincarnation is not a religious one in the strict sense, but a by-product of
modern industrial societies. For this reason, G. Künzlen concluded that
Religionswissenschaft was not the right discipline to provide adequate
understanding of this phenomenon. 27 K. E. Nipkow, also a theologian,
supported G. Kimzlen’s opinion. Calling into question the competence of
Religionswissenschaft for a proper investigation of new religiousness, he
emphasizes that researchers on these movements in the framework of this
discipline “are stuck in mere description and standardization [...]. The more
far-reaching questions are normative questions, demanding an ethical and
socio-philosophical discussion. ” 28
Even a glance at existing official reports on new religious movements in
Germany proves that G. Kiinzlen’s and K. E. Nipkow’s opinions are in tune
with the official position. Corresponding with the trend to consider “cults”
as “pseudo-religious” organizations, the idea to charge historians of religion
with an investigation of these groups appears to be irrelevant. Being aware
of this official disdain of Religionswissenschaft, historians of religion could
be misled to improve the social status of their profession in an improper way
by concentrating their research activities at any price on topics which seem
to be important in terms of socio-politics. Remembering a claim from P.
Antes, we can start from the principle that there is a peril to relinquishing
basic epistemological ideals of Religionswissenschaft, while trying to satisfy
expectations of the public. Antes, chairman of the German branch of the
IAHR, refers to a statement by Hummel, a theologian connected with the
Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen, For historians of
religion, Hummel says, “the question is important how religious authority is
discriminated from its abuse, how legitimate practices of change in
consciousness [...], Yoga, Zen [...], etc. can be discriminated from its abuse
by authoritarian guidance and a group’s pressure.” Antes regards such a
challenge as relevant, and states, “How can religions be differentiated from
 USARSKI 449

criminal associations or from groups directed towards economical profit,

using the label ‘religion’?”29
Finally, it is possible to show that the interdisciplinary character of the
debate influenced research too. A pamphlet authored by F. W. Haack
published in 1974 introduced the derogatory term Jugendreligionen0
(Youth-Religions) as an equivalent to the English word “cults,” or even
“destructive cults.” In a short period of time this became a standard
expression in all dimensions of the discussion. Although various scholars
criticized this designation, everyone engaged in the debate was expected to
refer to this technical term. Thus different writers justified their usage of the
expression Jugendreligionen by emphasizing that the word had already
become part of the public vocabulary. R. Flasche, a historian of religion,
operates with the disputed term, asserting that the designation is commonly
adopted.11

Future Research in Religionswissenschaft

Having sketched out the conditions historians of religion were exposed to m
the context of the debate in Germany about “cults,” the time has now come
to give some suggestions for future research. In an essay published in 1985,
H. J. Greschat implicitly confirmed G. Winter’s idea with which I have not
dealt so far. He writes, “Historians of religion always wanted to determine
their specific tasks on their own. They wanted to ask questions in tune with
the goals of their subject, questions nobody else in any other discipline
asks.”32 With this statement Greschat points to the standards considered
valid in his discipline. An investigation carried out in the framework of
Religionswissenschaft is characterized by a non-normative attitude of the
researcher. Because he or she does not subscribe to any particular
philosophical concept of religious truth, the researcher aims at a mere
description of religious phenomena, not at an ethical evaluation. The
researcher tries to avoid making assertions which can be misunderstood
either as a rejection of a belief-system or as its apology. The more one is able
to understand the point of view of religious believers, the better one can do
one’s professional work.
Subscribing to these standards, historians of religion should not become
involved in the type of controversy which took place within the context of
the German debate about “cults.” They should refrain from judging those
450 RELIGIOUS STUDIES

groups as “ephemeral, silly, and bad imitations o f ‘real’ religions. ” 33 Rather,

