Eileen Barker suggests that all New Religious Movements can be classified according to the religious tradition from which they originate. Barker also said that some movements are so individual they defy any classifications, such as the Kennedy Worshipers. Troeltsh gave some very basic definitions for New Religious Movements. He saw churches as a large organization, which individuals do not have to demonstrate their fair to join, Sects he saw as opposing churches, many of Willis’ typology views are similar to those of Troeltsh, including being smaller, opposing society, deeply committed members and possessing a monopoly of truth. However Troeltsh’s work does not include cults or denominations and was based on largely sixteenth century organizations.
The above examples provide categories and distinct characteristics to New Religious Movements, however they do not take into account movements such as the Healthy Happy Holy Church which combine all of Willis’ typology, members do not have to be full members and can lead a normal life mixed with religious elements and if they are a full member they may have characteristics in common with world-rejecting movements. This movement is an example of what is known as the middle ground, not defined by the above. Beckford applauded Willis for recognizing different categories for New Religious Movements, however did provide three criticisms- firstly he argues that Willis’ categories are hard to apply, secondly they do not pay attention to the diversity of views that often exist in a sect or cult and finally Beckford questions the worth of ‘World-rejecting’, he is unable to see how any group can afford to reject the world completely since they rely on contact economically for survival and to recruit new members.
Stark and Bainbridge also argue that is hard to identify characteristics of New Religious Movements and reject Willis’ typology. They say that all the typologies have characteristics that each type can fit into and there are always exceptions. Stark and Bainbridge instead argue that the criteria for comparing religious organizations should be in terms of the degree of conflict that exists between them and wider society, in other words how far they want to isolate themselves from society. They both see cults being able to be divided into three categories- audience cults which are the least organized and have little face-to-face interaction with members, contact is usually through the mass media, and example would be Astrology and the belief in UFOs. Secondly Stark and Bainbridge speak of client cults, which are well organized and offer a service to their followers, e.g. Scientology. Finally there are cult movements, which involve followers much more and try to satisfy all religious needs of the members. They can vary considerably in power and require more than just the occasional attendance, often shaping a whole person’s life, like the Moonies. However, Stark and Bainbridge have been criticised for rejecting the whole idea of typologies, yet creating their own.
It is impossible to define New Religious Movements because there is never one right answer, what is a cult, for example one minute, can be a denomination the next, there are ever changing characteristics appearing as new and potentially more shocking New Religious Movements appear. Religious organizations exist to meet the needs of an individual, which can also change. The definition of New Religious Movements varies from time to time, culture-to-culture and individual-to-individual.
