A really interesting part of class this week was our viewing of the documentary, Separate Realities, which described the religious lives of two different individuals in similar locations. This film was really impactful for me because i have always found it interesting to understand how different perceptions one’s relationship with God can change one’s viewpoint on life. My personal experience with religion is very similar to Susan Anderson’s, the Episcopalian worshipper in the film. I deeply related with her doubts concerning God as well as her search to find a fair and intimate relationship with God. This is much more closely related to my experience and interest in religion, as I have personally looked deeper into religion as a grew older and found that my own doubts in the Christian faith would ultimately lead to my distance from the church. I think in the case of Susan Anderson, it was possible to come to terms with the doubts in her mind about worship and faith and still remain a strong member of her church.

As a result, it was really interesting to see Glenn Stover’s experience as a Baptist. Although I have been exposed to the concept of Baptist worship, it was helpful to see an individual’s perspective on this form of Christianity. For Glenn, his relationship with the Lord was heavily dependent upon his ability to spread the Word of God to others. This is a more churchly approach to religion (as defined by McGuire to consider themselves, “uniquely legitimate and exist in a relatively positive relationship with society.” (156)). When watching the film, I couldn’t help but find myself disagreeing with Glenn’s opinion about his purpose in the church, which I realize is indicative of my own Episcopalian upbringing that emphasized a personal relationship with God rather than a duty in the community.

For this weeks reflection post, I would like to go back in time a tad and ask a question that has been pressing on my mind as we categorize religious groups. I found, both through personal experience and theological study, that many groups may be identified into a category that they themselves may not agree with. For example, in Professor Spickard’s assessment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he illustrated a journey of the modern day Church from a sectarian identity to a more denominational identity. I as a Latter-day Saint, however, would not categorize the Church in the same way and believe that the Church maintains a more sectarian perspective. Another example from my theological studies would be with Catholicism. One theological belief of many members of the Catholic Church is that Catholicism is the only true religion on the face of the Earth, and that all non-Catholics are condemned to an eternity in hell. This sense of Catholic exceptionalism seems far more sectarian to me than denominational. My question then, is where does theology come into a sociological discussion? Does it ever?

Personally, I believe that one cannot properly categorize a religious group without first having an understanding of it’s theology. I also believe that the theological stance of a particular religion must influence the beliefs and practices of its members, does it not? If a church preaches that it is the only true church on the face of the Earth, then that church and its members automatically fall of the sectarian side of the spectrum, correct? Perhaps my perspective is incorrect, and I am approaching this subject from a far too theological standpoint and not enough of a sociological standpoint, but I do not believe that the two are inherently separate. I believe that the two influence each other, at least to some degree.

Recently in class, we watched a documentary following two different people whose churches are in very close proximity to one another, yet they have contrasting approaches towards religion and possess different relationships with God. Susan belongs to St. Paul’s Episcopal and struggles with the topic of religion. She doesn’t question the belief in a higher power, but doubts her prayers are actually listened to. She doesn’t openly discuss her views on religion either, as she views it as a private matter. Susan asks God to show himself to her through a sign to confirm he is listening to her, and she “wants the guts to stick with” religion, as she doesn’t feel she is capable of being that committed to it. In my opinion, if she has trouble maintaining her religion, perhaps she is not truly in the right one. “Sticking with something” brings to mind taking a difficult course, or perhaps trying a strenuous diet and fitness regime, not practicing religion. Religion requires faith and hope, which will carry you through it. If you come to find you no longer want to associate with your current religion, why bother sticking through when you can find a better fit for yourself? Perhaps her personal struggles are confusing, but It is not something that will become easier through time if she does not try to evaluate herself.

On the contrary, Glenn Stover believes he was saved to tell people about the power of Christ. Formerly an alcoholic, he quit drinking and credits religion to fixing his life. He now wholeheartedly discusses his love for Jesus in a very public matter that might make Susan uncomfortable.  While his life may have improved after he overcame his alcohol addiction, I wonder how much of that should be attributed to Christ, and how much was the lack of alcohol. He mentioned how his wife didn’t like drinking, so perhaps his sobriety helped their marriage. While he may have gotten his strength from Christ, it could be debatable how much was a personal decision removed from religion. Overall, these two people show contrasting strengths of faith in religion, and how it can affect people differently depending on how they feel about their current religion. While some religions give people strength,  some give others self doubt and confusion.

I found the film that we watched in class last week very interesting showing two different people in different religions and how they can have many similarities while also having differences. Both people moving to a small town led them to find connections to the people of the town through their churches they joined. One of them joined the church board and talked about how her personal connection with God was the most important thing to her while the other guy who was a preacher to the youth ministry talked about how its about other people coming to God. The best thing about religion is that one can join a church that best accommodates their needs and personality. There is no right or wrong way to participate in religious activities and the movie was a great example of this.