researchers working in the framework of Religionswissenschafthave to make
sure that they do not support anti-cult arguments. They have to take into
consideration the influences of different social spheres with which they are
associated. Hence, historians of religion should realize the discrepancy
between public prejudices against “cults” on the one hand, and on the other
hand, the scarcity of empirically valid studies proving the alleged dangerous
or destructive character of new religious movements. Furthermore, they
should not be tempted to take up questions which may be of great practical
interest for social institutions, but are not pertinent to their discipline. And
they should not use derogatory terms, while describing phenomena in the
field of new religiousness. D. Stone’s advice should be heeded:
Knowledge about the new religious groups is situational. It is produced by the
interaction of the researcher with the focus and object of study. It is always an
interpretation, influenced by the personal preferences, attitudes, and states of
consciousness that the researcher (and reader) brings to the study. There are no
immaculate perceptions. While bias is epistemologically inevitable, its influence on the
interpretation can be gauged when it is made explicit. The greater the consciousness of
possible bias, the greater the certainty about the foundation on which our knowledge
of these new religious movements rests.34
As a first step, information about “cults” spread by officials of the
Christian Churches should be confronted with material published by the new
religious movements. For the same reason, conditions for field-research
should be created by establishing intense contact with functionaries and
members of the groups. As different examples show, face-to-face interaction
between researchers on the one hand, and people identifying with new
religious movements on the other hand, can lead to a more realistic view of
the movements. H. Rohr and some of his students, for instance, came into
contact with some new religious movements in Frankfurt and practised
“forms of an open dialogue” and an “encounter between human beings and
human beings.” Visiting different new religious movements they could not
substantiate any of the rumours about the groups. 35
Research on new religious movements which depends on primary
literature and direct observation in the field will inevitably induce a more
differentiated view of developments in this area. Hence, a monolithic view
will be relinquished, and a detailed investigation of groups in their
uniqueness will be possible. At the same time, the so far neglected content
 USARSKI 451

of the teachings of new religious movements will be taken into consideration

more thoroughly.
Correspondingly, there is a need to develop a terminology which fits the
dynamics and varieties in the field. As far as a system of designations is
concerned, one is able to symbolize the dynamics of new religiousness,
proposals made by such scholars as C. Campbell, 36 by R. Stark and W. S.
Bainbridge,3' or by J. Richardson, 38 should be taken up and elaborated.
B. Hargrove’s distinction between “integrative” movements on the one hand,
and “transformative” groups an the other hand , 39 represents one possibility
among others40 to deal with varieties within the sphere of new religiousness.
As the contributions just cited indicate, research on new religious groups
is much more advanced in the Anglo-American world than in other
countries. Especially in Western Germany, however, efforts have to be made
to develop a less biased style of investigation. In the context of this
endeavour, historians of religion should remember the central concern of
their discipline. The full implementation of good research standards is
essential for the study of religion, and would both reflect the traditional
principles of the wider academic community and also have a distinctly
positive influence on society. It would enhance a more tolerant relationship
between citizens of more conventional religiosity and members of new
religious movments. Thereby, historians of religion could minimize public
prejudices against religious minorities, merely by being authentic in terms of
their academic duties.

Notes
1. Cf. H. Röhr, “Götter zum Anfassen. Die sogenannten ‘Jugendreligionen’ in der Sicht der
vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft,” Inform ationen zum R eligionsunterricht 11(1979), 41-
44.

2. Cf. G. Kehrer, “Soziale Bedingungen für nicht-kirchliche religiöse Gruppen in der

Bundesrepublik,” in Z u r Religionsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ed. G.
Kehrer; (München; Kösel, 1980), 93-116.

3. C f F.W. Haack, D ie neuen Jugendreligionen (München: Evangelischer Presseverband für

Bayern, 1974); L. Groppe, “Kinder auf Muns Abwegen. Die Vereinigungskirche lockt mit
dem ‘Glück’ der Abhängigkeit,” in Sonderbeilage des Inform ationsdienstes des B undes der
 452 RELIGIOUS STUDIES
K atholischen Jugend vom 15. M ärz 1976, ed. Bundesvorstand des BDKJ; (Düsseldorf:
BDKJ-Informationsdienst, 1976); R. Hauth, “Verführer mit frommen Namen, oder: falsche
Propheten auf dem Vormarsch,” in Religionsunterricht an höheren Schulen 19/5(1976), 216-
20; H. Löffelmann, “Rattenfänger mit frommen Namen. Jugendgefahrdung durch ‘Jugend­
religionen,’” in Lebendige Zelle 6(1975), 223-230.

4. Cf. F. Usarski, D ie Stigm atisierung N euer Spiritueller Bewegungen in der Bundesrepublik

D eutschland (Köln/Wien: Böhlau, 1988) 85-89, 185-190.

