Last week we read about religious collectives in chapter five of McGuire’s book. It was an interesting read especially since I visited a religious organization over the weekend for this course. It made me think of how many religious organizations have been born from tension within the various forms of Christianity. Professor Spickard touched on this in class when he talked about having to constantly update the map of religious organizations in Redlands. Organizations move, change, close, etc. all the time. The forms, practices, interpretation of Christianity especially, seem endless and ever-growing.

This past Sunday I visited a newer Christian group in town. What kept resurfacing throughout the service was the idea of recruitment. There wasn’t one moment that the focus wasn’t about involvement, outreach and interaction between the pastor, the audience, and within the members themselves. Every aspect of this organization was about institutionalization of all the facets that made them unique. They developed programs, videos, cohorts, etc. all in the attempt to reach their goal of what appeared to be more members. This made me think of McGuire’s point about the dilemmas that arise when new organization begins to institutionalize, their original goals have to shift and organically lead to different goals.  It makes me very curious about where this same organization will be five years from now.

Having witnessed this new-age type of service over the weekend I have a sense of what McGuire is talking about with the idea that religious orientation is shifting (sectarian, churchly, denominational, cultic, etc.). Especially in a setting with a growing and changing audience, it seems like an organization can morph based on who has a voice at the time. Not even necessarily the social order or what is happening in the world at large, but instead by the people who invest the time into influencing an organization. In the case this weekend, it’s the volunteers that were sprinkled throughout, eager to engage with the guests present.

In chapter 2, Chaves discusses American religious diversity trends. One trend that I found almost unbelievable was the increased acceptance and appreciation of religions. This comes as a shock, especially in today’s political climate where blatant racism and religious intolerance are seemingly everywhere. This is a good shock though. It shows us that although intolerance is publicized it is not the norm; and, as the trends show, it will increasingly not be the norm. I think that is what America should be all about. This country boasts about its diversity (and freedom, liberty etc.) but we do not always get to see that. In fact, we see more examples of the opposite. For example, the attacks on mosques and synagogues, as well as videos of people being overtly anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. However, there is immense backlash to these discriminatory acts, and I think that is beautiful. No one deserves to be discriminated against nor targeted for their religious beliefs (nor any other reason for that matter).

In my own personal experience, I have family members and friends who identify with religions other than my own. And, as Chaves discusses, it has allowed me to not only accept their religions but to appreciate them as well, because they allow people who I love to be more or less “happy”.

I have increasing hope for future generations to become more accepting and appreciative of diversity. The way in which people stick up for each other (even total strangers) is remarkable and wonderful. Even if that begins with having a family member or friend of a different religious background than yourself. It will only grow and extend toward acquaintances and colleagues etc. until eventually there is universal tolerance. Now, I know that is ideal and borderline utopian, but I am hopeful.

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.