After reading American Religion, something that bothered me was in the first paragraph of the introduction. It talked about how most people who take a religious poll about praying or going to church end up lying about it. I believe this is a social construct that people have created that they want to hear someone say they go to church or participate in a religion. Personally, if you are or aren’t involved in a religious group, I do not believe that makes you a better or worst person. Everyone has the free will to choose if they go or not, but I was somewhat shocked when I read that most people lie about it because there is no reason to lie about something like that unless u just want people to view you as a “better person” because you go to church.

While discussing McGuire’s preferred categorization of religious organizations, anthroposophy was brought up as an example of a religion with a cultic orientation. Although it would surprise me if any of my fellow classmates were familiar with anthroposophy, the mention of this uncommon lifestyle reminded me of countless memories I accumulated last year while living in Harduf, an anthroposophic kibbutz in Israel. I lived in the community for about five months and spent most of my time teaching in a nearby Arab school and volunteering with the special needs adults who lived on the kibbutz itself. My fellow volunteers and I also participated in anthroposophic theater, and did other exercises that I can only describe as anthroposophic in nature(ha).

Even after five months in this enclave, I have yet to develop a complete understanding or definition of anthroposophy. Until Thursday’s class, I regarded it as simply a spiritual and down-to-earth way of life– never as a religion. This was perhaps because the program I was in was exclusively for Jews, the special needs adults I worked with were Jewish, and I celebrated the high holidays with several community members. These factors indicated to me that anthroposophy coexisted with Judaism in this context, and was not a stand-alone religion.

However, upon further inspection, a lot more of what I observed had anthroposophic roots than I realized. For example, the special needs adults I worked with were sent to the community from all over Israel in an attempt to provide purpose and structure through a variety of jobs that ultimately serve the community. Until Prof. Spickard mentioned the inclusion of those with special needs and elderly in society as an aspect of anthroposophy, I considered the structure of the kibbutz and the spiritual affiliation coincidental.

Perhaps anthroposophy it is more accurate to describe anthroposophy as a quasi-religion, but nonetheless its mention in a religious context surprised and intrigued me. After some reflection, I can say that anthroposophy is a prime example of cultic orientation, as it is very much open-minded to other ways of life, and at tension with modern society.

Chapter 5 of McGuire’s “Religion: The Social Context” discusses the dynamics of religious collectivities. In the chapter, McGuire describes the types of collective stances: the churchly stance, sectarian stance, denominational stance, and the cultic stance. Upon reading the descriptions of each, I was most intrigued by the sectarian stance because of the fact that I once belonged to a church that could fall under this grouping. The books says that sectarian religious collectivities “consider themselves to be uniquely legitimate” and they are in a relatively “negative relationship with the dominant society.” The groups separation from the larger society is both to protect the believers from the “evils of society’s ways,” but also as an effort to “structure believers’ lives to protect them from immoral thoughts and actions.” Sectarian groups have historically separated themselves from the dominant society and have also limited their members from participating in secular things like watching tv, listening to “worldly” music, and so on. The church I used to attend was very much like this, where we were completely separated from the world. Stepping out of it now, I understand why it was a part of our belief system, but it nonetheless perplexed me as to why sectarian groups— like my church— haven’t died out. Why is it that sectarian groups persist despite them separating themselves from society? I feel as though that could have a negative impact and may even create hostility from those who are not part of a religious group, resulting in a decline in support for those religious groups who fall under the sectarian category.

This past week in class we watched the film, “Separate Realities,” which grabbed my attention in a very large way. The film portrays two adults who are part of surprisingly different religious traditions in a small town in Pennsylvania. A man who was “saved” and attends a First Baptist Church, and who seemingly uses religion as a way to forgive himself for his past sins through his heavy involvement with the church. The other is a woman who is relatively new to the area and begins attending the local Episcopal church, because she has gone to Episcopal church her whole life, but who is slightly uncomfortable talking about her personal spirituality and her relationship with God.

This film struck a chord with me, specifically the woman’s story. I was raised Episcopalian and have gone to church all my life, but never really understood spirituality, or how one could feel such an intrinsic connection with God that they would want to blatantly talk about it, much less attempt to convert other people to their religion, which was in high contrast to Glenn’s my-way-or-the-highway take on religion. He seemed to believe that there was a definitively right and wrong way to believe in God, and that everyone had the capacity to be “saved,” just as he had been. I connected with the Episcopalian woman’s story, because she expressed discomfort with religion, and did not care to talk about it at all. She remained busy and was a regular churchgoer, but often doubted her own spirituality and if she was “doing it right,” and I feel that this questioning attitude about religion may be something connected to the Episcopal church. In my experience, Episcopalians are quiet about their religion, and approach it from a more intellectual standpoint, questioning each step of the way, and looking for different types of interpretations, not just accepting instantly that they’ve been “saved.” It is seen as a personal journey and something to be found in due time; you may turn to religious leaders  and biblical texts to find answers, but there’s no right way, and spirituality is something that is developed by oneself, not always in conjunction with religiosity. This film furthered my fascination with Christianity, and the fact that two individuals who identified as “Christians” could have such wildly different experiences with religion, spirituality, and faith.

