This week’s class was an interesting look at the differences between official and nonofficial religion. Before this class I had no idea that the differences were so diverse; I basically saw it as “things that aren’t cults” vs. “cults.” The distinction, of course, is much more complex than that, and learning more about this distinction made for a very interesting class experience. As I discussed last week it was fascinating to see how beliefs in magic and the occult fit into the spectrum, as well as the history of sexism in organized religion. I had no idea that that aspect ran so very deep in the history of organized religion, and it was interesting to see how that informed some of the differences between official and nonofficial religion.

Going forward I hope to see more of this diversity between religion and how it affects peoples’ lives. Chapter Five of McGuire was great in this aspect because it demonstrated the differences between church stances, as well as individual religious orientations, (sectarian, cultic, denominational, churchly) and seeing these differences brought to light and explained so thoroughly like this was one of the main reasons I took this class. This is the kind of thing that I can’t wait to learn more about as we go on to discuss this chapter in more depth in class next week.

The focus of this week was on the differences between official and non-official religions. In order to be an official religion you must have an official location, official leaders, official doctrines, and official rituals. Non-official religions happen wherever, by whomever, doing whatever, however. In chapter two of Chaves’, “American Religion: Contemporary Trends”, he discusses the society’s, “ self-described religious identity” (Chaves 18). Through studies of self-reported religious affiliations, Chaves was able to gain perspective on fluctuating religious affiliation trends. Of the options given for this study (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, None, and Other), I found the data for the response “None” most interesting because of its steady increase. From 1974-1993 the percentage of “None” responses was under 10% (Chaves 17). After 1993, there has been a consistent gradual increase. This does not mean that all religions suffer a decrease in followers, but it makes me question why people have chosen to not believe or affiliate themselves with a religion. I also want to know how spirituality fits into the study. Would people feel spirituality so deeply that the would consider to be an “Other” response? Chaves mentions that this study could not measure religiosity or whether or not they attend church services, but I want to know how these measures could be taken into account. How many people who do not attend church consider themselves religious? How do churches and religious leaders define being religious? If you practice non-official religion, are you considered religious in this study?

This week, we learned about four different kids of religion: churches, denominations, sects, and cults. Churches accept an ordinary level of religiosity, but they expect it to be diffused throughout everyday life. One example is the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, which exerted immense authority over entire countries and societies. If, however, the church ceases to exert this sort of monolithic influence, it becomes denominational, as the Catholic Church has become since Vatican II. Meanwhile, denominations function similarly but allow for its adherents to separate religiosity from their everyday lives. For example, the Presbyterian Church does not expect to dominate the culture and allows their followers to practice religion only once a week. Cults allow this separation of religious parts of life and do not claim exclusivity; one can follow several cults at once. Many Catholics in countries colonized by Europe continued to follow indigenous cults and even integrate them into aspects of Catholic life. Finally, sects demand perfection from their followers and expect that they follow their religion in all aspects of their life. Jehovah’s Witnesses are an example of a recent sect, with high demands for their followers at all times, acting as a reaction to a modernizing world. Converts especially are required to show their dedication with extensive time spent missionizing. These sects often have difficulty maintaining followers after the second generation.

This week we talked about what makes a religion official and unofficial as well as the statistics that represent “softening” or religions who have become flexible in their traditions. In McGuire’s text she gives a good explanation on many religion’s churchly stances. We are able to come to conclusion of a religious collectivity’s stance from two sociologically important characteristics–the relationship between the religious group and the larger society, and the extent to which the religious group considers itself to be uniquely legit. McGuire also explains what brings people together and what attracts people to a certain group and holds them together.

Chaves brings up the changes and trends in the American religion as a whole. Chaves documents how organizational ties between congregations and national denominations have loosened. Chaves also notices how there is a dramatic increase in the use of computer technology. He gave an example that every year since 1998, 10,000 congregations created a website. Another trend that is changing religion as a whole is the increased informality in worship. The last three trends are- people in the pew are getting older, a congregations education and income level are shifting, and the religious concentration is intensifying and more people are concentrating in the very largest congregations.

This week’s reading material gave me a solid grasp on the differences of an official religion versus unofficial religion and what social changes are creating a shift in American religion as a whole. Now I understand what questions to be asking in a sociologist’s perspective as we dive deeper into the content of religion.

While searching the New York Times for a religious based article in the news, I wanted to pick a topic a little more lighthearted than what has been going on in lieu of the election. Apparently, Temple of the Jedi Order is a real-life religion, though not granted religious status in England and Wales, approximately 2,000 people in England have been taking this religion seriously since its explosion into mainstream media in 2001. A quote I found interesting from Andy Young, a practicing Jedi in England wrote “[w]e are absolutely looking to achieve the outcomes of any other religion, a better life, and a better death.” The author of this article, Christopher D. Shea, takes us though some FAQ’s of the religion. To start, Shea teaches us how to join the temple, explaining the process which starts off by creating an online account, once this happens, the Jedi in training takes courses in value of myth and world religions, once the program is completed, the user starts to work one-on-one with a mentor. When Mr. Young was asked by Shea about the correlation between the Star Wars franchise and the religion, Mr. Young put it as “the diving board to a diver”, he further explained that the movies created a gateway for people who have otherwise shied away from religion and are now coming together for something that truthfully calls to them. While reading this article, I questioned whether or not this might have simply been a phase for many aspiring Jedi who were Star Wars aficionados and shortly after Mr. Young answered my question, ““We do have a lot of people coming in who want to learn how to move objects psychologically or whatever, they tend to not really hang around too long.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/movies/star-wars-jedi-temple.html