Throughout the first few weeks of class, we have learned that in the modern American world, the way people practice religion has shifted, and unofficial religion has grown to be much more significant.  In American Religion, Chaves argues that official religion has “softened”.  This is caused by many factors, and is associated with prominent contemporary trends.

Particularly within the Protestant church, these contemporary trends have been clear and trackable. There are 300,000 congregations across the country, which is and has been the most significant form of practicing religion. Within these congregations, the median size has been the same within the last 20 years, however, recently, more and more people have began to inhabit much larger sized congregations. In addition, within the span of just a few years, Protestant congregations independent of a particular denomination have increased by five percent. Technology has become a vastly significant aspect of most Protestant congregations, from broadcasting services to communicating with attendees. Most services have become significantly more informal, and people in the pews have grown older, with higher income and more education.

These trends have grown and intensified as official religion involvement has decreased. These six trends directly alter the way American religion looks, and are likely a consequence of both politics and the opening of the modern mind. As certain Christian leaders have been involved in scandals, churches have taken stands on controversial political issues, and women’s rights have increased in society, there have been some clashes in the values of more traditional congregations and some American people. Thus, modern trends emerge and official involvement has softened.

This week’s readings and discussions centered around the idea of official and non-official religions. As discussed in class and McGuire, an official religion is focused on four main characteristics: specific leaders, specific location, specific doctrine, in a specific way. While unofficial religion consists of: whoever, wherever, whatever, however. This topic sparked some discussion within the class. Jim posed the question “what have we encountered on a daily basis that can be considered official religious practices in an unofficial way?” The answers varied from home alters to shrines. This made me think about my own encounters with religion.

This passed summer I spent ten weeks in Romania. Romania’s country religion is Eastern Orthodoxy. There was more religious “things” around the streets and homes than I have witnessed before. The people themselves were aware of the influence of the Orthodox Church on their own lives and were not afraid to display this. At many crossroads there was a large wooden cross with an icon of Jesus. They were usually over seven feet tall and could not be missed, but it was odd to me because many of them were in the middle of the country side with no homes or villages around.

I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around these classifications such as “official” and “non official.” In chapter 4 and 5 the term “cult” came up. There are some practices and forms of expression that are considered “cultish,” but like official and nonofficial, it is just another classification we give.

This week we learned about the differences between official and non-official religion.  In addition to learning about mysticism and cults.  The cultic stance vs the churchly stance have some main differences.  Society views cults with relative negative tension, much more so than other groups such as churches or larger denominations.  Cults do not claim to have the truth and are tolerant of other groups and other beliefs.  Often the larger society will hold dissent to cultic groups, vice versa, cultic groups can hold disdain for the cultural shallowness and distractions that the greater society provides which takes away from members achieving higher spirituality.

The churchly stance on the other hand is widely recognized by society and in fact, some countries still do not have a separation between church and state.  Also, unlike cultic groups, they do not recognize the legitimacy of any other religious groups. In relation to society, a churchly stance tends to support the societal status quo.

I found these things interesting to learn about, but I still find it difficult to understand the role of cultic groups and how they are formed or recognized as such.  In relation to religious collectivity stances, McGuire also discusses with individual religious orientations.  “The two key characteristics for conceptualizing individual orientations are: the extent to which the member’s role as a religious person is segmented into a separate role or is expected to be diffused throughout every aspect of the person’s life, and the extent to which the individual judges self and others according to standards of ‘mass’ or ‘virtuoso’ religiosity.” I personally would fall more into a churchly/mystical orientation.  I don’t believe there is one truth and am open to the claims of other religious groups, however I have an intrinsic religiosity that stems from my upbringing. McGuire shed a lot of light on the many ways religion can express itself in an individual and society.

This week in class we talked about the differences between official and non-official religion. The differences were pretty straight forward and simple. Official religions have official leaders like priests and bishops, official locations like churches, official doctrine, and official rituals. (McGuire, Pg. 99-101) Non-official religions have this stuff too, but it’s all more informal. (McGuire, Pg. 113) Things can be done by whoever, whenever, wherever, whatever, and however they please. (McGuire, Pg. 113) Shrines left at car accident sites, after major tragedies, or after famous celebrities die are all examples of this. There is nothing in official doctrines that say that people have to do these things; they just do it because it feels right. All of this ties back into the conversation of whether or not religiosity is declining in America. In McGuire’s book, she talks about how the country’s religiosity should not be measured by attendance or official beliefs. (McGuire, Pg. 108-109) Just because someone doesn’t attend official services every week or practice official doctrine doesn’t mean they’re not religious. Some might call these outsider groups cults since they don’t believe in the same things as the mainstream groups. The term cult, of course, has been given a very negative image over time by many people. While certain cults in more modern history were horrifying and disastrous, to say that all cult-like beliefs are bad is simply not true. After a history of official religious organization, we tend to look down upon or ignore these other non-official groups. In the end though, it is clear things are changing in modern times as more people move away from official religion and feel freer to believe what they want to believe.