The more I read of McGuire’s Religion The Social Context, the more I realize how this book is essentially a self help book for creating a successful religion.  

By breaking it down by chapter and looking at the book through a business point of view it allows us to play with the idea of how we would make our own religion.

1. Chapter One “ The Sociological Perspective on Religion”
   1. Understand the Market Climate for Religion – This chapter reviews what is the current market for religion and how it relates in a social perspective. It helps the reader understand how important studying sociology is and exactly how that impacts ones understand of religion.

1. Chapter Two “ The Provision of Meaning and Belonging”
   1. How To Create An Individual Experience  – This chapter reviews how it is very important for people to belong. It shows how religion helps people belong to something and through that belonging learn the meaning of the religion they may be joining.

1. Chapter Three “ The Individual’s Religion”
   1. How to Create a Lifelong Consumer  – In this chapter religion and ones commitment is looked at. It is a time to look at conversion and perhaps disengage from one’s current religion to begin a new one.

1. Chapter Four “ Official and Nonofficial Religion”
   1. Product Templates and Models – This chapter goes into structural changes that have occured in religions. It goes over researching official and non official religious beliefs and feelings. It looks at the actual social construct of religion. Finally it looks at women’s religion as well  gender role.

1. Chapter Five “ The Dynamics of Religious Collectivities”   
   1. Understanding Consumers and How They Adapt To A Changing Market  – The focus of this chapter is the reactions of Religions in their social environment and how they develop and change. Another  aspect of the chapter is how people define and see Religious Orientation.

  So as you can see each chapter is sharing different aspects of religion and product aspects of it. But not one particular religion is looked at. So someone reading this can take what information learned in these chapters and make up their own religion that meets their own social needs.

When one thinks of cults, they often imagine a group of strange and misguided people flocking around a narcissistic and manipulative person. [A] cult is characteristically a loose associations of persons with a private, eclectic religiosity” (McGuire). This week’s readings made me realize that cults are more common than I could have ever imagined. In fact, I have unknowingly taken part in cultic practices (as have many people in the class). “Because of [the] pluralistic tolerance among historical cults, the [cultic] groups coexisted, indeed flourished, alongside [Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox] churches” (McGuire 153). I remember being a child and being told to pray to certain saints for guidance. It never occurred to me that the practice was a result of the Catholic Church absorbing cultic practices. In addition, it made me wonder if Jesus Christ’s following could have been considered a cult early in his teachings. He had a small group of apostles following him and living like he did. Likewise, people who were not followers of Christ were very critical of his message. I think that people need to remember that Christianity was not always a huge religion with millions of followers, it started out with Jesus and just a few eclectic believers. Early Christianity could possibly be defined as a cult in today’s times, which is an idea that many are uncomfortable imagining. It is important that we remember that cults are not always groups of crazy people. They could be religions that are not as developed or religions that do not fit into a more well known category. It is our duty to respect religions that respect others and cause no harm, even if that is a cult.

Out of the many things that we discussed in class this week, the one topic that caught my attention was the film “Separate Realities”.  This film portrayed two main characters who both lived in Lockhaven, PA. The first character was a women who attended St. Paul’s Episcopal Church.  She introduces herself as a wife, mother, and an active member of the church. While she was introducing herself and talking about how she ended up being religious, the film showed her having a conversation with the pastor of her church.  She started to open up about her relationship with God and how it has affected her life. She also talked about how she went on this church retreat and how she gained a lot of insight about herself and her relationship with God. Throughout her side of the film, it seemed like she had so many questions about her faith to God, like she was confused as to why she believed in him.  The second character was a man who attended a First Baptist Church. He introduces himself as a husband, father, and also an active member of the church. He explains how in his past, he had a drinking problem. This struggle lead him to believe that he was “saved” by God. His problems with drinking made his relationship with God much stronger. He started to become more active in church.  For example, helping out with offering, teaching Sunday school, etc. His actions in church make him believe that everyone is responsible to share God’s words.

This film was very interesting to watch.  It showed two characters, both similar and different in their own ways.  They both found their relationship with God during adulthood but yet one is very confused and questionable while the other has such a strong love and belief for God.  This made me realize that the word “religion” could have so many different meanings to each individual and could possibly affect how they live their life everyday.