Evaluate the usefulness of the distinction between church and sect in explanation of the changing nature of religious beliefs and participation in modern society.

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

The proven decline of religion in modern society shows us that there has been a change in the nature of religious beliefs and religious participation. Religious pluralism is far more common nowadays yet simultaneously secularisation and the number of atheists are largely increasing. The concept of religious pluralism however does not support the idea of religious decline, but merely the changes and divisions that have come about within religious forms since people are far more liberal with their beliefs. Many researchers see the activity of a religious institution as the key element of religious behaviour. More specifically the significance of religion in modern society can be measured by church attendance. The statistics shown below indicate the way religion is declining.

August Comte, a French functionalist, said that the decline in participation correlates with the transition from stage two to three of ‘human history.’ This stage is characterised by its new set of intellectual beliefs by which science alone dominates human thinking and direct human behaviour. He feels that society has moved through from the theological stage, to the metaphysical stage and that now we are moving more and more from that which is philosophical to that which is scientific – the ‘positive’ stage. As a result of this, participation is subsequently decreasing and so causes religious behaviour to decline also.

Alongside this, theocracies have seized to exist, and the country is not governed by a single religious state, thus there is more freedom to exercise and participate in different religious acts and ideals. This would suggest therefore that the change in the country’s governing body and the breakdown of institutional religion better explicates the changing nature of religion in modern society. The divisions and distinctions pose merely as sub-effects, rather than causes.

Secularisation and the increase of atheism, unlike religious pluralism, is more subjective with regards to the decline of religion. The period of enlightenment, similar to that of stage ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Secularisation and the increase of atheism, unlike religious pluralism, is more subjective with regards to the decline of religion. The period of enlightenment, similar to that of stage three of Comte’s theory, and the development of science has posed more logical and rational sets of ‘beliefs,’ and displaces Christian ones that were previously more universal in society. If therefore we are recognising the actual decline of religion as the key change then the distinction, in this case between church and sect, fails in efficacy. It in fact holds little relevance to decline which is the fundamental change taking place.

In order to further assess the utility of this distinction we must first recognise the basis of it as both theoretical and methodological. Attention should be drawn to not only the sources that have been used to compose the theory behind this distinction, but also the methods by which they can be applied to a purpose or objective.

The division between church and sect was composed by sociologist Ernst Troeltsch, in 1931, and is based on historic and contemporary sources regarding a range of different religious institutions. One assumes therefore that the norms he encountered engendered a systematic approach to divorcing certain religion types from others depending on their fundamental characteristics. One issue though that emerges here is whether this distinction holds validity if it reveals correlation rather that attribute. Steve Bruce argued that the process of division in itself contributes to the decline in religion, which in the instance is most specifically Christianity since, in our modern society, the majority is supposedly Christian. He argues that religious pluralism demoralises the continuance of the church: ‘When a population becomes divided between a number of organisations, that fragmentation undermines the conditions for the church form.’ In this way therefore he comments on how these basic divisions negate possibilities of perpetuating religion, in this case Christianity.

This, however, still fails to offer explanation for the changing nature of religious beliefs and practices. The process of distinguishing and clarifying differences does not explicate the reasons for any changes, but may merely encourage awareness to division. The point here therefore is that elucidating differences between religious forms is far too positivistic to understand why there are these differences. The general criteria that this distinction indicates could be used to communicate which is the preferred institution, but this would only be clear if we had statistics that showed us which values are more commonly held. One could extract from this that the institution with the majority has the most desirable characteristics. The process of distinction would then indicate how certain qualities have become more appealing in modern society. For example, with greater social freedom in modern society the church has more stigma attatched due to tradition and legalism. One point Troeltsch mentioned for example was that sects are egalitarian while churches are hierarchal. One would assume then, that if we know that the church is in decline, that egalitarianism has become desirable.

Again however, the distinction itself is useless in determining this unless we have statistics to indicate such things. And even though this would determine far more about which practices and beliefs are preferred, it would give little indication as to why it has come to be like this. This positivistic approach therefore fails to discover what we are looking for; phenomenological reason; vestehen. Most would agree that religion, as a system of beliefs, is far too personal to pigeon hole and rationalise. The question requires qualitative data but the process of distinction only offers quantitative data. We can not therefore utilise this information for the purpose we have.