5. Cf. H. Berger, P. Hexel, Ursachen und Wirkungen gesellschaftlicher Verweigerungjunger

M enschen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der “Jugendreligionen. "Eine Grundlagenstudie
aus der Sicht der betroffenen jugendlichen Mitglieder, deren Eltern und Freunde sowie
ehemaliger Mitglieder. Untersucht bei Ananda Marga, Divine Light Mission, Scientology,
Vereinigungskirche (Wien: Europäisches Zentrum für Soziale Wohlfahrt, 1981).

6. Cf. R. Cottrell, “Bericht im Namen des Ausschusses für Jugend, Kultur, Bildung,
Information und Sport über die Tätigkeit gewisser neuer religiöser Bewegungen innerhalb
der Europäischen Gemeinschaft,” Sitzungsdokum ente des Europäischen Parlaments, 1-47/84.

7. Cf. Bundesminister für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit, Jugendreligionen in der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bericht der Bundesregierung an den Petitionsausschuß des
deutschen Bundestages (Bonn, 1980).

8. Cf. Ministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit und Sport, Rheinland-Pfalz, Jugendliche in

destruktiven religiösen Gruppen. Bericht der Landesregierung R heinland-Pfalz über die
sogenannten Jugendreligionen (Mainz, n.d.).

9. Cf. Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen,
Sogenannte Jugendsekten in Nordrhein-W estfalen (Düsseldorf, 1979); Ministerium für
Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Jugendreligionen. 2.
Sachstandsbericht der Landesregierung (Düsseldorf, 1983).

10. Senator für Schulwesen, Jugend und Sport, Bericht über die Tätigkeit von sogenannten
Jugendsekten und pseudotherapeutischen Gruppen in Berlin (Berlin, 1983).

11. Cf. Bayrischer Landtag, 10. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 10/6851.

12. Cf. Rundblick, 2.6.1986, 2.

13. Cf. Hessischer Landtag, 11. Wahlperiode, D rucksache 77/1306.

14. Cf. Bürgerschaft der freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, 11. Wahlperiode, Drucksache
77/1548.

15. Cf. M. Müller-Küppers, F. Specht, eds., “Neue Jugendreligionen,” in Vorträge und

Berichte einer Fachtagung über Probleme im Zusam m enhang m it den sogenannten
Jugendreligionen am 23. und 24. Februar 1978in der M edizinischen H ochschule H annover
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); K.G. Karbe, M. Müller-Küppers, eds.,
 USARSKI 453
D estruktive K ulte: gesellschaftliche und gesundheitliche Folgen totalitärer pseudoreligiöser
Bewegungen, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983); S. Messner, W.K. Pfeifer, M.
Weber, eds., “Beratung im Umfeld von Jugendreligionen,” in Vorträge und Berichte einer
Fachtagung vom 3. bis 6. N ovem ber 1983in Lohmar, Göttingen; (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1984).

16. The debate concentrated on the Unification Church, the Children of God, the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the Divine Light Mission, the Scientology
Church, the Transcendental Meditation Movement, the Bhagwan Movement, and Ananda
Marga.

17. Cf. P. Antes, “Der Hinduismus und hinduistische Jugendreligionen in Deutschland,” in

Jugendreligionen (Vortragsreihe 1979/80), ed., B. Mensen; (Siegburg: Franz Schmitt, 1980),
23-41; U. Tworuschka, “Die Vereinigungskirche im Religionsunterricht,” in D as Entstehen
einer neuen Religion. D as Beispiel der Vereinigungskirche, ed. G. Kehrer; (München: Kösel,
1981), 197-218.

18. Cf. Th.S. Kuhn, D ie S tru ktu r wissenschaftlicher R evolutionen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
1976).

19. Cf. P. Weingart, W issensproduktion und soziale S truktur (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1976),
34-40.

20. Cf. A. Schütz, D er sinnhafte A ufbau der sozialen Welt. E ine E inleitung in die
verstehende Soziologie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1975), 315.

21. Cf. G. Winter, Grundlegung einer E th ik der Gesellschaft (M ünchen. Kaiser, 1970), 86-97.

22. Cf. A.W. Gouldner, D ie westliche Soziologie in der K rise I I (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1974),
565-568.

