Scly3 Rel Orgs 1

Front 1

Religious organisations –Troeltsch 1912 discusses to main types of religious organisations: c- and s-

Back 1

churches and sects

Front 2

Churches are l- organisations, run by a b- h- of professional priests. They claim a m- o- t- t-

Back 2

large, bureaucratic hierarchy, monopoly on the truth

Front 3

They are u-, aiming t oinclude all, but they tend to be more attractive to the higher classes because they are ideologically c- and are often closely linked to the state

Back 3

universalistic, conservative

Front 4

HIERARCHY AND BUREAUCRACY OF PAID OFFICIALS okay

Back 4

okay

Front 5

Sect – s-, and e- groups

Back 5

small exclusive

Front 6

They are h- to wider society, and expect h- l- of commitment

Back 6

hostile, high levels

Front 7

May have a ch- l-

Back 7

charismatic leader

Front 8

Often b- a- from established world religions.

Back 8

Break away

Front 9

Worship and rituals are e- and s-

Back 9

expressive and spontaneous

Front 10

Sects are often s-l-

Back 10

short-lived

Front 11

However, some sects do survive, and these established sects become d-

Back 11

denominations

Front 12

EXAMPLES OF SECTS: amish, Mormons, hare krishnas

Back 12

okay

Front 13

NEIBUHR discusses denominations such as M-

Back 13

Methodism

Front 14

Denoms lie half-way between churches and sects. There is a p- c- however, but h- is less complex

Back 14

professional clergy, hierarchy

Front 15

Membership is l- e- than sects but they don’t appeal to the whole of society like a church

Back 15

less exclusive

Front 16

Broadly accept society’s alues, but are not linked to the state. They i- s- r- on members, but not as demanding of sects

Back 16

impose some restrictions

Front 17

Tolerant of other religious organisations and do not claim a monopoly on truth okay

Back 17

okay

Front 18

Worship less ritualistic, but still formal okay

Back 18

okay

Front 19

CULTS - Difficult to define because…

Back 19

there are so many types

Front 20

Most are open to all, led by a c- l-

Back 20

charismatic leader

Front 21

They introduce n- i-

Back 21

new ideas

Front 22

Some have no concept of membership (internet audience cults), but some demand high commitment (heaven’s gate). Okay

Back 22

okay

Front 23

Some loose organisation, some communal living – some balance cult and worldly activities, but some r- w- s-

Back 23

reject wider society

Front 24

STARK AND BAINBRIDGE argue cults are new religion, and distinguish between AUDIENCE CULTS – unorganised etc, CLIENT CULTS which are organised to provide a service like Scientology, and CULTIC MOVEMENTS like Heaven’s Gate okay

Back 24

okay

Front 25

AO2 – sects and churches claim their interpretation only legitimate, denoms and cults accept many valid interpretations. Okay

Back 25

okay

Front 26

Churches and denoms seen as respectable and legit, sects and cults seen as deviant okay

Back 26

okay

Front 27

Measuring existence and membership of orgs is problematic, no formal membership with sect, denom and cults to some extent okay

Back 27

okay

Front 28

NRMS – Wallis argues it is time for a clearer and up-to-date classification which is

Back 28

New Religious Movements

Front 29

It is better to look at religious movements as NRMS and their r-

Back 29

relationshiup with society

Front 30

World-rejecting NRMS are highly critical of outsie world, abandon the world or attempt to transform the world. – example?

Back 30

Heaven’s Gate

Front 31

WORLD-ACCOMMODATING NRMS – neither fully accept values and goals of wider society nor reject them. They exist on margins, response to increasing secularisation. ‘New Evangelical Movement’ example okay

Back 31

okay

Front 32

World-affirming accept vales and goals but aim to provide new means to achieve these, Seen as having enormous potential in all spheres of their being – phys, ment, spiritual. Advertise themselves as alt way for success – usually ivolve some financial investment and recruits often middle class – eg?

Back 32

Scientology

Front 33

AO2: Wallis offers a useful way of classifying new religious movements that have developed okay

Back 33

okay

Front 34

- ignores diversity of beliefs existing within NRMs, they are all different okay

Back 34

okay

Front 35

+ recognises that real NRMS will rarely fit neartly into his typology and some, such as the 3HO, Healthy Happy Holy Organisation, may have features of all. Okay

Back 35

okay