According to Chaves, American religious involvement has “softened” overall. Tracking involvement in religion is not an easy thing to do because people are not always truthful when asked if they have been to church in the past seven days. Although, when asked to do a time log, we find that less people go to church. The American Time Use Survey in 2005 reported 26% of people went to church while the General Social Survey, using the question, came out with 38%. Overall, time diaries are more accurate then direct questions. The evidence shows that attendance has not gone up. The only number that has gone up is the percent of people who never attend religious services; going from 11% in 1990 to 22% in 2008. This could point to the fact that the percentage of Americans that are not raised in a religious household has increased. If a person is not raised in a religious household, they are more likely to not be religious later in life. This shows that there will be a generational shift with our generation and involvement with churches. Another reason religious involvement could have “softened” is because the American household structure has changed. One of the most religiously involved demographic groups are a married couples with children, which is a shrinking proportion of American society. More families are considered “untraditional” now, such as single moms or couples without children. It could also be due to the bad name religious leaders have gotten in the past 10 years after the national publicity about child sexual abuse by priests. People are less likely to say their involvment with the church if they feel like majority of society is judging them due to all the bad press. Overall, church involvement has not increased over the past years.

Typically, when I think of religion I think of it in the “traditional”  sense, where one goes to church every week and engages in traditional aspects of worship. I think many Americans also view religion in the same way, as traditional, institutional religion seems to be the most accepted way to practice. Last week in class we watched a movie about two separate individuals, Glen and Susie, and how they incorporated religion into their lives. Both individuals engaged in the traditional aspect of religion, by attending church as their main form of worship, among other forms. Both individuals were considered to be very religious, and it makes me wonder if they didn’t attend church, and practicied “nonofficial” religion, they would still be considered religious? During the first week of class we learned about our classmates’ religious affiliations, and many described themselves as “distanced” from their parents’ religion, or not religious at all. I’d be interested to know if they described themselves as nonreligious because they simply don’t go to church, or because they don’t believe in the aspects of their respective religion. If they viewed themsleves as nonreligious simply because they don’t engage in official religious practices, I think that would be something very interesting to talk about in class. Those who don’t engage in official religious practices can still be religious, but it seems that American society today sort of stigmatized that concept and delegitimized religion that is not practiced in a traditional setting.

What I found particularly interesting in this weeks reading of “The Social Context” was the part of women’s religion and gender roles. In my Anthropology classes as well as in my Gender studies classes we’ve learned that binary gender is a social construct that has occurred through socialization. It slipped my mind that gender roles have been established through religion as well, and McGuire explains this in her chapter about Official and Nonofficial Religion.

Gender as we know is a major factor in social stratification. Official religious institutions have historically exemplified the structural and ideological suppression of women. As a result, it becomes part of the woman’s self-definition. The most frustrating part for me is that culture’s certain use of words imply qualities that some people attribute to women and for which there are no male equivalents. This language in return embodies the different standards of the society for men’s and women’s roles. Additionally, in most historical religions women have had less power than men to establish social definitions of gender roles. McGuire tells us that those who posses religious power in a social group often attempt to control the use of sexual power because they view it as a threat to their power base.

Religion has legitimated gender distinctions in work roles, home responsibilities, child-care responsibilities, etc. It’s important to acknowledge this because in this modern time, thousands of women are fighting for equal pay and equality in general. By recognizing how these gender roles have been placed, we can then dismantle them through the institutions that have created them.

When reading chapter four of McGuire’s “Religion: The Social Context”, something that struck me straight away was how ethics and morality tie in with religion. I’m curious about the “ethical and moral norms” that “official religions” have. How are these norms and expectations established? How are they different within different religions?

When thinking about the film that we watched, I found it interesting to see how Glenn and Susie would be treated differently within their respective religious community if they were to go against the ethical and moral norms prescribed to them. If Susie were to wear something “inappropriate” or go against what is the norm for her gender and household role, she would probably be looked down upon by her community members. If Glenn were to go against his own preaching and go against his role in the church, he would not be accepted by his community. The rules and regulations set by “official religions” may seem restricting but it is a way to set boundaries within their community. How do the separate expectations for women and men within the church differ between religious groups, and how does it affect the dynamic in the space? Additionally, the moral norms within the church set different standards for men and women, creating a sort of inequality within the community.

After watching the film, reading the text, and participating in the class discussion, I want to continue exploring norms within religious groups. I find it interesting to see how different communities want their members to behave.