23. Cf. B. Vetter, “Das Forschungsproblem,“ in D er sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungs­

prozeß, W. Friedrich & W. Hennig, eds.; (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften,
1975), 151-169.

24. Cf. M. Büttner, ed., Abhandlungen zu r Geschichte der Gewissenschaften und R eligion/
U m welt-Forschung Bd. 2 (Bochum: Studienverlag Brockmeyer, 1989).

25. E. Barker, “Der professionelle Fremde: Erklärung des Unerklärlichen beim Studium einer
abweichenden religiösen Gruppe;” in D as Entstehen einer neuen Religion. D as B eispiel der
Vereinigungskirche, ed. G. Kehrer; (München: Kösel, 1981), 13-40, here 14-15.

26. M. Scheel and P. Röllgen, ‘“Jugendsekten’-Eine A ntw ort a u f der Suche nach Identität?-
D as B ild einer S e k te ’ in der Ö ffentlichkeit und eigene Erfahrungen in der Vereinigungs­
kirch e” (Köln: Schriftliche A bschlußarbeit fü r die Prüfung zum D iplom-Sozialpädagogen.
Fachhochschule Köln: FB Sonderpädagogik, 1984), 151.
 454 RELIGIOUS STUDIES
27. Cf. G. Künzlen, “Die westliche Orientierangskrise und das Angebot der ‘Jugend­
r e li g io n e n ,in F.W. Haack, D ie neuen Jugendreligionen, Teil III, Bericht und Analysen
(München: Evangelischer Presseverband für Bayern, Abt. Schriftenmission, 1985), 7-14, here
12-13.

28. K.E. Nipkow, “Neue Religiosität,” in Zeitschrift fü r Pädagogik 27/3(1981), 379-402.

29. P. Antes, “Systematische Religionswissenschaft-Eine Neuorientierung,” in Z eitschrift fü r

M issionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 70/2,3(1986), 214-221, here 219.

30. Cf. F.W. Haack, D ie neuen Jugendreligionen (München: Evangelischer Presseverband

für Bayern, Abt. Schriftenmission, 1974).

31. Cf. R. Flasche, “Neuer Wein in alten Schläuchen-zur religiösen Symbolik in neuen
Religionen,” in Sym bolen. Jahrbuch fü r Sym bolforschung, ed., P. Gerlitz; Vol. 7; (Köln:
Wienand, 1985), 91-105, here 103, note 6.

32. H.J. Greschat, “Religionswissenschaft heute: Kontraste und Alternativen,” in D er

Evangelische Erzieher 35/6(1985), 511-524, here 520.

33. R. Stark, W.S. Bainbridge, D.P. Doyle, “Cults of America: A Reconnaissance in Space
and Time,” Sociological A nalysis 40/4(1979), 347-359, here 359.

34. D. Stone, “On Knowing how We Know about the New Religions,” in Understanding
the N ew Religions, ed., J. Needleman and G. Baker; (New York: Seabury, 1978), 141-152,
here 141.

35. Cf. H. Röhr, “Götter zum An fassen. Die sogenannten ‘Jugendreligionen’ in der Sicht der
vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft,” in Inform ationen zum R eligionsunterricht 11(1979),
41-44, here 41.

36. Cf. C. Campbell, “The Cult, the Cultic Milieu, and Secularization,” in A Sociological
Yearbook o f Religion in Britain Vol. V, ed. M. Hill; (London: SCM Press, 1972), 119-136.

37. Cf. R. Stark, W.S. Bainbridge, “Of Churches, Sects and Cults: Preliminary Concepts for
a Theory of Religious Movements,” Journal fo r the Scientific S tu d y o f Religion 18/2(1979),
117-131.

38. Cf. J. Richardson, “From Cult to Sect: Creative Eclecticism in New Religious Move­
ments,” in Pacific Sociological R eview 22/2(1979), 139-166.

39. Cf. B. Hargrove, “Integrative and Transformative Religion,” in U nderstanding the N ew

Religions, ed. J. Needleman and G. Baker; (New York: Seabury, 1978), 257-266, here 257.

40. Another possibility is the discrimination between a “progressive” and an “regressive”

wing within the counterculture. Cf. R. Schwendter, Theorie der Subkultur (Frankfurt:
Syndikat, 1978).